A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL …30003511/... · A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SATISFACTION USING SERVQUAL University education, the world over, …

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONALEDUCATION SATISFACTION USING SERVQUAL

University education, the world over, has undergone significant transformationand reform with respect to higher education systems meeting the growing role ofinformation and communication revolution, and the demand for knowledge, whichrepresent the new challenges of globalisation. These challenges are seen asthreats as well as opportunities for higher education systems around the world.The driving force of globalisation is competition and the international educationmarket has become fiercely competitive with different marketing strategies beingimplemented by educational institutions to attract the growing number of studentsseeking higher education. The objective of this paper is to examine the relationshipbetween the SERVQUAL constructs proposed by Parasuraman et al (1988 &1985) and the country of origin and satisfaction among four cohorts of Asianinternational postgraduate students studying in Australian universities. Countryof origin is recognized as an important predictor of satisfaction and choice inthe international education environment. The data used in this study is derivedfrom a mail survey conducted among international postgraduate students fromChina, India, Indonesia and Thailand studying in five universities in Victoria,Australia. An adapted version of the SERVQUAL instrument was used to collectthe data and was designed to measure the gap between student responses onexpectations and perceptions of the university as a study destination on a sevenpoint bi-polar scale. The responses were sought on 36 statements representingaspects of the operations and services of the university under desired (ideal)expectations of choice and post-choice perceptions. Scales were developed toinvestigate the relationship between the SERVQUAL constructs of reliability,responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles and the country of origin andwere shown to be reliable. Using ANOVA and MANOVA techniques, the studyfound significant differences between country of origin and the SERVQUALconstructs and discusses strategic implications and opportunities for highereducational institutions.

Rodney Arambewela John Hall

INTRODUCTION

University education, the world over, has under gone significanttransformation and reform with respect to higher educationsystems meeting the growing role of information and

communication revolution, and the demand for knowledge, which

Journal of Services Research, Volume 6, Special Issue (July, 2006)© 2006 by Institute for International Management and Technology. All Rights Reserved.

142 A Comparative Analysis

Journal of Services Research, Volume 6, Special Issue (July, 2006)

represent the new challenges of globalisation (Salmi, 2001; Marginson,1998). These challenges are seen as threats as well as opportunitiesfor higher education systems around the world. Drucker (1997) hasboldly predicted the demise of “traditional universities” with thegrowth of open and online universities. The extent to which thesenew learning institutions would impact on campus based teachingand learning is yet to be seen. This challenge, however, has producedsignificant changes in the way that higher educational institutionsoperate. These changes include the emergence of new types ofinstitutions, patterns of financing and governance, curriculum reforms,and technological innovations (Salmi, 2001).

The driving force of globalisation is competition and theinternational education market has become fiercely competitive withdifferent marketing strategies being implemented by educationalinstitutions to attract the growing number of students seeking highereducation. A study by International Development Programs (IDP)Australia estimates that the global demand for international highereducation will grow fourfold to approximately 7.2 million students,by 2025, representing a 5.8% compound growth rate between 2000-2025. According to this study, the major growth will come from theAsia Pacific, accounting for a compound growth rate of 7.8% andover 70% of the world demand. As regional blocks within Asia Pacific,South Asia and East Asia are expected to record the highest growthrates of 8.6% and 8.4% respectively during this period with Chinaand India emerging as two major sources of international students(see Table 1). It is also predicted that a significant increase in foreignstudent enrolments from new sources of origin such as Turkey,Morocco and Iran will contribute to expand the international educationmarket not only in terms of absolute numbers but also in terms ofstudent diversity. In comparison, the demand from traditional countrieslike Europe and the USA is expected to slow down over the years(Bohm et al, 2002).

143 Arambewela, Hall


Table 1: Global Demand for International Higher Education (‘000)

Region 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 Growth (%)* Asia 759 1141 1761 2534 3598 5004 7.8 East Asia 453 698 1059 1565 2319 3389 8.4 South East Asia 148 185 265 356 467 586 5.7 South Asia 110 191 349 501 676 869 8.6 Central Asia 48 67 88 112 136 161 5.0 Africa 169 219 283 362 464 561 4.9 Sub-Sahara 99 127 168 222 295 371 5.4 North Africa 69 92 115 140 168 189 4.1 Middle East 113 143 182 229 286 327 4.3 America 146 167 194 225 260 287 2.7 Europe 568 636 719 804 879 963 2.1 Oceania 8 9 10 12 13 13 2.0 World 1763 2316 3149 4165 5500 7155 5.8

(* Represents Annual Compound Growth Rate 2000-2025)Source: Bohm, Davis, Meares & Pearce (2002), IDP Australia.

From a global perspective, Australia is a small player with around 9%share of the international student market where USA and UK dominatewith nearly 80% market. However, the growth of the internationaleducation market for Australia has been significant since 1986, theyear in which the Federal Government opened Australia’s educationsystem to full-fee paying overseas students. For example during 1998and 1999, the overall growth was over 15% compared to 2% in USA,2.6% in the UK, 8% in Canada and 8.2% in New Zealand (AEI, 2000).

Export of educational services, therefore, is not only a growingexport industry for Australia but also a highly potential source ofrevenue for the country’s economy. The latest estimate has valued theAustralian education exports at $5.7 billion per annum representing anincrease of approximately 18% over 2002 (Nelson, 2004). Studies haverevealed that apart from the pecuniary benefits there are non pecuniarybenefits flowing from the industry including economic and socialimpacts on the Australian economy (Arambewela and Zuhair, 2002,Dixon et al (1998), Peter, 1997, MacKay and Lewis (1995).

Another aspect of the market expansion is the significant growthin the post-graduate sector, though the undergraduate programs stilldominate. Currently international postgraduate students account for25% of all foreign students in higher education and the numbers areexpected to grow significantly with the growth in demand in countriessuch as China and India (Bohm et al, 2002: AEI, 2000).



Driven by the attractiveness of the international education market interms of pecuniary and non pecuniary benefits to the respective institutionsand the country, higher educational institutions, like many other organisationsare concerned with market share, productivity, return on investment andthe quality of services offered to their customers (LeBlanc & Nha, 1997).Service quality, in this context, is acknowledged as a key performancemeasure for excellence in education and a major strategic variable foruniversities as service providers to increase market share (Donaldson andRunciman, 1995), with enduring effects on the institution and the studentsit serves. Student satisfaction is the barometer of service quality in educationand it has attracted greater attention of the higher educational institutionsin their pursuit of competitive advantage. The challenge for the institutionswould be to understand and to address the key sources of student satisfactionin their service delivery initiatives. By addressing relevant service qualityelements important to international students universities are able to improvestudent satisfaction, a key factor contributing to benefits such as studentretention, positive word of mouth communication, and competitiveadvantage (Townley, 2001; McDougall and Levesque, 2000; Guolla, 1999).

The objective of this paper is to examine the relationship between theSERVQUAL constructs proposed by Parasuraman et al (1988,1985, 1991,and 1994) and the country of origin and satisfaction among four cohorts ofAsian international postgraduate students from China, India, Indonesiaand Thailand studying in Australian universities. Country of origin isrecognized as an important predictor of satisfaction and choice in theinternational education environment. The impact of country of origin hasbeen documented in many studies (IDP,1995; Blight, 1995; Duan, 1997;Lawley, 1998).

The student groups selected for this study are from countries thatrepresent 61% of all Asian postgraduate students studying in Australia andhave shown a potential for further growth (Bohm et al, 2002, AEI, 2000).

The theoretical foundation is drawn from Oliver’s (1980, 1996)expectancy-disconfirmation Paradigm and the SERVQUAL expectations-perceptions measurement approach (Parasuraman et al, 1988, 1991 and1994), and the paper analyses the relative satisfaction among differentstudent groups. The analysis examines the relationship between the keyservice quality constructs and student satisfaction scores to establish theimportance of these constructs in explaining students’ satisfaction.



The analysis is also based on the service-recipient paradigm whichacknowledges the principle that education is a service that is experiencedby students and other stakeholders of educational institutions who formjudgments about service delivery performance in terms of its quality, andconsistency, which are basic properties of a service. It supports the notionthat students as the recipients or customers of the service would expecteducational institutions to satisfy their needs (Havarnek and Brodwin, 1998).This paper considers both paradigms to be complementary to each other inexpressing the need for universities to be highly student focused in theirservice delivery.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the current context of services marketing, customer satisfaction isconsidered as a major outcome of marketing activity and serves to linkprocesses, culminating in purchase and consumption with post-purchasephenomena such as attitudinal change, customer retention, repeat purchase,brand loyalty, positive word-of-mouth communication (WOM) andcomplaining behaviour (Harvis et al, 2000; Athiyaman, 2000; Guolla, 1999;Churchill and Suprenant, 1982). A logical extension of the study of servicesmarketing is the evaluation of service quality and its impact on the exchangeof services.

The expectancy-disconfirmation model or its variants remain one ofthe most widely discussed and tested approaches in measuring customersatisfaction (Arambewela, 2003; Bolton et al, 1999; Spreng et al, 1996;Oliver 1996; Parasuraman et al, 1994 and 1985; Tse et al, 1990; Oliver,1980). The model suggests that customer satisfaction is related to the sizeand direction of disconfirmation, which is defined as the difference betweenan individual’s pre-purchase (pre-choice) expectations (or some othercomparison standard) and post-purchase (post-choice) performance of theproduct as perceived by the customer (Tse et al, 1990).

The measurement of service quality has attracted a significant interestamong marketing practitioners and researches over the past two decades(Furrer, et al, 2000). In their pioneering study on service quality,Parasuraman et al (1985) developed the instrument SERVQUAL to measureservice quality. The construct of service quality is defined in terms of‘perceived’ quality - a customers’ judgement about the entity’s overallexcellence or superiority - an attitude that comes from a comparison ofexpectations and perceived performance (Llosa et al, 1998).



Since its introduction, SERVQUAL has been widely acclaimed as amajor contribution to academic and particularly marketing research literature(Furrer et al, 2000). SERVQUAL was originally used to assess customerperceptions of service quality in service and retailing organisations(Parasuraman et al, 1988). It was presented as a synthetic scale with acorrect level of reliability and validity useful in many service situations.SERVQUAL is comprised of two matched scales of 22 items, eachdescribing expectations for a particular service category and then perceptionsof a particular service provider (Bearden and Netemeyer, 1999). Theexpectations are not viewed as predictions (what is likely to happen), butas desires or wants of consumers (what should happen). Both sets of itemsare operationalised using a 7-point bi-polar scale labelled, Strongly Agree(7) to Strongly Disagree (1). Nearly half of the items are worded negativelywith negative wording indicated by (-). The scale produced scores, for thetotal scale and each factor, ranging between minus 6 and plus 7, where thepositive scores are reflected as perceptions exceeding expectations. Thequality of service is assessed through this SERVQUAL score, called thegap score computed by taking the difference for 1 to –7 scales and thenaveraged over the number of items either in the total scale or for eachsubscale (Bearden and Netemeyer, 1999). According to the authors, theservice quality is then the difference between customers’ perceptions andexpectations (P-E) and is given by the following equation.

∑=

−=22

)(221

li

EiPiQ

Where:Q = Perceived service qualityPi = Performance level perceived on attribute i for the delivered service,andEi = Expected performance level on attribute i for the service generally. 22represent the number of questions used.

Parasuraman et al (1988, 1991 and 1994) identified five dimensions ofservice quality. They are tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assuranceand empathy. Tangibility refers to the appearance of physical facilities,equipment, personnel, and communication materials; reliability to the abilityto perform the promised service accurately and dependably; responsiveness



to willingness to assist customers and provide prompt service; assuranceto the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to conveytrust and confidence; and empathy to the caring; and individualised attentiongiven to customers. The authors assert that the SERVQUAL dimensionscan be adapted to different service settings, depending on the nature ofinquiry. The practical application of the measurement approach has beenidentified as one of the major strengths of SERVQUAL over other measures.The other strengths of SERVQUAL have been identified as:l the reliability and validity of the scale in comparing customers’ expec-

tations and perceptions over time;l the ability to compare own SERVQUAL scores against competitors;l the relative importance of the five dimensions in influencing service

quality perceptions;l the potential use of measure in segmenting customers into several

perceived quality segments (eg. High, Medium and Low, and theability to analyse on the basis of (a) demographic (b) psychographic,and (c) other profiles; and

l the practical implications for companies to improve the globalperception of its service quality (Furrer et al, 2000; Llosa et al, 1998).The growing popularity of the SERVQUAL instrument among

marketing practitioners and researchers is seen by the diversity of itsapplication in research pursuits ranging from competitor analysis,segmentation, to customer profiling and covering the services, andmanufacturing industries (Furrer et al, 2000). The major applications,however, were in the service industry. Table 2 shows the leadingresearch using the SERVQUAL instrument, and the areas of itsapplication.



Table 2: Major Applications of SERVQUAL

Areas of application Authors Banking Lassar et al, 2000; Marshall and Smith, 1999; Angur

et al, 1999 Brokerage services Lin and Wei, 1999 Building maintenance Siu et al, 2001 Higher education Engelland et al 2001 and 2000; Comm et al, 2000;

Houston and Rees 1999; Kwan and Ng, 1999; Hampton, 1993; Davis and Allen, 1990.

Information services Jiang et al, 2000; Van, D. et al, 1999; Kettinger and Lee, 1999

Local authority services Wisniewski, 2001; McFadyen et al, 2001; Donnelly and Shiu, 1999).

Market research Donnely et al, 2000 Medical and health care services

Dean, 1999; Curry et al, 1999; Llosa et al, 1998; O’Connor and Bowers, 1990.

Restaurant service Heung et al, 2000 Retailing Metha et al, 2000a, 2000b Shipping Durvasula et al, 1999 Travel services Kayanama and Black, 2000

Despite its popularity, SERVQUAL is criticised on its operational andmeasurement problems. These include the use of P-E difference scoreas a measurement of perceived quality as opposed to performance basedmeasure (Cronin and Taylor, 1994; Carman, 1990), the type ofexpectations eg. desired or adequate, which would provide differentsatisfaction responses (Swan and Tranwick, 1981), the link betweensatisfaction and service quality (Cronin and Taylor, 1994; Teas, 1993)and the number and nature of the dimensions being inappropriate forsome service industries such as product services and “pure” services(Llosa et al, 1998).

However, Parasuraman et al, in 1994, responded to these criticisms byintroducing some adjustments to the scale and its operation. On the issueof a performance based measure in preference to the disconfirmation basedmeasure, argued that although the practice of measuring only perceptionsto determine service quality is widespread, such a practice does notnecessarily support the superiority of a performance based measure. Thisis because measurements that incorporate customer expectations providericher information and have more diagnostic value. Conceding that there isconfusion with regard to the causal relationship between customer



satisfaction and service quality, Parasuraman et al (1994), acknowledgethat recent research evidence support the view that service quality is anantecedent of customer satisfaction. Further, in regard to this type ofcomparison standard for measuring service quality, it is argued that theissue of comparison norms and their interpretation still remains unresolvedand is being examined by many researchers.

The instrument used in the present study is an adaptation of SERVQUALwith refinements addressing the criticisms in the literature.

While the growing interest in student satisfaction research by highereducational institutions have contributed positively to satisfactionresearch in services, the work on post-choice satisfaction in internationaleducation and particularly on international postgraduate students islimited. (Arambewela, 2003, Townley, 2001, Geall, 2000) Most of thepast studies have focused on undergraduate students or individualprograms (DETYA 2000, and 1999; Kwan and NG,1999; Tomovick et al,1996; Halstead et al, 1994, and Burke 1986). The research on postgraduatestudents is also narrow in scope confined to specific issues and providingvery little insight into comparative analysis of the post-choice decisionmaking behaviour of students from different countries of origin(Arambewela, 2003). Another reason for focusing on the overseaspostgraduate students is the continuous growth in enrolment ofinternational students into postgraduate programs as compared todomestic students (Arambewela, 2003, AEI, 2000).

METHODOLOGY

The data used in this study is derived from a mail survey conducted amonginternational postgraduate students from China, India, Indonesia and Thailandstudying in five universities in Victoria. An adapted version of theSERVQUAL instrument was used to collect the data and was designed tomeasure the gap between student responses on expectations and perceptionsof the university as a study destination on a seven point bi-polar scale. Theresponses were sought on 36 statements representing aspects of the operationsand services of the university under desired (ideal) expectations of choiceand post-choice perceptions. The desired expectations are considered tohave a better explanatory power than the predictive expectations used bymany researchers (Spreng et al, 1996). The variables associated with thesestatements were constructed with input from previous studies and focus



group interviews. The methods adopted to determine the importance of thecountry of origin, were means score analysis, MANOVA and ANOVA.

The sampling was aimed at reaching every international postgraduatestudent belonging to the four nationality groups in the universities surveyed.The questionnaires were administered through the International offices ofthe respective universities and mailed out to students using their own studentdatabases. Of the 573 useable responses received, the sample for this studywas reduced to an approximate uniform sample size from each country andeach university, employing a systematic random sampling approach, whichproduced 371 respondents. This was to ensure equality of variance acrossthe student groups for the same variables and reliability and validity ofpredictions (Hair et al, 1995).

The variables used in the instrument were tested for inter-itemreliability and consistency of the questionnaire using Cronbach alpha.

ANOVA is a statistical technique used to determine, on the basis ofone dependent measure, whether samples are from populations withequal means (Hair et al. 1995). It is used to assess group differences ona single metric dependent variable. In this study, ANOVA was employedto estimate the variance between the dependent variable, behavioraloutcome and the independent groups of variables that make up eachof the MONOVA constructs.Four ANOVA models were used in the analysis, as given below.Model 1: Satisfaction = f (Reliability)Model 2: Satisfaction = f (Responsiveness).Model 3: Satisfaction = f (Assurance)Model 4: Satisfaction = f (Empathy)Model 5: Satisfaction = f (Tangibles)

The models test the differences in satisfaction relating to the specificvariables that make up different SERVQUAL constructs. Table 3 showsthe five constructs and the associated variables.

MANOVA

MANOVA is used to assess the group differences across multiple metricdependant variables simultaneously. In this case each of the SERVQUALconstructs was tested separately with regard to country of origin.



RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As shown in Table 3 below, all SERVQUAL variables and constructsshowed very high reliability with co-efficients greater than 0.8. The overallsignificance of the correlation matrix was significant with a p-value of <0.01.

The analysis showed that there is a significant difference betweencountries of origin on all of the SERVQUAL constructs as indicated byMANOVA results. ANOVA test of differences confirmed that all of theparticular variables that make up each of the constructs were alsosignificantly different on the country of origin measure (See Table 3).

Table 3: Reliability of Constructs, MANOVA and ANOVASERVQUAL Constructs and Variables Reliability Manova Anova Reliability .8876 .01 Efficient enrolment processing system .01 Fees that offer good value for money .01 High standard teaching with quality lecturers .01 High standard of lecture material .01 Appropriate and manageable class sizes .01 Student accommodation at a reasonable cost .01 Adequate information available to students via internet .01 Adequate information available to students compared to other universities

.01

Responsiveness .8591 .01 Efficient system to assist with student visas .01 Competitive fees compared to other universities .01 Good access to lecturers .01 Valuable feedback from lecturers .01 Good access to computer labs .01 Process to deal with complaints about inadequacy of services .01 Assurance .8877 .01 High image and prestige as a university within Australia

.01

High image and prestige internationally as a university .01 High image and prestige as a university in the home country .01 Appropriate academic courses and content recognised in home country

.01

Appropriate academic courses with completion times suited student needs

.01

Academic courses and training relevant to future job and career prospects

.01

International student orientation programs as part of student support

.01

Empathy .8851 .01 Good present of students from own country .01 Friendly environment with access to many opportunities for interaction with other student groups

.01

Academic courses and content appropriate to student needs and aspirations

.01

Flexible timetables .01 Overseas agents and consultants who provide appropriate information and guidance

.01

Adequate information and guidance through Australian embassies and other official agents

.01

Counselling services as part of student support .01 Other social activities as part of student support .01 Close working relationship between students and international student advisers to ensure appropriate solution to student problems

.01

Tangibles .8432 .01 Modern and adequate library facilities .05 Good operating hours for library access .01 Modern and adequate computer facilities .01 Student accommodation of a good standard .01 Campus well located with easy access .01



When considering the relative importance of the SERVQUAL constructsto the students from China, India, Indonesia and Thailand, it was evidentthat all constructs were important to all student groups. This was based onthe means score analyses of student expectations on variables formingeach construct. It was however clear that in terms of the degree ofimportance, students from India appeared to place greater importance onthese constructs than other students, while students from China showed arelatively lower degree of importance. Of all SERVQUAL dimensions,students found the tangibles construct as having the greatest impact ontheir overall satisfaction while they considered the empathy construct tohave the least influence on satisfaction. Past research has emphasised theimportance of tangibles in the assessment of academic quality, as universityfacilities provide long and lasting impressions about the quality of theinstitution (Tomovick et al, 1996). In another study, Wakefield and Blodgett(1996) found that inadequate facilities such as library and computer labscontribute to student dissatisfaction, given that students spend a considerableproportion of their time using these facilities. This was supported by Smith,Morey, and Teece (2002). The major concern of students was thatuniversities have not improved or updated these facilities in conjunctionwith the increase in student numbers enrolled in universities. The negativestudent evaluations of such services have a bearing on the perceived qualityof the overall university experience, which should be of concern to universitymanagement. Given that prospective international students may not havethe opportunity to visit the campus before enrolment, universities shouldendeavour to emphasise positive aspects and appealing physical facilitiesthrough promotional material including university websites.

Table 4: Reliability Construct, and Variables: Country ComparisonVariables China India Indonesia Thailand

Efficient enrolment processing system 5.5 6.5 6.3 6.1 Fees that offer good value for money 5.7 6.8 6.1 6.2 High standard teaching with quality lecturers 6.0 6.8 6.5 6.6 High standard of lecture material 5.7 6.7 6.6 6.5 Appropriate and manageable class sizes 5.3 6.5 6.4 6.2 Student accommodation at a reasonable cost 4.8 6.5 6.1 5.9 Adequate information available to students via internet

5.8 6.5 6.1 6.1

Adequate information available to students compared to other universities

5.4 6.3 5.8 6.0

Average 5.5 6.6 6.2 6.2



Table 4 shows the country comparison of the reliability construct andits associated service quality variables. It is evident that students fromIndia showed the highest average score (6.6) for the variables accountingfor the dimension followed by Indonesian (6.2) and Thai (6.2) students.The average score for students from China was lower (5.5) than all otherstudents.

Students from China, India and Thailand found quality of teachingas the most important variable in the reliability construct whileIndonesian students found quality of lecture material to be the mostimportant. Both Chinese and Thai students found reasonable cost ofaccommodation as the least important within this dimension, andstudents from India and Indonesia found the availability of informationto be the least important. Kwan and Ng (1999) in their study on qualityindicators among students from Hong Kong and China, found thatChinese students emphasised the quality of course material as animportant quality variable within the reliability construct, which is incontrast to the findings of this study.

Table 5: Responsiveness Construct, and Variables:Country Comparison

Variables China India Indonesia Thailand Efficient system to assist with student visas 5.5 6.6 6.2 6.0 Competitive fees compared to other universities

5.2 6.4 5.9 6.0

Good access to lecturers 5.7 6.8 6.5 6.4 Valuable feedback from lecturers 5.5 6.7 6.5 6.4 Good access to computer labs 6.1 6.9 6.6 6.4 Process to deal with complaints about inadequacy of services

5.4 6.6 6.2 6.1

Average 5.6 6.7 6.3 6.2

Table 5 shows the service quality variables within the responsivenessconstruct and the comparative average scores indicating the importanceof the variables in forming student satisfaction. All four nationalitiesregard responsiveness as an important factor in student satisfactionwith the Indian students being the most concerned and the Chinese theleast. However, when considering the particular variables that makeup this construct it is interesting to note that the Chinese and Indiangroups rate good access to computer labs as the highest priority whilethe Indonesian and Thai students consider this as the least important.



While the Indian and Thai students rate competitive fees compared to otheruniversities as the highest priority, the Indonesian and Chinese studentsconsider this as the least important.

In developing university responsiveness towards student needs Houstonand Rees (1999) developed the rationale that there must be mutualunderstanding and obligation on the part of both university and students.This is based on the premise that unlike undergraduate students,postgraduates can be, at various times, either customers or co-producerswithin the university system. Postgraduates become actively engaged incontributing to knowledge through research and the learning process whilethey continue to remain customers of university services. In thisenvironment, it would be necessary for universities to address studentrequirements but also to clearly communicate student obligations and theuniversity expectations of the students’ contribution as well.

Table 6 provides a comparison of variables related to the SERVQUALconstruct of assurance in terms of their importance as perceived by stu-dents from four countries of origin.

Table 6: Assurance Construct, and Variables: Country ComparisonVariables China India Indonesia

High image and prestige as a university within Australia

5.8 6.7 6.2

High image and prestige internationally as a university

5.6 6.7 6.2

High image and prestige as a university in the home country

5.4 6.7 6.3

Appropriate academic courses and content recognised in home country

5.5 6.7 6.4

Appropriate academic courses with completion times suited student needs

5.6 6.7 6.4

Academic courses and training relevant to future job and career prospects

6.0 6.9 6.5

International student orientation programs as part of student support

5.4 6.5 6.0

Average 5.6 6.7 6.3

Assurance was as important as other dimensions for students from India,Indonesia and Thailand as evidenced by the high overall average scoresexceeding 6. The overall average score for students from China washowever slightly lower than other national groups.



In terms of the most important variables, students from India andIndonesia found courses relevant to future job and career prospects to bethe most important while the completion times were considered the mostimportant by Chinese and Thai students. This provides an insight intostudents’ personal motivation and orientation towards their studies.

Study outcomes appeared to be the main concern of students and inorder to prepare students for more competitive careers once they graduate,it would be important for universities to foster liaisons with businesscommunity (La Blanc and Nha, 1997) and offer opportunities for localindustry experience either through project work or cooperative employmentprograms.

Although all variables had high scores, on a comparative basis,students from India and Indonesia found student orientation programsto be less important and Chinese students did not consider high imageand prestige of the university in the home country as a key qualityvariable. Interestingly, students from Thailand did not consider therecognition of courses in the home country as very important.

Past research has found that the impact of these variables onsatisfaction differ from one another though the combined effect couldbe very significant (Houston and Rees, 1999; LeBlanc and Nha, 1997;Tomovick et al, 1997).

Table 7 shows the list of variables included in the SERVQUALconstruct of empathy and the comparative average scores reflectingtheir importance in contributing to student satisfaction.

Table 7: Empathy Construct, and Variables: Country Comparison

Variables China India Indonesia Thailand Good presence of students from own country 4.6 4.4 4.9 4.4 Friendly environment with access to many opportunities for interaction with other student groups

5.4 6.3 5.9 5.9

Academic courses and content appropriate to student needs and aspirations

6.0 6.8 6.6 6.3

Flexible timetables 5.4 6.4 5.9 5.9 Overseas agents and consultants who provide appropriate information and guidance

4.9 6.2 5.9 5.6

Adequate information and guidance through Australian embassies and other official agents

5.1 6.3 6.1 5.7

Counselling services as part of student support 5.2 6.5 6.1 5.9 Other social activities as part of student support 5.2 6.4 5.7 5.9 Close working relationship between students and international student advisers to ensure appropriate solution to student problems

5.4 6.6 6.1 5.9

Average 5.2 6.2 5.9 5.7



As in other constructs, all four nationalities regarded empathy as animportant factor in student satisfaction. Students from India were the mostconcerned while students from China appeared to indicate a comparativelylesser importance to the construct as contributing to satisfaction. The mostimportant finding was that all students agreed on the need for academiccourses and course content appropriate to student needs and aspirations.

The close working relationship between students and internationalstudent advisers was considered as the most important variablecontributing to satisfaction by all student groups. Students from Indiaregistered the highest average score followed by students fromIndonesia, Thailand and China. The relevance of the empathy constructin service quality can be justified on the basis that international studentsoperate in a totally new environment and culture and as such theywould expect knowledgeable and qualified faculty members to deliverthe services. It would be necessary for universities to ensure thatcourteous and caring faculty staff and mentors are available forconsultations as and when they require assistance to cope with apotentially troublesome transition into a new environment and culture(LeBlanc and Nha, 1997).

Table 8 shows the tangibles construct with its respective variablesand average scores related to the four student cohorts.

Table 8: Tangibles Construct, and Variables: Country Comparison

Variables China India Indonesia Thailand Modern and adequate library facilities 6.3 6.7 6.6 6.4 Good operating hours for library access 5.8 6.7 6.5 6.3 Modern and adequate computer facilities 6.1 6.8 6.6 6.5 Student accommodation of a good standard 4.9 6.4 6.1 5.8 Campus well located with easy access 5.7 6.7 6.5 6.4 Average 5.8 6.7 6.5 6.3 All students considered tangibles as an extremely important dimension

related to the quality of service delivery by universities as demonstrated bythe high overall average scores. This finding was supported by previousresearch by Smith, Morey, and Teece (2002); Le Blanc and Nha, (1997);and Wakefield and Blodgett (1996).

Students from China and Indonesia considered modern and adequatelibrary facilities as the most important variable while students fromIndia and Thailand considered modern computer facilities as the most



important. There was consensus among the four student groups in regardto student accommodation and this factor was rated as the least importantvariable in the determination of service quality.

CONCLUSION

This study investigated the relationship between the SERVQUAL constructsof reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and tangibles and thecountry of origin and satisfaction among four groups of postgraduatebusiness students from Asia studying in Australia. Scales were developedto examine this relationship, and were shown to be reliable. Based onANOVA and MANOVA techniques, the study found significant differencesbetween country of origin and the SERVQUAL constructs in relation tostudent satisfaction.

The findings indicated that all SERVQUAL constructs had an impacton student satisfaction, though there were variances in the impact ofeach construct. It was clear however that the tangibles construct wasthe most significant in forming satisfaction among all groups of studentsas confirmed by previous studies on student satisfaction (Smith, Morey,and Teece (2002); Le Blanc and Nha, (1997); and Wakefield andBlodgett (1996).

The study revealed that the importance placed on individual servicequality variables within each construct also differed between the fourgroups of students, providing an insight into the post-choice behaviourof students. The findings therefore will be useful for educationalinstitutions in prioritizing action to achieve positive outcomes in thesatisfaction levels of students and their choice of study destinations.

A major challenge faced by universities, the world over, is theincreasing diversity of overseas students originating from a variety ofcountries. The pressure on universities to successfully negotiate thecultural diversity and improvement in service quality will continue toincrease with the global expansion of the international student market.The attractiveness of the international education market in the form ofboth pecuniary and non pecuniary benefits will continue to create ahighly competitive environment requiring higher education institutionsto pursue well planned strategies to maintain a globally competitiveposition.



It is important for universities to recognize that Asia is a differentiatedmarket place where students from different countries and different culturalbackgrounds have somewhat different needs and wants to satisfy. Thedevelopment of a segmented approach in targeting services to studentsfrom different countries focusing on the most important service qualityvariables should therefore be part of the organizational strategy to improvestudent satisfaction. The success of such an approach will depend on theorganisational appreciation of the cultural diversity and the commitment toquality in service delivery. Meeting students expectations in the deliveryof service facilities, conducting training sessions and seminars on crosscultural awareness involving all employees of the university, introducingeffective teaching methods addressing different learning styles of studentswith regular course evaluations to support continuous improvement inteaching are among the strategic initiatives that can be considered byuniversities in addressing student diversity and overall quality improvement(Brightman et al, 1993).

This study also highlighted an important issue of high studentexpectations which was shared by all groups of students included inthe study. Students develop expectations through informationacquisition and universities should exercise extra caution in developingartificially inflated expectations of university services through theirpromotional material and overseas agency networks. Studentexpectations should be carefully examined and analysed in order tomanage expectations through the delivery of objective information (Brownand Swartz, 1989). Universities will also benefit by conducting internalmarketing research to ensure both management and faculty expectations ofservice delivery are in line with student expectations.

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Despite the contribution of the study to new knowledge by the applicationof SERVQUAL constructs to the international education domain, the majorlimitation of the study is its scope which was restricted to five universitiesin the state of Victoria, Australia. The generalisation of the results becomesan issue in this context. It may be argued, however, that the five institutionsselected for the study are among the largest universities in Australia andthese universities have attracted the most number of international studentsfrom the respective source countries. It can also be argued that the issues



identified in the study seem to have a common appeal and therefore wouldbe applicable to international students in any study destination.

Future research should be directed to investigate service qualityexpectations not only from students’ perspective but also from a serviceprovider perspective (Houston and Rees, 1999). This would allow acomparison of the expectations and the resultant gap that needs to be filled.It would also be necessary to expand the study involving students fromother countries and study destinations to further validate the results of thisstudy.

REFERENCES

Angur, M. G., Nataraajan, R. and Jahera (Jr) J.S. (1999) ‘Service quality in the bankingindustry: an assessment in a developing economy’, The International Journal ofBank Marketing, 17:3, 116-125.

Australian Education International (AEI) (2000) Overseas Student Statistics 1999, DETYA.Arambewela, R.A. (2003) ‘Post-choice satisfaction of international postgraduate students

from Asia studying in Victorian Universities’, Unpublished doctoral thesis, VictoriaUniversity, Melbourne, Australia.

Arambewela R.A., and Zuhair, S. (2003) ‘Economic impact of internationalisation ofeducational services, refereed paper’, Conference proceedings, Internationalisationof Education – Risk and Returns, Melbourne.

Athiyaman, A. (2000) ‘Graduates’ perception about business education: an exploratoryresearch’, Journal of Further and Higher Education, 25:1, 5-19.

Bearden, W.O., and Netemeyer, R.G. (1999) Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-itemMeasures for Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Research, (2nd edn), SAGEPublications Inc.

Blight, D., (1995) International Education: Australia’s Potential – Demand and Supply,Research Paper, EDP Education Australia, October, 1995, Canberra.

Bohm, A., Davis, D. Meares, D., and Pearce, D. (2002) Global Student Mobility:Forecasting of the Global Demand for International Higher Education, IDP Australia.

Bolton, R.N. and James H.D. (1999) ‘A multistage model of customers assessment ofservice quality and value’, Journal of Consumer Research, 17: March, 375-84.

Brightman, H.J., Elliot, M., and Bhada, Y. (1993) ‘Increasing the effectiveness of studentevaluation of instructor data through a factor score comparative report’, DecisionSciences, 24, 192 -9.

Brown, S.W., and Swartz, T.A. (1989) ‘A gap analysis of professional service quality’,Journal of Marketing, 53: April, 92-98.

Burke, B. (1986) Experiences of overseas undergraduate students, Bulletin No 18:University of New South Wales.

Carman, J.M. (1990) ‘Consumer perception of service quality: An assessment of the servqualdimensions’, Journal of Retailing, 66: Spring, 35-55.

Churchill, G.A., and Suprenant, C. (1982) ‘An investigation into the determinants ofcustomer satisfaction’, Journal of Marketing Research, 19:November, 491-504.



Comm, Clare L., Mathaisel, D.F.X.(2000) ‘Assessing employee satisfaction in servicefirms: An example in higher education, The Journal of Business and Economic Studies,6:1, 43-53.

Cronin, J.J., and Taylor S.A., (1992) ‘Measuring service quality: A re-examination andextension’, Journal of Marketing, 56:3, 55-68.

Curry, A., Stark, S., Summerhill, L. (1999) ‘Patient and stakeholder consultation inhealthcare’, Managing Service Quality, 9:5, 327-336.

Davis, D., and Allen, J.W. (1990) ‘The use of recipient-based measures of service qualityin business education’, Journal of Education for Business, 65, 280-285.

Dean, A.M. (1999) ‘The applicability of SERVQUAL in different health care environments’,Health Marketing Quarterly, 16:3, 1-21.

DETYA (Online) (cited 25 July 2002) Trends in the First Year Experience. Availablefrom <URL:http://www.detya.gov.au/highered/eippubs/eip00_6> accessed 25 July2002.

DETYA (1999) Evaluation and Validation of the Trial Postgraduate Research ExperienceQuestionnaires, 99:10, Australian Council for Education Research, Canberra.

Dixon, P.B., Parmenter, B.R., Rimmer, M.T. (1998) ‘The effects of foreign students onthe Australian economy and its regions’, Occasional Paper, Centre for Policy Studies,Monash University.

Donaldson, B. and Runciman, F. (1995) ‘Service quality in further education: an insightinto management perceptions of service quality and those of the actual service provider’,Journal of Marketing Management, 11, pp. 243-256.

Donnelly, M.H. and Shiu, E., (1999) ‘Assessing service quality and its link with value formoney in a UK local authority’s housing repairs service using the SERVQUALapproach’, Total Quality Management, Abingdon, 10:45, 498-506.

Drucker, P. (1997) ‘Still the youngest mind’, Forbes, March 10,1997.Duan, P. (1997) ‘The influence of various factors on International students in selecting

universities: A South Australian study of Chinese students from Hong Kong andMalaysia’, unpublished PhD thesis, University of South Australia.

Durvasula, S., Lyonski, S., and Mehta, S. (1999) Testing the SERVQUAL scale in thebusiness-to-business sector: The case of ocean freight shipping service’, The Journalof Services Marketing, 13:2, 132-143.

Engelland, B.T., Workman, L., Singh, M, (2000) ‘Ensuring service quality for campuscareer services centers: A modified SERVQUAL scale,’ Journal of MarketingEducation, 22:3, 236-245.

Furrer, O., Liu, BenSha-Ching and Sudharshan, D. (2000) ‘The relationships betweenculture and service quality perceptions: Basis for cross-cultural market segmentationand resource allocation’, Journal of Service Research, 2:4, 355-371.

Geall, V. (2000) ‘The expectations and experience of first-year students at city of Universityof Hong Kong’, Quality in Higher Education, 6:1, 77-89.

Guolla, M. (1999) ‘Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship:Applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom,’ Journal of Marketing Theoryand Practice, 7:3, 87-97.

Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., Crampton, S. M. (2000) ‘A note on SERVQUAL reliability andvalidity in information system service quality measurement’, Decision Sciences, 31:3,725-744.



Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1995) Multivariate DataAnalysis, (4th edn), Prentice Hall International Inc.

Halstead, D., Hartman, D., and Schmidt, S. (1994) ‘Multi-source effects on the satisfactionformation process’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22:2, 114-129.

Hampton, G.M. (1993) ‘Gap analysis of college students’ satisfaction as a measure ofprofessional service quality’, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 9:1, 37-45.

Harvis, B., Voyer, P.A. (2000) ‘Word of Mouth processes within a services purchaseDecision Context’, Journal of Service Research, 3:2, 166-177.

Heung C.S., Wong, M.Y. and Qu, H. (2000) ‘Airport-restaurant service quality in HongKong: An application of SERVQUAL’, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant AdministrationQuarterly, 41:3, 80-96.

Havranek, J.E., and Brodwin, M.G. (1998) ‘Restructuring universities and colleges: thestudent focussed paradigm’, Education, 119: Fall, 115-234.

Hickson,C., Oshagbemi,T. (1999) ‘The effect of age on the satisfaction of academics withteaching and research’, International Journal of Social Economics, 26:4,357-367.

Houston, D. and Rees, M. (1999) ‘Developing a quality management system for apostgraduate education programme: A case study’, Journal of Higher Education Policyand Management, 21:2, 227-235.

IDP Education Australia Pty Ltd. (1995) Destination and Choice – A study of InternationalStudents Enrolling in Australian Universities, Sydney, IDP.

Kayanama, S.A. and Black, C. (2000) ‘A proposal to assess the service quality of onlinetravel agencies: An exploratory study,’ Journal of Professional Services Marketing,21:1, 63-88.

Kettinger, W.J. and Lee, C.C. (1999) ‘Replication measures of information systemsresearch: The case of IS SERVQUAL’, Decision Sciences, 30:3, 893-899.

Kwan, P.Y.K. and Ng, P.W.K. (1999) ‘Quality indicators in higher education – ComparingHong Kong and China’s students,’ Managerial Auditing Journal, 14:1/2, 20-27.

Lassar, W.M., Manolis, C. and Winsor, R.D. (2000) ‘Service quality perspectives andsatisfaction in private banking’, The Intenational Journal of Bank Marketing, 18:4,181-199.

Lawley, M. (1998) ‘Choice of Destination in International Education: A Cross NationalModel’, unpblished PhD thesis, University of Southern Queensland.

LeBlanc, G., and Nha, N. (1997) ‘Searching for excellence in business education: anexploratory study of customer impressions of service quality’, The InternationalJournal of Educational Management, 11:2, 72-80.

Lin, X., and Wei, B. (1999) ‘Service quality dimensions of securities brokerage firms:What customer consider as important’, Journal of Professional Services Marketing,20:1, 135-145.

Llosa, S., Chandon, J., Orsingher, C., (1998) ‘An empirical study of SERVQUAL’sdimensionality,’ The Services Industries Journal, 18:2, 16-44.

Marginson, S. (1998) ‘Competition and diversity in the reformed Australian Highereducation’, in Meek, V.K. and Wood, F.Q. (eds) Managing Higher Education Diversityin a Climate of Public Sector Reform, Evaluations and investigations program report98/5., Canberra, DETYA, AGPS.



Marshall, K.P. and Smith, J.R. (1999) ‘ Race-ethnic variations in the importance of servicequality issues in neighbourhood consumer banking’, Journal of Professional ServicesMarketing, 18:2, 119-131.

McDougall, G.H.G. and Levesque, T. (2000) Customer satisfaction with services: puttingperceived value into the equation, Journal of Services Marketing, 14:5, 392-410.

MacKay, D. and Lewis, D. (1995) ‘Domestic impact of exporting education: A case studyof the University of Wollongong’, Economic Papers, 14:1, 28-39.

McFadyen, K., Harrison. J., Stephen, K.J. and Scott, D. (2001) ‘Measuring service qualityin a corporatised public sector invironment’, Journal of Nonprofit and Public SectorMarketing,14:2, 34-48.

Marginson, S., (1998) Competition and diversity in the reformed Australian Highereducation, in V.K.Meek and F.Q. Wood., Managing Higher Education Diversity in aClimate of Public Sector Reform, Evaluations and investigations program report 98/5., DETYA, AGPS, Canberra

Mehta, S.C., Lalwani, A.K., and Han, S.L. (2000a) ‘Service quality in retailing: relativeefficiency of alternative measurement scales for different product-service environments,International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 28:2, 62-72.

Mehta, S.C., Lalwani, A.K., and Han, S.L. (2000b) ‘Measuring the service quality ofretailers distributing technical products with high service component: An evaluationand extension’, Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 20:2, 33-49.

Nelson, B., (2004) New Advisory Body on International Education, Ministerial MediaRelease, Canberra 21 June.

O’Connor, S.J. and Bowers, M.R. (1990) ‘An integrative overview of the quality dimension:Marketing implications for the consumer-oriented health care organisation, MedicalCare Research and Review, 47:2, 193-213.

Oliver, R.L., (1980) ‘A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences ofSatisfaction Decision’, Journal of Marketing Research, 17: Nov, 460-469.

Oliver, R.L., (1996) Satisfaction: A behavioural perspective on the consumer, Irwin,McGraw-Hill.

Parasuraman, A., Leonard, B., and Zeithaml, V. (1994) ‘Reassessment of expectations asa comparison standard in measuring service quality: Implications for further research’,Journal of Marketing, 49:Fall, 111-124.

Parasuraman, A., Leonard, B., and Zeithaml, V. (1985) ‘A Conceptual Model of ServiceQuality and its implications for future research’, Journal of Marketing, 59: Fall, 41-50.

Parasuraman, A., Leonard, B., and Zeithaml, V. (1988) ‘SERVQUAL: A multiple itemscale for measuring consumer perception of service quality’, Journal of Marketing,64:1, 12-40.

Parasuraman, A., Leonard, B., and Zeithaml, V. (1991) ‘Understanding customerexpectations of service’, Sloan Management Review, 32:3, 420-50.

Parasuraman, A., Leonard, B., and Zeithaml, V. (1994) assessment of Expectations as aComparison Standard in Measuring Service Quality: Implications for Further Research,Journal of Marketing, 49:Fall, 111-124.

Peter, M. (1997) ‘The Short-Run Economic Effects of Foreign Student Expenditure inTasmania’, Economic Paper, Economic Society of Australia, 55-72.

Salmi, J. (2001) ‘Tertiary education in the 21st century: Challenges and opportunities’,Higher Education Management, 13:2, 105-130.



Spreng, R., Mackenzie, S. and Olshavsky, R. (1996) ‘A re-examination of the determinantsof consumer satisfaction’, Journal of Marketing, 60:July, 15-32.

Siu, G. K. W., Bridge, A., and Skitmore, M., (2001) Assessing service quality of buildingmaintenance providers: Mechanical and Engineering services, ConstructionManagement and Economic maintenance of mechanical and Engineering Services,London, 19:7, 719-726.

Smith, G., Morey, A., Teece, M. (2002) ‘How international students view their Australianexperience: A survey of international students who finished a course of study in1999’, Australian Education International, Special Report, DETYA.

Swan, J.E., and Trawick, M. (1981) ‘Disconfirmation of expectations and satisfactionwith a retail service, Journal of Retailing, 57:Fall, 40-67.

Teas, R.K., (1993) ‘Expectations, performance evaluation and consumers’ perceptions ofquality’, Journal of Marketing Research, 25:May, 204-212.

Tomovick, C.J., Sheila, I., Al-Khativ, J. and Baradwaj, B. (1996) ‘An assessment of theservice quality provided to foreign students at U.S. business schools, Journal ofEducation for Business, 71, 130-138.

Townley, P. (2001) The construction of a model of qualitative evaluation to support thedevelopment of the policy and practice of raising student satisfaction in an institutionin the higher education sector, Proceedings of the Higher Education Close UpConference 2, Lancaster University, 16-18 July.

Tse, D.K.N., Franco M. and Wilton, P.C. (1990) Consumer Satisfaction as a process’,Psychology and Marketing, 7:Fall, 177-93.

Van, D., Thomas, P., Prybutok, V.R. and Kappelman, L.A. (1999) ‘Cautions on the use ofthe SERVQUAL measure to assess the quality of information systems services,Decision Sciences, 30:3, 877-891.

Wakefield, K.L., and Blodgett, J.G. (1999) ‘Customer response to intangible and tangibleservice factors’, Psychology & Marketing, 16:1, 1-18.

Wisniewski, M. (2001) ‘Assessing customer satisfaction with local authority services usingSERVQUAL’, Total Quality Management, 12:7/8, 995-002.

Rodney Arambewela, is Lecturer in Marketing, Bowater School ofManagement and Marketing, Deakin University, Australia.

John Hall, is Associate Director, Centre for Business Research, DeakinUniversity, Australia.

Documents

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL …30003511/... · A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION SATISFACTION USING SERVQUAL University education, the world over, …