Ciencias Administrativas. Teoría
y Praxis
Num. 2 Año 12, Julio-Diciembre
2016, pp. 44-55
Satisfacción
de los estudiantes en educación superior: un estudio de caso portugués
Student satisfaction in higher
education: a Portuguese case study
Caterina
De Marie*; Marco Cono**; Paula Odete Fernandes***
Resumen
La competencia ha aumentado la
presión sobre las instituciones públicas para ofrecer
un servicio de calidad consistente para retener a los estudiantes, así como para reclutar nuevos estudiantes. Por lo tanto, los
proveedores de educación superior deben ser
conscientes de las expectativas
de los estudiantes y poner en práctica
estrategias orientadas a superar
esas expectativas. La
evaluación de satisfacción de los estudiantes es crucial para determinar
la calidad del servicio en las instituciones de educación superior. En este
respecto, esta investigación trata de evaluar el nivel de satisfacción de
los estudiantes que frecuentan la Escuela de Tecnología y Gestión de Bragança (ESTiG)
del Instituto Politécnico de Bragança (IPB) -Portugal-, durante el curso
académico 2013/2014. Se realizó una encuesta para recoger los datos obteniendo
una muestra de 220 estudiantes del área científica de Administración y Tecnologías. Los resultados mostraron que
los estudiantes de la ESTiG en general estaban satisfechos con IPB. Existe una
correlación significativa entre todos los ítems con la Satisfacción Global de
los Estudiantes. Fueran
identificados dos factores determinantes de la satisfacción: ‘Calidad de
Servicio’ y ‘Lealtad’. Por los resultados obtenidos con la regresión múltiple
se observó que la Lealtad es la variable que influencia la Satisfacción Global
de los Estudiantes. La lealtad y
la Calidad de Servicio explican el 99,7% de Satisfacción del Estudiante. Los
resultados de este estudio de investigación ayudarán a los Directores del IPB y ESTiG en la comprensión de
las necesidades cambiantes de los estudiantes durante el proceso educativo.
Palabras clave: satisfacción de los estudiantes; Instituciones de Enseñanza Superior;
ESTiG; Instituto Politécnico de Bragança; Portugal.
Abstract
The competition
has increased pressure on public institutions to offer consistent quality
service to retain students as well as to recruit new students. Hence, higher
education providers should be aware of students’ expectations and implement
strategies to oriented for these expectations and exceed the same. The student satisfaction
assessment is crucial in determining service quality at higher education
institutions. In this regards, this research attempts to measures the level of
student satisfaction who attend the School of Technology
and Management of Bragança (ESTiG) with the Polytechnic Institute of
Bragança (IPB) -Portugal-, during the academic year 2013/2014.
A survey was
conducted to collect the data involved a sample of 220 students from
Business and Technologies scientific
area. The results showed that ESTiG students were generally
satisfied with IPB.
* Estudiante
de Maestría en Ingeniería de Gestión de Empresas, con Especialización en Logística y Producción en la Università degli Studi di Brescia,
en Italia. E-mail:
c.demarie@studenti.unibs.it
** Estudiante de Maestría
en Ingeniería de Gestión de Empresas, con Especialización en Economía y Organización en la Università degli Studi di Brescia,
en Italia. E-mail:
m.cono@studenti.unibs.it
*** Doctora en Economía
y Administración y Profesora en el Departamento de Economía y Administración en el Instituto
Politécnico de Bragança, en Portugal. E-mail:
pof@ipb.pt
Artículo recibido: 13 de febrero
de 2015 Artículo aceptado: 24 de febrero
de 2016
There is a
significant correlation among all items with Student Overall Satisfaction. It
was identified two satisfaction determinants: ‘Quality
Service’ and ‘Loyalty’. By the results produced with multiple regression it was
achieved that the Loyalty is the variable with high influence on the Student
Overall Satisfaction. Loyalty and Quality Service explain 99.7% Student
Satisfaction. The results of this
research study will help the main board of the IPB and ESTiG in understanding the changing needs of
students during the educational process.
Keywords: student satisfaction, Higher Education Institutions, ESTiG,
Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Portugal.
Clasificación JEL: C01, I21, M10
Introduction
In the last years the competitive
academic environment where students have several options offered to them.
Higher Education Institutions, which want to gain competitive advantage in the future,
need to start searching for
effective and creative procedures to attract and retain students.
Students
require reputable and flexible study programmes that will ensure employment after graduation (Asif &
Searcy, 2014). Thus, students are becoming more demanding and this is because
the world has become very intellectual in all fields of business for example
regarding the higher education, which has become very competitive.
The service
quality applied to the higher education sector has to bet on satisfy the needs
of stakeholders, students in this case. Thus, student satisfaction has become
an increasingly important element of the higher education service (Alves &
Raposo, 2007).
The quality of
a Higher Education Institutions depends on the academic staff which with
strategies has the task to
instruct students in such a way
to exploit their satisfaction to attract attention and improve the image of the
Institutions.
To do this the academic
service also needs to pay attention to the changing marketplace.
In this case study, using empirical data, went on to analyse the level of satisfaction
of Portuguese students who attend the School
of Technology and Management
of Bragança (ESTiG) with the Polytechnic Institute of Bragança (IPB).
Particularly, the data collected
during the academic year 2013/2014, by the presentation of a questionnaire to
students in the classroom, during April
and May 2014. The sample included 220 students in a total of 2131 students that enrolled in that academic
year the ESTiG. It was
assumed a final sampling error of 6% and 5% of significance level. The notice
that ESTiG is one of the five higher schools
that belongs to the IPB.
It is important
to understand the satisfaction of the students in order to improve their
education and the image of the institution under consideration, which is among the 10 best Higher Education
Institutions of the country, in particular in 2015 positioning in the 7th position
(U-Multirank, 2015).
In order to
answer to the main objective of the study, this
paper is organized into three sections. First, an overview of the relevant
literature on Higher Education Institutions and the importance of student
satisfaction is provided. In the second section, are provided information about
the methodology used and the results of analysis. The paper concludes with some considerations and some evidences of research that can be relevant
to develop in the future.
Literature
review
In nowadays with a turbulent market
conditions and with an intensive competition the Higher Education
Institutions (HEI) should undergoing
rapid change (Ford, Joseph, & Joseph, 1999; Lazibat, Baković, &
Dužević, 2014).
We are living
in a globalized world where people can move from a place to another in a short
time. Referring to the case of students, they can choose the Higher Education
Institution in which they can study and improve
their knowledge. Why students decide to select
another HEI, often far from their home
cities? Actually we are in an era
in which the job supply is less than the demand of students. From other side, Šula and
Banyár (2015) have estimated that over the time, according with the population
decline, that the number of students in higher education could decrease, which
can be translated as an increase in supply over demand. For this reason, Higher
Education Institutions have to build a positive image, increasing their
competitiveness, and the satisfaction of their students is the key to achieve
these results.
As well as
companies, in which customers play a central
role for the
future and development of themselves, students may
be considered as customers for higher education institutions. All types of customers, including students,
have certain expectations about the type of service they receive or buy (Can
& Nell, 2014). More satisfied
students mean more revenue generation for institutions that they could invest
in further services or improve the quality of existing services, increasing the
students satisfaction, with a positive impact in brand image and
competitiveness. Thus, students can be seen as customer because they pay a
significant amount for their education but they could be considered as a
product itself of the higher education system (Harris & Baggett 1992).
According to Eagle and Brennan (2007) we assumed the definition of students as
customers in higher education, pointing
out that students share responsibility for the results they obtain in
the education process. Overall satisfaction is the customers’ dis/ satisfaction
with the organization based on all encounters
and experiences with that particular organization (Rust &
Oliver, 1993). Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2015) describe satisfaction as the
positive or negative evaluative judgment that people make about their jobs.
Satisfaction can therefore be regarded as students’ emotional response that
has resulted from a
cognitive process of evaluating the service received against their perceptions
(Rust & Oliver, 1993). Furthermore satisfaction could be described
as a process where aspects
such as expectations, perceptions and
emotions
are a part of the satisfaction
process (Eakuru & Mat, 2008). When students’ perceptions meet their
expectations, satisfaction will be the
result; however, the opposite will occur when their expectations are not met
(Oliver, 1981; Rust & Oliver, 1993) and according to Lazibat, Baković, and
Dužević (2014) Higher Education
Institution must find the balance between the requirements of their
stakeholders to survive in the highly competitive market, attracting new
stakeholders and getting competitive advantages.
Rowley (1996) identified four main reasons
for collecting student opinion:
i.
to promote auditable
evidence that students have had the
opportunity to pass comment on
their courses and that such information is used to bring about enhancements;
ii.
to encourage student reflection on
their knowledge and learning;
iii.
to allow institutions
to benchmark and to provide
indicators that will contribute and help to the reputation of the Higher
Institution in the marketplace;
iv.
to provide
students with an opportunity
to express their level of satisfaction with their academic experience.
In this regard to deliver total
student satisfaction, all employees of a HEI should need to understand the factors that drive
student satisfaction, whether they be front-line contact staff involved in teaching
or administration, or non-contact
staff in management or administrative roles (Gold, 2001).
Research
Methodology
Study objective and
research hypothesis.
To answer the main research
question, if the School of Technology and Management of Bragança students are
satisfied or not with the Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, it has been made a
descriptive analysis and an inferential analysis in order to draw inferences
regarding
the association between the
variables and testing the truthfulness of the hypothesis. Further, the main
research question it was purposed to understand how much the other variables
could influent the total satisfaction of the students. For that the research
hypothesis of the study are developed as below (table 1).
Table 1
Research Hypothesis
all process it was assumed a final sampling
error of 6% and 5% of significance level.
In this
research it was calculated the reliability of the second part of the questionnaire
that measure the satisfaction of ESTiG students
with IPB, by using a Cronbach’s Alpha. The reliability of a measure indicates
the internal consistence with which the instrument measures the idea and helps
to evaluate the
Label
Hypothesis
‘goodness’ of a measure (Cavana, Delahaye,
& Sekaran,
2001). In the present study, for the
H1 ESTiG students are satisfied with IPB.
There are differences by individual personal
characteristics (gender, age,
H2 scientific
area, region, academic year,
type
of degree) in relation with overall satisfaction ESTiG students with IPB.
H3 Students
who know IPB by a friend/
colleague are satisfied.
H4 Students
who would like to
recommend IPB
are satisfied.
Bachelor
students who want to
H5 continue the study in IPB are satisfied.
There
is a positive relationship
H6 between items satisfaction and student
overall satisfaction.
Data
collection and data analysis
The instruments used in this study
was structured in two parts. The first part focused on students’ profile (as
demographics and academic information); and the second part include a group of 10 questions that will measure the level
of satisfaction of the ESTiG students with IPB and it was used the five point Likert scale from 1 ‘Strongly
Disagree’ to 5 ‘Strongly Agree’ to measure each item.
To collect the data a
survey was conduct applying a questionnaire in the classroom, between April and
May of 2014. It is possible to consider that was used a random sampling
approach. To the sample belongs 220 students from a total of 2131 students
that enrolled in that academic year
the ESTiG. The students are from
Business and Technologies scientific area, in total the ratio of respondents it was 10%. In
10 items in study, it was achieved
a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.941.
Pestana and Gageiro (2008) say if the values are greater than 0.9 are ‘very
good’. In conclusion, the result
showed that the score of the Cronbach’s Alpha
indicate that the measurement scale
of the satisfaction construct
were stable and consistent.
An exploratory
descriptive statistics and inferential techniques to study the behaviour of the
attributes under study, as well as
the existence of correlation or differences
between variables was made.
By always having
the non- infringement of
assumptions intended to apply parametric tests: namely the t-student test in
order to analyse whether there are differences between means for two
independent samples. For the application of this test there is a need of sample
size for independent sample which is greater or equal to 30 elements and verify
that follows the normal distribution, resorting to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and verify
that the variances are
homogeneous for independent samples using Levene test. When not validated the application of the assumptions of parametric
tests and for three or more independent samples a nonparametric test it was
applied, the Kruskal-Wallis test.
To reduce the items under
study into critical factors and to identify the satisfaction determinants, an
exploratory analysis with Varimax rotation
was used. First of all,
it was tested feasibility of the
factor analysis, checking the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) indicator and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Since the first index presents
a value of 0.946 and the
Bartlett’s test (p-value<0.001), assumes a
5%
of significance level it could
produce the factor analysis. The factor analysis selected only one factor, therefore not producing the
rotated component matrix. At the end it was
necessary fix two factors which explain almost the 78% of the total of
variance. After achieved the factors and to know the influence of this factors in the student overall
satisfaction a multiple regression will be produced and will be support
by all assumptions related with it.
In all analysis, in order to make
decisions concerning to the different research
hypotheses it will be assumed a significance level of 5 %.
Analysis
and Results
Student
Profile.
Data were collected from 220
students from Higher School of Technology and Management
Table 2
Respondents
profile
Is important to
know how the students obtained information about IPB, ESTiG or the curricula of the bachelor
or master programme. In the Figure 1 is evident
that the students obtained information from friends/colleague (42%), follow by
other Students from the master or bachelor degree (26.4%). The ways Family/Brochures or documents from
IPB and Press/Media, also achieved a good expression. According this, the
mangers of IPB and ESTiG can oriented
their strategies for
of Bragança (ESTiG) of the Polytechnic Institute of
Bragança (IPB).
According with the information presented in table 2, the sample
included 125 male students
(56.8%) and 95 female students (43.2%), were between the ages of 18 and 24
years old (79.1%), and most of them came
from the North region of Portugal in which is located the IPB.
Furthermore, in
the table 2, is possible to observe that almost
33% belonged to business
area and the rest came from technologies area (67.3%). Particularly, 184
students were attending an undergraduate program, 29.3% of them were attending
the 1st academic year, 37.5% the 2nd and 33.2% the 3rd academic year. Only 36 students were in a master
program, most of them in the 1st academic
year (80%).
this cannels to promote the institution and the degree
programmes.
The results also
showed that 94.5% of the students (208 of the respondents) will
recommend the IPB to a friend; and 73% of the students (from the 184 students
that attend the bachelor degree)
intends to continue their academic studies in IPB, after attending a bachelor.
With this information is possible to say
that the numbers revealed a level of satisfaction
with IPB.
Figure 1: Information sources used by students
Descriptive
analysis
Through the descriptive analysis
showed in table 3, it was found that popular response was close to 3 and 4 and
so in Likert scale corresponded to ‘Agree’
and produce a positive
feel and attitude. Also, the overall satisfaction achieved a 3.89 points (standard
deviation 0.759), that is very gratified. The item that was obtained a high
values was ‘I am pleased with
Table 3
Descriptive analysis that measure the
satisfaction
my decision to attend IPB’, with a mean of 4.13 points (standard deviation 0.808),
followed by ‘I am happy to attend the IPB’ (4.05 points of average; 0.840 of
standard deviation). The item that achieved a low average was ‘People ask for
information about the programmes offered at IPB’, with 3.49 points and 1.07 for
the standard deviation.
Inferential
analysis.
To achieve the purpose of the study and answered
the research hypothesis it was used the inferential analysis. To start it was divided the variables into
two levels; the first level included variables connected to the individual
students’ personal characteristics (gender, age, scientific area, region,
academic year and type of degree) while
the second level included
personal opinion about IPB.
According with
the values presented in table 4, the 1st hypothesis was confirmed, once p-value
is less than 0.001, so the null hypothesis is rejected, that is the mean of the
variable overall satisfaction for this sample of students is close to 4 points
(3.89; standard deviation of 0.759), which is different from the tested value (theoretical value 3 points)
and this means that ESTiG
students are significantly satisfied with IPB.
Table 4
Validation of hypothesis
Research Hypothesis
Variable Test p-value Results
Overall
Satisfaction Gender
Age
Scientific Area
Region Academic Year Type Degree
t-Student
t-Student
Kruskal-Wallis
t-Student Kruskal-Wallis Kruskal-Wallis t-Student
< 0.001
0.799
0.418
0.210
0.556
0.005
0.709
Validated Not Validated Not Validated Not Validated Not Validated
Validated Not Validated
Recommendation
of IPB Bachelor Students
t-Student t-Student
< 0.001
< 0.001
Validated Validated
For the 2nd
research hypothesis ‘There are differences by individual personal
characteristics (gender, age, scientific area, region, academic year, type of
degree) related with overall
satisfaction ESTiG students
with IPB’, it is possible to conclude that for only Academic Year there are significantly differences
in satisfaction based on different academic years. For the others individual
personal characteristics, it was confirmed that there were not significant differences. In
this
case the 2nd research hypothesis was not
corroborated. Participants were asked to respond how they became aware of IPB
and the result showed that most of them knew IPB from friends and colleagues (H3). In this case it was analysed two independent samples
(people that answered YES or NO). Applying a two independent t-test it was
found out that people that answered YES provided a strong positive contribution
to the total satisfaction (p-value < 0.001).
This hypothesis was verified.
As well as previously discovered also analysed the case
in which students answered that
they would like to recommend IPB to a friend (H4).
Once the pvalue is less than 0.001 allow to say with statistical significance
there are differences between the ESTiG students who would like to recommend IPB and they are
satisfied with IPB.
Furthermore, the case in which they (only for bachelor
students) expressed their desire to continue their studies in the same
institute (H5). Results showed that also in these case
students that answered YES were more satisfied than students who answered NOT, in particular in the first situation
we found out a mean difference of 0.539 and a p-value less than 0.001, while in
the second the difference is higher with a mean difference of 1.532 and a
p-value less than 0.001. The 5th research hypothesis was proved.
To answer the H6,
There is a positive relationship between
items satisfaction and student overall satisfaction, it was purpose to
find which questions are more
representative for explain the students overall
satisfaction. For that it was
produced the Pearson correlation coefficient, once the assumption of normality
is not violated. It was discovered that Item 5 ‘I think I made the right choice
when I decided to enrol in IPB’ was
the answer which presented a very strong
positive level of relation (r=0.909;
p-value < 0.001), followed by Item 4 ‘I am happy to have chosen to stay on IPB’ (r=0,906; p-value < 0.001), it means that are the variable
which provided more benefits in satisfaction, while Item 9 was the worst, but
strong, with a Pearson’s correlation
equal to 0.588 and a p-value less than 0.001.
All items
satisfaction has a positive and very strong relationship with student overall
satisfaction, as was possible observed in table
5. In this end the 6th hypothesis was validated, i.e., is possible to
say with a statistical significance that there is a positive relationship between items satisfaction
and student overall satisfaction.
Table 5
Pearson
correlation coefficient
If had a chance to do it over
again, I would continue to enrol again
in the IPB. (n=219)
My choice to enrol in the IPB was the right decision. (n=220) I
am happy to have chosen to stay on IPB. (n=220)
I think I made
the right choice when I decided to enrol in IPB.
(n=220)
I am happy to attend the IPB. (n=220)
I like to talk about the IPB to
my friends.(n=220)
I like to help
future students by giving them information about IPB
and its
programmes. (n=219)
People ask for information about
the programmes offered at IPB.
(n=220)
IPB corresponds to my
expectations. (n=220)
Satisfaction
determinants
As well as the methods to produce
the Factor Analysis are already explained. In the present study the KMO was
0.946 which is according to Kaiser and Rise (1974) well above the 0.80
meritorious levels. With the factor analysis it was selected two components
which explain approximately the 78% of the total of variance.
It was particularly helpful to see
how the variables are organized
in the common factor
space (table 6). Is possible to observe that Item
1 until Item 6, and Item 10 were characteristic of the first factor. Whereas
Item 7 until Item 9 belonged to the second factor. According to literature it
was found that the main factors that influenced the students’ satisfaction were
‘Loyalty’ and ‘Quality Service’. The name given to each factors was based on the
features of each item and the aggregation of the same.
Table 6
Items retained following Factor
Analysis
I am pleased
with my decision to attend IPB. (n=219)
If had a chance to do it over again, I would continue to
enrol again
in the IPB. (n=219)
My choice to
enrol in the IPB was the right decision.
(n=220)
I am happy to have chosen to stay on
IPB. (n=220)
IPB. (n=220)
I’m
happy to attend the IPB. (n=220)
IPB corresponds to my expectations.
(n=220)
about IPB and its programmes. (n=219)
People ask
for information about the programmes offered
at IPB. (n=220)
Percent of Variance Explained by Factor
Cronbach’s Reliability Coefficient
Note: Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation
Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.
Regarding the
first label, according to Lazibat, Baković and Dužević (2014), Quality Service
in higher education is a rather complex and vague concept. The main goal of higher education provision is to satisfy
the needs of stakeholders. Quality Service is a multidimensional construct; it
is related not only to the tangible assets of the HEI, such as
buildings, equipment and working
materials, but also to intangible aspects of the service. The most important intangible asset is teaching quality.
As was already
mentioned in the literature review it was assumed the definition of student like a customer
and as such loyalty
represents a very complex factor
in the customer behaviour and has respectively
been studied from various aspects in marketing literature (Purgailis
& Zaksa, 2012). There is no unanimous definition of customer loyalty, in the area of higher education.
Elliott and Healy (2001) describe satisfaction as a short-term attitude that has arisen after evaluating one’s
acquired experience during the use of the higher education service.
Moreover, was
assess the reliability of measures, Cronbach’s Alpha is
calculated for the variables retained for each factor and the
coefficients greater than or equal to 0.70 are considered a good indication of
construct reliability (Pestana & Gageiro, 2008), (table 6).
After
establishing the two factors (Loyalty and Quality Service), a multiple regression was conducted, where the dependent variable was Student Overall
Satisfaction and Loyalty and Quality Service as independent variables.
Table 7
Items
retained following Factor Analysis
Conclusion,
limitation and future research
The purpose of this case study was
to analyse if the ESTiG students are satisfied or not with the IPB. The academic
staff could continuously
Table 7 presents the
results produced by multiple regression. All independent variables are
statistically significance for the model. The Loyalty is the independent
variable with high influence on the Student Overall
Satisfaction. Is very important to know this
information because the
manager of IPB and ESTiG can oriented their strategies to support more the
students, once the Loyalty is measure by the item: I like to talk about the IPB
to my friends; I like to help future students
by giving them information
about IPB and its programmes; People ask for information about the programmes
offered at IPB. The global model found was statistically significant (F, p-value < 0.001). Also the
relationship between Loyalty and Quality Service and the Student Overall
Satisfaction shows a stronger and positive relationship (Adjusted r2=0.997), this means
that 99.7% of Student Satisfaction is determined by Loyalty and Quality Service.
improve the quality of services of
the institute in order to attract the attention of students improving the image
and competitiveness with the other Higher Education Institutions.
1 Variance Inflation Factor.
Analysis’
results showed that ESTiG students were generally satisfied
with IPB, once the overall satisfaction achieved a
mean of
3.89 points (standard deviation
0.759), a score closes to 4 points
in the Likert scale. There
were not found significant differences in evaluation of satisfaction between age, scientific area, region
and type of degree. Also regarding gender, this
case study did not present significant differences. In fact, according to Corts
et al. (2000), was found that there is no significant difference between gender
and satisfaction.
Regarding the
academic year, we expected a growing satisfaction over time.
First-year students are often less satisfied because they are not socially
integrated (Tinto, 2006). In present study, it
has been found that overall students’ satisfaction had a negative
trend over the years in fact
the first-year students were more satisfied than those in the third-year. May
be this is a consequence of the fact that during the first year students are
engaged in extra-curricular integration. The factor analysis allowed us to
compact all satisfactions in two
principal components: ‘Quality Service’ and ‘Loyalty’. The Loyalty is the
independent variable with high influence on the Student Overall Satisfaction.
Loyalty and Quality Service explain 99.7%
Student Satisfaction, is possible
to observe a stronger and positive relationship between variables under
analysis in the multiple regression model.
From the point
of view of Loyalty, according to Purgailis and Zaksa (2012),
two aspects are important for higher
education institutions: the willingness to recommend and if needed, the
willingness to choose the same higher education institution or the same service
provider repeatedly. From the
‘Quality service’ side in higher education it
could provide direct effects on
satisfaction and trust and an indirect influence on brand performance and
behavioural intention (Lazibat, Baković, & Dužević, 2014).
In conclusion,
it can demonstrate that the results achieved are consistent with past years as in fact supported by a study of
The Center for Research in Higher Education Policies, where the Students of the
Polytechnic Institute of Bragança are highly satisfied with the IPB (CIPES, 2009).
One of the
limitation in this study is to
the context of respondents is
very limited to only one school of IPB, then it should be
reasonable that the other schools
of IPB should be included in the future research to compare the
students’ perceptions and also to analyse the expectations of the same.
Nevertheless, a more comprehensive study can be conducted including more
educational institutions in the country to develop a comprehensive service
quality and student satisfaction model.
References
Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007).
Conceptual Model of Student Satisfaction in Higher Education. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 18(5): 571-588.
Asif, M., & Searcy; C. (2014).
Determining the Key Capabilities Required for Performance Excellence in
Higher Education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25(12): 22-35.
Cavana, R., Delahaye, B. & Sekaran,
U. (2001).
Applied Business
Research: Qualitative
and Quantitative Methods. John Wiley
&
Sons, Australia Ltd.
CIPES (2009).
Recortes IPB: Resultados Do Estudo Do CIPES Sobre a “Satisfação Dos Alunos Do
IPB” http://recortes.ipb.
pt/2009/10/resultados-do-estudo-do- cipes-sobre.html, Accessed January 20,
2016.
Corts, D., Lounsbury, J., Saudargas, R., & Tatu, H. (2000).
Assessing Undergraduate
Satisfaction with an Academic
Department: A Method and Case Study.
College
Student Journal, 34(3): 399.
Eagle, L., & Brennan, R. (2007). Are
Students Customers? TQM and Marketing Perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1): 44-60.
Eakuru, N.,
& Mat, N. (2008). The Application of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in
Determining the Antecedents of Customer Loyalty
in Banks in South Thailand. The Business
Review, 10(2): 129-139.
Elliott, Kevin M., & Healy, M. (2001). Key Factors Influencing
Student Satisfaction Related to Recruitment and Retention. Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, 10(4): 1-11.
Ford, J.,
Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (1999). Importance-performance analysis as a
strategic tool for service marketers: The case of service quality perceptions
of business students in New Zealand
and the USA. The Journal of Services Marketing,
13(2), 171186.
Gold, E.
(2001). Customer Service: A Key Unifying Force for Today’s Campus. Net results,
National Association of Student Personnel Administration. http://www.
naspa.org/netresults, Accessed January 20, 2016.
Harris, J., & Baggett, J. (1992). Quality Quest in the Academic Process.
Samford University.
Kaiser, H., & Rice, J. (1974).
Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educational
& Psychological Measurement, 34, 111-117.
Lazibat, T., Baković, T., &
Dužević, I. (2014). How Perceived Service Quality Influences Students’ Satisfaction? Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives. Total Quality Management
& Business Excellence, 25(7-8): 923-934.
Oliver, R. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of
satisfaction processes in retail settings.
Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25-48.
Pestana, M., & Gageiro, J. (2008).
Análise de Dados para Ciências
Sociais: A complementaridade do SPSS. 5ª ed. Lisboa: Edições Silabo.
Purgailis,
M., & Zaksa, K. (2012). The Impact of Perceived Service Quality on Student
Loyalty in Higher Education Institutions. Journal
of Business Management, 6, 138-
152.
Rowley, J. (1996). Customer
compatibility management: an alternative perspective on student-to-student
support in higher education.
International Journal of Educational Management, 10(4), 15-20.
Rust, R., & Oliver, R. (1993). Service Quality: New Directions in Theory
and Practice. SAGE Publications.
Skaalvik, E.,
& Skaalvik, S. (2015). Job
Satisfaction, Stress and Coping Strategies in the Teaching Profession-What Do Teachers
Say?. International Education
Studies, 8(3): 181192.
Šula, T., & Banyár, M. (2015). Innovative
Marketing as a Tool for Building a Positive Image of an Institution of Higher Education and Increasing the
Competitiveness of Its Graduates - Analysis of the Functional Use of Projects
of the Department of Marketing Communications at the Faculty of Multimedia
Communications of TBU in Zlín and Their Potential for Integration into the Teaching Process. Procedia
- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175: 146153.
Sullivan, P., & Sullivan, P. (2000). Valuing Intangibles Companies-An
Intellectual Capital Approach. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 1(4): 328-340.
Tinto, V.
(2006). Research and Practice of Student Retention: What Next? Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice, 8(1): 1-19.
U-Multirank
(2015). Universities Compared. Online in http://www.u-multirank.eu/.
Accessed January 20, 2016.
