Service Quality in the Public sector HEIs of Pakistan; A Students’ Perspective
Umme Kulsoom Rizvi,
Lecturer,
Department of Business Administration,
Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology
Sana Akhter,
Lecturer,
Department of Business Administration,
Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology
Khurram Ali Mubasher
Iqra University,
Karachi, Pakistan,
Agha Amad Nabi
Institute of Business and Health Management (IBHM)
DOW Karachi
Abstract
Pakistan has been in the phase of learning about quality in its HEIs. The Higher Education Commission (HEC) has formalized a quality assurance body to introduce the mechanism of quality is higher education. The universities have been given certain standards to meet the quality of processes as maintained internationally, yet the deep-rooted understanding of quality in Higher Education still needs a lot of attention from higher management of these HEIs. While the private sector universities are investing heavily to advance their quality in order to attract enrollments, the majority of students still opt for public sector universities due to the availability of choice of disciplines and modest fee structure. Student expectation and perception has not been a significant element in decisions taken at the university. Servqual tool was used to analyze the difference in the expectation and perception of 03 public sector universities of Karachi, the biggest metropolitan of Pakistan. An analysis was also conducted of similar studies of local and international settings. It was found through the analysis of 300 questionnaires collected that the variable of Responsiveness was determined as most crucial to service quality of the HEI followed by Tangibility in the present analysis while a similar observation was made in the results of servqual studies of national and international perspectives. It was concluded that trainings of personnel’s and alignment of reward system towards problem solving and early response to students’ needs and issues will lead to student satisfaction with regards to quality, while the improvement of infrastructural facilities will also significantly improve the perception of students towards the quality of HEIs.
Key words: Public sector HEIs, Service Quality, Higher Education
INTRODUCTION
Poor management and disregard for quality standards have come up as pressing issues for the universities in Pakistan (Shah & Aslam, 2017). Pakistan is a developing economy, in a developing economy, education plays a vital role in economic development. (Gbadamosi & Dejager, 2008; Quinn, Lemay, Larson & Johnson, 2009). The scenario of Higher education system in Pakistan has been changing as universities have declining rates of Student retention and engagement. The main reason behind is the lack of a student-centered approach which results in failures and dropouts (Kashif, Ayyaz, Raza& hamid, 2013). It is generally considered that if the quality enhancement is overlooked in a university, it may result in great failures like brain drain, failure of academics, inadequate generation of knowledge and poor educational infrastructure which doesn’t meet the demands of the future developments in the surroundings (Yarmohamadia, Nazari 2015). The most important client of an educational system are the students who are enrolled there, by analyzing the difference of their opinion, a clear direction may be achieved for enhancing the quality of the Higher Education Institute (HEI) (Rezaiyan & Razavi, 2018).
The importance of service quality has been emphasized for HEIs to grow in competition. There is need to address student satisfaction. Service quality involves both tangible and intangible features. Meager understanding of service stipulation in HEIs in Pakistan has led them in the wrong direction of efforts for improvement (Saleem, Moosa, Imam & Khan, 2017). In contrast to this view, Pounder (1999) emphasized that the concept of quality is not clearly defined in the Higher Education system and claims that the relationship of quality and institutional performance cannot be related. Contrastingly it has been said that
Higher Education Commission (HEC) is a regulatory body of HEIs in Pakistan. Quality Assurance Cell (QAA), under HEC, developed Quality Enhancement Cells (QECs) across the country in every HEI to monitor and enhance quality in the academic and nonacademic activities of the universities (Shah, Aslam & Qureshi, 2017).Yet, in Pakistan only few institutions have taken up quality as their primary focus and in the presence of acute resources they are not able to divert their energies in satisfying their Customer (Qureshi, Mehmood and Sajid, 2008). The measure of quality is stakeholder oriented (Harvey & Green, 1993; Rowley, 1997; Tam, 2001), although several stakeholders are part of service quality in Higher Education, Students are the direct beneficiaries and they should be treated as primary customers (Altbach & Knight, 2007; Joseph & Joseph, 1998; Kotze and du Plesis,2003; Lengnick- Hall & Inks,2001). Deming (1982) has defined the significance of customer needs as “In total quality setting, customers define quality and employees try to produce it”. Woodall et al (2014) concluded that students in the HEIs are dominantly displaying customer-like behavior, in light of which they have become demanding in terms of value towards their institutes. Although most researches claim that students should be the primary focus for HEIs, critics are of the view that such a stance degrades the relationship of teacher and student (Eagle & Brenman, 2007). There has been a valid debate over the realization of students as customers 9Barret, 1996; Vuori, 2013; Durkin et al, 2012). Fitri et al, 2008 posited that out of the many stake holders of higher education, students have been most relevant as the key factor of rejection of institutes has been their unmet expectations. As students have been regarded as the primary stakeholders, their expectations must be considered as directions for improvement, if the students are satisfied, loyalty may be achieved (Fernandes, Ross 7 Meraj, 2013)
CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY
The study is directed towards the analysis of gap between the perception and expectation of quality according to the students through SERVQUAL (Parasuraman et al (1988) of three major public sector universities of Pakistan. The analysis is not restricted to SERVQUAL as questions were also asked in a conclusive language to study the responses of students when they are asked about an attribute through its parts and categorically. The study also investigates some of the recent studies, national and international, which employed SERVQUAL to study HEIs. Therefore the study is a amalgamation of primary data received from the students through direct and indirect questions, while a summary has also been laid out about the results from the other studies in the same area, in order to present a well-rounded analysis which hasn’t been portrayed in any other
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
The biggest challenge for any organization is the persistent satisfaction of their consumers. Only element which can maintain such determination is highly depends on two main factors; first what organization has to offer? Secondly, how they are offering it. For any organization provision of services with sustainable quality is not only an issue of consumer demand but a very much stressful procedure too, as its deal directly with quality. The study pivot around the expectations and perceptions of students belongs to business faculty regarding the quality of services they are receiving at their respective institutes.
SCHEME OF QUALITY IN SERVICES
Quality is a delicate idea, seeking continuous improvement and promotions (Moosami, Mohseni, Ziaiifar, Aghdash, Manshadi, Rezapour, 2017). Quality is a tool which allows any organization to compare it products with others of same interest (Diaz, 2014). There is a need of concrete quality management system in higher education institutes, which enables quality as per consumers’ gratification along with eminent execution of services (Sarbu, Ilie, Enache, Dumitriu, 2009). Idea of providing quality oriented services is gaining popularity in the field of education (Ankomah et al., 2005, &Anim&Mensah, 2015).
Reasons that institutes/ organizations are deeply interested in enhancement of their services quality it’s just that quality is the element which can serves as the foundation pillar for the sustainability (Oaklan, 1995 &Alhabeeb, 2015). Excessive market influence of higher education institutes is directly related to service’s quality which they are offering (Anim&Mensah, 2015). Recent change in the attitudes of educational organizations are making them more business oriented craving to attain goals, working to get maximum benefits from potentials, while keeping low all possible hindrances and flows (Persson, 2014).
QUALITY OF SERVICES AND INSTITUTES AS STAKEHOLDERS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Educational organizations are committed to offer variety of services to their consumer i.e. Students. Nature and frequency of these offered services are directly proportional to the economic stability of the institute. Measuring the quality of available services is a multidimensional and multi-directional task. Services’ provision is different from the provision of goods. Services provided at the educational institutes are more tangible in nature as they also fulfilled the psychological needs of the consumers (Jayasundara, 2001). Successful adaptation of a reliable service quality measuring tool is a tricky business. Several studies have been conducted to enlist thorough quality measuring tools (Ghotbabadi&Baharun, 2015).
As offered services are perceive as marker of performance and leads to define process (Zeithmal et al, 2006). However, despite profusion of quality measuring tools there is one instrument “SERVEQUAL Model” which stands out and appeared more agreeable to testing services quality. It is the model whose application results can actually be used in the policy making of certain domains (Anim&Mensah, 2015). The tool has been used in variety of studies measured services quality for several institutes. The model firstly used by American only as an assessment tool which gradually improvise in the quality improving tool by enlighten the perceptions and expectations of consumers as the key indicators. The SERVEQUAL model is extended up to five main domains of quality including tangibles services, reliability and consistency of those offered services, responsiveness of producers towards any need of consumers, up-gradation and professional development of producers i.e. faculty and other staff, formation of connected support system between consumers and producers, and appropriate provision of needs as students comes from variety of back grounds and require different sorts of services (Afridi, Khattak, & Khan, 2016).
SERVEQUAL allows institutions to find existing gaps in their services’ provision framework. These gaps can be observed among the perceptual and expected differences of both consumer (students) and producers “university staff, faculty members and structural facilities” (Afridi, Khattak, & Khan, 2016). Analysis done on the basis of SERVEQUAL model presents clear idea of differences among expectations and perception’s levels (Kumar, Kee, & Charles, 2010).
Despites tremendous reliability offered by SERVEQUAL model, a little criticism has also been done on its survey process which is quite time taking and can make an impact on respondents’ views (Adi, Ghaswyneh, &Albkour, 2013). Variety of statistical methods can be used while performing the analysis of data obtained by SERVEQUAL (Buttle, 1996). There were several criticisms also placed on the use of SERVEQUAL. Main two criticisms included; the lack of availability of theoretical grounds and the second one is use voyage terms/ variables (Buttle, 1996).
In order to use SERVEQUAL as quality check instrument in an institute of higher education, have to make related changes (Souter &McNell, 1996). Concepts of quality in higher education have variety of variables which in union support the whole structure of institute. Therefore, by measuring quality any institute is going through a multidimensional process which helps to strengthen its body and production (Souter &McNell, 1996). It is observed that higher education institutes who provide facilities like library, and equipped their learning environment have chances to maintain better quality education (Mavondo et al, 2000, Anim&Mensah, 2015).
CONFIGURATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN PAKISTAN
So far, different scenarios have been adopted in the field of higher education. From origination of concept of grooming perfect citizens to mentor critiques and creative free thinkers, higher education plays it role well. It is a type o education where progressive factors like socially enhanced society and sustainable development are linked to the quality of education (Chitty, 2002).
Pakistan’s higher education system is comprised on two main sectors including universities and affiliated colleges. Major part of higher education setup is public in nature in which university sector is funded and accredited by university grant commission (HEC). Colleges are regulated by respective provincial governments, (WHO summary, 2007). After a long period of negligence from the year 2002 higher education sector started to expand. Since the major advancement can be observed in this sector, Pakistan government has put lot of efforts to bring visible policy reforms and strategies by outlining the development framework 2005-10 for tertiary education. There were areas on which initially these sorts of institutes were lined up to get concrete grounds including Quality, Accessibility, Governance and management. According to a recent statistical report of Higher Education Commission there are 195 public and private sector universities are offering their services.
PERSPECTIVE OF PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTES
Since the independence, very little efforts were put together to design a palpable structure for education. From a single higher education institute to 196 institutes, Pakistan has gain much in quantity. But mushroom growth leads towards downfall in quality. Sudden boom of globalization evokes policy makers to bring tangible recommended reforms in the field of higher education (Riaz, Jabeen, Saleem, Ansari &Moazzam, 2017).
Higher education has been considered as a movement of sustainable development and economical measures. But, unidirectional expansion and unstructured implementation on reforming policies can drive quality at stake (Shah, 2016). Pakistani universities are still lagging far behind to meet international standards (Rehman, 2006).
Several evident reasons are presents which can be linked to these sub-standard situations. Though, the fundamental elements serving as catalyst to deteriorate the condition are: financial resources (specially in case of public sector universities), accountability at every level, lack of research, and poor methods of assessing quality (Shah, 2016).
Restriction of funding from government authoritative bodies with persistent demands to increase number of enrolments with no compromise on quality appeared as burden (Morse &Mujtaba, 2008). Embracement of market oriented attitude put quality, ethics, morality and principles at stakes (Mujtaba, Cariea, & Chen, 2010; Mujtaba, Wolf &Kolacek, 2009). Severe competitiveness and dis-equilibration in market and finance shrinkage are gradually diminishing learning environment (Melcher, 1998; Yooyen, Priani, &Mujtaba, 2011).
CONSUMERISM AND HIGHER EDUCATION
International universities are more focusing on the market-oriented perspective (Yooyen, Priani, &Mujtaba, 2011). Though, the current situation of Higher Education institutes is not very different from any other commercial organizations. But, the concept of perceiving students as customer is considered highly controversial and recognized as against norms of higher education (Guilbault, 2017).
This stance is debatable as like international universities, who considered students as their customers with the increase in fee structure (Bunce, Baird, Jones, 2017). Many Pakistani universities both public and private are paying as commercial service providers but not as educators. This alteration of prospects and transposition from educational and research oriented institutes towards business enterprises resultant as compromises on knowledge and quality of non-tangible services (Yooyen, Priani, &Mujtaba, 2011). While, it is true that many students are against these practices as earning their education and degrees is a psychological experience threaded with emotions and attachments (Fox, 2014). Sudden materialization of International Higher Education Institutes, caused in increment in the market factors like competitiveness, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction which linked to quality. Consequently, the higher education sector of Pakistan got affected or has to from these global implications of ideas related to higher education in order to recognize internationally.
With recent change in whole scenario of teaching and learning, lecturers teaching at international universities start seeing their students as prospective customers and with this they focus more on provision on services rather than fulfill their students’ psychological needs (Royo, 2017). Similar situation can be observed in Pakistan and idea gaining roots day by day. The positive side of this is that when educational institutes’ starts seeing their students in terms of economical benefits then in return students do also starts acting as consumers, demanding the return of their investments in terms of quality services (Royo, 2017).
USE OF SERVQUAL AS A GAP IDENTIFICATION TOOL
Sustainability of any institute is largely determines by identification of discontinuity or lesser standard of services (Saleem, Chauhdary, Ahmad, 2017). SERVEQUAL model often recognize as a gap indication model which manifests contrast among expected and attribute of offered services (Urban, 2009). Several researches were conducted to reflect on the gap between expectations and reality (Yooyen, priani, &Mujhtaba, 2011). Internationally gap model linked customer’s expectations directly to the needs, policies, communication and delivery (Urban, 2009). Analysis to locate gap between expectations and perceptions showed lower perception in all five SERVEQUAL’S dimensions as compared to expectations, and overall analysis showed highest mean in tangible dimensions which was M= 4.52, & S.D = 0.44 (Chui, Ahmad, Bassion, &Zaimi, 2015). Majority of studies shows that the highest level of gap between consumers’ expectations and perception can be seen in the dimensions like tangibles, reliability, and assurance (Green, 2014).
Gap identification or locating it serves as huge support in the process of enhancing quality of offered services. There were several studies have been conducted to observed quality measures in Pakistan and very few at regional level of Karachi. A study was conducted at university of Gujrat, Punjab by (Saleem, Chaoudry, & Ahmed, 2017), focusing on the gap identification between the students perceptions and expectations regarding services. The results of the study revealed that all 144 respondents, selected from different faculties. The obtained figures showed that all dimensions of SERVERQUAL contained huge negative gap and a significant difference between expectations and perceptions of students as (F=95.53, & P=.000) which conclude dissatisfaction among students.
A study conducted at Peshawar regarding service quality gap. 205 students were selected from different private sector universities located in the Peshawar city. Results of the study again emerged as the increased gap among perception and expectations of students and appeared (-0.974). but the difference emerge in this study that when it comes to private universities then dimensions like assurance and responsiveness exhibits least gap (Afridi, Khattak, & Khan, 2016).
Another study was conducted by (Malik, 2015) to measure gaps of students’ perception and expectations of students about library use at Public Sector University. The aim of this study was to identify difference in minimum, expected and original services provision. Results from the study shows obvious mean differences among all values of expected and perceived values. Standard deviation values appeared greater among perceived values and exhibiting non-unanimity over the perceived of values of provided services.
Ideas of services quality and students satisfactions were also explained in a study designed by (Muhammad, Kakakhel, &Blaoch, 2017). The study showed a healthy satisfaction level among dimension like empathy, ratability responsiveness and assurance. But when it comes to tangibility of services, then like all other studies, students’ satisfaction level is less as compare to their expectation of these offered services.. Another study was conducted to measure the gap among the services provided in the libraries of public sector universities and results revealed serious discrepancy among expectations and perceptions of respondents regarding services (Arshad&Ameen, 2010). Measuring service quality is a cyclic procedure which needs continuous response (Arshad&Ameen, 2010).
METHOD
Design:
The study focuses on the students’ perception and expectations regarding quality of services have been offered in their respective higher education institutes. Also the study aimed to measure rating responses of students in terms of ranking services conditions. The research design chosen for study is in accordance with the nature of research question and helps to mold method to gather relevant data (Charmaz, 2003, &Sibanda, 2011). Quantitative research design was opted for the study with the method of descriptive survey. It focuses on the alignment of elements like, problem, purpose, duration and targeted respondents (Charmaz, 2003, &Sibanda, 2011).
Participants:
For data congregation, business faculties of three public sector universities were purposely selected, mentioned at table#1. Population of the study comprised on the learners who are enrolled at business faculties of these public sector universities, and from them three hundred respondents were randomly selected as samples. The selection of Public sector universities for this study has been made on the ground that Public sector universities are significantly ahead of private sector universities in semester fee and service compatibility because of which they ttract majority of the students pursuing higher education in Pakistan and students get entry based on a test which endorses their seriousness towards their studies and therefore they are a learned population to answer questions about service quality in Higher education. The purpose of choosing the Business departments in each of these universities is based on the fact that students of business have comparably easier to communicate and owing to their various exposures to quality and their understanding of Service quality, its importance and its crucial impact. The ground to adopt such sampling procedure is that it helps to yield accurate representatives from enormous population and larger size of samples helps to draw justifiable inferences (Depersion, 2018).
Although the analysis which follows is comprehensively conducted and stated, the study has been conducted in Pakistan’s public sector universities and the opinions of the students in the universities may not similar to the students in the HEIs of developed countries. the opinion may also differ for privately maintained HEIs as private sector has been more inclined towards customer satisfaction unlike public sector organizations
Table 1 : Sample Size
|
S. No |
Name of University |
Sample |
|
|
Federal Urdu University FUUSAT |
100 |
|
|
University Of Karachi |
100 |
|
|
Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University |
100 |
|
Total |
03 |
300 |
Instrumentation
The SERVEQUAL model has been adopted from an authentic published research source serves as the instrument for the study (Farahmandian, Minavand, Afshardost, {2013}). The SERVEQUAL models measure variety of variables including tangibles, assurance, empathy, responsiveness and reliability (Leonnard, 2018).
The adopted SERVEQUAL model consisted on three sections. First two sections were formatted to measure expectations and perceptions of students about quality of services they received at their parent institutes and comprised on five point likert scale ranging and rating from strongly agree as 1 to strongly disagree as 5, measuring 44 statements collectively. While, the third section which was based on interval scale entailed students to rate their institutes on six statements investigating about the institutes’ appearance, ability to perform accurately regarding facilities, presence of willingness to cooperate with students and facilitate them, professionalism among faculty, amount of individual attention students get, and the final statement rate the most important feature of instates as per their students’ views. Students have to rate all the items from basd on their view of importance. From the review of studies it appeared that most of them rely on the two sections based SERVEQUAL model indicating the difference of expectations and choices, while third section clearly identifies strength and preferences. This triangulation of data techniques helps research to gain accurate responses of choices. Then, the formatted instrument manually distributed among randomly selected respondents. With the formal consent each and every respondent were requested to complete the survey instrument as per their understanding.
Limitation
Although the analysis which follows is comprehensively conducted and stated, the study has been conducted in Pakistan’s public sector universities and the opinions of the students in the universities may not similar to the students in the HEIs of developed countries. the opinion may also differ for privately maintained HEIs as private sector has been more inclined towards customer satisfaction unlike public sector organizations
Data Analysis
The completed survey instruments were then analyzed by usng SPSS 17 the suitable statistical procedures as mentioned in table#2
Table# 2 Statistical Analysis
|
S. No. |
Part of the Instrument |
Statistical Procedures |
|
1. |
SERVEQUAL MODEL Likert Scale measuring Expectations And Perceptions
|
Mean Difference |
|
2. |
Rating statements |
Frequency Analysis |
Table 3: Mean difference of the servqual variables in the public sector universities of Karachi, Pakistan
RESULTS
From the results accumulated through the cervical questionnaires from four public sector universities of Pakistan, where all respondents belonged to the social sciences department, the mean of their expectations and perceptions for each construct was recorded. It is evident that there is a difference in the expectations they have regarding the quality of HEI and the perception they hold. Such results have also been viewed in other studies which have been undertaken at other universities.
Before concluding this result, it is important to note that these results have been gathered from the public sector universities of Pakistan which have high levels of state involvement in their processes, The World Bank report claims that HEI must have institutional autonomy in order to flourish innovation and help in decreasing political influence (Saint, 2009; Usman, 2019)
The highest mean difference was detected in Tangibility according to the responses collected, which is unlike the results obtained through Aghamolie et al, 2007 study, which found responsiveness and reliability accounted to the most noticeable difference between perception and expectation of medical university students. Another servqual study, which took place in the private universities of northern province of Pakistan, KPK, where the highest difference of mean was in Responsiveness followed by Reliability (Ahmed & Ali , 2012). While Tangibility was also diagnosed as the highest area of concern in a study conducted in the higher education institutes of Thailand (Yousapronpaibon, 2014). Results of the similar nature were deduced in the other studies conducted to determine the gap between perceptions and expectations of service quality in higher education (Afridi&Khatak, 2016).
The highest gap in Tangibility in this research refers to the understanding that being a public sector institutes, students do have a certain level of trust on the organizational policies, these institutes are not equipped with advanced infrastructure to support higher education in comparison to private higher education institutes. As per Parasuraman&Zeithaml (1988) explains that Tangibility refers to the physical appearance of the higher education institute, including classrooms, toilets and other facilities available for students in an institute.
The second most significant difference of expectation and perception of students, as found in this study, is of Responsiveness which refers to the behavior of faculty and administrative staff to resolve issues and respond to students’ needs. Since the responses were all collected from public sector universities of Karachi, Pakistan, it is quite comprehensible that staff members and faculty members in public sector organizations, including HEIs is less responsive to students needs and problems, the decision processes are delayed, power center in the higher management and lack of IT infrastructure leads to sluggish responses which has been supported by the responses collected in this study.
There is difference of expectation between reliability, assurance and empathy, which is similar as shown in the Table A but they are not significant as Tangibility and Responsiveness.
The other part of the questionnaire included one question derived from the variables where the students were asked to rank the most important variable, the methodology was inclined towards repetitive inquiry of opinion by portraying variables in a different format. Following is the scatter plot display of opinion of the students when asked to rank the quality factors from 1st (most important) to 5th (least important)
The figures elucidate that when asked as a consolidated question, students unanimously responded that the question pertaining to responsiveness was ranked most important most frequently. While question pertaining to Assurance was ranked second highest and the one pertaining to Tangibility was 3rd in the priority list of importance to improve quality of the universities which they belonged to. These responses are not exactly the same as the differences of mean in Table A where Tangibility was of highest importance followed by Responsiveness. Though it can still be consolidated that Responsiveness has been highly ranked in both tables, i.e. in both forms of inquiry and analysis. As stated earlier in this section the highest impact on responsiveness can be related to the culture and structure of public sector universities, where personnel’s are not very responsive or alert to students’ needs.
Discussion
Data mines the direct relationship between quality and students’ satisfactions which leads to the willingness to put more efforts in learning. therefore, analysis of data of few studies been done to investigate variations among the responses of students who belongs to public and private sectors’ HEIs locally and results of studies conducted globally on same are also included in the analysis practices.
While gauging the measure as designs of previous studies which relate the facts of quality like funding, skilled training for staff and also focusing on which factors declining in the quality scenario. It is perceived that estimation of element of quality in HEIs, is a matter of audit among related variables (Victorai, 2005).
SERVQUAL Application In HEIs; Data from different Quality Measures
Table#05
Data analysis of studies conducted in public & Private sector HEIs
|
References |
Methods |
Results |
|
|||||
|
Khan, M. M…
Bhat, M. A…
Fatima, S. …
Malik, M. E…
Shah, F. T… |
Survey of Public Sector University in Punjab |
Tangibles Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Service quality Satisfaction Motivation
|
Mean 4.227 5.1092 4.8300 4.7398 5.2191 5.2374 4.7975 4.450 |
St. D 0.87709 .98891 1.07967 1.18446 1.11507 .82658 1.37020 1.63176
|
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
Cross Sectional study in university of Kashmir, for a faculty students |
Assurance Tangibility Reliability Empathy Responsiveness |
6.42 6.49 6.71 6.68 6.50 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survey analysis of private sector universities in Lahore |
Reliability Tangibility Responsiveness Assurance Empathy |
Mean 3.7683 3.7104 3.6447 3.7644 3.7233 |
St.D 0.89331 1.05002 1.04650 0.99020 1.06313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survey at public and private sector universities in Punjab with convenience sampling |
Satisfaction Tangible Assurance Reliability Empathy |
3.22 3.25 3.4 3.42 3.22 |
1.10 .59 .75 .78 .82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Various test were conducted including Co-relational and fitness study between quality factors and satisfaction |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survey study done by using the quota sampling technique in the universities of province KPK
|
Tangibility Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy |
T
-0.235 2.427 1.330 2.334 -0.956 |
Sig.
0.815 0.017 0.186 0.021 0.341 |
|
|
|
|
|
Table#06
Data analysis of studies conducted in International HEIs
|
References |
Methods |
Results |
Perception Expectation |
|||||
|
Yousapronpaiboon, K.
Karsmanovic, M…
Leonnard
Ada, S… |
Survey in 5 Universities in Bangkok |
Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Tangibility |
Mean 7.05 7.33 7.13 6.79 7.30
|
SD 1.34 1.4 1.35 1.53 1.47 |
- |
Mean 4.80 4.61 4.65 4.32 4.42 |
SD 1.67 2.00 1.98 1.76 1.87 1.64 |
Gap 2.25 -2.72 -2.48 -2.48 -2.88 -2.56 |
|
Survey of a faculty Students in Serbia |
Tangibility Reliability Responsibility Assurance Empathy |
5.29 4.75 4.94 4.91 4.78 |
|
|
5.73 6.60 6.34 6.26 5.81 |
|
-0.44 -1.85 -1.39 -1.35 -1.02 |
|
|
Survey of a university school in Bangkok |
Tangibility Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy Satisfaction |
Estimation 0.283 0.580 0.116 -0.278 0.173 0.884 |
C.R 2.197 4.032 0.395 -0.521 1.346 11.27 |
|
- |
- |
- |
|
|
Survey of Faculties Students in two different universities in Turkey |
Administration Academic Image Accessibility Programs facilities |
3.056 2.89 3.669 3.48 2.65 2.54 2.95 2.83 2.74 2.82 2.37 2.38 |
.695 .749 .65 .67 1.21 1.12 .87 .96 .90 .98 .889 1.02 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dicker, R…. |
Survey through questionnaire with 15th statement , and focus Group discussion |
Analysis were done via SD, CHI Square, and thematic analysis of different statements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Allam, Z. |
Survey on randomly selected 91 male students from two faculties of king abdul aziz university of Saudi Arabia |
Institutional Factor Outcomes and Assessment Teaching and learning Experiences Resources Admission Criteria Curriculum |
20.40
19.35
37.14
19.11 16.37
20.40 |
6.061
9.010
11.673
7.619 4.654
6.061 |
|
F=10.022
F= 7.649 F= 7.292 |
P>.01
P>.01 p>.01 |
|
Perspective attained while analyzing previously gathered data provides a holistic approach of student’s perceptions either local or global that they prefer assurance of professionalism and provision of facilities. In another study along with qualitative analysis few advanced statistical procedures were also conducted to find and novelty in the process. The results revealed with this study showed that the theme of student’s perception value more to responsiveness from staff to recognize expectations and to fulfill andragogical demands (Dicker, et. al, 2019). It is essential to understand that all quality domains in higher education are interrelated (Allam, 2018).
On calibrating both local and global perspectives of students regarding quality studies presented a view that element of quality is majorly rotate around responsiveness and reliability of HEIs. Another facet of investigations that presence for a component in the perception of students of public sector’s HEIs is the tangibility of efforts put by institutions’ infrastructure and faculties’ responsiveness. Which not only crop satisfaction regarding services but also harvest inclination towards better optimization of efforts both students and faculty. It is clear from the evaluation of results of the following study that ultimate goal of addressing perspectives regarding quality pave ways for quality assurance in HEIs (Jens & Martina, 2015).
Conclusion
The study is based on the responses of Public sector universities of Karachi which is the largest metropolitan city of Pakistan. The Public sector universities have a high enrollment of student in their departments of Business Studies, the results are quite similar like other studies conducted in the HEIs around the world, yet the uniqueness of the study is the finding that responsiveness has been ranked as the most important variable of service quality of these universities followed by Tangibility and Assurance. Public sector HEIs like other public sector organizations are not customer oriented, which can be explained by the culture and structure of the public sector organization which has a tall order of command and decisions are usually delayed.
It is recommended that alterations in the culture of the organizations by rewarding employees and training them for maximum student support through a revision of systems and processes. The involvement of higher management is critical to such changes. It is known that changes in culture require understanding on the part of the employees in order to realize the importance of the expected change. Through changes in the behavior of the personnel’s and infrastructural facilities, the public sector HEIs of Karachi can significantly improve their quality which will result in higher enrollment, better output of existing students and overall improvement of quality of higher education in the institutes.
The key findings are:
It is implied that with the analysis conducted through this research, the policy making bodies like Higher Education Commission Pakistan can likewise assign weightage to the areas of concern of the students who are the main beneficiaries of the HEIs and in the future students will be increasing aligned towards continuing their education when responsiveness is improved at Public sector universities.
This study may be conducted in other cities of Pakistan or an analysis of comparison may be undertaken to reckon the key differences of service quality between various private and public sector universities of Pakistan.
References
Ada, S., Baysal, Z. N., & Erkan, S. S. S. (2017). An Evolution of Services Quality in Higher Education: Marmara, and NigdeOmar Halisdemir Universities, Department of Education students. Universal Journal of Educational Research, vol 5(11). DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2017.051122
Afridi, S. A. (2016). Measurement of service quality gap in the selected private universities/institutes of peshawar using SERVQUAL model. City University Research Journal, 6(1).
Ahmed, R., & Ali, S. I. (2016).Implementing TQM practices in Pakistani higher education institutions. Pakistan Journal of Engineering, Technology & Science, 2(1).
Allam, Z. (2018). Students’ Perception of Quality in Higher Education: An Empirical Investigation. Doi: 10.5267/j.mcl.2018.4002.
Alves H. & Raposo M. (2010), The influence of university image on students behavior. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 73-85.
Ameen, K., & Arshad, A. (2010). Service Quality of the universities of Punjab Libraries. Performance Measurement and Metrics, vol 11(3), 313-325
Athiyaman A. (1997), Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540
Banwet, D.K. & Datta, B. (2003), A study of the effect of perceived lecture quality on post-lecture intentions. Work Study, 52(5), pp.234-243.
Bhat, M. A. & Sofi, M. Q. (2016). Service Quality in Higher Educational Institutions: An Empirical Assessment. International Journal of Research in Commerce, IT, Management, Vol 6(5), 42-48.
Dicker, R., Garcia, M., & Mulrooney, H. (2019). What Does Quality in Higher Education Mean? Perception of Staff, Students, and Employers. Journal of Studies in Higher Education, vol 44 (8), 1425-1441. Doi.org/10.1010/03075079.2018.1445987
eriesj.2018.110103.
Fatima, S., Ahmed, A., Fatima, S., & Fatima, N., (2018). The Role of Students’ Expectations and Services’ Quality in Higher Education Institutions of Pakistan. Journal of Management in Research, Vol 5(2), 44-63.
Green, P. (2014). Measuring Service Quality in Higher Education: A South African Case Study. Journal of International Education & Research, vol 10 (2), 131-139
Gupta, R.C., Mittal, M., Agrawal, S. (2016). A Study on Service Quality Dimensions and Customer Satisfaction in Indian Banking Sector, Pacific business review international, Vol 9(4), 01-09.
Gandhi, S., Sachdeva, A., Gupta, A. (2018). Operationalization & Measurement of Service Quality in Manufacturing Supply Chains: A Conceptual Framework, Pacific business review international, Vol 10(11), 66-76.
Hasan, M., Khan, N. M., Farooqi, R. (2019). Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Low Cost Airlines: A Critical Review of Extant Literature, Pacific business review international, Vol 11(9), 77-92.
Jungblut, J., & Vukasovic, M. (2015). Students’ Perspective of Quality in Higher Education. Doi: 10.080/21568235.2014.998693
Karsmanovic, M., Horvat, A., & Ruso, J. (2014). Application of SERVQUAL Model in High Education (Conference Paper), 11th International Conference “Standardization, Portotypes & Quality: A means of Balkan
KhademRezaiyan, M., EtezadRazavi, M., Javadi, B., Feyzabadi, Z., Saeedinejat, S., Yavari, M., ...&Youssefi, M. (2018). Educational Quality Gap from Students' Viewpoints; Results from a Survey in Mashhad University of Medical Sciences. Future of Medical Education Journal.
Khan, M. M., Ahmed, I., & Nawaz, M. M. (2011). Students’ Perspective of Service Quality in Higher Learning Institutions; An Evidence Based Approach. International Journal of Business and Social Sciences, vol 2(11).
Kis, V. (2005). Quality Assurance in Tertiary Education Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review on Potential Effects. Retrieve from: www.oecd.org/edu/tertiary/review
Leonnard (2018) “The Performance of SERVQUAL to Measure Service Quality in Private University”, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 16-21, online ISSN 1803-1617, printed ISSN 2336-2375, doi: 10.7160/
Malik, Hassan & Iqal.( 2012). Measuring students’ perceptions & Expectations in business schools of Pakistan. Doi: DOI: 10.1108/20463161211270455.
Sarbu, R., Illie, A. G., Enache, A. C., & Dumitrui, D. (2009). The Quality of Educational Services in Higher Education, Assurance, Management or Excellence? The AMFITEATRU Economic, vol 11, 383-392.
Shah, , F. T. (2013). Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Higher Education in Pakistan. Journal of Quality & Technology Management, vol 11(2), 73-89
Shahab Alam Malik, Shahzad Hassan, Muhammad Zahid Iqbal, (2012),"Measuring students' perceptions and expectations in business schools of Pakistan", Asian Education and Development Studies, Vol. 1 Iss: 3 pp. 222 – 236.doi.org/10.1108/20463161211270455
Sibanda, R.( 2011). Developing a Service Quality Measurement Instrument for Archival Instituttion. Ph.d Dissertation, Retrieve from: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/5758/dissertation_sibanda_r.pdf?sequence=1
Smith, G., & Smith, A. (2007). Evaluating Service Quality in Universities: A Service Department Perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(3), 334-351
Sunder M, V. (2016). Constructs of quality in higher education services. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 65(8), 1091-1111.
Tan, K. & Kek, S. (2004). Service Quality in Higher Education Using an Enhanced SERVEQUAL Approach. Quality in Higher Education, Vol 10(1), 17-24
Urban, W. (2009). Service Quality Gaps and their Role in Services Enterprises Development. Baltic Journal on Sustainability 15(4), 631-645
Yarmohammadian, M. H., Evaluation of Educational Services Quality for Healthcare Services Management Students of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences Based on SERVQUAL Model. Iranian Journal of Medical Education, 15, 319-329.
Yooyen, A., Ramkhamahaeng, M. P., & Mujtaba, B. G. (2011). Expectation Versus Realities of Higher Education:Gap Analysis and University Service Examination. Contemporary Issues in Education Research, vol 4(10), 25-35
Yousapronpaiboon, K. (2014). SERVEQUAL: Measuring Higher Education Service Quality in Thialand. Poredia, Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1088-1095. 5th World conference on Educational Sciecnes,WCES2013. College of Graduate Study in Management, Khan Kain University, Bangkok, Thailand.
