Quality Assurance in Education

Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as primary consumer
Frances M. Hill
Article information:
To cite this document:
Frances M. Hill, (1995),"Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as primary consumer", Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 3 Iss 3 pp. 10 - 21
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889510093497
Downloaded on: 30 September 2015, At: 00:17 (PT)
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 29 other documents.

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 8186 times since 2006*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Adee Athiyaman, (1997),"Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education",
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 31 Iss 7 pp. 528-540 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569710176655
Mathew Joseph, Beatriz Joseph, (1997),"Service quality in education: a student perspective", Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 5 Iss 1 pp. 15-21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684889710156549
Jacqueline Douglas, Alex Douglas, Barry Barnes, (2006),"Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university", Quality
Assurance in Education, Vol. 14 Iss 3 pp. 251-267 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880610678568

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:543713 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Introduction
Managing service The first part of this article discusses aspects of
quality in higher current service quality theory in the context of
British higher education (HE). In particular, it
education: the role of focuses on the role of the student as primary
the student as primary consumer of HE services, and the implications
of this conceptualization for the management
consumer of service quality in higher education organiza-
tions (HEOs). The second part briefly discusses
an exploratory study which has monitored a
Frances M. Hill group of students’ expectations and percep-
tions of service quality over time, and the spe-
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

cific issues raised by the findings.

Definition and characteristics of services

Services are behavioural rather than physical
The author
entities, and have been described as deeds,
Frances M. Hill is a Senior Lecturer at the School of
performances or effort (Rathmell, 1966);
Finance of Information, The Queen’s University, Belfast,
deeds, acts or performances (Berry, 1980);
UK.
activities or processes (Grönroos, 1991). As
Parasuraman (1986) notes, there is fairly wide-
Abstract
spread agreement in the literature concerning
Discusses aspects of current service quality theory in the
the characteristics which tend to differentiate
context of British higher education (HE). Focuses on the
services from goods. These are: intangibility,
role of the student as primary consumer of HE services (a
perishability, inseparability of production and
relatively recent conceptualization in this country), and the
consumption, and heterogeneity. With regard
implications of this for the management of service quality
to intangibility, this has been described as one
in higher education organizations (HEOs). Briefly discusses
of the few fairly stable generalizations that can
an exploratory study which has monitored a group of
be made about services. Liechty and Churchill
students’ expectations and perceptions of service quality
(1979) state that services are doubly intangible
over time. Because of its limited scope, the findings of this
because they are impalpable and cannot be
study may not be generalized to the student population as
grasped mentally. The abstract nature of ser-
a whole. However, it does serve to highlight the need for
vices causes problems for both providers and
HEOs to gather information on students’ expectations, not
consumers. It is difficult for service providers to
only during their time at university, but at the point of
differentiate their offerings from those of com-
arrival and before, to manage students’ expectations from
petitors, while it is equally difficult for con-
enrolment through to graduation, in order to align them as
sumers to evaluate a service before it is
closely as possible with what can be delivered by way of
acquired and consumed. Unlike physical
service quality, for the student evaluation process, or
goods, services are ephemeral, to the extent
upward appraisal, to be dealt with in a much more
that they can be consumed only as long as the
detailed, comprehensive and multi-focused way than
activity or process continues. When the activity
tends to be the case currently at many British universities.
or process discontinues, de facto the service
Acknowledges the need for further research to investigate
ceases to exist. Thus, service processes
all of these matters.
(although not their tangible outputs) are per-
ishable and cannot be stored in the way that
physical goods can. Moreover, their utility is
short-lived and mass production, which may be
possible with certain goods, is impossible in
relation to services. Services are also consumed

The author wishes to thank Christopher Burns and

Shirley-Ann Hazlett for their assistance in conduct-
Quality Assurance in Education ing this study, and also two anonymous referees
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · pp. 10–21 who clearly put a considerable amount of effort
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0968-4883 into the task.
10
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
at the same time as they are produced, but there
is no transfer of ownership. However, the con-
sumer is an integral part of the service process.
Because of the human interaction and labour
intensity involved in the delivery of most ser-
vices, they are heterogeneous, as each service
act is unique. This leads to a lack of standardi-
zation, which means that service quality can
vary considerably from one situation to the next
within the same organization (Berry et al.,
1985). Clearly these characteristics have impor-
tant implications for the delivery of service
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
quality – and for HEOs, which are largely in the
business of service provision.
Role of the consumer in service delivery
One distinctive aspect of services is that con-
sumers are often part of the production and
delivery processes. In many services, the
consumer is required to contribute informa-
tion and/or effort before the service transaction
takes place (Kelley et al., 1990). The con-
sumer’s input constitutes the raw material that
is transformed by the service organization’s
employees into a service product. Conse-
quently, the consumer contributes directly to
the quality of service delivered, and to his/her
own (dis)satisfaction (Mills et al., 1983, p.
302). If the inputs provided by the consumer
are inadequate and/or inappropriate, this may
well lead to service problems and failures. In
the world of higher education, illustrative
examples might include: students failing to do
the necessary advance preparation for tutorials
and to ask appropriate questions at tutorials;
omitting to hand in work for assessment;
talking excessively during lectures, and so on.
Thus, service productivity and quality depend
not only on the performance of the service
provider’s personnel, but also on the perfor-
mance of the consumer, which again can make
quality management problematic. In addition,
many service encounters require close person-
al interaction between a service provider and a
consumer. Whether or not such interaction is
perceived by the consumer to be satisfactory
may depend on a variety of factors, ranging
from the appearance of the service provider
(be they academic or support staff) and his/her
perceived competence, to the personality
characteristics of, and the interpersonal attrac-
tion between, the participants. Although some
of these factors may contribute to service
heterogeneity and variability, they are not easy
to control.
11
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
Service quality
The will-o’-the-wisp nature of service quality is
nicely captured by Tan (1986, p. 224), who
describes it as being like beauty in the eye of
the beholder; in other words, it has different
meaning for different people. Similarly, Berry
et al. (1990) see consumers as being the sole
judge of service quality. In terms of how con-
sumers actually assess service quality, Berry et
al. (1985, p. 46) conclude that consumer
perceptions of service quality result from
comparing expectations prior to receiving the
service, and their actual experience of the
service. Not surprisingly, if the consumer’s
expectations are met, service quality is per-
ceived to be satisfactory; if they are not met, it
is perceived to be less than satisfactory; and if
they are exceeded, it is perceived to be more
than satisfactory (delighting the customer). A
similar approach is taken by Grönroos (1982).
This has developed into the perceptions minus
expectations (P–E) conceptualization of ser-
vice quality referred to as “gap theory”. This
“suggests that the difference between con-
sumers’ expectations about the performance of
a general class of service providers and their
assessment of the actual performance of a
specific firm within that class drives the per-
ception of service quality” (Cronin and Taylor,
1992).
To complicate matters further, service
quality can be broken down into two sub-
components, namely technical quality and
functional quality. Technical quality relates to
what is provided during the service process
(knowledge, tangibles, technical solutions,
etc.). Functional quality, on the other hand,
refers to how the service is provided, the inter-
personal behaviours contributed by the service
employee during the service encounter (Grön-
roos, 1982). Recognizing the role of the con-
sumer in the service delivery process, Kelley et
al.(1990) add two further components to this
service quality framework – customer technical
quality and customer functional quality. The
former refers to what the consumer
contributes to the service encounter, while the
latter refers to how the consumer behaves
during service provision – friendly, respectful,
co-operative behaviours would be relevant in
this regard, as would aggressive, abusive,
disrespectful ones. The significance of the
above discussion on service and service quality
is that, in attempting to manage service quality,
it is not enough to focus on service provider
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
personnel; attention must also be paid to the
motivation and behaviour of the consumer as
well.
Before entering into a detailed discussion on
the management of service quality in HE, it is
first of all necessary to isolate the key variables
which relate to service quality. There is consid-
erable debate in the literature (see, for example,
Cronin and Taylor (1992, 1994), Teas (1993,
1994), and Parasuraman et al. (1994)), about
how best to conceptualize and operationalize
the service quality construct, and about the
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
relationship between, and relative importance
of, the key variables that relate to it. However,
Bitner’s (1990) model of service encounter
evaluation highlights the variables which have
received most attention from researchers.
Figure 1 represents a simplified version of
Bitner’s model.
For the purposes of this article, the variables
of interest are: expectations, perceived service
performance, disconfirmation, and the rela-
tionship between consumer satisfaction and
perceived service quality.
Expectations
For those wishing to manage service quality, it
is most important to have some understanding
of consumer expectations, how such expecta-
tions develop, and their significance in relation
to service quality. “Knowing what customers
expect is the first, and possibly most critical,
step in delivering service quality” (Zeithaml et
al., 1990, p. 51). Again, there is some debate in
the literature concerning the exact nature of the
expectations construct in this context. As Teas
(1994, p. 135) points out, expectations have
been variously defined as desires, wants, nor-
mative expectations, ideal standards, what the
Figure 1 A simplified version of Bitner’s model of service encounter evaluation
Perceived
service
performance
Disconfirmation
Service
expectations
Source: Bitner (1990)
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
service provider should offer, and a pair of
normative standards comprising what the
consumer hopes to receive, and adequate
service. While this debate continues, it is gener-
ally agreed that most consumers enter a service
encounter with some form of expectations,
ranging from the ill-defined in unfamiliar
situations to the well-defined in familiar ones.
As indicated above, whether or not these expec-
tations are met will have a bearing on perceived
service quality.
In attempting to explain how such expecta-
tions are formed, some writers (for example,
McCallum and Harrison (1985), Smith and
Houston (1986)), refer to the literature on
cognitive scripts. This type of script has been
described as a predetermined stereotyped
sequence of actions that defines a well known
situation (Schank and Abelson, 1977). Thus, a
cognitive script will specify the set of actions
which constitute a particular situation, the
order in which they would normally occur, the
individuals who would perform the actions, and
the setting in which they take place. Thus,
through repeated consumption of a service, the
consumer may develop a script for that service,
which will shape his/her expectations. Once
formed, these expectations will be the basis of
evaluation for subsequent service transactions.
Zeithaml et al. (1990) identify some specific
factors which can influence the consumer’s
expectations. These are:
• word of mouth communications (what
consumers hear from other consumers);
• personal needs (determined by individual
characteristics and circumstances);
• past experience of the service (or a related
service);
• external communications from the service
provider (for example, printed advertise-
Service Perceived
Attributions encounter service
satisfaction quality
12
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
ments, TV commercials, brochures, and oral
promises from service provider employees);
• price.
Perceived service performance
Zeithaml et al. (1990) also identify some factors
which can influence the consumer’s perception
of service performance. These include tan-
gibles, such as the food eaten in a restaurant,
the physical surroundings in which the service
transaction takes place, the equipment
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
involved, and so on; the perceived competence
and credibility of service providers, and their
responsiveness, reliability and courtesy. These
writers offer the following advice to service
providers based on their own research findings:
“…appear neat and organised, be responsive,
be reassuring, be empathetic, and most of all,
be reliable – do what you say you are going to
do” (Zeithaml et al., 1990, p. 27).
Disconfirmation, consumer
(dis)satisfaction and perceived service
quality
As already discussed, an important variable
with regard to perceived service quality is
disconfirmation, i.e. the disparity between a
consumer’s expectations and perceived service
performance (see Figure 1), referred to as
disconfirmation. However, as Teas (1993)
highlights, there is some degree of confusion in
the literature as to whether the disconfirmed
expectations variable is a predictor of perceived
service quality or whether it is a predictor of
consumer (dis)satisfaction. In other words,
whether its relationship to perceived service
quality is direct (as in the P-E conceptualization
of service quality) or indirect, as suggested by
Bitner (1990) in Figure 1.
The confusion mentioned earlier to some
extent results from an unresolved issue in the
literature concerning the nature of the relation-
ship between service quality, and consumer
satisfaction. Cronin and Taylor (1992), for
example, take the view that perceived service
quality leads to consumer satisfaction, while
others such as Parasuraman et al. (1988) have
concluded that consumer satisfaction leads to
perceived service quality. One attempt at
resolving this issue is made by Bitner (1990).
She suggests that the consumer’s satisfaction
assessments relate to specific service transac-
tions, while service quality is a general attitude
relating to the service provider’s overall excel-
13
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
lence or superiority. Thus perceived service
quality could be the product of the evaluations
of a number of service encounters. In the case
of a student, these could range from encounters
with office staff, to encounters with tutors,
lecturers, the heads of department, etc.
Managing service quality in higher
education via the student
One of the problems facing HEOs seeking to
improve service quality is that, as yet, a body of
meaningful performance measures does not
exist. However, since students are now being
viewed as the primary customers of the HE
service in the UK, one approach to service
quality management which to some extent
circumvents the performance measure difficul-
ty, would be attempting to align, as closely as
possible, students’ expectations with their
perceptions of service performance. It has
already been demonstrated that service expec-
tations play a key role regarding the quality
perceptions which consumers ultimately devel-
op. It follows then, that organizations should
take appropriate steps to manage such expecta-
tions. As a minimum, this involves informing
consumers of what is, and what is not possible,
and outlining the reasons why (Berry et al.,
1985; King, 1985; Zeithaml et al., 1990). For
example, as Habeshaw et al. (1992) point out,
for many HEOs in the UK “luxuries” such as
fully-individualized written feedback on stu-
dents’ assignments, one-to-one attention at
tutorials, etc. are now things of the past, due to
pressure on resources. Alternative arrange-
ments employed, such as peer assessment,
small-group working and so on, should be fully
explained to students at the beginning of their
course of study, in an attempt to ensure that
their expectations of academic service encoun-
ters are realistic.
As discussed earlier, some of the factors
which can influence consumer expectations
and which are relevant in the context of higher
education, include: word-of-mouth communi-
cations, personal needs of consumers, past
experience of the service (or a related service),
and external communications from the service
provider. Thus it might be politic to make
greater use of existing students (current con-
sumers) on occasions such as school visits and
university open days, when there are opportu-
nities to shape the expectations of prospective
undergraduates and make them as realistic as
possible. In addition, greater efforts should be
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
made to gather information about the needs
of students across their time at college or
university, as these may not always be appar-
ent to service providers. Furthermore, such
needs may well change in nature over time, in
line with certain changes in the external
environment – for example, Government
policy on funding, grants, etc. With regard to
previous experience as a factor influencing
consumer expectations, Zeithaml et al. (1990)
note that this includes not only experience of
a particular service provider, but also of com-
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
petitive service providers, and experience of
other types of service. This clearly has rel-
evance for higher education. In relation to
some undergraduate students, it seems rea-
sonable to suppose that their expectations of
HE are informed by their experiences at
school. This may lead to a mismatch between
expectations and perceived service perfor-
mance/perceived service quality. By way of
illustration, in an area such as Northern
Ireland, where many young people attend
relatively small rural schools, experience of
close relationships with teachers may lead to
expectations of similar relationships with
academic staff at college or university. The
expectations of postgraduate students on the
other hand, may be informed by their experi-
ences at other HEOs, which may or may not
lead to such a mismatch. External communi-
cations in this context include university or
college prospectuses, faculty brochures,
departmental information leaflets and so on.
The aim here must be to put the best possible
gloss on services provided for reasons of
competitiveness, but without making false
claims that “everything in the garden is rosy”.
One trick employed by commercial organiza-
tions is to acknowledge problems facing a
sector as a whole – in the case of HE, say,
increasing class size – but outline the steps
that a particular organization is taking to
overcome such problems, and which differen-
tiate it from competitors. Some other
antecedents which the research of Parasura-
man et al. (1994) suggests can serve to lower
consumer expectations, thereby making them
more realistic, include these: perceived service
alternatives (consumers’ perception of the
possibility of obtaining better service from
other service providers); self-perceived service
role (consumers’ perceptions of the extent to
which they themselves influence the level of
service they receive, discussed further below);
situational factors (performance contingen-
14
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
cies that customers perceive to be beyond the
service provider’s control).
Perceived service performance
In adopting this approach to managing service
quality, the other major issue which has to be
addressed is perceived service performance (to
be differentiated from perceived service qual-
ity). The factors which can influence the con-
sumer’s perception of service performance
already alluded to have obvious implications for
personnel employed in HEOs generally, and for
academic staff in particular. For instance,
lecturers who appear clean, neat and well
organized are more likely to be perceived as
competent and in control than those who do
not. The personal interactions between
academics and students are also crucial in
regard to perceived service performance. It
appears that a key factor which influences
consumers’ perceptions of service performance
in general is reliability. McElwee and Redman
(1993) state that in the HE context, reliability
“involves consistency of performance and
dependability. Specifically…performing the
service at the designated time, i.e. turning up
for classes, etc. and keeping accurate records of
student performance” (p. 28). Tutors and
lecturers who fail to turn up to classes without
good reason, or who persistently arrive late, are
unlikely to project an image in keeping with
service quality. Moreover, effort expended on
preparation of lecture/tutorial material actually
delivered, could well be devalued by such
behaviours. At the one-to-one level, it is most
important that students are dealt with sensitive-
ly and sympathetically, and that necessary
assistance is provided where possible. Even in
situations where a member of academic staff
can do little to help a student directly, the
simple act of listening is often appreciated. It
has to be admitted, however, that with growing
student numbers it is becoming increasingly
difficult for academic staff to provide this kind
of pastoral care, a fact which may well have
negative implications for perceived service
performance.
One distinctive aspect of services already
mentioned is that consumers are often part of
the production and delivery processes. Thus
the quality of the service provided will be influ-
enced by the consumer’s input. Because of this,
Kelley et al. (1990) recommend that organiza-
tions conceptualize consumers as organization-
al members or “partial employees”, and
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
attempt to influence their behaviour through
the process of organizational socialization. The
term “partial employee” refers to a conceptual-
ization of consumers as temporary participants
in organizations, which must develop mecha-
nisms to ensure that consumers behave appro-
priately within the service operations (Mills,
1986, p. 139). Organizational socialization has
been defined by Ward (1974, p. 2) as processes
by which individuals acquire skills, knowledge
and attitudes relevant to their functioning as
consumers in the marketplace. “Through
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
organisational socialisation it is possible for
service customers to gain an appreciation of
specific organisational values, develop the
abilities necessary to function within a specific
organization, gain an understanding of what the
organisation expects of them, and gain the
knowledge necessary to interact with employees
and other customers” Kelley et al. (1990, p.
318). Thus, an essential element of the social-
ization process is clarifying the role of con-
sumers. Mills (1986) identifies two fundamen-
tal types of role behaviours which are consistent
with the nature of service encounters. These
are pivotal behaviours and peripheral behav-
iours. The former are those considered by the
organization to be so vital that if the consumer
fails to engage in them, he/she would not be
considered a minimally adequate performer –
for example, students failing to do the neces-
sary advance preparation for examinations. The
latter are behaviours which the organization
considers desirable but not absolutely essential
(students being polite to academic staff per-
haps?). It should be noted that the Department
for Education’s Charter for Higher Education
(1993) refers to “learner agreements” (p. 13)
which set out the responsibilities of both HEOs
and students.
Regarding the specific methods available to
service organizations attempting to socialize
their consumers as partial employees, it is
proposed in the literature that these include:
formal socialization programmes, the produc-
tion of appropriate informative material, the
provision of environmental cues, reinforce-
ment, and observation of other consumers. In
the context of HE, this might translate into
such steps as: the provision of formal and
detailed induction programmes for new under-
graduates; the preparation and distribution of
handouts outlining the kinds of behaviours they
will be required to perform in order to gain
optimum benefits from the various aspects of
the HE service (some colleges and universities
15
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
offer a curriculum module for first-year stu-
dents aimed at providing them with the skills
and attitudes necessary for effective under-
graduate study); the posting of appropriately
placed, and clearly visible, notices concerning
such matters as where assigned work can be
collected, where completed assignments should
be left for marking, and so on. According to
Kelley et al. (1990), service consumers who
have achieved a high level of organizational
socialization should have more accurate expec-
tations regarding the service transaction than
might otherwise have been the case. In addi-
tion, these expectations should be more closely
aligned with consumers’ perceptions of the
quality of actual service delivery.
Managing service quality in higher
education – an exploratory study
For any organization, attempting to improve
quality performance significantly is a major
undertaking. This is probably particularly true
of British HEOs, where those responsible for
such matters have, until recently, had quite a
different set of preoccupations from their peers
in industry and commerce. The problem is
compounded by the fact that the task of devel-
oping meaningful performance measures in HE
is far from complete, and also because service
quality is a multifaceted construct – but as yet,
there is no clear consensus in the literature on
the number of facets and their interrelation-
ships (Parasuraman et al., 1994). However,
there do appear to be some issues which are
fundamental to the management of service
quality. These include the centrality of the role
of the consumer, and the relationship between
the consumer’s expectations and his/her per-
ceptions of service provided. In British higher
education students must now be considered
“primary customers” (Crawford, 1991), so one
possible approach to managing service quality
is to focus on the alignment of students’ expec-
tations with their perceptions of service provid-
ed. However, in relation to students specifically,
there are a number of potential problems with
this approach. These include:
• Undergraduates’ expectations regarding the
quality of HE services have no comparative
base or framework of reference from which
to make evaluations (McElwee and Redman,
1993, p. 30). Thus, their expectations of HE
may be informed by their prior educational
experiences at school, etc. Such expectations
may be quite unrealistic, and, as suggested
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
by Zeithaml et al. (1990), have a negative
influence on perceived service performance.
If such were the case, student expectations
would require careful management by
HEOs.
• Younger undergraduates undergo a transi-
tion from schoolchildren to adults while at
college/university, and both younger and
more mature students may become increas-
ingly discerning over time. For these rea-
sons, their perceptions of service provided
are likely to change during the course of
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
their studies, and such change may not
necessarily relate to actual changes in service
quality.
To gain some insight into these matters, the
author has undertaken an exploratory study. To
date, this has tracked the expectations and
perceptions of a cohort of accounting under-
graduates at a provincial British university,
from enrolment through to their final year of
study. Some of the interim results of this study
are reported next.
Methodology
Subjects
The original exploratory group comprised 62
accounting undergraduates. Two of the main
reasons for targeting this group were:
(1) Their relative homogeneity in terms of
academic attainment (minimum entry for
the course is two A grades and one B
grade at A-level or equivalent), and voca-
tional aspirations (desire to be profession-
al accountants of some description). It
was considered that the expectations of
this group were likely to be fairly homo-
geneous as well.
(2) Nature of course (vocationally oriented
and subject to quality assessment by
external professional accrediting bodies,
which, for the purposes of this study,
provided some indication of consistency
of academic quality over time).
Service factors
Higher education organizations do not merely
provide academic services. Indeed, here in the
UK in recent times, some of the other services
provided, such as financial services and
accommodation, have become crucial to
successful course completion for many stu-
dents. Accordingly, the study has not focused
solely on teaching, but on a range of service
16
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
factors which the researcher considered
would be experienced by the exploratory
group during its time at the university in
question. The full range of factors, both
academic and non-academic, are listed in
Tables I, II and III. As can be seen, because of
its importance, teaching has been divided into
the following sub-factors: course content;
quality of teaching (delivery of course ma-
terial); teaching methods employed; personal
contact with academic staff for discussion of
questions and/or problems; and feedback on
academic performance and progress.
Data collection and analysis
During the first lecture of each year of study,
the exploratory group were requested to
indicate, on a self-complete questionnaire,
how important they consider each of the
service factors to be in determining the qual-
ity of the overall higher education service they
are receiving at the university. They do this by
ranking each factor from 1 to 5 on a Likert-
type scale, 1 denoting totally unimportant and
5 denoting very important. Perceived impor-
tance was used as a crude indicator of expec-
tations. The rationale for this was as follows.
First, it was considered that undergraduates
would have difficulty articulating their expec-
tations if asked to do so directly. Second, if
students perceive a particular factor as being
important in relation to the quality of the
overall HE service they are receiving, it seems
reasonable to suppose they would expect that
the quality of the factor itself should be good.
Since the beginning of their second year of
study the exploratory group have also been
asked to evaluate the same factors, based on
their experiences to date. Students do this
using a second Likert-type scale, on which 1
denotes very poor, while 5 denotes very good.
So far the group have been surveyed three
times – at the beginning of their first, second
and third years of study. Essentially the study
has aimed to test for the following:
• statistically significant between-year differ-
ences in expectations;
• statistically significant between-year differ-
ences in evaluations.
The statistical test employed was the Wilcox-
on Matched-Pairs Signed Ranks Test. Also,
since one school of thought in the service
quality literature defines quality as: “…the
degree and direction of discrepancy between
consumers’ perceptions and expectations”
 Managing service quality in higher education Quality Assurance in Education
Frances M. Hill Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21

Table I Perceived importance of each service factor – between-year comparisons (differences significant at the p ≤ 0.05
level)

Year 2/Year 1 Year 3/Year 2 Year 3/Year 1

Service factors n = 56 n = 55 n = 55
Teaching
Course content
Teaching quality
Teaching methods
Personal contact with academic staff –
Feedback +
Student involvement
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

Joint consultation
Work experience (placements)a +
Computing facilities – –
Library service
University bookshop
Careers service + +
Counselling/welfare + +
Financial service + +
Health service
Accommodation service
Students’ Union
Catering service
Physical education
Travel agency
Note:
a It should be noted that at no time during the students’ course of study were formal work placements
arranged for them by the university.
+ = A service factor was rated more important in the subsequent year than it had been in the earlier compara-
tor year (differences significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level).
– = A service factor was rated less important in the subsequent year than it had been in the previous com-
parator year (differences significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level).
To illustrate, in year 2 the service factor “personal contact with academic staff” was perceived to be less
important than it had been by the same students in year 1, and the difference in the importance ratings
between the two years was significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level.

(Parasuraman et al., 1988), it was considered
appropriate to try to test for such discrepancy
(the P–E gap) in this study. Accordingly, a
number of comparisons were carried out
between the perceived importance data
(expectations) and the evaluation (perceived
quality experienced) data, again testing for
significant differences using the Wilcoxon
Test (see Table III).
Between-year differences in perceived
importance (expectations)
As can be seen from Table I, when the data
collected at the beginning of year two were
compared with those collected at the begin-
ning of year one, significant differences at the
p ≤ 0.05 level were identified in relation to the
following factors: personal contact with
17
academic staff, and computing facilities,
both of which were perceived as being less
important at the beginning of year two than
they had been by the same students at the
beginning of year one; and financial services
which were perceived as being more impor-
tant.
Year three and year two
In this case, as Table I shows, significant
differences at the p ≤ 0.05 level were identified
regarding the following: feedback on academ-
ic performance, work experience
(placements), the university’s careers and
counselling/welfare services – in all instances
these factors were perceived to be more
important at the beginning of year three than
they had been by the same students at the
beginning of year two.
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
Table II Evaluation of each service factor – between-year comparisons, year
three and year two (differences significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level)
Evaluations
Service factors Year 3/Year 2
Teaching
Course content
Teaching quality (delivery of course material)
Teaching methods
Personal contact with academic staff
Feedback
Student involvement in curriculum
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
review/development
Joint consultation
Work experience (placements)
Computing facilities
Library service
University bookshop
Careers service
Counselling/welfare
Financial service
Health service
Accommodation service
Students’ Union
Catering service
Physical education centre
Travel agency
Year three and year one
It can be seen from Table I that analysis of the
data with a two-year interval, revealed signifi-
cant differences at the p ≤ 0.05 level in relation
to: the university’s careers, counselling/wel-
fare, and financial services, all of which were
perceived to be more important at the begin-
ning of year three than they had been by the
same students at the beginning of year one;
and computing facilities, which were per-
ceived to be less important.
The findings revealed in Table I suggest
that students’ expectations of the various HE
service factors included in the study do
appear to have been fairly stable over time.
This is particularly true of the academic
aspects of the HE service such as course
content, teaching quality, teaching methods,
and student involvement in curriculum
review/development. It is also interesting to
note that service factors such as the univer-
sity’s careers, counselling/welfare, and finan-
cial services acquired increasing perceived
significance over the period in question – signs
of the times no doubt!
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
Between-year differences in evaluations
(perceived quality experienced)
At this point in time, the only data available
relating to students’ evaluations of the service
factors are those collected at the beginning of
– years two and three. As Table II shows, when
the Wilcoxon Test was performed on these
–
data, significant differences at the p ≤ 0.05
–
level were identified with regard to the follow-
ing factors: course content, teaching quality,
teaching methods, computing facilities,
library service, university health service,
university catering service, the careers service,
and the university counselling/welfare service.
In all cases, except for the last two (careers
– and counselling/welfare), students appeared
to perceive a reduction in quality experienced
–
over the period in question. There are several
possible explanations for these findings. For
+ example, there may have been a real, as
+ opposed to a perceived, change in the quality
of the factors in question. Given the growth in
– student numbers since this study was initiat-
ed, it could well be that in respect of service
factors like the libraries, computing, catering
– and student health, increased pressure on
available resources has produced a diminution
in service quality from the students’ point of
view, despite the efforts of hard-pressed staff.
However, regarding the academic service
factors (course content, teaching quality
(delivery of course material), teaching meth-
ods), it is less likely that there was a real nega-
tive change in service quality, as the course is
subject to external quality assessment by
various professional accounting bodies.
Furthermore, pressure of student numbers is
a less significant influence in this case, as
many of the modules which comprise the
accounting degree course are restricted to
accounting and related students only. A sec-
ond possible explanation for all or some of the
findings in Table II may be that the students
became more discriminating or demanding
over time. It is salutary to note in this context
that, since more and more British students are
having to make greater personal financial
investments in their college/university educa-
tion (via part-time jobs, student loans, etc.),
they are likely to become increasingly
demanding primary consumers of the higher
education service as time goes by. A third
possible explanation for the findings in Table
II is that they emanate from unrealistic and/or
mismanaged expectations.
18
 Managing service quality in higher education Quality Assurance in Education
Frances M. Hill Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21

Table III Perceived importance compared with evaluation – between-year comparisons differences significant at the p ≤
0.05 level)

Evaluation Yr2/ Evaluation Yr3/ Evaluation Yr3/

Service factors importance Yr1 importance Yr2 importance Yr1
Teaching
Course content – – –
Teaching quality – – –
Teaching methods – – –
Personal contact with academic staff – – –
Feedback – – –
Student involvement – – –
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

Joint consultation –
Work experience (placements) – – –
Computing facilities –
Library service – –
University bookshop
Careers service – + +
Counselling/welfare + +
Financial service
Health service + +
Accommodation service
Students’ Union
Catering service + –
Physical education + + +
Travel agency
Note:
+ = A service factor’s evaluation rating was higher in the subsequent year than its perceived importance
rating had been in the earlier comparator year (differences significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level).
– = A service factor’s evaluation rating was lower in the subsequent year than its perceived importance rating
had been in the earlier comparator year (differences significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level).
To illustrate, the evaluation rating for the service factor “course content” was lower at the beginning of
year 2 than its perceived importance rating had been at the beginning of year 1.

Service quality: the P–E gap
With regard to discrepancies between expecta-
tions and perceived quality experienced, in this
case between-year comparisons were only
made when students had actually made use of
particular service factors, so n varies for each
service factor.
Expectations beginning year one,
evaluations beginning year two
As Table III shows, when these two sets of data
were compared, significant differences were
detected at the p ≤ 0.05 level regarding the
following factors: course content, teaching
quality, teaching methods, personal contact
with academic staff, regular feedback, student
involvement in curriculum review/develop-
ment, joint consultation, work experience
(placements), university careers service, uni-
versity health service, university catering
19
service, university physical education centre.
In all cases except the last three (health service,
catering service, physical education centre)
students’ perceived experiences of the factors
fell short of their expectations.
Expectations beginning year two,
evaluations beginning year three
In this instance, as can be seen from Table III,
significant differences were detected at the
p ≤ 0.05 level in relation to: course content,
teaching quality, teaching methods, personal
contact with academic staff, feedback, student
involvement in curriculum review/develop-
ment, work experience (placements), library
facilities, university catering service, university
careers service, university counselling/welfare
service, university physical education centre.
Again, in all cases except the last three (careers,
counselling/welfare, physical education)
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
students’ perceived experiences fell short of
their expectations.
Expectations beginning year one,
evaluations beginning year three
Analysis of these data revealed differences
significant at the p ≤ 0.05 level concerning the
following service factors (refer to Table III):
course content, teaching quality, teaching
methods, personal contact with academic staff,
feedback, student involvement in curriculum
review/development, work experience (place-
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
ments), computing facilities, library service,
university careers service, the university coun-
selling/welfare service, the university health
service, the university physical education
service. In this case, with the exception of the
university’s careers, counselling/welfare,
health, and physical education services, stu-
dents’ perceived experiences of the factors did
not match up to expectations.
There appears to be a significant mismatch
between students’ expectations and the per-
ceived quality they have experienced concern-
ing many of the service factors, up to the
beginning of their final year of study. This
mismatch is most disturbing with regard to the
academic service factors such as course con-
tent, teaching quality, teaching methods,
personal contact with academic staff, feed-
back, and student involvement in curriculum
review/development. On the other hand, it is
interesting that service factors such as careers,
counselling/welfare, health and physical educa-
tion appear to have exceeded students’ expec-
tations.
Conclusions
The findings of this exploratory study do seem
to lend some credence to the author’s suspi-
cions. The stability of students’ expectations
over time (especially in relation to the academ-
ic service factors) suggests that they were
probably formed prior to arrival at university.
It should be remembered that the exploratory
group was initially surveyed at the beginning of
its first year of study. In addition, students’
perceptions of service experienced proved less
stable over time. Exploration of the reasons for
this instability was outside the scope of the
study. However, there is some evidence to
suggest that, because of external accreditation
of the academic factors, such instability may
not necessarily be the result of actual changes
in service quality. It may have been the result of
20
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
a maturation process, familiarity breeding
contempt, inappropriate expectations, etc.
Thus the study highlights the following issues:
• the need for HEOs 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 as 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 the case
currently at many British universities.
Clearly, more wide-ranging research is required
to investigate all of these areas further.
References
Berry, L.L. (1980), “Services marketing is different”,
Business Week, May-June, pp. 24-9.
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1985),
“Quality counts in services too”, Business Horizons,
May-June, pp. 44-52.
Berry, L.L., Zeithaml, V.A. and Parasuraman, A. (1990),
“Five imperatives for improving service quality”,
Sloan Management Review, Summer, pp. 29-38.
Bitner, M.J. (1990), “Evaluating service encounters: the
effects of physical surroundings and employee
responses”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April,
pp. 69-82.
Crawford, F. (1991), Total Quality Management, Commit-
tee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals Occasional
Paper, London, December.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1992), “Measuring service
quality: a re-examination and extension”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 56, July, pp. 55-68.
Cronin, J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERF versus
SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based and
perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of
service quality”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,
January, pp. 125-31.
Department for Education (1993), The Charter for Higher
Education, HMSO, London.
Grönroos, C. (1982), “A service quality model and its
marketing implications”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 36-44.
Grönroos, C. (1991), Strategic Management and Market-
ing in the Service Sector, Chartwell-Bratt, Sweden.
Habeshaw, S., Gibbs, G. and Habeshaw, T. (1992), Prob-
lems with Large Classes: Making the Best of a Bad
Job, BPCC Wheatons, Exeter.
Kelley, S.W., Donnelly, J.H. and Skinner, S.J. (1990), “Cus-
tomer participation in service production and deliv-
ery”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 315-35.
 Managing service quality in higher education
Frances M. Hill
King, C.A. (1985), “Service quality is different”, Quality
Progress, June, pp. 14-18.
Liechty, M.G. and Churchill, G.A. (1979), “Conceptual
insights into consumer satisfaction with services”, in
Beckwith, N. et al. (Eds), Educator’s Proceedings,
American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 509-15.
McCallum, J.R. and Harrison, W. (1985), “Interdependence
in the service encounter”, in Czepiel, J.A., Solomon,
M.R. and Surprenant, C.F. (Eds), Managing Employee/
Customer Interaction in Service Business, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
McElwee, G. and Redman, T. (1993), “Upward appraisal in
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)
practice”, Education + Training, Vol. 35 No. 2,
pp. 27-31.
Mills, P.K. (1986), Managing Service Industries: Organisa-
tional Practices in a Postindustrial Economy,
Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Mills, P.K., Chase, R.B. and Margulies, N. (1983), “Motivat-
ing the client/employee system as a service produc-
tion strategy”, Academy of Management Review,
Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 301-10.
Parasuraman, A. (1986), “Customer-orientated organiza-
tional culture: a key to successful services marketing”,
in Venkatesan, M., Schmalensee, D.M. and Marshall,
C. (Eds), Creativity in Services Marketing: What’s
New, What Works, What’s Developing, American
Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 73-7.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988),
“SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of quality”, Journal of
Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
21
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 3 · Number 3 · 1995 · 10–21
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1994),
“Reassessment of expectations as a comparison
standard in measuring service quality: implications
for further research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,
January, pp. 111-24.
Rathmell, J.M. (1966), “What is meant by services?”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, October, pp. 32-6.
Schank, R.C. and Abelson, R.P. (1977), Scripts, Plans, Goals
and Understanding, LEA, Hillsdale, NJ.
Smith, R.A. and Houston, M.J. (1986), “Script-based
evaluations of satisfaction with services”, in
Venkatesan, M., Schmalensee, D.M. and Marshall, C.
(Eds), Creativity in Services Marketing: What’s New,
What Works, What’s Developing, American Market-
ing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 59-62.
Tan, D.L. (1986), “The assessment of quality in higher
education: a critical review of the literature and
research”, Research in Higher Education, Vol. 24
No. 3, pp. 223-65.
Teas, R.K. (1993), “Expectations, performance evaluation,
and consumers’ perceptions of quality”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57, October, pp. 18-34.
Teas, R.K. (1994), “Expectations as a comparison standard
in measuring service quality: an assessment of a
reassessment”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,
January, pp. 132-9.
Ward, S. (1974), “Consumer socialisation”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 1, September, pp. 1-14.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A. and Berry, L.L. (1990),
Delivering Service Quality: Balancing Customer Percep-
tions and Expectations, Free Press, New York, NY.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Gayle Jennings, Carl I. Cater, Rob Hales, Sandra Kensbock, Glen Hornby. 2015. Partnering for real world learning,
sustainability, tourism education. Quality Assurance in Education 23:4, 378-394. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
2. Syed Zamberi Ahmad. 2015. Evaluating student satisfaction of quality at international branch campuses. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 40, 488-507. [CrossRef]
3. Rajani Naidoo, Joanna Williams. 2015. The neoliberal regime in English higher education: charters, consumers and the
erosion of the public good. Critical Studies in Education 56, 208-223. [CrossRef]
4. Adela García-Aracil. 2015. Effects of college programme characteristics on graduates’ performance. Higher Education 69,
735-757. [CrossRef]
5. Mihalis Giannakis, Nicola Bullivant. 2015. The massification of higher education in the UK: Aspects of service quality.
Journal of Further and Higher Education 1-19. [CrossRef]
6. Koushiki Choudhury. 2015. Evaluating customer-perceived service quality in business management education in India. Asia
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 27:2, 208-225. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Beáta Kincsesné Vajda, Gergely Farkas, Éva Málovics. 2015. Student evaluations of training and lecture courses: development
of the COURSEQUAL method. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 12, 79-88. [CrossRef]
8. Laura Di Pietro, Roberta Guglielmetti Mugion, Flaminia Musella, Maria Francesca Renzi, Paola Vicard. 2015. Reconciling
internal and external performance in a holistic approach: A Bayesian network model in higher education. Expert Systems with
Applications 42, 2691-2702. [CrossRef]
9. Sami Kärnä, Päivi Julin. 2015. A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities.
Quality Assurance in Education 23:1, 47-66. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Mazirah Yusoff, Fraser McLeay, Helen Woodruffe-Burton. 2015. Dimensions driving business student satisfaction in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education 23:1, 86-104. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
11. Kelly Virginia Phelan, Cynthia Mejia. 2015. What They Expect and Why We Should Care: Students’ Perspectives on
Hospitality Faculty Industry Experience. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism 15, 1-17. [CrossRef]
12. Yit Sean Chong, Pervaiz K. Ahmed. 2015. Student motivation and the ‘feel good’ factor: an empirical examination of
motivational predictors of university service quality evaluation. Studies in Higher Education 40, 158-177. [CrossRef]
13. Margarita García-Sanchis, Irene Gil-Saura, Gloria Berenguer-Contrí. 2015. Dimensionalidad del servicio universitario: una
aproximación desde un enfoque de marketing. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación Superior 6, 26-49. [CrossRef]
14. Adriana Morales Rodríguez, Joan‐Lluís Capelleras, Víctor M. Gimenez Garcia. 2014. Teaching performance: determinants
of the student assessment. Academia Revista Latinoamericana de Administración 27:3, 402-418. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
15. Muhammad Waqas, Haider Ali, Muhammad Ali Khan. 2014. An investigation of effects of justice recovery dimensions on
students’ satisfaction with service recovery in higher education environment. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing 11, 263-284. [CrossRef]
16. S. Maheswaran, Manimay Ghosh. 2014. Customers’ Perception of Service Quality in a Training Institute. International Journal
of Asian Business and Information Management 3:10.4018/IJABIM.20121001, 25-38. [CrossRef]
17. Education as a Service and Educational Service Systems 199-247. [CrossRef]
18. Tonći Lazibat, Tomislav Baković, Ines Dužević. 2014. How perceived service quality influences students' satisfaction?
Teachers' and students' perspectives. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25, 923-934. [CrossRef]
19. Muhammad Kashif, Hiram Ting. 2014. Service-orientation and teaching quality: business degree students’ expectations of
effective teaching. Asian Education and Development Studies 3:2, 163-180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Roland K. Yeo, Jessica Li. 2014. Beyond SERVQUAL: The competitive forces of higher education in Singapore. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 25, 95-123. [CrossRef]
21. Suleyman M. Yildiz. 2014. Service quality evaluation in the school of physical education and sports: An empirical investigation
of students' perceptions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 25, 80-94. [CrossRef]
22. Jasmina Dlačić, Maja Arslanagić, Selma Kadić-Maglajlić, Suzana Marković, Sanja Raspor. 2014. Exploring perceived service
quality, perceived value, and repurchase intention in higher education using structural equation modelling. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 25, 141-157. [CrossRef]
23. Jeremy Straub. 2014. Assessment of examinations in computer science doctoral education. Computer Science Education 24,
25-70. [CrossRef]
24. Maria-Cristiana Munthiu, Maria Turtoi, Mihaela Tuţă, Adina Iulia Zara. 2014. Characteristics of Educational Services in the
Virtual Environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 109, 1237-1241. [CrossRef]
25. Ramazan Sağ. 2014. The Course of Pre-Service Teachers’ Expectations in School Practices and the Factors Affecting Their
Expectations. Creative Education 05, 353-371. [CrossRef]
 26. Joseph W. C. Lau. 2014. Enriching Stakeholder Theory: Student Identity of Higher Education. American Journal of Industrial
and Business Management 04, 762-766. [CrossRef]
27. Rosidah Musa, Janiffa Saidon. 2013. New Insights to The National HEIs Rating System: Exploring the attributes of Student
Experiential and Engagement Value Index (SEEVI). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 90, 660-669. [CrossRef]
28. Aikaterini Koskina. 2013. What does the student psychological contract mean? Evidence from a UK business school. Studies
in Higher Education 38, 1020-1036. [CrossRef]
29. Cedwyn Fernandes, Kieran Ross, Mohammad Meraj. 2013. Understanding student satisfaction and loyalty in the UAE HE
sector. International Journal of Educational Management 27:6, 613-630. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Rajiv Sindwani, Vikram Singh, Sandeep Grover. 2013. Identification of Attributes of TQM in an Educational Institute.
International Journal of Service Science, Management, Engineering, and Technology 2:10.4018/jssmet.20110401, 48-64.
[CrossRef]
31. Leonie Rowan. 2013. What price success? The impact of the quest for student satisfaction on university academics.
International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 8, 136-150. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

32. Mukdashine Sandmaung, Do Ba Khang. 2013. Quality expectations in Thai higher education institutions: multiple
stakeholder perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education 21:3, 260-281. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Lola C. Duque, Juan C. Duque, Jordi Suriñach. 2013. Learning outcomes and dropout intentions: an analytical model for
Spanish universities. Educational Studies 39, 261-284. [CrossRef]
34. Sanjai K. Parahoo, Heather L. Harvey, Rana M. Tamim. 2013. Factors influencing student satisfaction in universities in the
Gulf region: does gender of students matter?. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 23, 135-154. [CrossRef]
35. Seema Arif, Maryam Ilyas, Abdul Hameed. 2013. Student satisfaction and impact of leadership in private universities. The
TQM Journal 25:4, 399-416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Rose Quan, Joanne Smailes, Walter Fraser. 2013. The transition experiences of direct entrants from overseas higher education
partners into UK universities. Teaching in Higher Education 18, 414-426. [CrossRef]
37. Rajani Jain, Sangeeta Sahney, Gautam Sinha. 2013. Developing a scale to measure students’ perception of service quality in
the Indian context. The TQM Journal 25:3, 276-294. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Sami Kärnä, Päivi Julin, Suvi Nenonen. 2013. User satisfaction on a university campus by students and staff. Intelligent
Buildings International 5, 69-82. [CrossRef]
39. Zsuzsanna Eszter Tóth, Tamás Jónás, Roland Bérces, Bálint Bedzsula. 2013. Course evaluation by importance‐performance
analysis and improving actions at the Budapest University of Technology and Economics. International Journal of Quality
and Service Sciences 5:1, 66-85. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
40. Eddie Mark. 2013. Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Management 35, 2-10. [CrossRef]
41. J. Subramanian, V. R. Anderson, K. C. Morgaine, W. M. Thomson. 2013. The importance of ‘student voice’ in dental
education. European Journal of Dental Education 17, e136-e141. [CrossRef]
42. Jui-Kuei Chen, I-Shuo Chen. 2012. An Inno-Qual performance system for higher education. Scientometrics 93, 1119-1149.
[CrossRef]
43. Dirk C. Moosmayer, Florian U. Siems. 2012. Values education and student satisfaction: German business students' perceptions
of universities' value influences. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 22, 257-272. [CrossRef]
44. Ariane Bogain. 2012. Erasmus language students in a British university: a case study. The Language Learning Journal 40,
359-374. [CrossRef]
45. Madeline Melchor Cardona, Juan José Bravo. 2012. Service quality perceptions in higher education institutions: the case of
a colombian university. Estudios Gerenciales 28, 23-29. [CrossRef]
46. Larisa Nikitina, Fumitaka Furuoka. 2012. Sharp focus on soft skills: a case study of Malaysian university students’ educational
expectations. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 11, 207-224. [CrossRef]
47. Romadhani Ardi, Akhmad Hidayatno, Teuku Yuri M. Zagloel. 2012. Investigating relationships among quality dimensions
in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 20:4, 408-428. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
48. K. Kiran, S. Diljit. 2012. Modeling Web-based library service quality. Library & Information Science Research 34, 184-196.
[CrossRef]
49. George F. Howell, Jeffrey M. Buck. 2012. The Adult Student and Course Satisfaction: What Matters Most?. Innovative
Higher Education 37, 215-226. [CrossRef]
50. Adela García-Aracil. 2012. A comparative analysis of study satisfaction among young European higher education graduates.
Irish Educational Studies 31, 223-243. [CrossRef]
 51. Emerson Wagner Mainardes, Helena Alves, Mário Raposo, Maria José Carvalho Souza Domingues. 2012. Marketing in
higher education: A comparative analysis of the Brazil and Portuguese cases. International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing 9, 43-63. [CrossRef]
52. Baboucarr Njie, Soaib Asimiran, Roselan Baki. 2012. Perceptions of international students on service quality delivery in a
Malaysian public university. Quality Assurance in Education 20:2, 153-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
53. Sik Sumaedi, Gede Mahatma Yuda Bakti, Nur Metasari. 2012. An empirical study of state university students' perceived
service quality. Quality Assurance in Education 20:2, 164-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
54. Sudharani.D. Ravindran, M. Kalpana. 2012. Student's Expectation, Perception and Satisfaction towards the Management
Educational Institutions. Procedia Economics and Finance 2, 401-410. [CrossRef]
55. Subrahmanyam Annamdevula. 2012. Development of HiEdQUAL for Measuring Service Quality in Indian Higher Education
Sector. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology 3. . [CrossRef]
56. Leyla Temizer, Ali Turkyilmaz. 2012. Implementation of Student Satisfaction Index Model in Higher Education Institutions.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 46, 3802-3806. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

57. Hatice Camgoz-Akdag, Selim Zaim. 2012. Education: A Comparative Structural Equation Modeling Study. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 47, 874-880. [CrossRef]
58. Roland K. Yeo, Michael J. Marquardt. 2011. Through a different lens: bridging the expectation–perception (quality) divide
in higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 31, 379-405. [CrossRef]
59. Andreas P. Kakouris, Elina Meliou. 2011. New Public Management: Promote the Public Sector Modernization Through
Service Quality. Current Experiences and Future Challenges. Public Organization Review 11, 351-369. [CrossRef]
60. Rajani Jain, Gautam Sinha, Sangeeta Sahney. 2011. Conceptualizing service quality in higher education. Asian Journal on
Quality 12:3, 296-314. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
61. E.M. Lemmer, H. Muller. 2011. Student satisfaction with short learning programmes at a distance learning institution. Africa
Education Review 8, 416-433. [CrossRef]
62. Yvonne J. Moogan. 2011. Can a higher education institution's marketing strategy improve the student‐institution match?.
International Journal of Educational Management 25:6, 570-589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
63. N. Senthilkumar, A. Arulraj. 2011. SQM‐HEI – determination of service quality measurement of higher education in India.
Journal of Modelling in Management 6:1, 60-78. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
64. Gyun Heo. 2010. A Study on the Casual Relationship of Educational Satisfaction in Chinese International Students. Journal
of North-east Asian Cultures 1, 323-335. [CrossRef]
65. Marika Arena, Michela Arnaboldi, Giovanni Azzone. 2010. Student perceptions and central administrative services: the case
of higher education in Italy. Studies in Higher Education 35, 941-959. [CrossRef]
66. Lola C. Duque, Nora Lado. 2010. Cross‐cultural comparisons of consumer satisfaction ratings. International Marketing
Review 27:6, 676-693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
67. Dennis Chung Sea Law. 2010. Quality assurance in post‐secondary education: the student experience. Quality Assurance in
Education 18:4, 250-270. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
68. Johan Jager, Gbolahan Gbadamosi. 2010. Specific remedy for specific problem: measuring service quality in South African
higher education. Higher Education 60, 251-267. [CrossRef]
69. Ning Rong Liu, Michael Crossley. 2010. Marketing university programmes in China: innovative experience in executive and
professional education. Journal of Further and Higher Education 34, 321-334. [CrossRef]
70. Lola C. Duque, John R. Weeks. 2010. Towards a model and methodology for assessing student learning outcomes and
satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education 18:2, 84-105. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
71. Josep Gallifa, Pere Batallé. 2010. Student perceptions of service quality in a multi‐campus higher education system in Spain.
Quality Assurance in Education 18:2, 156-170. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
72. Thorsten Gruber, Stefan Fuß, Roediger Voss, Michaela Gläser‐Zikuda. 2010. Examining student satisfaction with higher
education services. International Journal of Public Sector Management 23:2, 105-123. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Kim Youngtaek, BokJu Hwang. 2010. A Study on the Determinants of Lecture quality on Customer Oriented Perspectives.
Jounal of Korea Service Management Society 11, 111-130. [CrossRef]
74. Luca Petruzzellis, Salvatore Romanazzi. 2010. Educational value: how students choose university. International Journal of
Educational Management 24:2, 139-158. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Suleyman M. Yildiz, Ali Kara. 2009. The PESPERF scale. Quality Assurance in Education 17:4, 393-415. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
76. Alex D Singleton. 2009. Data mining course choice sets and behaviours for target marketing of higher education. Journal of
Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing 17, 157-170. [CrossRef]
 77. Marika Arena, Michela Arnaboldi, Giovanni Azzone, Paola Carlucci. 2009. Developing a Performance Measurement System
for University Central Administrative Services. Higher Education Quarterly 63:10.1111/hequ.2009.63.issue-3, 237-263.
[CrossRef]
78. James Williams, David Kane. 2009. Assessment and Feedback: Institutional Experiences of Student Feedback, 1996 to 2007.
Higher Education Quarterly 63:10.1111/hequ.2009.63.issue-3, 264-286. [CrossRef]
79. Melpo Iacovidou, Paul Gibbs, Anastasios Zopiatis. 2009. An Exploratory Use of the Stakeholder Approach to Defining and
Measuring Quality: The Case of a Cypriot Higher Education Institution. Quality in Higher Education 15, 147-165. [CrossRef]
80. Zoltán Veres, Erzsébet Hetesi, Márton Vilmányi. 2009. Competences versus risk reduction in higher education. International
Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 6, 51-61. [CrossRef]
81. Ana Brochado. 2009. Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance
in Education 17:2, 174-190. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Roediger Voss. 2009. Studying critical classroom encounters. Quality Assurance in Education 17:2, 156-173. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

83. Roland K. Yeo. 2009. Service quality ideals in a competitive tertiary environment. International Journal of Educational Research
48, 62-76. [CrossRef]
84. Ali Asghar Anvary Rostamy. 2009. Toward understanding conflicts between customers and employees’ perceptions and
expectations: Evidence of Iranian bank. Journal of Business Economics and Management 10, 241-254. [CrossRef]
85. Adela García-Aracil. 2009. European graduates’ level of satisfaction with higher education. Higher Education 57, 1-21.
[CrossRef]
86. 천천천, Jinchoo Lee, Lee,Hong-Woo. 2008. The Effects of Education Quality to School Brand Image - Focusing on a Purpose
of Establishment on High-school in Deagu -. Jounal of Korea Service Management Society 9, 207-228. [CrossRef]
87. Robert J. Angell, Troy W. Heffernan, Phil Megicks. 2008. Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in
Education 16:3, 236-254. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
88. Roland K. Yeo. 2008. Brewing service quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 16:3, 266-286. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
89. Øyvind Helgesen. 2008. Marketing for Higher Education: A Relationship Marketing Approach. Journal of Marketing for
Higher Education 18, 50-78. [CrossRef]
90. Jacqueline Douglas, Robert McClelland, John Davies. 2008. The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction
with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 16:1, 19-35. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
91. Roger Bennett, Wendy Mousley, Rehnuma Ali‐Choudhury. 2008. Usefulness of introductory higher education orientation
units in the context of increasing student diversity. International Journal of Educational Management 22:1, 7-31. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
92. Costas Zafiropoulos, Vasiliki Vrana. 2008. Service quality assessment in a Greek higher education institute. Journal of Business
Economics and Management 9, 33-45. [CrossRef]
93. Roediger Voss, Thorsten Gruber, Isabelle Szmigin. 2007. Service quality in higher education: The role of student expectations.
Journal of Business Research 60, 949-959. [CrossRef]
94. Gareth Smith, Alison Smith, Alison Clarke. 2007. Evaluating service quality in universities: a service department perspective.
Quality Assurance in Education 15:3, 334-351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Menucha Birenbaum. 2007. Assessment and instruction preferences and their relationship with test anxiety and learning
strategies. Higher Education 53, 749-768. [CrossRef]
96. Øyvind Helgesen, Erik Nesset. 2007. What accounts for students' loyalty? Some field study evidence. International Journal
of Educational Management 21:2, 126-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
97. Firdaus Abdullah. 2006. The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher
education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies 30:10.1111/ijc.2006.30.issue-6, 569-581. [CrossRef]
98. Roediger Voss, Thorsten Gruber. 2006. The desired teaching qualities of lecturers in higher education: a means end analysis.
Quality Assurance in Education 14:3, 217-242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
99. Luca Petruzzellis, Angela Maria D'Uggento, Salvatore Romanazzi. 2006. Student satisfaction and quality of service in Italian
universities. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 16:4, 349-364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
100. Jacqueline Douglas, Alex Douglas, Barry Barnes. 2006. Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university. Quality Assurance
in Education 14:3, 251-267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
101. P.B. Sakthivel, G. Rajendran, R. Raju. 2005. TQM implementation and students' satisfaction of academic performance. The
TQM Magazine 17:6, 573-589. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
 102. Mercedes Marzo Navarro, Marta Pedraja Iglesias, Pilar Rivera Torres. 2005. A new management element for universities:
satisfaction with the offered courses. International Journal of Educational Management 19:6, 505-526. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
103. Mathew Joseph, Mehenna Yakhou, George Stone. 2005. An educational institution's quest for service quality: customers’
perspective. Quality Assurance in Education 13:1, 66-82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
104. Mercedes Marzo‐Navarro, Marta Pedraja‐Iglesias, M. Pilar Rivera‐Torres. 2005. Measuring customer satisfaction in summer
courses. Quality Assurance in Education 13:1, 53-65. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
105. M. Marzo‐Navarro, M. Pedraja‐Iglesias, P. Rivera‐Torres. 2005. Determinants of Satisfaction with University Summer
Courses. Quality in Higher Education 11, 239-249. [CrossRef]
106. Eugenia Petridou, Katerina Sarri. 2004. Evaluation research in business schools: students’ rating myth. International Journal
of Educational Management 18:3, 152-159. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
107. Martin A. O’Neill, Adrian Palmer. 2004. Importance‐performance analysis: a useful tool for directing continuous quality
improvement in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 12:1, 39-52. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by BAHRIA INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT & COMPUTER SCIENCE At 00:17 30 September 2015 (PT)

108. T.G. Kotzé, P.J. du Plessis. 2003. Students as “co‐producers” of education: a proposed model of student socialisation and
participation at tertiary institutions. Quality Assurance in Education 11:4, 186-201. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
109. Martin O'Neill. 2003. The influence of time on student perceptions of service quality. Journal of Educational Administration
41:3, 310-325. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
110. Debbie Clewes. 2003. A Student-centred Conceptual Model of Service Quality in Higher Education. Quality in Higher
Education 9, 69-85. [CrossRef]
111. Paul Sander, Keith Stevenson, Malcolm King, David Coates. 2000. University Students' Expectations of Teaching. Studies
in Higher Education 25, 309-323. [CrossRef]
112. Brenda M. Oldfield, Steve Baron. 2000. Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university business and management
faculty. Quality Assurance in Education 8:2, 85-95. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
113. Richard Hall, Derek Harding. 2000. Driving departmental change through evaluation: Some outcomes and problems. ALT-
J 8, 19-29. [CrossRef]
114. Rose Yanhong Li, Mike Kaye. 1999. Measuring Service Quality in the Context of Teaching: A Study on the Longitudinal
Nature of Students’ Expectations and Perceptions. Innovations in Education & Training International 36, 145-154. [CrossRef]
115. David A. Brenders, Peter Hope, Abraham Ninnan. 1999. Assessing service climate at an Australian university. Asia Pacific
Journal of Marketing and Logistics 11:1, 28-48. [Abstract] [PDF]
116. Paula Y.K. Kwan, Paul W.K. Ng. 1999. Quality indicators in higher education ‐ comparing Hong Kong and China’s students.
Managerial Auditing Journal 14:1/2, 20-27. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
117. Molly Ainslie, Gordon Wills. 1997. Designing a quality action learning process for managers. Journal of Workplace Learning
9:3, 100-110. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
118. Michael J. Cook. 1997. A student's perspective of service quality in education. Total Quality Management 8, 120-125.
[CrossRef]
119. Jennifer Rowley. 1997. Beyond service quality dimensions in higher education and towards a service contract. Quality Assurance
in Education 5:1, 7-14. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
120. Mohammad S. Owlia, Elaine M. Aspinwall. 1996. A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality
Assurance in Education 4:2, 12-20. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
121. Jukka OjasaloStudent Feedback Process in Enhancement of Quality of Higher Education 189-207. [CrossRef]
122. Rajiv Sindwani, Vikram Singh, Sandeep GroverIdentification of Attributes of TQM in an Educational Institute 123-141.
[CrossRef]