ISSN 1822-6515ISSN 1822-6515 EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15 THE MODEL OF STUDIES QUALITY DIMENSIONS FROM STUDENTS PERCEPTIONEgl Katilit1, Ingrida Kazlauskien21Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania, egle.katiliute@ktu.lt2Kaunas University of Technology, Lithuania, ingrida.kazlauskiene@ktu.ltAbstract Research problem: The student is now recognised as the principal stakeholder of any higher education institution and must be allowed a voice that is both listened to and acted upon in order to enhance the quality ofthetotallearningexperience. Exploringthestudentsattitudestovarious aspectsofhighereducationand its quality, it is appropriate to specify the dimensions of study quality. The first part of the paper examines the theoretical model of study quality assessment dimensions from the students perception. The paper discusses the specific factors that affect the quality of higher education assessment of the students' position. The model isbasedontheforeignandLithuanianscientific studiesofquality,servicequality,highereducationquality and higher education quality from the students perception fields. The article presents the problem consisting ofthefollowingquestion:Whatarethedimensionsofthestudyqualityevaluationfromthestudents perception? The research focus is the decisions in research methodology concerning the dimensions of study quality from the students perception. The research aim is to present the conceptual model with the focus on researchmethodologydecisionsconcerningthedimensionsofstudyqualitybyhighlightingthestudents perception characteristics. Methods: literature review and focus group interview. Results: (1) the dimensions ofstudyqualityfromthestudentsperceptionspecified;(2)themodelonresearchmethodologydecisions concerningthedimensionsofstudyqualitybyhighlightingthestudentsperceptioncharacteristics established. Keywords: quality, service quality evaluation, study quality dimensions, universities. Introduction Changesinhighereducationenvironment,increasingrequirementsforstudiesquality,thestudents changeableexpectationsofforlearningcontentsandmethods,increasinghighereducation internationalizationandglobalizationstimulatesfindingwayshowtoevaluateandincreasethequalityof studies.BerlinCommuniqu(2003),whichisthesecondofficialevaluationoftheBolognaprocess(1999) presentedbytheMinistersresponsibleforhighereducationoftheEuropeancountries,stressesthe importance of quality assurance in higher education. European education standards assurance and pursuit of quality in education have been announced as strategic aims of the Lithuanian education system in the light of newchallengesthesocietyisfacingandopportunitiesofferedbydemocracy,developmentofmarket economyandglobalisation.Inmanycountries,atnationallevel,qualityassuranceagenciesareresponsible forexternalqualityevaluationofstudies.Atuniversitylevel,evaluationofthequalityofstudiesismost oftencarriedoutbytheuniversitycommunity.Studentsviewsonallaspectsoftheirhighereducation experiences are now being widely canvassed and regarded as essential to the effective monitoring of quality in universities. Their views will form some of the wide range of data that will be in the public domain so that members of the various higher education stakeholder groups have the information to make judgements about levels of performance in particular universities (Hill, Lomas, MacGregor, 2003, Stukalina, 2010). Students perceptionsareanimportantfactorinthestudyqualitydevelopmentprocess.Exploringthestudents attitudes to various aspects of higher education and its quality, it is appropriate to specify the dimensions of studyquality.Policiesissuedtoimplementeducationalchangesforeducationqualityoftenfailbecauseof lackofcomprehensiveunderstandingofthecomplexnatureofeducationqualityinhighereducation institutions (Cheong Cheng, Ming Tam, 1997). The paper discusses the specific factors that affect the quality ofhighereducationassessmentofthestudents'position.ThemodelisbasedontheforeignandLithuanian scientific studies of quality (Harvey, Green, 1993; Cheng, Ming Tam, 1997; Lagrosen, 2004; Pukelis 2008), servicequality(Zeithaml,Parasuraman,1990;McElwee,Redman,1993),highereducation quality (McElwee,Redman,1993;Owlia,Aspinwall,1996;snait,2002)andhighereducationqualityfromthe students perception (Hill, 1995; Joseph, 1997; Lomas, Macgregor, 2003; Lagrosen, Hashemi, Leitner, 2004; Grundey,2008)fields.Reviewingthescientificliteratureonhighereducationqualityassurance,itisnoted thatthereisnoconsensusaboutthequalityassessmentdimensionsfortheevaluationofthestudents perceptions. The article presents the problem consisting of the following question: What are the dimensions ofthestudyqualityevaluationfromthestudentsperception?Theresearchfocusisthedecisionsin researchmethodologyconcerningthedimensionsofstudyqualityfromthestudentsperception.The 580ISSN 1822-6515ISSN 1822-6515 EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15 researchaimistopresenttheconceptualmodelwiththefocusonresearchmethodologydecisions concerningthedimensionsofstudyqualitybyhighlightingthestudentsperceptioncharacteristics.Methods: literature review and focus group interview. Approaches to quality and quality assurance of higher education Inordertounderstandthecomplexnatureofhighereducationqualityfromstudentsperceptionit shouldbenecessarytocleargeneralqualitydimensions.Qualityisoneofthemanyconceptsinthesocial sciences that are extremely difficult to define. Rather than trying to find a set definition, it might be useful to create an insight into the numerous dimensions that form a fuzzy entity referred to as quality through social consensus (Gummesson, 1990). Harvey, Green (1994) argues that given the difficulties in defining quality in higher education it is necessary to define as clearly as possibly the criteria that each stakeholder uses when judgingqualityandtakeallthesecompetingviewsintoaccount.Inthemanagementliterature,theterm qualityhasdifferentmeaningsandhasbeenvariouslydefinedas:(1)excellence(Peters,Waterman,1982; Doherty,1994;Harvey,Green,1993;CheongCheng,MingTam,1997),(2)value(Harvey,Green,1993; CheongCheng,MingTam,1997),(3)fitnessforuse(JuranandGryna,1988;CheongCheng,MingTam, 1997;Lagrosen,Seyyed-Hashemi,Leitner,2004),(4)conformancetospecificationsorrequirements (Doherty,1994),(5)defectavoidance(CheongCheng,MingTam,1997),(6)meetingand/orexceeding customers expectations (Parasuraman, Zeithaml, Berry, 1985; Cheong Cheng, Ming Tam,1997; Lagrosen, Seyyed-Hashemi, Leitner, 2004, Stukalina, 2008).Inrecentyears,numerousstudiesinthefieldofservicequalityhavebeencarriedout.However, relativelyfewstudieshaveaddressedthespecificcontextofhighereducation.Lagrosen,Seyyed-Hashemi, Leitner (2004) examined what dimensions constitute quality in higher education and to compared these with thedimensionsofqualitythathavebeendevelopedingeneralservicequalityresearch.Doherty(2008) discussedsomekeyaspectsofqualityineducation.Owlia,Aspinwall(1996)examinedconceptualmodels proposed for different environments for consistency with higher education. They presented a new framework forthedimensionsofqualityinhighereducation.CheongCheng,MingTam(1997)introducedseven modelsofqualityineducation,whichcanformacomprehensiveframeworkforunderstandingand conceptualizingqualityineducationfromdifferentperspectives.Ghobadianetal.(1994)differentiates betweenthosedimensionswhichareassociatedwiththequalityofthefinalproductoroutcomeofthe serviceandthosewhichrelatetointernalprocesseswithintheorganization;theyarecalledoutcomeand process dimensions respectively. The importance of the process dimensions from the customers viewpoint depends on the extent to which they participate in the process. In the manufacturing sector customers do not normallydealwithproductionprocesses;however,inaservicecontext,customersoftenhavesome participation in the process of service delivery. This participation may vary depending on the kind of service (Lehtinen & Lehtinen, 1991). The higher education is the part of service sector, so viewing higher education asaservicecanfacilitategeneralizingservicequalitydimensionsforthissector.However,thespecific characteristics of any service industry necessitates finding its unique dimensions in addition to the common featureswithotherservices.Morecarefulgeneralizationisrequiredforthecaseofhighereducation regarding its complex characteristics (Owlia, Aspinwal, 1996; Lentner, 2007; Staskeviciute, Ciutiene, 2008). Compared to conceptual models developed for products and general services, only few published work wasfoundrelatedtoqualitydimensionsinhighereducation.Qualityinhighereducationmayevenbemore difficulttodefinethaninmanufacturingorservicesectors.Thisiscertainlytrueforhighereducationsince most quality attributes cannot be seen, felt, or touched in advance; production and consumption of the service areinseparablebecausepersonalcontact(e.g.betweenstudentsandlecturer)playsanimportantrole;and quality variesmarkedly indifferentcircumstances (Owlia,Aspinwal, 1996). Therefore, education quality isa multi-dimensional concept and cannot be easily assessed by only one indicator. The set of attributes found from discussingthegeneralqualityandservicesdimensionsprovidedabasisforfurtherinvestigation.Owliaand Aspinval (1996) proposed these dimensions: (1) Reliability -The degree to which education is correct, accurate anduptodate;howwellaninstitutionkeepsitspromisesandthedegreeofconsistencyineducational processes(teaching).(2)Responsiveness-willingnessandreadinessof(academic)stafftohelpstudents.(3) Understandingcustomers-understandingstudentsandtheirneeds.(4)Access-theextenttowhichstaffare available for guidance and advice. (5) Competence - the theoretical and practical knowledge of staff as well as otherpresentationskills.(6)Courtesy-emotiveandpositiveattitudetowardsstudents.(7)Communication- how well lecturers and students communicate in the classroom. (8) Credibility - the degree of trustworthiness of the institution. (9) Security - confidentiality of information. (10) Tangibles - state, sufficiency and availability 581ISSN 1822-6515ISSN 1822-6515 EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15 ofequipmentandfacilities.(11)Performance-primaryknowledge/skillsrequiredforstudents.(12) Completeness-supplementaryknowledgeandskills,useofcomputer.(13)Flexibility-thedegreetowhich knowledge/skillslearnedareapplicabletootherfields.(14)Redress-howwellaninstitutionhandles customerscomplaintsandsolvesproblems.Douglas,McClellandandDavies(2008)adaptedasetofhigher qualitydimensionsfromParasuramanetal.(1985)andJohnston(1995),itcontainsfrom:(1)Reliability,(2) Responsiveness/Attentiveness/Helpfulness,(3)Flexibility,(4)Friendliness,(4)Competence,(5)Access/ Availability/Courtesy,(6)Communication,(7)Credibility/Integrity,(8)Security,(9)Understanding/ Knowing the customer / Care, (10) Tangibles / Aesthetics / Comfort, (11) Commitment, (12) Functionality.In the study of Lagrosen, Seyyed-Hashemi, Leitner (2004) the following dimensions were included: (1) Corporate collaboration,(2)Informationandresponsiveness,(3)Coursesoffered,(4)Campusfacilities,(5)Teaching practices, (6) External and internal evaluations, (7) Computer facilities, (8) Library resources. It could be said thatstudyqualitydependsontheestimatorrole(student,lecturer,administrativepersonnel,employers,etc.), institutionfactors(personnelqualification,studyprogramsandmodeladaptationfortheneedsstudentsand employers,studyprocessflexibility,inventoryandfinancialsupportforstudents),publicfactors(institution reputation,image,ratingposition),andindividualfactors(attitudestostudy,lecturersanduniversityfellows, expectations to studies and its fulfilment level).Higher education quality in students perspective Theindicatorsofeducationqualityareoftenthesatisfactionofstudents,lecturers,parents, administrators,theeducationauthority,themanagementcommittee,alumni,etc.Thisseemstosupportthe hypothesis that dimensions of quality in higher education vary in level of importance for different groups of customers.Obviously,thatinhighereducation,thedefinitionofcustomerisquitedifferentfromthatin manufacturing or general services since groups such as students, employers, academic staff, government and familiesareallcustomersoftheeducationsystemwithadiversityofrequirements(OwliaandAspinwal, 1996).Lagrosenetal.(2004)arguesthatunderstandingqualityfromthecustomersviewpointisthus crucial. In the public sector, the notion of having customers is often shunned as something pertaining solely tocommercialactivities.Barnett(1992)rightlywarnsus,bedangeroustoviewthestudentsimplyasa consumer,butinthecurrentatmosphereofthehighereducationmarketplace,thereisanewmoral prerogative: students have become customers and therefore can, as fee payers, reasonably demand that their views be heard and acted upon. However, modern quality management has a much wider view of customers thantheprocurerofcertaingoodsandservices.Rather,thetermcustomerdenotesallthosewhoare affectedbytheorganizationsactivity(Juran,Gryna,1988;Staskeviciute,Neverauskas,2008).However,it maybemoreappropriatetousethelesscontroversialtermstakeholderswhendiscussingqualityinpublic services. There are many stakeholders for whom the quality of higher education is vital. Notably, providers (fundingbodiesandthecommunityatlarge),students,staffandemployersofgraduatesareimportant (Srikanthan, Dalrymple,2003).Green(1994)arguesthatgiventhedifficultiesindefiningqualityin higher education it is necessary to define as clearly as possibly the criteria that each stakeholder uses when judging qualityandtakeallthesecompetingviewsintoaccount.SrikanthanandDalrymple(2003)presentthefour mainstakeholdersandrelatetheinterpretationsofqualitybyHarveyandGreen(1993)totheminthe followingmanner:(1)Providers(fundingbodiesandcommunityatlarge).Qualityisinterpretedasvalue formoney,asfundingauthoritiesarelookingforagoodreturnoninvestment.(2)Usersofproducts(e.g. current and prospective students). The interpretation here is one of excellence, as the students want to ensure arelativeadvantageincareerprospects.(3)Usersofoutputs(e.g.theemployers).Theinterpretationof qualityisfitnessforpurpose,asemployerslookforcompetenciesmatchingthefunctions.(4)The employees of the sector (academics and administrators). Quality is interpreted as perfection (or consistency), wherethebehaviouralnormsaremetandthecoreethosisupheldinordertoachievethejobsatisfaction (Lagrosen, Seyyed-Hashemi, Leitner, 2004). Cheong Cheng, Ming Tam (1997) suggests the term strategic constituencies.Theyargues,thatthedefinitionofeducationqualitymayoftenbeassociatedwiththe satisfactionoftheneedsofstrategicconstituencies(e.g.policymakers,parents,schoolmanagement committee,teachers,students,etc.)orconformancetostrategicconstituenciesrequirementsand expectations. It is obviously that to different people, the higher education definition may be different and so thedimensionsusedtodescribeeducationqualitymaybedifferent.Thisisfurtherexacerbatedwhenit comestothechoiceofqualitydimensions.Treatingtheindividualcharacteristicsasthebasisforquality improvement,thequestioniswhichgroupofcustomersshouldbeprioritizedforsatisfaction.Obviously, whenonlyonegroup(e.g.students)ispresentintheprocess,noproblemarisessincethereareno 582ISSN 1822-6515ISSN 1822-6515 EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15 contradictoryrequirements.Ifthecharacteristicsaretobecombinedintoatotalqualityscore,another difficultyisthatcustomergroupsdonotprovideahomogeneousdatasetonthecharacteristics(Owliaand Aspinwal,1996).CheongCheng,MingTam(1997)agreeswiththis,andproposesthatfurthermore,the expectationsofdifferentconstituenciesoneducationmaybeverydifferent,ifnotcontradictory.Itisoften difficult for an education institution to meet all the expectations or needs at the same time. A solution to the firstcaseistodefineadominantcustomerforhighereducationservices.Itisdecidedtochosestudents perspective in this study. Students perspective is chosen, because higher education is first and foremost about the enhancement and empowerment of students as participants in a process of learning, students should be recognised as the key stakeholder in higher education (Harvey, 1996). Students views on all aspects of their higher education experiences are now being widely canvassed and regarded as essential to the effective monitoring of quality in universities. Their views will form some of the wide range of data that will be in the public domain so that members of the various higher education stakeholder groups have the information to make judgements about levelsofperformanceinparticularuniversities(Hill,Lomas,MacGregor,2003).Asstudentfeedback providesuptodate,consistentandreliablestudent-generateddata,comparisonscanbemadebetweenthe differenthighereducationinstitutionsastothequalityandstandardsofteachingandlearning,between different subjects, and on the general university environment (Williams, 2002).Hill, Lomas, MacGregor (2003) study aims were to ascertain student perceptions of a quality in higher education.Hill(1996)discussedaspectsofcurrentservicequalitytheoryinthecontextofBritishhigher education,focusesontheroleofthestudentasaprimaryconsumerofhighereducationservices.Douglas, McClellandandDavies(2008)introducedaconceptualmodelofstudentsatisfactionwiththeirhigher educationexperience,basedontheidentificationofthevariabledeterminantsofstudentperceivedquality andtheimpactofthosevariablesonstudentsatisfactionand/ordissatisfactionwiththeoverallstudent experienceintheUK.OldfieldandBaron(2000)explorewhatthestudentsthemselvesconsidertobethe elements of service quality, and the extent to which these elements are viewed differently between first and finalyearundergraduatestudentsoftheUKUniversity.JosephandJoseph(1997)examinedNewZealand students perceptions of service quality in education. Williams (2002) paper is intended as an overview of the StudentSatisfactionApproachasitisusedattheUniversityofCentralEnglandandanumberofother British universities. Hill (1995) stated that perceived higher education service quality could be the product of anumberofserviceencounterevaluationsbystudents.Suchencounterswouldbewithadministrators, teachingstaffandmanagersaswellashighereducationemployees.Herecognisedthatbecauseoflimited resourceswithinhighereducationindividualattentiontostudentsmaybelimited.Itisproposedthatthere should be a specific instrument devised for the evaluation of service quality within that was beyond the more traditional questionnaires. Below are presented several scientists sets of higher education quality dimensions fromstudentsperception,likeamaterialforgeneralmodel.JosephandJoseph(1997)examinedNew Zealand business students perceptions of service quality in education. They described a study in which the respondents identified seven determinants of service quality: (1) Physical aspects - accommodation facilities, academic facilities, campus layout and appearance, sports and recreational facilities. (2) Cost/time - length of degree,costofaccommodation,costofeducation.(3)Academicissues-reputabledegree,excellent instructors.(4)Programmeissues-specialistprogrammes,flexiblestructureandcontent,practical component, options available, flexibility move within school of study, flexible entry requirements. (5) Career opportunities - employable graduates, information on career opportunities. (6) Location - ideal location. (7) Other-wordofmouth,familyandpeers.Hill,Lomas,Macgregor(2003)empiricalresearchwhichaims were to ascertain student perceptions of a quality experience in higher education, findings were that the most influencefactorsintheprovisionofqualityeducationare:(1)Qualityofthelecturerdeliveryinthe classroom (students appreciated lecturers who knew their subject, were well organized and were interesting to listen to); feedback to students during the session in assignments (students appreciated lecturers who were flexibleindeliveryofthesubjectandweresympathetictotheirindividualneedforsuccess);relationships with students in the classroom (students appreciated lecturers were easy to be with and helped them to learn). (2)Studentengagementwithlearningthestudentsvaluedacurriculumthatrelatedtotheirworldsbut broadenedtheirhorizons.(3)Social/emotionalsystemsthestudentsfoundsupportfromcollegesupport systems, their peers and families, they wanted to be surrounded by positive atmosphere that valued learning. (4)ResourcesoflibraryandIT.Lagrosen,Hashemi,Leitner(2004)definedtheseeducationquality dimensionsfromstudentsattitude:(1)Corporatecollaboration,(2)Informationandresponsiveness,(3) Coursesoffered,(4)Campusfacilities,(5)Teachingpractices,(6)Internalevaluations,(7)External evaluations, (8) Computer facilities, (9) Collaboration and comparisons, (10) Post-study factors, (11) Library 583ISSN 1822-6515ISSN 1822-6515 EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15 resources.Thereseemstobenoconsensussetofhighereducationqualitydimensionsfromstudents perception,eventhoughmostofthesedimensionscorrelated.Theseeducationqualitydimensionsand criteriafromstudentsattitudehaveanimportantvalueforconceptualunderstandingofhighereducation quality, they may not be sufficient, as it is important to study quality in each specific situation. Consequently, itisoftenvaluabletocomplementthegeneralqualitydimensionswithspecificqualitydimensionsthatare developed for the particular situation that one faces. Development of specific quality dimensions for studies in Lithuanian universities has been an objective for the present study. A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education Thedataforthisstudywerecollectedintwostages.Stageonewerecollectingdatafromanalysisof literature about quality dimensions of students perception in higher education. This provided the background informationrequiredindevelopingtheinstrumentforthisstudy.Thedimensionsmodelofhighereducation quality from the students perception is based on the scientific studies in this theme (Hill, 1995; Joseph, 1997; Hill,Lomas,Macgregor,2003;Lagrosen,Hashemi,Leitner,2004).Thesecondstagewastoadapttheoretic modeltoLithuanianhighereducationcontext.Thefocusgroupinterviewswereconductedwithstudents.In ordertomakethestudymanageable,itwaschosensomelimitations.Firstlimitationisthatviewinginthe higher education like in the service sector. Second limitation is that students are the main customers of higher educationservice.Thirdlimitationisthatstudentsrequirementsandneedsarethereferenceofhigher educationqualityfromstudentsperception.Fourthlimitationisthatinstudywillbediscussedonlyabout process dimensions (Ghobadian et al., 1994) because students are participate in it constantly.The SERVQUAL satisfaction / expectation survey instrument initially introduced five determinants of service quality, the so-called RATER dimensions (Parasuraman et al., 1991): (1) Reliability, (2) Assurance, (3)Tangibles,(4)Empathy,(5)Responsiveness,thisstudyusesthesefivedeterminantsasthebasisofthe highereducationqualitydimensionsmodelfromstudentsperceptions.Combiningdifferentfindingsfrom reviewedliteraturetheseservicedimensionsweregeneralizedtothespecifichighereducationquality dimensionsfromstudentsperceptions:(1)Reliabilityconsistsfrom(1a)Studyandlabourmarket compatibility,(1b)Didacticsandstudentsneedscompatibility,(1c)Learningoutcomes,(2)Assurance determinantsare(2a)Teachersdidacticalcompetence,(2b)Administrationstaffcompetenceand(2c) Universitycontactswithsocialpartners,(3)Tangiblesconsistsfrom(3a)Studyfacilitiesand(3b)Student lifefacilities,(4)Empathy(4a)Meetingtheneedsofthestudents,(5)Responsivenessconsistsfrom(5a) Communicationwithteachers,and(5b)Communicationwithadministrationstaff(Table1).Atheoretical model of student perception to the higher education quality dimensions was developed based on the results from a literature review. Adapted model for measuring studies quality consists of dimensions and indicators. Accordingthedimensionsandindicatorssystemanoriginalquestionnairewasdesignedtomeasureboth students expectations (forecast) and perceptions (what actually happens) of a higher education quality.Table 1. The model of higher education quality dimensions from students perception General service quality dimensions by SERVQUAL Higher education quality dimensions from students' perception (1a) Study and labour market compatibility (1b) Students participation in self-government (1c) Didactics and students needs compatibility (1d) Learning outcomes (1) Reliability (1e) Assessment of students knowledge (2a) Teachers didactical competence (2b) Administration staff competence(2) Assurance (2c) University contacts with social partners (3a) Study facilities (3) Tangibles (3b) Student life facilities (4a) Meeting the needs of the students (4b) Student self-fulfilment(4) Empathy (4c) Student individual improving (5a) Communication with teachers (5) Responsiveness (5b) Communication with administration staff 584ISSN 1822-6515ISSN 1822-6515 EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15 In order to examine the underlying structure of the criterions and define a workable set of dimensions focusgroupinterviewswithstudentswerecarriedout.Therespondentswereaskedtocommenteach questionnairestageandarguewhyitisimportantornotimportantforhim.Thestudentsweregiven question: What does quality education mean to you? The comments were collated and collapsed to themes according dimensions blocks. In this way were found some new higher education dimensions and criterions which are important for Lithuanian students. A couple of criterions were mentioned as not necessary. So the focusgroupinterviewsprovidedasetofpossiblecomponentsofhighereducationquality.Ahigher education dimensions from students perception model was developed (Table 1).Conclusions Qualityinhighereducationcanbetotallyensuredifaneducationalinstitutioncaninvolveand empowerallitsmembersinfunctioning,carryoutcontinuousimprovementindifferentaspectsofinternal process,andsatisfytherequirements,needs,andexpectationsofitsstakeholders.Studentsnoware recognisedasthemainstakeholderinstudyprocess.Exploringthestudentsattitudestovariousaspectsof higher education and its quality, it is appropriate to specify the dimensions of study quality. In this study the dimensions of study quality from the students perception specified and the model on research methodology decisions concerning the dimensions of study quality by highlighting the students perception characteristics established. Studyqualitydependsontheestimatorrole(student,lecturer,administrativepersonnel,employers, etc.), institution factors (personnel qualification, study programs and model adaptation for the needs students andemployers,studyprocessflexibility,inventoryandfinancialsupportforstudents),publicfactors (institutionreputation,image,ratingposition),andindividualfactors(attitudestostudy,lecturersand university fellows, expectations to studies and its fulfilment level).Thestudyqualitydimensionsfromstudentsperceptionconsistofthefollowingcomponents:study andlabourmarketcompatibility,studentsparticipationinself-government,didacticsandstudentsneeds compatibility,learningoutcomes,assessmentofstudentsknowledge,teachersdidacticalcompetence, administrationstaffcompetence,universitycontactswithsocialpartners,studyfacilities,studentlife facilities,studentself-fulfilment,meetingtheneedsofthestudents,communicationwithteachers,and communication with administration staff. Theestablisheddimensionsmodelcanprovideacomprehensiveframeworkforconceptualizingand understanding higher education quality from students perspective. The conceptual framework proposed for quality dimensions in higher education from students perspective provides a basis for the measurement and, consequently, improvement of quality in this environment. It is based on a study of possible interpretations ofqualitydimensionsinliteratureaswellasreviewingstudentsopinion.Astudents expectations/perceptions of higher education dimensions model to measure service quality in education can be used to track performance over a period of time, as well as a current diagnostic tool. The latter could be quiteeffectiveatidentifyingpossibleareasofconcernbeforetheybecomeproblemsthatcouldleadto dissatisfaction.References 1.Barnett, R. (1992). Improving Higher Education. SRHE/Open University Press, Buckingham. 2.Berry, L.L., Parasuraman, A. (1991). Marketing Services Competing through Quality. The Free Press, New York, NY. 3.Cheong Cheng, Y., Ming Tam, W. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 2231. 4.Doherty, D. G. (2008). On quality in education. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 255-265. 5.Doherty, D. H. (1994). Can we have a unified theory of quality? Higher Education Quarterly, vol. 48, no.4, pp.240-55. 6.Douglas, J., McClelland, R., Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 16, no. 1, p. 19-35. 7.Garvin, D.A. (1987). Competing on the eight dimensions of quality. Harvard Business Review, vol. 65 no. 6, p.p. 101-9.8.Ghobadian,A., Speller S., Jones, M. (1994). Service quality: concepts and models. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 43-66.585ISSN 1822-6515ISSN 1822-6515 EKONOMIKA IR VADYBA: 2010. 15ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT: 2010. 15 9.Green,D.(1994).Whatisqualityinhighereducation?Concepts,policyandpractice.WhatisQualityinHigher Education, pp. 3-20. 10.Gronroos,C.(2000).ServiceManagementandMarketing.ACustomerRelationshipManagementApproach. Wiley, Chichester. 11.Grundey,D.(2008).TQMinuniversitystudies:QualityassessmentandqualityassuranceinaLithuanian University. Transformations in Business & Economics, 7(2), 216-235. 12.Gummesson,E.(1990).Servicequalityaholisticview.ServiceQuality.MultidisciplinaryandMultinational Perspectives, Lexington Books. 13.Harvey, L., Green D. (1993). Defining Quality. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 18, no.1, pp. 9-34. 14.Hill,F.M.(1995).Managingservicequalityinhighereducation:theroleofthestudentasprimaryconsumer. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 10-21. 15.Hill, Y., Lomas L., MacGregor, J. (2003). Students perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 15-20. 16.Johnston,R.(1995).Thedeterminantsofservicequality:satisfiersanddissatisfiers.InternationalJournalof Service Industry Management, vol.6, no.5, pp. 53-71. 17.Joseph, M., Joseph, B. (1997). Service quality in education: a student perspective. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 15-21. 18.Juran, J.M., Gryna, F.M. (1988). Jurans Quality Control Handbook. 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 19.Lagrosen,S.,Seyyed-Hashemi,R.,Leitner,M.(2004).Examinationofthedimensionsofqualityinhigher education. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 61-69. 20.Lehtinen,U,Lehtinen,I.(1991).Twoapproachestoservicequalitydimensions.TheServiceIndustriesJournal, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 287-303.21.Lentner,C.(2007).Thecompetitivenessofhungarianuniversity-basedknowledgecentresineuropeaneconomic and higher education area. Transformations in Business & Economics 6(2): 87-99. 22.McElwee, G., Redman, T. (1993). Upward appraisal in practice. Education and Training, vol. 35 no. 2, pp. 27-31.23.Oldfield, M., Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in UK university business and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 85-95. 24.Owlia,M.S.,AspinwallE.M.(1996).Aframeworkforthedimensionsofqualityinhighereducation.Quality Assurance in Education, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 12-20. 25.Parasuraman, A, Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality measuring consumers perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, vol. 64, no. 1, p.p. 12-24. 26.Peters, T.J., Waterman, R.H. (1982). In Search of Excellence. Harper & Row, New York, NY. 27.Savickien,I.(2006).Prioritiesofhighereducationqualityimprovement:studentsandteachersattitude.The Quality of Higher Education, no.3, pp. 10-18.28.Savickien,I..,Pukelis,K.(2004).Institutionalqualityassessmentofhighereducation:dimensionscriteriaand indicators. The Quality of Higher Education, no.1, pp. 23-32. 29.Srikanthan,G.,Dalrymple,J.(2003).Developingalternativeperspectivesforqualityinhighereducation.The International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 126-36. 30.Staskeviciute,I.&Ciutiene,R.(2008).ProcessesofUniversityOrganizationalIntelligence:EmpiricalResearch. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(5): 65-71. 31.Staskeviciute, I. & Neverauskas, B. (2008). The Intelligent University's Conceptual Model. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(4): 53-58. 32.Stukalina,Y.(2008).Howtopreparestudentsforproductiveandsatisfyingcareersintheknowledge-based economy:Creatingamoreefficienteducationalenvironment.TechnologicalandEconomicDevelopmentof Economy 14(2): 197-207. 33.Stukalina,Y.(2010).UsingQualityManagementProceduresinEducation:ManagingtheLearner-Centered Educational Environment. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16(1): 75-93. 34.Williams, J. (2002). Student Satisfaction: a British model of effective use of student feedback in quality assurance andenhancement.14thInternationalConferenceonAssessmentandQualityinHigherEducationVienna,24-27 July 2002, 11, http://www0.bcu.ac.uk/crq/presentations/vienna2002james.pdf. (2010 01 20). 35.Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L. (1990). Delivering Quality Service: Balancing Customer Perceptions and Expectations. The Free Press, New York, NY. 586