Ensuring the competitiveness of

knowledge as the fourth mission of higher

educationStudent satisfaction and expectations in a service

marketing approach in the Hungarian higher education

László Horváth - horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.huEötvös Loránd University

Institute of Education, Doctoral School of Education

1st Central European Higher Education ConferenceBudapest, 29th January 2015

Theoretical background

• Knowledge economy poses different expectations on higher education

institutions emphasize different functions to adapt (Deiaco, Hughes and

McKelves, 2012)

• Decreasing funds, massification labor market needs, applicable

knowledge (Poór, Bencsik, Fekete, Majó and László, 2008)

• Quality management, performance management (Halász, 2010)

new mission: ensuring knowledge competitiveness (Zhang and Liao, 2010)

• Education as a service (Polónyi, 2013)

challenge: understand the needs and expectations of customers and

satisfy them (Wilson, Zeithaml, Bitner and Gremler, 2012)

• Growing expectations: accountability, accreditation (Teichler, 2014), brand

management (Shin, 2014), rankings (Fábri, 2009)

• Multiple stakeholders (Kotler and Fox, 1985)

• Competitive higher education (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Barakonyi, 2009)

• Student satisfaction is an important quality aspect (Cerri, 2012; Foropon,

Seiple and Kerbache, 2013; etc.) – SERVQUAL (expectations and perceived

satisfaction)

• Gap model of service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988) in higher

education (Rajasekhar, Muninarayanappa and Reddy, 2009)

Results

Suggestions

Methodology

Summary

Aims

Aims of the research:To explore the interpretations of quality in Hungarian higher

education regarding student expectations and satisfaction using the

GAP-model of service quality.

Research questions:1. Interpreting higher education as service what is the main

output, who are the main client and how is the student

defined?

2. What are the main expectations of students and how can we

differentiate them regarding quality higher education? Are

these expectations met?

3. What are the differences between student expectations

and the perception of higher education leaders about

these?

4. What can be the content of a psychological contract

between students and higher education institutions regarding

expectations and obligations?

Results

Suggestions

Methodology

Summary

Aims

Hypotheses:• Higher education leaders consider

1. the graduates as the output of higher education

2. the employer and the state as main clients

3. students based on the commodity-metaphor

• Fee-paying students

4. expectations are dominated by elements regarding quality of

education

5. think that they have a lower return on investment in their

education compared to state-funded students

6. Students consider themselves alongside the consumer-metaphor

7. Gap 1 and Gap 5 will be notable in the GAP model.

8. Students can be segmentated alongside their expectations and

obligations can be assigned to these groups. This relationship can

be interpreted with the term of pyschological contract.

Results

Suggestions

Aims

Summary

Methodology

Sample and toolsPopulation:

• Hungarian higher education students

• Leaders of Hungarian higher education institutions

Sample selection: based on access, snowball method

Tool: online survey

Student survey:

• General data

• Expectations and their fullfilment, return on investment + etc. (Davies,

2002; Kandiko and Mawer, 2013; Tan and Kek, 2004; Eagle and Brennan, 2007;

Pereira and da Silva, 2003)

• Role (metaphor) (Nordensvärd, 2011)

• Obligations (Pietersen, 2014)

Leader survey:

• General data

• Output, client and the definition of student in higher education

• Student expectations

• Student role (metaphor)

Results

Suggestions

Aims

Summary

Methodology

Leader survey (N=117)

The sample

• SZIE (27)

• BCE (26)

• ELTE (19)

• DE (10) …

• Rector (2)

• Vice-rector (8)

• Dean (8)

• Vice-dean (34)

• Head of Institute (19)

• Head of Department (38)

• etc. (8)

• Years in the given

leadership role (mean):

7,54 years

Student survey(N=327)

• ELTE (161)

• SZIE (37)

• BME (36)

• BCE (16)

• SZTE (15) …

• 68,8% female | 31,2% male

• 23,4% graduated | 74,3% still learning

• 33% humanities | 16,5% economics | 9,2%

teacher education …

• 81,7% state-funded/state-scolarship | 18,3% fee-

paying/self-funded

• 89,3% full-time | 10,7% part-time

• 79,2% without student loan

• 39,4% participated in talent development

Methodology

Suggestions

Aims

Summary

1) Perception of leadersservice

6%course

1%

graduates

72%

learning

7%

other

14%

Output

Results

state

11%

employer

24%

student

42%

society

14%

other

9%

Client

Student

roleRector

Vice-

rectorDean

Vice-

dean

Head of

Inst.

Head of

Dep.

Commodity(α=0,603)

Manager(α=0,626)

Consumer(α=0,473)

H1:

H2: ?

H3: ?

Methodology

Suggestions

Aims

Summary

2) Hypotheses regarding students

Results

H4:

H5: ?

H6: ?

Student expectations

• Partnership

• Growth

• Quality of teaching and learning

• Labor market relevance

• Support system

• Comfort

• Flexibility

Principal component analysis

(varimax):

• KMO=0,771 (p<0,001)

• 7 principal components: 60%

partnership growth quality relevance support comfort flexibility

state-funded fee-paying

ROI

Funding

(1-self; 0-state)

r = - 0,112*

p = 0,044

Cluster 1 Consumer

Cluster 2 Commodity

Cluster 3 Manager

Cluster 4 Consumer

Methodology

Suggestions

Aims

Summary

3) Gap-model and segmentation

H7:

H8:

ExpectationsPerception of

leaders

Student

expectationsGap 1

Improve my analytical skills 2,71 3,36 -0,65

Improve my ability to work in teams 2,45 3,02 -0,57

To be preapared for life long learning 2,59 3,05 -0,47

Improve my communication skills 2,88 3,34 -0,46

Available and extensive library 2,72 3,15 -0,43

…

Gap Mean: -0,18

Results

Methodology

Suggestions

Aims

Summary

3) Gap-model and segmentation

H7:

H8:

ExpectationsStudent

expectations

Student

satisfactionGap 5

Competent teachers who can clearly

communicate complex ideas.3,82 2,91 0,91

Flexibility in offered courses. 3,40 2,42 0,98

To be prepared for the labor market 3,65 2,29 1,36

Timely accurate and precise

information3,78 2,41 1,37

…

Gap Mean: 0,63

Results

Methodology

Suggestions

Aims

Summary

3) Gap-model and segmentation

H7:

Results

1 2 3 4

Important needs comfort, flexibility relevance, flexibility quality, relevancequality, support,

flexibility

Not important

needsrelevance, support quality, support flexibility, partnership relevance

Obligations

Complete tasks on

time; don’t be late from

class

-

Obtain educational

materials; complete

tasks on time; inform

teachers

activity in the learning

process; obtain

educational materials

Not obliged

Prepare for every

class; activity in the

learning process

everything Respect office hours

Don’t be late from

class; complete tasks

on time; inform

teachers

Disciplinehumanities, law,

teacher education

humanities, economics,

agricultural

economics, engineering

medical, natural

sciences

humanities, social

sciences

Funding fee-paying fee-paying state-funded state-funded

Graduates graduated still learning still learning graduated

Full-time/part-time part-time full-time part-time part-time

Student loan typical typical mixed not typical

Gender female male mixed male

Talent

managementtypical not typical not typical typical

Metaphor consumer commodity manager consumer

ROI low moderately low moderately high high

Methodology

Results

Aims

Summary

Suggestions

Higher education leaders should reconsider the role of

students alongside the manager metaphor

Reverse the psychological contracts of fee-paying

students: demand accountability for quality, take

responsibility for their investment

Treat the service quality gaps based on the Gap-model

Encourage market research

Improve bottom-up communication

Improve relationship focus

Improve service

Higher education leaders should identify students along the

clusters and develop differentiated strategies to enhance

quality based (but not exclusively) on their needs

Methodology

Results

Aims

Suggestions

Summary

• Higher education leaders consider

1. the graduates as the output of higher education

2. the employer and the state as main clients

3. students based on the commodity-metaphor

• Fee-paying students

4. expectations are dominated by elements regarding quality

of education

5. think that they have a lower return on investment in their

education compared to state-funded students

6. Students consider themselves alongside the consumer-

metaphor

7. Gap 1 and Gap 5 will be notable in the GAP model.

8. Students can be segmentated alongside their expectations

and obligations can be assigned to these groups. This

relationship can be interpreted with the term of pyschological

contract.

??

?

?

References

1. Barakonyi, K. (szerk., 2009): „Bologna Hungaricum” Diagnózis és terápia. Budapest, Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó, 312 p.

2. Cerri, S. (2012): Assessing the quality of higher education services using a modified SERVQUAL scale. Annales

Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 2:664-667.

3. Davies, S. (2002): Marketing in Higher Education: Matching Promises and Reality to Expectations. In: OECD (szerk.):

Responding to Student Expectations. OECD, Paris, 152 p., 103-114. p.

4. Deiaco, E. - Hughes, A. - McKelvey, M. (2012): Universities as strategic actors in the knowledge economy. Cambridge

Journal of Economics, 36:525-541.

5. Eagle, L. - Brennan, R. (2007): Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in

Education. 1:44-60.

6. Fábri Gy. (2009): Ideje újragondolni a felsőoktatási rangsorokat. Felsőoktatási Műhely, 4:13-17. URL:

http://www.felvi.hu/pub_bin/dload/FeMu/2009_04/oldal13_18_fabri.pdf(Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10. 08.)

7. Foropon, C. - Seiple, R. - Kerbache, L. (2013): Using SERVQUAL to Examine Service Quality inthe Classroom: Analyses

of Undergraduate and Executive Education Operations Management Courses. International Journal of Business and

Management, 20:105-116.

8. Halász Gábor (2010): A tanulás minősége a felsőoktatásban: intézményi és nemzeti szintű folyamatok. Kézirat. URL:

http://halaszg.ofi.hu/download/A_study_TANULAS.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10. 07.)

9. Kandiko, C. B. - Mawer, M. (2013). Student Expectations and Perceptions of Higher Education. King’s Learning Institute,

London, 82 p.

10.Kotler, P. - Fox, K. F. A. (1985): Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions. Prentice Hall, New Jearsey, 484 p.

11.Ng, I. C. L. - Forbes, J. (2009): Education as Service: The Understanding of University Experience Through the Service

Logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1:38-64.

12.Nordensvärd, J. (2011): The consumer metaphor versus the citizen metaphor: different sets of roles for students. In:

Molesworth, M. - Scullion, R. - Nixon, E. (szerk.): The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer.

Routledge, London, 264 p., 157-169. p.

References

13.Parasuraman, A. - Zeithaml, V. A. - Berry, L. L. (1988): SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer

perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 1: 12-40.

14.Pereira, M. A. C. - da Silva, M. T. (2003): A Key Question for Higher Education: Who are the customers? Proceedings

of the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, April 4-7, 2003, Atlanta.

15.Pietersen, C. (2014): Negotiating a Shared Psychological Contract with Students. Mediterranean Journal of Social

Sciences, 7:25-33.

16.Polónyi I. (2013): Az aranykor vége. Bezárnak-e a papírgyárak? Budapeset, Gondolat Kiadó, 283 p.

17.Poór J. - Bencsik A. - Fekete I. - Majó Z. és László Gy. (2008): Trendek és tendenciák a magyarországi állami

egyetemek HR–rendszereinek továbbfejlesztése területén. Competitio, 2:115–145. URL:

http://http//www.econ.unideb.hu/userfiles/File/tudomany/competitio/folyoirat/7evfolyam_2szam/07_poor_bencsik_feket

e_majo.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 09. 25.)

18.Rajasekhar, M. - Muninarayanappa, M. - Reddy, S. V. S. (2009): The GAP Model Analysis of Service Quality in Indian

Higher Education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Social Sciences, 2:214-229.

19.Shin, J. C. (2014): The University as an institution of higher learning: evolution or devolution. In: Shin, J. C. - Teichler,

U. (szerk.): The future of the Post-Massified University at the Crossroads. Restructuring Systems and Functions.

Springer, New York, 255 p., 13-28. p.

20.Tan, K. C. - Kek, S. W. (2004): Service Quality in Higher Education Using an Enhanced SERVQUAL Approach. Quality

in Higher Education, 1:17-24.

21.Teichler, U. (2014): Possible Futures for Higher Education: Challenges for Higher Education Research. In: Shin, J. C. -

Teichler, U. (szerk.): The future of the Post-Massified University at the Crossroads. Restructuring Systems and

Functions. Springer, New York, 255 p., 145-166. p.

22.Wilson, A. - Zeithaml, V. A. - Bitner, M. J. - Gremler, D. D. (2012): Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus

Across the Firm. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 608 p.

23.Zhang, J. - Liao, H. (2010): Upgrading knowledge competitiveness is the new mission of higher education. US-China

Education Review, 10:78-86. URL:

http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/7/16/2012/2012071603521048.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10.

09.)

Thank you for your

attention!

László Horváth - horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.huEötvös Loránd University

Institute of Education, Doctoral School of Education