SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT

STUDENTS PERCEPTION OF SERVICE QUALITY IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Minor Project Report in SERVICE OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT

Submitted by: Ashish Vishwananth Prakash Niranjan N Naik Prashanth Kumar Submitted To: Prof. Yogesh Pai

Introduction
Service quality has attracted considerable attention within the higher education sector. Although many works have been carried out in this particular area, there are many areas of disagreement in the debate over how to measure service quality, and recent research has raised many questions over the principles on which the existing instruments are founded. Many generic instruments have been tested with some degree of success in wide-ranging service industries, but their replication in higher education sector is still hazy. Recent Literature also tells about industry specific scales to measure service quality. In this present study one of such scales (jain et al., 2012) have been chosen to measure service quality in manipal university. This research also tries to figure ou the relationship between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a typical education sector. 1.1 Defining service Palmer (2011) defines a service as The production of an essentially intangible benefit, either in its own right or as a significant element of a tangible product, which through some form of exchange, satisfies an identified need. Alternatively, Lovelock & Wright (1999) adopt a more informal approach, defining a service as Something that may be bought and sold but that cannot be dropped on your foot. According to some researchers service is basically the creation of value for the buyer that attracts the buyer to try it and it cannot be commented until tested (Guo, 2002; Awan, et al., 2008; Ham, et al., 2003; Wang,et al., 2008). According to Valarie Zeithaml & Mary Jo Bitner (1996) services are deeds, processes, and performances. James Fitzsimmons defines service as a time-perishable, intangible experience performed for a customer acting in the role of a co-producer. Despite more than 25 years of study, scholars in the field of services management do not agree on what a service is. Indeed, instead of coming closer to a definition they seem to be less certain Farmer and Nollet (1999). 1.2 Importance of service sector According to Zeithaml et al. (1993), services marketing did not emerge as a distinct research discipline until the late 1970s. In less than four decades services have become the dominant form of economic activity and are now playing an increasingly important role in the economy of many

nations (Abdullah, 2006a). There appears to be a positive relationship between economic development of a country and its service sector; developed economies are increasingly more service orientated (Palmer, 2011).In conjunction to this trend, the construct of service quality has become an extremely topical issue within the services literature (Baron et al., 2009). The provision of good service quality is commonly associated with increased profitability, customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, customer retention, customer attraction and positive word of mouth (Abdullah, 2006a; Nadiri et al., 2009; Voss et al., 2007). 1.3 Higher Education as a Service DeShields et al. (2005) argue that it is essential for higher education management to apply market-orientated principles and strategies that are used in profit-making institutions. According to Oldfield and Baron (2000), higher education can be seen as a pure service, suggesting that it possesses all the unique characteristics of a service .More recently, Gruber et al. (2010) assert that higher education is a service that is predominantly intangible, perishable and heterogeneous. 1.4 The Student as the Primary Stakeholder In higher education, the definition of customer is quite different from the manufacturing or general services since groups such as students, employers, academic staff, government and families are all customers of the education system with a diversity of requirements. Identifying the primary stakeholder in higher education is problematic (Cuthbert, 1996a) .Hill (1995) claims that students are the primary stakeholders of higher education services in the UK. In British higher educations, students must now be considered primary customers (Crawford, 1991).Gruber et al. (2010) contend that students are the specific and primary target audience, stressing the need for academic administrators to focus on understanding their requirements. Furthermore, it is important to satisfy students, since satisfied students will recommend the service to other prospective students and will also be more likely to continue the relationship with the service provider (Munteanu et al., 2010). 1.5 Defining Service Quality Many researchers have termed service quality an elusive and indistinct construct that is difficult to define and measure (Bolton and Drew, 1991; Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor,

1992; Parasuraman et al., 1988).Crosby (1979 ) provides one of the earliest definitions of quality, suggesting that it is the conformation to specifications. Lewis and Booms (1983, p. 100) were one of the first to define quality in terms of services, defining service quality as: a measure of how well the service level delivered matches customers expectations. This definition was further developed by Parasuraman et al. (1988), who argue that service quality stems from a comparison of a consumers general expectations with their actual perceptions of a firm. Alternatively authors such as Berry et al. (1988), propose that service quality is an overall evaluation similar to an attitude. Due to the subjective nature of service quality (Rust and Oliver, 1994), the services marketing literature focuses on quality in terms of perceived service quality (Nadiri et al., 2009). Perceived service quality results from the comparison of customer service expectations with their perceptions of actual performance (Zeithaml et al., 1990).Athiyaman (1997) extended this idea, claiming that perceived service quality is an overall evaluation of the goodness or badness of a product or service. Hill (1995) adds to the complexity of perceived service quality, stating that the service does not just depend on the service provider, but also on the performance of the consumer. The co-production of services is of greatest concern to an organization when customers are more involved in the production process (Palmer, 2011). This is extremely significant in the context of higher education, as the participation of the student is vital since they play a large role in determining the success of the service. 1.6 Importance of service quality Baron et al., (2009, p. 167) maintain that Service quality is the single most researched area in services marketing to date.Poor quality places the firm at a disadvantage to the rest of the competition, potentially driving away dissatisfied customers (Lovelock and Wirtz, 2011). Where there is competition, the quality of the service experience becomes an important factor in buyer decision-making (Cuthbert, 1996a).Improving service quality is crucial for gaining a competitive advantage (Baron et al., 2009; Parasuraman et al., 1985). Service quality is particularly important for organisational growth and differentiating one service experience from another (Parasuraman et al., 1985). Researchers over the years claims that service quality is the most researched topic due to its supposed relationship with costs (Crosby,

1979), profitability (Rust and Zahorik, 1993), customer satisfaction (Cronin and Taylor, 1992), customer retention (Bolton and Drew, 1991), and positive word-of-mouth (Stodnick and Rogers, 2008). 1.7 Service Quality in Higher Education A number of different definitions has been given concerning quality in Higher Education, each one representing a different view, including: exceptional, perfection, as fitness for purpose, value for money (Harvey and Green, 1993), the stakeholder perspective of quality (Middlehurst, 1992), degree to which the previously set objectives are met (Vroeijenstijn, 1992). According to Sultan and Wong (2010), service quality research in the higher education sector is relatively new, at least when compared to that of the commercial sector. With significant changes taking place in higher education institutions over the last decade, it seems that higher education should be regarded as a business-like service industry, which focuses on meeting and exceeding the needs of students (Gruber et al., 2010). Students look for evidence of quality of services when making an uncertain and high risk decision of choosing a university (Angell et al., 2008; Donaldson and McNicholas, (2004). The customer-centric approach (or student-centred approach) of service quality in educational literature has gained momentum as the increasing cost of education has created a new generation of students with greater awareness than ever before (Stodnick and Rogers, 2008). Abdullah, (2006) states that achieving quality has become an important goal for most higher education institutions knowing the strengths and weaknesses of different factors and their relative influence may lead to better allocation of resources, resulting in students being provided with an improved service . Aly & Akpovi,(2001) says that service quality is essential not only for success but at times for survival as well, even in case of higher education. Nadiri et al. (2009) point out that it is crucial for higher education providers to understand students expectations and perceptions of what constitutes a quality service in order to attract students and serve their needs. 1.8 Measurement models of service quality There does not seem to be a well-accepted conceptual definition and model of service quality nor is there any generally accepted operation definition of how to measure service quality. Seth

et al. (2005) .The constant struggle to measure the service quality has led to the creation of many models. From 1988 to 2008, many Service Quality Measurement Models have been developed. Despite numerous attempts by academics, no single model of service quality is universally accepted (Clewes, 2003). Some of the important models are discussed below. The Perceived Service Quality Model It is based on the disconfirmation paradigm where the consumer compares their expectations with their perceptions, and the quality of the service is determined by the outcome of this evaluation process. Gronroos (1984) claims that two types of service quality exist, namely, technical quality and functional quality. Technical quality relates to what is provided during the service process (e.g. knowledge, tangibles and technical solutions). These are the relatively quantifiable aspects of the service, which the customer and supplier can easily measure (Gronroos, 1984). On the other hand, functional quality refers to how the service is provided and the interpersonal behaviours contributed by the service employee during the service encounter. It is more difficult to measure than technical quality (Gronroos, 1984). Gronroos (2007) proposes that the gap between the expected service and perceived service is of utmost importance and that it is vital for a service organisation to keep this gap as small as possible. In addition, it is important for managers to understand how the technical quality and functional quality of a service is influenced, and how customers perceive these quality dimensions (Gronroos, 2007) to ensure perceived service quality is maximized. SERVQUAL MODEL In 1988, Parasuraman, et al. developed a model to measure Quality in service sector. The model was named as SERVQUAL relating to service quality. Parasuraman, et al. (1988, p.17) configured different factors that define quality in service sector and narrowed them to 10 dimensions namely, (a) tangible, (b) reliability, (c) responsiveness, (d) communication, (e) credibility, (f) security, (g) competence, (h) courtesy, (i) understanding and knowing the customer and (j) access. The concept of Service Quality explained by Parasuraman, et al. (1988, p.16) as, service quality as perceived by the customer, stems from a comparison of what they feel service firm should offer (i.e. from their expectations) with their perceptions of the performance of firms providing the services. Eventually five dimensions were formed in the end

of the empirical research. Three of the dimensions were original taken whereas the two were correlated and the rest of the dimensions were discarded. Parasuraman, et al. (1998, p.23) defined five dimensions as (a) Tangibles: Physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel, (b) Reliability: Ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately, (c) Responsiveness: Willingness to help customers and provide prompt service, (d) Assurance: Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust and confidence, (e) Empathy: Caring, individualized attention the organization provides to its customers. One of the most controversial issues is the reliability of SERVQUAL (Nadiri et al., 2009). Firstly, the dimensions are not generic; that is, the applicability of the SERVQUAL scale to different service settings is questionable (Abdullah, 2006a). Secondly, it is argued that the five dimensions are not universal, since the number of dimensions comprising service quality is contextualised (Buttle, 1995). criticisms aimed at SERVQUAL, as an instrument for general use, is that Parasuraman et al. (1994) did not include some services, which are high in customer contact or intervention. SERVPERF Model Cronin and Taylor (1992) were one of the first authors to criticise the reliability and validity of the SERVQUAL model. In response to the limitations of the SERVQUAL model, Cronin and Taylor (1992) developed the SERVPERF scale, which was born out of the inadequacies of SERVQUAL. This led to the development of a more direct form of measurement that utilised an attitudinal rather than a disconfirmation paradigm (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). The SERVPERF approach requires the customer to rate only the service providers performance in a particular service encounter. Empirical results suggest that SERVPERF offers better reliability than SERVQUAL, illustrating that expectations can be disregarded for assessment (Cronin and Taylor, 1992). In response to this, Parasuraman et al. (1994) defended the inclusion of expectations suggesting that the diagnostic value of SERVQUAL offsets the instrument loss of predictive power. Despite this, a recent study concluded that both the SERVPERF and SERVQUAL scales are adequate predictors of overall service quality (Carrillat et al., 2007). .Evidence of the application of the SERVPERF model in the higher education context can be uncovered. Many researchers have

preferred this methodology to SERVQUAL and have used an adapted performance version of SERVQUAL to measure the perceptions of service qualit y and evaluate students course experience (see e.g. Abdullah, 2006a; Hill, 1995; McElwee and Redman, 1993; Oldfield and Baron, 2000; Rigotti and Pitt, 1992). The HEdPERF Model Despite the emergence of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models, it has been suggested that industry-specific service quality measures may prove more relevant (Carman, 1990; Cronin and Taylor, 1992; Zeithaml et al., 1985). Generic measures (e.g. SERVQUAL and SERVPERF) of service quality may not be totally suitable for assessing perceived quality in higher education (Abdullah, 2006a), creating the need for an instrument specific to the higher education sector. The model is an adaptation of the standard SERVPERF model (see e.g. Cronin and Taylor, 1992), adopting a perceptions-only approach. Abdullah (2006a) states that the aim of this model is to capture a context specific view of service quality in higher education, enabling the whole student experience to be measured. The instrument measures 41-items and each item have been tested for reliability and validity, using both types of factorial analysis, exploratory and confirmatory (Abdullah, 2006a). comparative results show that the HEdPERF scale captures more variance relative to that of the SERVPERF scale (Sultan and Wong, 2010). In particular, research findings confirm that students perceptions of service quality can be determined by evaluating six dimensions, specifically, non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, programme issues and understanding. EDUQUAL Model Mahapatra and Khan (2007) proposed the EduQual, an instrument to measure service quality in technical education with the following dimensions, namely, learning outcomes, responsiveness, physical facilities, personality development and academics. This model was a modified version of the previous SERVQUAL model. Purpose of this model was to measure the influence of individual cultural values on student service expectations of quality in cross border higher education.

Chapter 2 Research design

Objectives: 1. To assess the students perception of service quality in Manipal university using a scale developed by jain et al.,(2012). 2. To identify the important dimensions of service quality. 3. To examine the relationship between service quality dimensions and students satisfaction. 4. To examine the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Research methodology

This study was carried out to analyse the students perception of service quality among students of manipal university under various streams of study.

Research frame work

As per this particular frame work (Atheeyaman,2007), service quality is an independent variable which invokes satisfaction and further behavioral intentions are influenced by dependent variable

satisfaction. This model also take into consideration the influence of service quality on the behavioral intentions. Research instrument A Structured questionnaire consisting of 40 items for measuring service quality (Jain et al., 2012),6 items for measuring satisfaction (Atheeyaman,2007),3 items for measuring behavioral intentions (Atheeyaman,2007) and a global item to measure overall service quality was administered to 300 respondents using convenience sampling method. Sample size Questionnaire was administered to 300 repondents by using convenience sampling method .Only 287 among 300 respondents filled the questionnaire. Previous studies conducted in similar area used 170 (Angell et al., 2008) ,100 (Hussain et al., 2009),155 (Sumaedi, et al., 2012) as sample size. Analysis and interpretation The data was analyzed using SPSS package. Pearsons Correlation was used to identify the relationship between dimensions of service quality and overall service quality and between satisfaction, overall service quality and behavioral intentions. Reliability of scale was tested using cronbachs alpha test. Factor analysis was also done to examine the construct validity.

Chapter 3 Data analysis and interpretation

Demographic Profile The personal profile of the respondents is vital to the study as it forms a basis of comparison respondents with different demographic profile. The expectation and habit may vary among respondents of different demographic profile.

Interpretation: In our research we obtained the data, the analysis of which is as above. From this we infer that majority of the respondents are female which constitutes 55.05% and 44.95% male.

Stream of study

Interpretation: The Pie chart specifies the courses to which the respondent belonged from in the survey. The majority of respondents are from engineering followed by medical and paramedical students. The chart also indicates minuet difference in number of respondents in basic science and other stream of students. Meanwhile it also highlights that out of 300 respondents 36 of them belong to management.

Overall service quality

Interpretation: From the above graph we have found that the mean value is 3.32. If the mean is more than 3, then that mean result falls in the range in between agree and neither agree nor disagree.

Overall service quality is high * gender of the respondents Cross tabulation Count gender respondents male strongly disagree disagree overall service quality neither is high disagree agree strongly agree Total agree nor 5 22 40 44 18 129 female 8 34 47 43 26 158 13 56 87 87 44 287 of the Total

Overall service quality is high * respondents' general stream of study cross tabulation Respondents' general stream of study Management Engineering Medicine Paramedical Basic sciences Strongly disagree Disagree Overall service Neither agree quality is high nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Total Others Total

4 6 14 11 1 36

2 14 23 30 16 85

2 13 12 13 14 54

0 12 18 16 7 53

2 5 9 9 4 29

3 6 11 8 2 30

13 56 87 87 44 287

Interpretation: From the above cross tabulation we come to know that, equal proportion of total respondents are in state of agreeing and neither agree nor disagree with the quality of service provided to them. Meanwhile it also highlights a very small percentage of respondents who strongly disagree with the quality of service.

Correlation with overall service quality P value Academic facilities Non academic facilities Curriculum Support facilities Interaction quality Industry interaction Input quality Campus .166** .428** .235** .205** .598** .214** .189** .252** Sig. value .005 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Interpretation: All dimensions have positive correlation with service quality. Significance value is < 0.05 which tells that all those result is significant. Among all the dimensions mentioned above Interaction quality, Non- academic facilities and campus are considered to be the important one.

Service quality * satisfaction H01: service quality is not related to satisfaction satisfaction P value Overall service quality .540** Sig. value .000

Interpretation : In this study we have found out the correlation between service quality and satisfaction, we set a null (H01) hypothesis saying service quality is not correlated with satisfaction of students. But our study data proved that there is high positive correlation between service quality and satisfaction with 0.540 as P value which is higher than 0.0 and significance level is less than (<) 0.05 that is 0.000 indicates that result is significant. Service quality * behavioral intention H02: service quality is not related to behavioral intention. Service quality P value Behavioral intention .348** Sig. value .000

Interpretation: Behavioral intention and its correlation with service quality. Hypothesis set was H02: service quality is not related to behavioral intention. Study proved with P value as 0.348 which is more than 0.0 that there exist high level of positive correlation between the variables. Also result obtain was significant since significance value is 0.000 which is less than 0.05. Satisfaction * behavioral intention H03: satisfaction is not related to behavioral intention satisfaction P value Behavioral intention .628** Sig. value .000

Interpretation: To test correlation between satisfaction of students and their behavioral intention we set a hypothesis as H03: satisfaction is not related to behavioral intention. Data analysis proved there is high positive correlation between satisfaction and behavioral intention with P value as 0.628 and with significant level is 0.000 which is less than 0.05, it shows that tells that the result obtained is significant

Reliability Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha .843 6 N of Items

Latent variable

Item

Academic facilities

Nonacademic processes

The institute has clean, spacious and wellequipped classrooms The institutes library offers wide range of resources The institute provides up-to-date computer labs The institute has sufficient academic equipment The institute provides easy access to information sources, e.g. books, journals, software, information networks The institute provides clean and safe accommodation Administrative process like registration, examination, etc. are hassle free The institute provides opportunities to participate and organize variety of sports activities The institute provides opportunities to participate and organize variety of cultural activities The institute provides opportunities to participate and organize variety of social activities The institute provides opportunities to participate and organize variety of co-curricular

Corrected Cronbach's Coefficient Item-Total Alpha if alpha Correlation Item Deleted .536 .833 .843 .652 .688 .728 .654 .811 .803 .796 .810

.474 .483 .620

.844 .820 .792 .826

.659

.784

.680

.779

.610

.794

curriculum

Support facility

Interaction quality

Industry interaction

Input quality

campus

activities The institute provides career information and guidance The institutes curricula are balanced, relevant and well organized The curricula are research based. The course content reflects industry and social needs The institute is responsive to industry evaluations about the curriculum The institute is responsive to student evaluations about the curriculum The dining hall provides variety of food and at convenient hours Recreational facilities are available and approachable Healthcare facilities are available and approachable The interaction with faculty is good and motivating The interaction with staff is good and supportive The interaction with classmates, course mates and alumni is good The faculty and staff are competent The orientation program/induction program is helpful in settling down Contemporary teaching methods are used The institute organizes for industrial tours The institute organizes for summer training Guest lectures from industry experts are organized The institute organizes for on-the-job training Seminars/workshops are organized The admission procedure is appropriate The admission procedure is fair The faculty and staff keep themselves updated The institute has visually appealing physical facilities The institute is ideally located The institute has a good campus layout and

.512 .571 .648 .702 .593 .447 .555 .664 .552 .624 .698 .650 .629 .215 .589 .444 .667 .706 .537 .678 .604 .687 .481 .597 .682 .739

.814 .775 .751 .732 .768 .810 .716 .589 .719 .719 .692 .710 .718 .840 .805 .834 .787 .780 .816 .787 .655 .556 .785 .821 .785 .758 .830 .783 .759 .806

.757

.835

appearance The institute provides ambience conducive to study/research

.648

.800

Interpretation: To test the reliability of scale used in our study we made use of Cronbachs alpha test. Cronbach's alpha is the most common measure of internal consistency ("reliability"). It is most commonly used when you have multiple Likert questions in a survey/questionnaire that form a scale, and you wish to determine if the scale is reliable. We found out alpha for each dimensions and also for each sub items. To interpret the output, we followed the rule of George and Mallery (2003). In which he stated as > .9 (Excellent), > .8 (Good), > .7 (Acceptable), > .6 (Questionable), > .5(Poor), and < .5 (Unacceptable). Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient normally ranges between 0 and 1. The closer the coefficient is to 1.0, the greater is the internal consistency of the items (variables) in the scale. Cronbach's alpha coefficient increases either as the number of items (variables) increases, or as the average inter-item correlations increase (i.e., when the number of items is held constant). In our study we found value of the coefficient a ranged from 0.757 to 0.843 for the eight factors of service quality which we took in our study. All values we obtained in this here in test by applying to our scale we got value more than (>) 0.07 which shows that it is acceptable dimensions and high level of internal consistency. In our test we came to know that all items to total were perfectly correlated having value more than 0.3 except one item which lies in one of the dimension had little variation with value as 0.215 which is less than 0.3. By eliminating this item we can improve the scale efficiency. Further, in interaction quality we found value is >0.3. Which is the min value required as per Nunnally, (1967). Thus, it was found to remove this item to improve the scale. In our scale Items such as, The orientation program/induction program is helpful in settling down and The faculty and staff keep themselves updated can be removed, as their removal improved coefficient alpha.

Factor Analysis

KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Adequacy. Approx. Chi-Square Bartlett's Sphericity Test of df Sig. Measure of Sampling .857 5921.461 703 .000

Interpretation: The KMO statistics varies between 0 and 1. A value of 0 indicates that the sum of partial correlation is large relative to sum of correlation. A value close to 1 indicates that the pattern of correlations is relatively compact. Any value greater than 0.5 is acceptable. In this study the value is 0.857 which is good and factor analysis could be done for this study.

Rotated Component Matrix

Component 1 staffsupportive facultymotivating classmates inductionpgm administrativeproce ss industrialtour onthejobtraining summertraining studentevaluation coursecontent curricularesearchba sed .840 .809 .765 .676 .665 .808 .789 .764 .626 .800 .786 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

curriculabalanced industryevaluation facultyupdated complab library cleanspaciousclass campuslayout ambiencetostudy location physicalfacilities socialactivities culturalactivities cocuricular admisionfair admissionapproprai te facultycompetent accesstoinfo accomodation dininghall academicequipmen t careerguidance healthcarefacility recreationalfacility sportsopportunity seminar teachingmethod guestlecture .539

.690 .644 .554 .803 .791 .690 .433 .799 .446 .719 .701 .626 .838 .757 .670 .815 .805 .730 .762 .738 .672 .563 .599 .748 .668 .410 .546 .635 .595 .806 .748 .560 .522 .553

Interpretation :

Factor analysis results suggested that unlike the previous study where items were grouped into 8 dimensions, the factor loading as per the present study suggests creation of two more dimensions. The dimensions of this study has to be restructured into ten as per the results. The items loaded in facror 1 suggest that it should be renamed to ease of academic process

The items loaded in factor 2 suggest that it should be renamed to industry interaction The items loaded in factor 3 suggest that it should be renamed to curriculum relevance The items loaded in factor 4 suggest that it should be renamed to academic facilties The items loaded in factor 5 suggest that its name should be retained as campus The items loaded in factor 6 suggest that its name should be retained as non academic process The items loaded in factor 7 suggest that its name should be retained as input quality The items loaded in factor 8 suggest that its name should be retained as support facilities The items loaded in factor 9 suggest that its name should be renamed as support process The items loaded in factor 10 suggest that its name should be retained as pedagogy

Findings
There is Considerable agreement that service quality is high. This dimension of service quality is important as per our study in the case of Manipal University, Interaction quality, Non-academic facilities, campus. Service quality and satisfaction were found positively correlated. Satisfaction and behavioral intentions were found positively correlated. Service quality and behavioral intentions were found positively correlated The scale constructed by jain et al.,(2012) was refined ie; study found out that Items such as, The orientation program/induction program is helpful in settling down and The faculty and staff keep themselves updated can be removed, as their removal improved coefficient alpha. The factor analysis suggested that the items can be grouped into ten dimensions unlike eight dimensions identified by jain et al., (2012)

Bibliography Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(1), 31-47. Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(6), 569-581 Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236-254. Atheeyaman, A. (1997) Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education.European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540. Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: the case of university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540. Baines, P., Fill, C., & Page, K. (2008). Marketing. New York: Oxford University Press. Awan, M. U., Azam, S. and Asif, M. 2008, Library Services Quality Assessment, Journal of Quality and Technology Management, Vol.4, No.1, pp.51-64. Baron, S., Harris, K., & Hilton, T. (2009). Services marketing: text and cases. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Berry, L. L., Parasuraman, A., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). The Service-Quality Puzzle. Business Horizons, 31(5), 35-43. Bitner, M. J. (1990). Evaluating service encounters: the effects of physical surroundings and employee responses. The Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 69-82. Bolton, R. N., & Drew, J. H. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of the impact of service changes on customer attitudes. The Journal of Marketing, 55(1), 1-9. Carrillat, F., Jaramillo, F., & Mulki, J. P. (2007). The validity of the SERVQUAL and SERVPERF scales: A meta-analytic view of 17 years of research across five continents. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 18(5), 472-490.

Clewes, D. (2003). A Student-centred Conceptual Model of Service Quality in Higher Education. Quality in Higher Education, 9(1), 69-85.

Corneliu Munteanu, Ciprian Ceobanu, Claudia Bobalca and Oana Anton,An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context,International Journal of Public Sector Management Vol. 23 No. 2, 2010 pp. 124-140

Crawford, F. (1991) Total Quality Management. Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals Occasional Paper,London, December 1991.

Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: a reexamination and extension. The Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.

Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 125-131.

Crosby, L. A. (1991). Expanding the Role of CSM in Total Quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 2(2), 5-19.

Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: The art of making quality certain. New York: McGraw-Hill New York.

Cuthbert, P. F. (1996a). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 1. Managing Service Quality, 6(2), 11-16.

Cuthbert, P. F. (1996b). Managing service quality in HE: is SERVQUAL the answer? Part 2. Managing Service Quality, 6(3), 31-35.

Daniel J B,Anna G,Service Quality in Higher Education:The students viewpoint,(not published).

Fawad Husain, Suhaiza Hanim, Yudi Fernando, Mostafa Nejati,Education Service Delivery and StudentsSatisfaction: A Study of Private Colleges in Malaysia,GBMR Vol. 1, No. 1, 2009 pp. 64-72

Gronroos, C. (1978). A Service-Orientated Approach to Marketing of Services. European Journal of Marketing, 12(8), 588-601.

Gronroos, C. (1982). An applied service marketing theory. European Journal of Marketing. 16(7), 30-41.

Gronroos, C. (1984). A Service Quality Model and its Marketing Implications. European Journal of Marketing, 18(4), 36-44.

Gronroos, C. (2007). Service management and marketing: customer management in service competition. 3rd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Guo, C. 2002, Market orientation and business performance: A framework for service organizations, European Journal of Marketing, Vol.36, No.9, pp.1154-1163

Halil Nadiria, Jay Kandampullyb ,Kashif Hussain,Students perceptions of service quality in higher education,Total Quality Management Vol. 20, No. 5, May 2009, 523535

Ham, C. L., Johnson, W., Weinstein, A., Plank, R. and Johnson, P. L. 2003, Gaining Competitive Advantages: Analyzing the Gap between Expectations andPerceptions of service quality, International Journal of Value Based Management, Vol.16, No.2, pp.197-203

Hill, F. M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as primary consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21.

Josep Gallifa,Pere Batalle,Student perceptions of service quality in a multi-campus highereducation system in Spain,Quality Assurance in Education Vol. 18 No. 2, 2010 pp. 156-170

Lewis, R. C., & Booms, B. H. (1983). The marketing aspects of service quality, in Berry L., Shostack G. & Upah, G (Eds), Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, AMA, Chicago, IL, 99-107.

Lovelock, C. H., & Wirtz, J. (2011). Services marketing: people, technology, strategy. 7th ed. London: Pearson.

Maria Pereda,David Airey , Marion Bennett,Service Quality in Higher Education: The Experience of Overseas Students,Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism EducationVol. 6, No. 2.ISSN: 1473-8376

Maria Tsinidou, Vassilis Gerogiannis,Panos Fitsilis,Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: an empirical study,Quality Assurance in Education Vol. 18 No. 3, 2010 pp. 227-244

Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students' perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(5), 523-535.

Palmer, A. (2011). Principles of services marketing. 6th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. The Journal of Marketing, 49(1), 41-50.

Annexure :
QUESTIONNAIRE This study is conducted to evaluate the students perception of service qualit y in higher education. The data obtained will only be used for research purpose.

Please indicate your response by ticking in the appropriate boxes, to indicate level of agreement to the each statement in reference to your Institute
Statement Part A The admission procedure is appropriate. The admission procedure is fair. The faculty and staff are competent. The faculty and staff keep themselves updated. The institutes curricula are balanced, relevant and well organized. The curricula are research-based. The course content reflects industry and social needs. The Institute is responsive to industry evaluations about the curricula. The Institute is responsive to student evaluations about the curricula. The Institute organizes for On The Job Training. The Institute organizes for Industrial tours. The Institute organizes for Summer Training. The Institute organizes for guest lectures from industry experts. The Institute uses Contemporary teaching methods. The Institute organizes for Seminars/workshops The Institute has visually appealing physical facilities. The Institute is ideally located. The Institute has good campus layout and appearance The Institute provides ambience conducive to study/research The Institute has clean, spacious, and well equipped classrooms. The library offers wide range of resources. The Institute provides up-to-date computer Laboratories The Institute has sufficient academic equipment, e.g. laboratories, workshops. The Institute provides easy access to information sources, e.g. books, journals, software, Information networks.
Strongly Agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

The institute provides clean and safe Accommodations The institutes dining-hall provides variety of food and at convenient hours. Recreational facilities are available and approachable. Healthcare facilities are available and approachable. The institute provides career information and guidance.
5 4 Agree 3 Neither agree nor disagree 2 Disagree 1 Strongly Disagree

Statement The institute provides opportunities to participate or organize variety of sports activities. The institute provides opportunities to participate or organize variety of cultural activities. The institute provides opportunities to participate or organize variety of social activities. The institute provides opportunities to participate or organize variety of co-curricular activities. The institutes administrative process like registration, examination etc are hassles free. The interaction with faculty is good and motivating. The interaction with staff is good and supportive. The interaction with classmates, course mates and alumni is good. The institute orientation program/ induction program is helpful in settling down I will rate the Institute high on overall service quality.
I am satisfied with my decision to attend this college If have a choice to do it all over again, I still will enroll in this college My choice to enroll in this college is a wise one I am happy on my decision to enroll in this college I did the right decision when I decided to enroll in this college I am happy that I enrolled in this college

Strongly Agree

I like talking about my college to my friends. I like helping potential students by providing them with information about my college and its courses. People ask me for information about courses offered at my college Part B: Please fill in your personal details: Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ] Course: -------------------------------------------Institute: --------------------------------------------