The Quality Characteristics of Education Services

(1)

Education Services Quality Assessment

Adrian Stancu

Universitatea Petrol-Gaze din Ploieşti, Bd. Bucureşti 39, Ploieşti e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract

This article presents different definitions of service quality and the quality characteristics of education services (the teaching method of subjects matters used by teachers, teachers’ professional qualification, teachers’ interest, the type of information conveyed by teachers, the communications between teachers and students and the education institution’s technical-material ground). Moreover, this paper contains an assessment model of education services quality and an application for a better understanding of its workability.

Key words: services quality, the quality characteristics of education services, assessment model of education services quality

The Quality Characteristics of Education Services

The International Organization for Standardization defines quality as: “the aptitude of totality characteristics to meet the needs and expectations of customers”. [9, 11]

The product quality and the service quality relate to meeting customers’ needs, and the last one more specific with “perceived service quality” in order to understand consumers. [2, 11]

For C.A. Grönroos and A. Parasuraman the perceived quality of services represents the difference between customers’ expectation and their perceptions of the actual services received.

[6, 11, 12]

K.D. Hoffman and J.E. Bateson define service quality as an attitude “formed by a long-term, overall evaluation of a performance”.[8, 11]

A.B. Win and K.S. Cameron present seven approaches to definitions of quality in higher education literature: resource-based, content-based, outcomes-based, value-based, productivity- based, constituency-based, and reputation-based (see Table 1). [1, 16]

The quality characteristics of education services determined through a quality marketing research, from student’s point of view, are the following:

o The teaching method of subject matters used by teachers;

o Teachers’ professional qualification;

o Teachers’ interest;

o The type of information conveyed by the teachers;

(2)

o The communication between teachers and students;

o The education institution’s technical-material ground.

Table 1.Major Approaches to Quality in Higher Education Literature

Approach Definition Example

Resource Resource quality refers to those commodities, which are inputs to the institution and are used in its various functions and activities [13]

Human intellectual, physical, financial resources

Content Content quality refers to the excellence of an institution in terms of what it teaches [3]

Exposure to liberal arts and Sciences

Outcomes Outcome quality focuses on the conformity with mission specifications and global achievement [4]

Student/alumni achievement Value-added Value-added quality view of quality refers to the

educational impact of the institution on its students and faculty members [3]

Difference between outcomes to inputs

Productivity Productivity view of quality refers to those institutions that can ‘do more with less’– those that are more efficient [7]

Ratio of outputs to inputs

Constituency Constituency-based quality focuses of the needs of an institution’s users - “a social service station”

[17]

Satisfaction of students, parents, alumni, faculty, donors, community, government etc.

Reputation Reputation view of quality refers to broad name- brand recognition [10]

Ranking and ratings

Source: Win, A. B., Cameron, K. S. Organizational Quality: An Examination of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Framework. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39, No.5, 1998, pag.491-512

Assessment Model of Education Services Quality

To evaluate education services quality the author propose the following model, which takes on the above-mentioned quality characteristics of education services:

ITG CPS

TIC PI

PP

TM PP K PI K TIC K CPS K ITG K

K TM

Q^ES

= × + × + × + × + × + ×

(1)

where:

QES – denotes the education service quality;

TM – denotes the teaching method of subject matters used by teachers;

KTM – denotes the weighting of the teaching method of subjects matters used by teachers;

PP – denotes teachers’ professional qualification;

KPP – denotes the weighting of the teachers’ professional qualification;

PI – denotes teachers’ interest;

KPI – denotes the weighting of the teachers’ interest;

TIC – denotes the type of information convey by teachers;

KTIC – denotes the weighting of the type of information convey by teachers;

CPS – denotes the communications between teachers and students;

KCPS – denotes the weighting of the communications between teachers and students;

(3)

ITG – represents the education institution’s technical-material ground;

KITC – denotes the weighting of the education institution’s technical-material ground.

It is necessary to observe the following rule:

1

6

1

å =

= i

Ki (2)

The level of the six characteristics isn’t calculated as a ratio between the obtained values and the reference values, but using the Likert scale, with five points (Fig.1).

Very Poor Poor Neither Poor nor Good Good Very Good

1 2 3 4 5

Fig. 1. Likert Scale

Source: Evans, J.R., Lindsay, M.W.The Management and Control of Quality,Sixth Edition, Thomson South Western, 2005, p.177.

Both the level of education quality characteristics and the importance multipliers are provided through the information given by questionnaires or other data-acquisition methods, for each research.

The result obtained by reckoning QES will be a number between 1 and 5, expressed in quality points, which represents the students’ evaluation regarding education services quality, provided by the studied educational organization, at a given moment, and which can be charted.

The proposed model has the advantage that, on the first hand, every time it is calculated the quality characteristics are hierarchically ranked taking into account the interviewees, allowing for a possible change, and the outcome makes available comparisons linking the services quality of numerous education institutions, on the other hand.

Example for Assessment Model of Education Services Quality

To demonstrate the workability of previous model, the author proposes to assess the university’s education services quality, using an 80 student’s sample.

It is necessary to follow two steps:

1) Establishing the students’ evaluation of quality characteristics of education services.

Table 2 gives the students’ evaluation of quality characteristics of education services.

For quality characteristics there were used the following abbreviations:

C1 – denotes the teaching method of subject matters used by teachers;

C2 – denotes teachers’ professional qualification;

C3 – denotes teachers’ interest;

C4 – denotes the type of information convey by teachers;

C5 – denotes the communications between teachers and students;

C6 – denotes the education institution’s technical-material ground;

(4)

Table 2. Students’ evaluation of quality characteristics of education services

Quality characteristics

Very Poor Poor

Neither Poor nor

Good

Good Very

Good TOTAL

1 quality point

2 quality points

C1 - 5 17 49 9 80

C2 - 2 10 52 16 80

C3 1 6 20 45 8 80

C4 - 4 19 50 7 80

C5 2 8 48 19 3 80

C6 3 9 51 15 2 80

TOTAL 6 34 165 230 45 480

Table 2 shows that the students’ large majority assess education services quality like “Neither Poor nor Good” to “Good” and fewer “Very Good”, “Poor” or “Very Poor”.

The level of the six quality characteristics is calculated using the information from Table 2 and according to the formula (3):

å å

=

×

=

₅

1 5

1

i ij i

ij ij j

r r p

QL (3)

where:

QLj – denotes the quality level of the characteristic j;

pij – denotes the number ofi points assigned to characteristicj;

rij – denotes the number of respondents which assignedi point to characteristicj.

+ Þ + +

= +

× Þ +

× +

= × Þ

×

= å

å

=

80 5 196 51 10 0 80

9 5 49 4 17 3 5 2 0 1

1 5 1

1 1 5

1 1 1

1 QL QL

r r p QL

i i I

i i

points quality 775

. 80 3

302

1

1= ÞQL =

QL

+ Þ +

+

= +

× Þ +

× +

= × Þ

×

=

å å

=

80

80 208 30 4 0 80

16 5 52 4 10 3 2 2 0 1

1 5 2

1 2 5

1

2 2

2 QL QL

r r p QL

i i I

i i

points quality 025

. 80 4

322

1

2= ÞQL =

QL

(5)

+ Þ + +

= +

× Þ +

× +

= × Þ

×

= å

å

=

80 40 180 60 12 1 80

8 5 45 4 20 3 6 2 1 1

1 5 3

1 3 5

1 3 3

3 QL QL

r r p QL

i i I

i i

points quality 6625

. 80 3

293

1

3= ÞQL =

QL

+ Þ +

+

= +

× Þ +

× +

= × Þ

×

= å

å

=

80 35 200 57 8 0 80

7 5 50 4 19 3 4 2 0 1

1 5 4

1 4 5

1

4 4

4 QL QL

r r p QL

i i I

i i

points quality 750

. 80 3

300

4

4= ÞQL =

QL

+ Þ + +

= +

× Þ +

× +

= × Þ

×

= å

å

=

80 15 76 144 16 2 80

3 5 19 4 48 3 8 2 2 1

5 5 5

1 5 5

5 QL QL

r r p QL

i i I

i i

points quality 1625

. 80 3

253

1

5= ÞQL =

QL

+ Þ + +

= +

× Þ +

× +

= × Þ

×

= å

å

=

80 10 60 153 18 3 80

2 5 15 4 51 3 9 2 3 1

6 5 6

1 6 5

1 6 6

6 QL QL

r r p QL

i i I

i i

points quality 050

. 80 3

244

4

6= ÞQL =

QL

The level of quality characteristics of education services is charted in Figure 2.

(6)

Fig.2. The level of quality characteristics of education services

3,775 4,025

3,662 3,750

3,162 3,050

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500

The te a c hing m etho d o f s ubjec t m a tters

us ed by pro fes s o rs

P ro fe s s o rs ’ pro fes s io na l qua lifica tio n

P ro fes s o rs ’ inte re s t

The type o f info rm a tio n c o nve y by pro fe s s o rs

The c o m m unic atio ns

be twee n pro fes s o rs and

s tudents

The educa tio n ins titutio n’s

te chnica l- m a te ria l gro und Educati on qual ity characte risti cs

Q uali ty Poi nts

Figure 2 shows that the “Teachers’ professional qualification” has the highest level of the quality characteristics (4.025 quality points), being followed by “The teaching method of subject matters used by teachers” (3.775 quality points), “The type of information conveyed by teachers” (3.750 quality points), “Teachers’ interest” (3.662 quality points), “The communications between teachers and students” (3.162 quality points) and the lowest is “The education institution’s technical-material ground” (3.050 quality points).

2) Establishing the students’ appreciations of the weighting of quality characteristics of education services.

Table 3 presents the weighting of the quality characteristics of education services, which result from centralization of the questionnaires.

Table 3. The weighting of the quality characteristics of education services Quality

charact.

Students’ appreciations of the weighting of quality characteristics

Sj Kj

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

C1 - - - 5 22 53 768 0.2094

C2 - - - 2 26 49 3 693 0.1889

C3 - - - 3 23 50 4 - 615 0.1677

C4 - - - 3 24 51 2 - 612 0.1668

C5 - - - - 5 25 48 2 - - 527 0.1437

C6 - - - 6 19 51 4 - - - 453 0.1235

TOTAL 3668 1

To calculate the sums of notes belong to each quality characteristic is use the following formula:

å

=

×

=

¹⁰

1 i

ij ij

j n o

S (4)

where:

Sj – denotes the sum of notes belong to characteristicj;

(7)

nij – denotesi note of the characteristicj;

oij – denotes the number of respondents which assignedi note to characteristicj.

Þ

× +

×

= Þ

×

= å

= 10

1

1 1 1

1

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 5 9 22 10 53

i

i o S

n S

768 530

198

40 ¹

1= + + ÞS =

S

Þ

× +

×

= Þ

×

= å

= 10

1

2 2 2

2

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 2 8 26 9 49 10 3

i

i o S

n S

693 30

441 208

14 ²

2= + + + ÞS =

S

Þ

× +

×

= Þ

×

= å

= 10

1

3 3 3

3

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 3 7 23 8 50 9 4 10 0

i

i o S

n S

615 36

400 161

18 ³

3= + + + ÞS =

S

Þ

× +

×

= Þ

×

= å

= 10

1

4 4 4

4

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 3 7 24 8 51 9 2 10 0

i

i o S

n S

612 18

408 168

18 ⁴

4= + + + ÞS =

S

Þ

× +

×

= Þ

×

= å

= 10

1

5 5 5

5

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 5 5 6 25 7 48 8 2 9 0 10 0

i

i o S

n S

527 16

336 150

25 ⁵

5= + + + ÞS =

S

Þ

× +

×

= Þ

×

= å

= 10

1

6 6 6

6

1 0 2 0 3 0 4 6 5 19 6 51 7 4 8 0 9 0 10 0

i

i o S

n S

453 28

306 95

24 6

6= + + + ÞS =

S

Setting out the weighing of the quality characteristics of education services is according to the formula (5):

å

=

₆

1 j

j j j

S

K S (5)

where:

Kj – denotes the weighing of the characteristicj;

(8)

Sj – denotes the sum of notes belong to characteristicj.

2094 . 3668 0

768

1 6 1

1 1

1

= Þ = Þ =

å

=

K K

S K S

j j

1889 . 3668 0

693

2 6 2

1 2

2

= Þ = Þ =

å

=

K K

S K S

j j

1677 . 3668 0

615

3 6 3

1 3

3

= Þ = Þ =

å

=

K K

S K S

j j

1668 . 3668 0

612

4 6 4

1 4

4

= Þ = Þ =

å

=

K K

S K S

j j

1437 . 3668 0

527

5 6 5

1 5

5

= Þ = Þ =

å

=

K K

S K S

j j

1235 . 3668 0

453

6 6 6

1 6

6

= Þ = Þ =

å

=

K K

S K S

j j

Figure 3 shows the weighting of quality characteristic of education services.

Fig. 3.The weighing of quality characteristic of education services 21%

19%

17%

14%

12%

T he teaching method of subject matt ers used by t eachers

T eachers’ professional qualification

T eachers’ int erest

T he type of information conveyed by teachers T he communicat ions between t eachers and student s T he education inst it ut ion’s t echnical-material ground

(9)

The biggest weighing in quality appreciation is the “The teaching method of subject matters used by teachers” (21%), being followed by “Teachers’ professional qualification” (19%),

“Teachers’ interest” (17%), “The type of information convey by teachers” (17%), “The communications between teachers and students” (14%) and “The education institution’s technical-material ground” (12%) (see Figure 3).

For assessing the education services quality, we use the formula (1), the level of quality characteristics determined ona) step and the information from Table 3.

Þ

× +

×

=

TM K^TM PP K^PP PI K^PI TIC K^TIC CPS K^CPS ITG K^ITG Q^ES

1235 . 0 05 . 3 1437 . 0 1625 . 3

1668 . 0 750 . 3 1677 . 0 6625 . 3 1889 . 0 025 . 4 2094 . 0 775 . 3

ES

× +

+

× +

×

=

Q

Þ +

+ +

= 0 . 790485 0 . 7603225 0 . 6142012 0 . 6255 0 . 4544512 0 . 376675

QES

points quality 622

. 3 6216349

.

3

ES

= Þ

Q

@

Q

The assessment of education quality characteristics of the analyzed university is 3.622 quality points, which can be compared with the one from the previous period of time or with data about other universities. In compliance with Likert Scale this value is between “Neither Poor nor Good” and “Good”.

References

1. A n y a m e l e , S. C. -Institutional Management In Higher Education - A Study of Leadership Approaches to Quality Improvement in University Management – Nigerian and Finnish Cases, University of Helsinki, Department of Education,Research Report 195, Helsinki, 2004, pag. 76-77 2. A r n a u l d E. J., P r i c e , L. L., Z i n k h a n , G. M. -Consumers, New York, Mc-Graw-Hill

Higher Education, 2002

3. A s t i n, A. -Achieving Educational Excellence, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985

4. B o g u e , E. G., S a u n d e r s , R. L. -The Evidence for Quality: Strengthening the Tests of Academic and Administrative Effectiveness, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1992

5. E v a n s , J.R., L i n d s a y , M. W. - The Management and Control of Quality, Sixth Edition, Thomson South-Western, 2005, pag.177

6. G r ö n r o o s , C. A - Service quality model and its marketing implications,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24 (1), Winter, 1984, pag.36 -44

7. H i n e s , E. R. - Higher Education and State Governments: Renewed Partnership, Cooperation, or Competition?ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, No. 5 College Station. Texas: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988

8. H o f f m a n , K. D., B a t e s o n , J. E. -Essentials of Service Marketing: Concepts, Strategies, and Cases,(2nd. Ed.). Australia: South Western Thompson Learning, 2001, pag. 324

9. ISO 9000:2000,Quality management systems - Fundamentals and vocabulary

10. M c G u i r e , J. The Efficient Production of Reputation by Prestige Research Universities in the United States,Journal of Higher Education, 1988, pag. 59-367

11. N o r K h a l i d a h, A. -Service Quality Dimensions: A Study on Various Sizes of Grocery Retailers – A conceptual Paper, Faculty of Business Administration, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak, Kelana Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia, Proceeding of IBBC 2004, pag. 633-642

12. P a r a s u r a m a n , A., Z e i t h a m l , V. A., B e r r y , L. L. A - Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research,Journal of Marketing, 49, Fall, 1985, pag.41-50

(10)

13. S c h m i d t l e i n , F. A.Quality: How Do Higher Education Leaders Define It? The Planning Process Perspective, St Louis: Association for the Study of Higher Education, 1988

14. S t a n c i u , I. -Qualytology. The Science of Commodities, Renaissance Publishing, Bucharest, 2004 15. S t a n c i u , I., P ă s ă r i l ă , O., M i l i t a r u , C., I a c o b , A., C r ă c i u n , C.Qualymeter,

University Publishing House, Bucharest, 2004

16. W i n , A.B., C a m e r o n , K. S.Organizational Quality: An Examination of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Framework. Research in Higher Education, Vol. 39, No.5, 1998, pag. 491-512 17. W o l f , R.P.The Idea of the University, New Jersey, Bacon Press, 1992

Evaluarea calităţii serviciilor de învăţământ

Rezumat

Acest articol prezintă diferite definiţii ale calităţii serviciilor şi caracteristicile de calitate ale serviciilor de învăţământ (modul de predare a disciplinelor de către cadrele didactice, pregătirea profesională a cadrelor didactice, interesul manifestat de cadrele didactice, natura informaţiilor transmise de cadrele didactice, comunicarea dintre cadrele didactice şi studenţi, baza tehnico-materială de care dispune instituţia de învăţământ superior). De asemenea, lucrarea conţine un model de evaluare a calităţii serviciilor de învăţământ, precum şi o aplicaţie, în vederea unei mai bune înţelegeri a utilităţii acestuia.