The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2042-3896.htm
HESWBL
13,3
560
Received 25 December 2022
Revised 20 March 2023
12 April 2023
Accepted 13 April 2023
Higher Education, Skills and
Work-Based Learning
Vol. 13 No. 3, 2023
pp. 560-574
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2042-3896
DOI 10.1108/HESWBL-12-2022-0278
Integrative conceptual framework
of student loyalty, service quality,
e-service quality and university
image in open and
distance learning
Yon Rosli Daud
Faculty of Business and Management, Open University Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Mohd Rushidi Mohd Amin
Centre for Australian Degree Programs, INTI International College Penang,
Bukit Jambul, Malaysia
Abstract
Purpose – The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between the determinants of student loyalty,
i.e. service quality, e-service quality and university image in open and distance learning (ODL) based on the
theory of reasoned action, in more systematic approach. This study also examines university’s image role as a
mediator on the relationship between service quality and e-service quality towards student loyalty.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper develops an integrative conceptual framework along with
propositions by integrating comprehensive literature, in the field of service quality, e-service quality, university
image and student loyalty. Through the review of detail literature and based theory of reasoned action (TRA),
it is proposed that service quality, e-service quality and university image would be meaningful attributes
towards student loyalty. In addition, it is also contended that university image would mediate the relationship
between service quality and e-service quality towards students’ loyalty.
Findings – This paper provides an integrative conceptual framework on service quality, e-service quality,
university image and students loyalty in open and distance learning (ODL) context.
Originality/value – None of the models presented in the literature explore the mediation of university image
on the relationship between service quality and e-service quality towards student loyalty as the most recent
research on the subject envisages.
Keywords Service quality, Adult learning, Distance education, Private higher education
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
The Malaysian service sector comprises diverse activities of varying levels of formality, such
as education, healthcare and technology-based information and communication services
(Narayanan and Hosseini, 2014). The government has formulated strategies to improve the
competitiveness and resilience of the service sector as it is expected to significantly contribute
to the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The goal is to unlock the potential of the
service sector and transform it into a more intensified knowledge-based and innovation-led
sector. The service sector is expected to grow 6.8% annually, contributing 56.5% of GDP in
2020 and providing 9.3 million employments. The service sector is the second-largest
contributor to Malaysia’s GDP, accounting for approximately 5.1%. Education services in
Malaysia are divided into three categories: the school system, higher education and lifelong
learning education. Lifelong learning education refers to the ongoing process of developing
human potential, enabling individuals to acquire the necessary knowledge, values and skills
throughout their lives and apply them confidently, creatively and enjoyably in all situations
and environments (Çakıro
glu et al., 2019). The definition of lifelong learning education Integrative
encompasses essential elements, and it is projected that about 22.6 million people, or 65.9% of conceptual
Malaysia’s total population, will engage in lifelong learning by 2035. Conventional
universities have recognized the importance of online and distance learning in education,
framework
supplementing full-time classes previously offered through full-time delivery modes.
It is more cost-effective for businesses to maintain and retain their current customers than
to acquire new ones. This is because acquiring new customers typically involves significant
marketing and advertising expenses. Retaining existing customers requires ongoing efforts 561
to provide high-quality products and services, maintain strong relationships and offer
incentives or rewards programs to encourage repeat business (Gallarza et al., 2020;
Venkatesan and Jacob, 2019). In higher education institutions, the students are the main
customers, and these students’ expectations must be exceeded (Othman et al., 2019; Zhu and
Sharp, 2022). In addition, Annamdevula and Bellamkonda (2016) examined student loyalty
from the perspectives of service quality, trust and emotional commitment, which revealed
that a robust emotional connection between students and institutions is necessary. Previous
studies examining the determinants of student loyalty in the educational sector have focused
on service quality. They have yet to explore the application of e-service quality, particularly
in Malaysia (Kim-Soon et al., 2014; Yale, 2020). The research on the educational sector has
concentrated chiefly on traditional teaching methods, which involve full-time students
(Martinez-Arguelles and Batalla-Busquets, 2016). In addition, most past studies have focused
on the direct relationship between corporate and university image (Kheiry et al., 2012;
Mohamad and Awang, 2009). Research on the mediating effect of university image has yet to
be thoroughly conducted. Therefore, there is a need to investigate further the determinants of
student loyalty for part-time students under the open and distance learning education
approach. This study is being conducted to address the previously mentioned research gap.

Literature review
Insights into Malaysian higher education
Malaysian universities have undergone significant changes and improvements over time.
Grapragasem et al. (2014) stated that the development in the Malaysian education sector was
triggered by globalization, online teaching and learning, and the rise of a knowledge-based
society, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. Globalization has been considered as
opening a local and broader perspective of interconnectedness and interdependence across
national borders, with the free flow of capital, products and services. The phenomenon of
globalization has facilitated the movement of knowledge across borders, transforming it into
a commodity. Globalization has allowed leading universities in certain countries to open
branch campuses in other countries, including Malaysia. The reformation of the education
sector in Malaysia was triggered by a supply shortage and a growing demand for places in
conventional tertiary education institutions (Ann et al., 2014; Annie and Hamali, 2006).
Conventional education refers to the traditional form of education where students attend
physical classrooms to receive instruction from teachers or professors. It follows a systematic
approach and is commonly associated with established educational institutions such as
schools and universities. With the advent of Information and Communication Technology
(ICT), the method of delivering education has been transformed, allowing for new styles of
learning delivery that are not bound by the traditional classroom setting (Grapragasem et al.,
2014). Virtual classrooms, e-learning and blended learning have progressively gained
momentum (Almaiah and Alismaiel, 2019; Hannache-Heurteloup and Moustaghfir, 2020).
The preference for online courses among students is overwhelmingly high, and academic
staff members have agreed that integrating e-learning into their courses benefits students
(Murgatroyd and Tully, 2015). Well-equipped facilities for online learning provide a
HESWBL significant opportunity for the community to access academic materials. Nsamba (2019)
13,3 stated that information technology has altered how students learn and shifted the focus from
traditional content-centered curricula to more competency-based ones and from teacher-
centered to student-centered delivery modes. Open and Distance Learning (ODL) is a term
used in Malaysia to refer to teaching and learning that separates the instructor and student in
time or space. Still, it incorporates two-way communication and occasional face-to-face
meetings for tutorials and learner-learner contact by employing various learning platforms.
562 In the ODL setting, Faulconer (2021) and Noor et al. (2016) stated that the learning process
may occur asynchronously via discussion forums or chat rooms. It has been beneficial and
valuable in coping with the current student demand.

Theoretical background and hypothesis development

Theory of reasoned action (TRA)
According to Njeru et al. (2019), the loyalty of customers tends to increase in conjunction with
the positive changes in the TRA components and typically moves in the same direction. When
it comes to loyalty, attitudes underscore the significance of comprehending the foundation of
purchase, including the evaluation of attitudes towards factors such as preferences, fondness
and dedication. This aligns with loyalty, which involves a solid dedication to repeatedly
purchase or use a favored product or service in the future, even in the face of situational factors
and marketing strategies that could prompt customers to switch to other options (Oliver, 1999).
To retain their current student, higher education institutions ought to examine all pertinent
factors that would enable them to forecast whether or not their existing students will exhibit
good behavior toward them (Shrum et al., 2013). TRA suggests that an individual’s intentions
are shaped by two primary factors: their attitude towards the behavior and subjective norms of
behavior. According to this theory, people are rational beings who systematically utilize
available information. Iqbal et al. (2018) mentioned that TRA could also be utilized to predict the
behavior of individuals based on their pre-existing behavioral intentions and attitudes, which
include loyalty. Attitudes determine behavioral intentions, and behavioral beliefs represent an
individual’s positive or negative beliefs about performing a particular behavior. Attitude is, in
theory, a combination of the significance of behavioral outcomes and the degree to which they
are perceived. After evaluating the consequences, individuals will decide whether or not to
engage in a behavior. Individual opinions about moral behavior, perceived benefits, or
perceptions of fairness can be measured by their attitude. A more positive attitude is associated
with a more significant purchase or retention intention. Attitude directly impacts behavioral
intentions and is linked to subjective norms and the perceived ability to control behavior.
Subjective norms refer to the belief that specific individuals approve or disapprove of a
particular behavior, and normative beliefs are the underlying beliefs that shape subjective norms.
The TRA is one of the prominent theories that outlines the factors that influence behavioral
intentions. It is straightforward to measure, making it useful for marketers to enhance customer
loyalty toward specific products and services (Keshavarz and Jamshidi, 2018). Implicit attitudes
play a crucial role in the TRA, as attitude plays a significant role in determining whether an
individual decides to engage in a behavior. Service placement draws attention to these attitudes
since individuals may need to be aware of some of them. They are more likely to purchase
something they can identify with rather than something they like. Therefore, in this study, the
TRA is a suitable framework to develop the fundamental basis of the current study.

Student loyalty
Loyalty refers to a solid dedication to repeatedly buy or use a favored product or service in the
future, leading to a pattern of consistently choosing the same brand or group of brands, even
if external factors or marketing strategies might otherwise encourage a change in purchasing Integrative
behavior (Oliver, 1999). Customers develop relationships with a product or service by conceptual
showing loyalty patterns and demonstrating different repurchase behaviors (Curtis et al.,
2011). Customer loyalty is established when individuals have positive experiences with a
framework
product or service, resulting in them making repeated purchases. However, loyalty is a
complex and multifaceted idea that can be difficult to define and measure (Wetsch, 2006).
Rowley and Dawes (2000) noted that loyalty creates a sense of security for customers and
enables them to behave predictably in their purchasing behavior. Previous research has 563
agreed that companies should prioritize building and sustaining long-term relationships with
their customers, as fostering loyalty can lead to higher profits, lower costs associated with
acquiring new customers, and decreased expenses associated with serving existing
customers (Reichheld and Sasser, 1990). Customers and organizations benefit from close
and long-term relationships if they can harmonize their shared interests (Lamming and
Hampson, 1996). According to McMullan (2005), customer loyalty dimensions are made of
several determinants, including service quality, customer satisfaction, customer
expectations, perceived quality and university image (Alves and Raposo, 2007;
Annamdevula and Bellamkonda, 2016; Dehghan et al., 2014; Kheiry et al., 2012; Lin
et al., 2008).
This study defines student loyalty conceptually as a solid dedication to consistently
repurchasing a service in the future. Operationally, the researcher defines student loyalty as a
combination of cognitive, affective, conative and behavioral loyalty exhibited by students
while utilizing university services during the study period. Researchers have taken an
interest in student loyalty as it is considered crucial for the survival of higher education
institutions in today’s highly competitive market. Student loyalty can have both immediate
and lasting impacts. Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001) provided three critical reasons not to ignore
the importance of student loyalty. One of them is the tuition fees (the primary source of
revenue, especially for private universities). They found that student loyalty is primarily
determined by relationship quality, particularly the quality of teaching and the student’s
emotional commitment to their institutions. In open and distance learning context, Carroll
et al. (2009) discovered that five main factors have a significant impact on student retention,
namely: satisfaction with the educational experience, commitment to academic goals, support
from family, study habits and the duration of attendance measured by the number of
semesters completed. In addition, Goolamally and Latif (2014) revealed that service quality is
a precursor to student satisfaction, meaning that high-quality services lead to higher levels of
student satisfaction. Additionally, service quality is also a result of student loyalty, as loyal
students tend to have higher expectations of the quality of services the institution provides. In
addition to the factors mentioned earlier, namely service quality, satisfaction and emotional
commitment, researchers have identified confidence as another significant determinant of
student loyalty. It is worth noting that student loyalty can persist even after students
graduate. To remain competitive, profitable and maintain or expand its market share, the
university must bridge the gap between students’ expectations and perceptions of service
quality by delivering higher-quality services. This will enable students to contribute
positively to the university even after graduation.

Service quality
Parasuraman et al. (1985) defined service quality (SERVQUAL) as the difference between
customer expectations and perceptions of performance, focusing on the tangibility,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy dimensions. Marimon et al. (2020)
stated that a good service progression includes the plan, process and performance. According
to Wilson et al. (2016), services refer to economic activities that do not produce physical
HESWBL products or constructions but provide intangible value to their initial consumer and are
13,3 typically consumed immediately after production. Kotler and Keller (2012) stated that quality
involves all the features and attributes of a product or service relevant to its capacity to meet
its users’ expressed or implied requirements. Besides SERVQUAL, Cronin and Taylor (1994)
introduced service performance (SERVPERF) to measure service quality. SERVPERF is
developed based on items similar to SERVQUAL, including a performance statement.
Teeroovengadum et al. (2016) and Esfijani (2018) noted that the investigation of service
564 quality in the higher education industry is still in its infancy, with previous research efforts
focusing on the development and analysis of comprehensive service quality models. These
models have been created based on prior research to enhance understanding of the
assessment process and through experimentation with various service sectors (Latif et al.,
2019; Makoe and Nsamba, 2019).
Sultan and Wong (2012) and Osman and Saputra (2019) mentioned that several essential
research studies utilizing the integrated service quality model in higher education have
centered on student satisfaction and loyalty. They further noted that these two factors are
crucial in determining the overall decision-making outcomes, with service quality playing a
pivotal role in influencing satisfaction levels. Service quality literature in higher education,
especially in Malaysia, is still evolving and needs to be revised to explain the determinants of
perceived quality in various contexts (Campos et al., 2017). In light of this matter, Abdullah
(2006) has developed a different approach for evaluating service quality in higher education,
the HEdPERF (Higher Education Performance) model, which provides a more targeted
assessment of service quality in this sector. The HEdPERF scale was developed to be highly
specific in evaluating service quality. Research findings suggest that the dimension of access
is the most critical factor in shaping students’ perceptions of service quality. Drawing on prior
studies, this research defines service quality as the gap between the actual performance of the
service received and the student’s expectations. This study views service quality as an
antecedent and has a significant relationship with student loyalty. With the notion that
service quality precedes student loyalty, therefore the first proposition is formulated
as below:
Proposition 1 (P1). There is a significant relationship between service quality and student
loyalty.

E-service quality
Saanen et al. (1999) defined e-services as providing electronic services to customers. Reynolds
and Arnold (2000) and Sandstr€om et al. (2008) mentioned that e-services are services provided
over the Internet, where some or all part of the interactions. E-services encompass both front-
end web-based interfaces and back-end information systems, and the interaction between
them is crucial in e-services (Zheng and Yu, 2015). Surjadjaja et al. (2003) provide the
differences between traditional and e-services. Specifically, they mentioned that traditional
services rely solely on human interaction in the service interface. At the same time, customers
use all their senses, are restricted by business hours and opening times and are limited by
their physical location. In comparison, e-services may not require human interaction,
allowing customers to access them from anywhere at any time, as long as they have Internet
connectivity. Riedl et al. (2009) stated that e-services stand out from traditional services due to
their unique characteristics, which include the service’s cost structure, a high level of
outsourcing, a quick pace of developing new services, availability of transparent service
feedback and a continuous drive towards improving the service. The research on e-services
began to gain momentum in the early 2000s (Ojasalo, 2010). Zeithaml et al. (2002) indicated
that to assess the quality of e-services, a model called e-SERVQUAL was developed.
This model consisted of two main components: a core e-service quality scale with four Integrative
dimensions–efficiency, reliability, fulfillment and privacy–and a recovery e-service quality conceptual
scale with three dimensions–responsiveness, compensation and contact.
Carlson and O’Cass (2010) stated that the measurement of e-service quality is still early,
framework
and more research is needed. Kim-Soon et al. (2014) mentioned that past researchers often
ignored the study of e-service and its potential relationship with service quality. Little
emphasis is given to this area, particularly in higher education and open and distance
learning contexts (Al-Mushasha and Nassuora, 2012). Boyer et al. (2002) stated that 565
e-services present an unprecedented opportunity for businesses to create novel service
design strategies and introduce new services. By leveraging e-services, service providers
can offer customers a broader range of options with a wider geographic reach and a more
diverse product range. Essen and Conrick (2008) introduced a model proposed for creating
novel e-services consisting of three core components: innovating the service concept, the
service system and the service process. The idea of service innovation integrates new
technologies and services, considering the needs of service users, identifying the
corresponding benefits and establishing criteria for service eligibility. Service system
innovation involves comprehending and adapting to the technical capabilities and
advantages in the present context. Furthermore, service process innovation comprises
human aspects such as establishing a protocol for how individuals should interact with
technological solutions and designing the customer’s responsibilities. Building on
previous research, this study defines e-service quality as the variance between the
actual performance of electronic services received and the expected performance. Hence,
considering that e-service quality is a precursor to student loyalty, the second proposition
is presented as follows.:
Proposition 2 (P2). There is a significant relationship between e-service quality and
student loyalty.

University image
Kotler and Keller (2012) described an image as a collection of beliefs, attitudes, stereotypes,
ideas, appropriate behaviors, or impressions of an individual towards a particular object,
person, or organization. Alternatively, some scholars have defined image as the aggregate of
external stakeholders’ perceptions of an organization (Nguyen and Leblanc, 2001). The
dimension of the university’s image has mainly been based on corporate image. It comprises
several factors such as the ability to attract, develop and keep talented people, community and
environmental responsibility, marketing and communications, quality of products/services,
employer perception and student experience (Balaji et al., 2016; Rauschnabel et al., 2016).
University image constructs were primarily used as a positioning tool to influence students’
choices at a particular university (Azoury et al., 2014). Sung and Yang (2008) stated that the
image of a university is a composite of its personality, reputation and external prestige. Rutter
et al. (2016) found that the image’s affective component influences the university image’s
cognitive component. The suggestion was made that university administrators should
prioritize the development of communication and management policies that emphasize the
most vivid emotional and overall impressions and satisfaction levels.
The image of the university is one of the essential constructs to determine the loyalty of
students at universities (Civera and Meoli, 2017). It is the internal members’ (the student’s)
belief in how outsiders see their organization (the university) that has a direct impact on the
organization’s identity (Alves and Raposo, 2010). Several studies found that university image
strongly affects retention and loyalty (Asaad et al., 2013; Stephenson and Yerger, 2014). Alves
and Raposo (2010) stated that the university’s image considerably impacts students’
HESWBL satisfaction levels. Therefore, this study proposes examining the mediating role of university
13,3 image in the connections between service quality, e-service quality and student loyalty as
shown in Figure 1. While previous research has focused on the direct effects of service
quality, e-service quality, university image and student loyalty, it is essential to investigate
the mediating effect of university image. Previous literature found that organizational image
mediates the relationship between service quality, e-service quality and students’ loyalty (Ali
et al., 2016; Hassan et al., 2019). Furthermore, they indicated that organizations should pay
566 more serious attention to their image to gain maximum customer loyalty benefits. Generally,
the expectations of customers depend on the organization’s image, and it could affect
customer perception of its products, services and values (Stephenson and Yerger, 2014). As
the customer perceived value emphasizes the psychological state of mind, an organization
with a good image is likely to influence the loyalty and judgment of customers with high
expectations. This study defines university image as the optimistic view that an individual
maintains regarding an institution’s image throughout their time of the study. Therefore,
based on the previous discussion above, it is posited that:
Proposition 3 (P3). There is a significant relationship between university image and
student loyalty.
Proposition 4 (P4). There is a significant relationship between service quality and
university image.
Proposition 5 (P5). There is a significant relationship between e-service quality and
university image.
Proposition 6 (P6). University image mediates the relationship between service quality
and student loyalty.
Proposition 7 (P7). University image mediates the relationship between e-service quality
and student loyalty.

Propose Integrative Theoretical Framework

Service P1
Quality

P4

P3 Student
University
Image Loyalty

P5

E-Service Quality
Figure 1.
Integrative theoretical P2
framework
Source(s): Adapted from Hassan et al., 2019
Propose questionnaire design and development Integrative
In this study, relevant literature has been reviewed to identify the appropriate and reliable conceptual
measurements. Relevant questions or items from previous studies were adapted to fit the
context of this research. To ensure the questionnaire’s face and content validity, three
framework
academics and eight students from Open University Malaysia (OUM) reviewed it for
appropriateness, clarity and consistency. Following this, a pilot study involving 50 OUM
students was conducted to gather data, and Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated to assess the
items’ reliability. Finally, a list of items was derived from measuring the perceived quality of 567
service, e-service, university image and student loyalty, as shown in Table 1.
There was a total of 70 questions, separated into Section A and Section B. Section A included
22 questions about perceived service quality, 19 questions about perceived e-service quality,
seven questions about the institution’s image, and 12 questions pertaining to the various
conceptions of student loyalty. The responses to all the questions in Section A were rated on a
Likert scale that ranged from “1” (strongly disagree) to “5” (strongly agree), with each point on
the scale representing a different degree of agreement. On the other hand, Part B consisted of ten
questions referring to demographic information such as gender, race, age, education level,
income, program pursued, Learning Centre and admission level. This study strictly adhered to
ethical and moral issues such informed consent, privacy, secrecy and anonymity. Before
collecting data for the pilot study, ethical review and approval was obtained from OUM
management. The respondents were given clear information about the purpose of the study, so
they could decide whether to participate. The identities of the participants were kept anonymous.

Pilot study
The reliability of the questionnaire in this study was assessed using Cronbach’s Alpha, a
commonly used and dependable coefficient for analyzing the measurement’s performance.
A pilot test was conducted, and the questionnaire was distributed to 50 students. The
resulting Cronbach’s alpha values for perceived service quality, perceived e-service quality,
university image and student loyalty are presented in Table 2. Cronbach’s alpha values range

Constructs Statements Adapted from

Perceived Service Quality 22 items Parasuraman et al. (1988)

(PSQ)
Tangible 4 items
Reliability 5 items
Responsiveness 4 items
Assurance 5 items
Empathy 4 items
Perceived E-Service 19 items Parasuraman et al. (1988), Ribbink et al. (2004)
Quality (PESQ)
Ease of use 4 items
Website design 4 items
Responsiveness 4 items
Customization 4 items
Assurance 3 items
Student Loyalty (SL) 12 items
Word-of-mouth 4 items Chen and Lee (2008), Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001)
Commitment 4 items
Loyalty 4 items
University Image (UI) 7 items Huang et al. (2014), Riordan et al. (1997), Parasuraman et al. (1988),
Johnson et al. (2001), Lemmink et al. (2003), Richard and Zhang Table 1.
(2012) Items use to measure
Source(s): Authors’ calculations constructs
HESWBL Construct Cronbach’s alpha Cronbach’s alpha based on standardized items N of items
13,3
Perceived Service Quality
Tangibles 0.77 0.77 4
Reliability 0.90 0.90 5
Responsiveness 0.87 0.87 4
Assurance 0.81 0.81 5
568 Empathy 0.91 0.91 4
Perceived E-Service Quality
Ease of use 0.88 0.88 4
Website design 0.89 0.90 4
Responsiveness 0.76 0.76 4
Customization 0.79 0.79 4
Assurance 0.72 0.74 3
Student Loyalty
Word-of-mouth 0.87 0.89 4
Table 2. Commitment 0.86 0.87 4
Cronbach’s alpha for Loyalty 0.83 0.83 4
Perceived Service
quality, Perceived University Image
E-Services Quality, University Image 0.75 0.74 7
University Images and Overall 0.95 0.96 60
Student Loyalty Source(s): Authors’ calculations

from 0 to 1.0, with the minimal threshold for acceptable reliability being 0.70. The Cronbach’s
alpha value, as indicated in Table 2, shows a high level of internal consistency for the scale,
which is above the recommended threshold value.
In this study, a pilot study is conducted with guidance from the proposed theoretical
framework and relevant literature to test the survey instrument, refine it, identify potential
problems and limitations and make necessary adjustments before conducting the actual
study. This study proposes more than just a theoretical framework to the academic society.
However, it is also supported by a well-founded pilot study to give ample justification for
future research to be conducted. Related constructs such as service quality, e-service quality,
university image and student loyalty have been proven valid and reliable in constructing a
sound research framework. Seeing how the empirical study could be performed based on the
pilot study findings is exciting. Some adjustments could be made based on the research
context. However, at this moment, the theoretical framework with the pilot study’s findings
above is adequate within the study context. In addition, this study can help researchers to
estimate the time and resources needed to conduct the full-scale study, identify any resource
challenges and ensure that the research is feasible within the given constraints. This helps
avoid costly mistakes and improves the overall quality of the research project.

Conclusion
This research provides valuable inputs for both theory and practice. Concerning the theory, it
expands the existing literature on student behavior by offering new insights into the context
of open and distance learning education. This study enriches the current knowledge and
understanding of the factors influencing student loyalty, particularly concerning e-service
quality and university image. In practice, the direct beneficiary of this study shall be higher
education institutions that provide the open and distance learning mode. For example, from a
service quality and e-service quality perspective, the institutions or the practitioners should
emphasize the importance of service quality and e-service quality to reveal insights into how
their organizations can improve their current student satisfaction and loyalty. This could
involve investigating the impact of technology, employee training and process improvements Integrative
on the quality of service. In addition, the factors influencing student loyalty, such as conceptual
university reputation, student service, student retention and engagement opportunities,
should be examined closely. Furthermore, exploring how institutions can establish and
framework
maintain a positive image should be seriously considered.
To evaluate work-based learning programs’ effectiveness, the institutions could also
assess the long-term benefits of such programs on student employability and career
advancement. This could involve analyzing data on the types of employment the students 569
secure after completing work-based learning programs and tracking their career progression
over time. The institutions could explore how work-based learning programs contribute to
students’ overall academic and professional development and how these programs can
prepare students for the rapidly evolving job market demands. By conducting rigorous
research on the impact of work-based learning programs and student loyalty, institutions can
better understand the value of these programs for both students and employers and make
informed decisions about how to design and implement them in the future. The institutions
could examine how work-based learning programs such as communication, teamwork and
problem-solving contribute to students’ soft skills development. Employers increasingly
value these skills, and work-based learning programs may offer an effective way for students
to develop them in a real-world setting. By evaluating the impact of work-based learning
programs on these skills, the institutions can assist the students in receiving a well-rounded
education that prepares them for success in their chosen careers. Lastly, the institutions could
explore the role of work-based learning programs in promoting equity, cooperative education
and more transparent access to higher education. Work-based learning programs may offer
opportunities for students from diverse backgrounds to gain valuable work experience and
develop professional networks, which can help them overcome barriers to employment and
career advancement. By evaluating the impact of these programs, the institutions can help to
ensure that all students can succeed in the workforce, regardless of their backgrounds or
socioeconomic status.
These implications suggest that the institutions should conduct research to provide
evidence-based insights into how organizations can enhance service quality, student loyalty,
university image and work-based learning opportunities. Service quality is a critical aspect
that organizations utilize to distinguish themselves and gain a competitive edge. Although
previous studies have examined the impact of customer loyalty in diverse industries, its
potential role in the lifelong learning landscape in Malaysia has yet to be thoroughly explored.
Likewise, most past studies on student loyalty are based on the conventional full-time mode
of education. Open and distance learning institutions can use the findings to improve
relationships and increase student loyalty. Technology utilization is vital in keeping up-to-
date information to meet students’ needs. The Internet advancement allows higher education
institutions to adjust their approach to assist students more innovatively. The Internet has
changed how services are delivered, from offline to online and e-services are more economical
with better precision. More efficient e-services implementation in organizations is anticipated
through better quality assurance processes. This innovative approach would drive higher
education institutions’ personnel to concentrate more on e-learning and e-service for their
customers (Alsabawy et al., 2016; Eze et al., 2018). This study focuses on two aspects, namely,
the industry and the setting of the research environment. The main reason for selecting the
higher education industry that offers lifelong learning is that this sector is envisioned as one
of Malaysia’s potential and most prominent contributors to the service sector. The
government’s objective of positioning Malaysia as a leading education hub in Southeast Asia
aligns with this idea. The significance of student loyalty has garnered attention from scholars
and industry experts, as evidenced by research conducted in this field (Adeniji et al., 2015).
Early research on customer loyalty focused on tangible or household goods and less attention
HESWBL was given to the service setting (Zhou et al., 2019). The findings from this study are vital in
13,3 identifying the factors that would influence student loyalty in a lifelong learning setting.
Service quality, e-service quality, and university image are highly potential to have a
meaningful impact on student loyalty. Higher education institutions, remarkably open and
distance learning, would adopt a better strategy to improve student relationships and
increase loyalty. This study could assist these institutions in sustaining themselves
financially in the 21st-century competitive business environment.
570
References
Abdullah, F. (2006), “The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality
for the higher education sector”, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol. 30 No. 6,
pp. 569-581.
Adeniji, A.A., Osibanjo, A.O., Abiodun, A.J. and Oni-Ojo, E.E. (2015), “Corporate image: a strategy for
enhancing customer loyalty and profitability”, Journal of South African Business
Research, pp. 1-12.
Al-Mushasha, N. and Nassuora, A.B. (2012), “Factors determining e-learning service quality in
Jordanian higher education environment”, Journal of Applied Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 14,
pp. 1474-1480.
Ali, F., Zhou, Y., Hussain, K., Nair, P.K. and Ragavan, N.A. (2016), “Does higher education service
quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in
Malaysian public universities”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 70-94.
Almaiah, M.A. and Alismaiel, O.A. (2019), “Examination of factors influencing the use of mobile
learning system: an empirical study”, Education and Information Technologies, Vol. 24 No. 1,
pp. 885-909.
Alsabawy, A.Y., Carter-Steel, A. and Soar, J. (2016), “Determinants of perceived usefulness of
e-learning systems”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 64, pp. 843-858.
Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2007), “Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education”, Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 571-588.
Alves, H. and Raposo, M. (2010), “The influence of university image on student behaviour”,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 73-85.
Ann, A.R., Zainal, Z.I. and Malakolunthu, S. (2014), “Improving teaching in higher education in
Malaysia: issues and challenges”, Journal of Further and Higher Education, Vol. 38 No. 5,
pp. 656-673.
Annamdevula, S. and Bellamkonda, R.S. (2016), “The effects of service quality on student loyalty: the
mediating role of student satisfaction”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11 No. 2,
pp. 446-462.
Annie, M.-N.W. and Hamali, J. (2006), “Higher education and employment in Malaysia”, International
Journal of Business and Society, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 66-76.
Asaad, Y., Melewar, T.C., Cohen, G. and Balmer, J.M.T. (2013), “Universities and export market
orientation: an exploratory study of UK post-92 universities”, Marketing Intelligence and
Planning, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 838-856.
Azoury, N., Daou, L. and Khoury, C. El. (2014), “University image and its relationship to student
satisfaction- case of the Middle Eastern private business schools”, International Strategic
Management Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
Balaji, M.S., Roy, S.K. and Sadeque, S. (2016), “Antecedents and consequences of university brand
identification”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3023-3032.
Boyer, K.K., Hallowell, R. and Roth, A.V. (2002), “E-services: operating strategy—a case study and a
method for analyzing operational benefits”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 175-188.
Çakıro
€ Kokoç, M., G€oko

glu, U., € urk, M. and Erdo

glu, S., Ozt€ gdu, F. (2019), “An analysis of the journey Integrative
of open and distance education: major concepts and cutoff points in research trends”,
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-20. conceptual
Campos, D.F., Santos, G.S.dos and Castro, F.N. (2017), “Variations in students perceptions of service
framework
quality of higher education institutions in Brazil: a longitudinal study”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 394-414.
Carlson, J. and O’Cass, A. (2010), “Exploring the relationships between e-service quality, satisfaction,
attitudes and behaviours in content-driven e-service web sites”, Journal of Services Marketing, 571
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 112-127.
Carroll, D., Ng, E. and Birch, D. (2009), “Retention and progression of postgraduate business students:
an Australian perspective”, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 197-209.
Chen, C.H. and Lee, H.Y. (2008), “Empirical analysis of the customer loyalty problem in the
international logistics market”, WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, Vol. 5 No. 4,
pp. 113-123.
Civera, A. and Meoli, M. (2017), “Does university prestige foster the initial growth of academic spin-
offs?”, Economia e Politica Industriale, Vol. 45, pp. 1-32.
Cronin, J.J.J. and Taylor, S.A. (1994), “SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: reconciling performance-based
and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 125-131.
Curtis, T., Abratt, R., Rhoades, D.L. and Dion, P. (2011), “Customer loyalty, repurchase and
satisfaction: a meta-analytical review”, Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and
Complaining Behavior, Vol. 24, pp. 1-26.
Dehghan, A., Dugger, J., Dobrzykowski, D. and Balazs, A. (2014), “The antecedents of student loyalty
in online programs”, International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 15-35.
Esfijani, A. (2018), “Measuring quality in online education: a meta-synthesis”, American Journal of
Distance Education, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 57-73.
Essen, A. and Conrick, M. (2008), “New e-service development in the homecare sector: beyond implementing
a radical technology”, International Journal of Medical Informatics, Vol. 77 No. 10, pp. 679-688.
Eze, S.C., Chinedu-Eze, V.C. and Bello, A.O. (2018), “The utilisation of e-learning facilities in the
educational delivery system of Nigeria: a study of M-University”, International Journal of
Educational Technology in Higher Education, Vol. 15 No. 34, pp. 1-20.
Faulconer, E. (2021), “eService-learning: a decade of research in undergraduate online service–
learning”, American Journal of Distance Education, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 100-117.
Gallarza, M.G., Fayos-Gardo, T., Arteaga-Moreno, F., Servera-Frances, D. and Floristan-Imizcoz, E.
(2020), “Different levels of loyalty towards the higher education service: evidence from a small
university in Spain”, International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 36-48.
Goolamally, N. and Latif, L.A. (2014), “Determinants of student loyalty in an open distance learning
institution”, Seminar Kebangsaan Pembelajaran Sepanjang Hayat, Open University Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp. 1-11.
Grapragasem, S., Krishnan, A. and Mansor, A.N. (2014), “Current trends in Malaysian higher
education and the effect on education policy and practice: an overview”, International Journal of
Higher Education, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 85-93.
Hannache-Heurteloup, N. and Moustaghfir, K. (2020), “Exploring the barriers to e-learning adoption in
higher education: a roadmap for successful implementation”, International Journal of
Management in Education, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 159-182.
Hassan, S., Shamsudin, M.F., Hasim, M.A., Mustapha, I., Jaafar, J. and Adruthdin, K.F. (2019),
“Mediating effect of corporate image and students satisfaction on the relationship between
service quality and students loyalty in TVET HLIs”, Asian Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 93-105.
HESWBL Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M.F. and Hansen, U. (2001), “Modeling and managing student loyalty: an
approach based on the concept of relationship quality”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 4,
13,3 pp. 331-344.
Huang, C.C., Yen, S.W., Liu, C.Y. and Huang, P.C. (2014), “The relationship among corporate social
responsibility, service quality, corporate image and purchase intention”, International Journal of
Organizational Innovation, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 68-84.
Iqbal, M.S., Hassan, M.U. and Habibah, U. (2018), “Impact of self-service technology (SST) service
572 quality on customer loyalty and behavioral intention: the mediating role of customer
satisfaction”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 5, pp. 1-23.
Johnson, M., Gustafsson, A., Andreassen, T.W., Lervik, L. and Cha, J. (2001), “The evolution and future
of national customer satisfaction index models”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2,
pp. 217-245.
Keshavarz, Y. and Jamshidi, D. (2018), “Service quality evaluation and the mediating role of perceived
value and customer satisfaction in customer loyalty”, International Journal of Tourism Cities,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 220-244.
Kheiry, B., Asgari, B.M.R. and Asgari, O. (2012), “University intellectual image impact on satisfaction
and loyalty of students”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 6 No. 37,
pp. 10205-10211.
Kim-Soon, N., Rahman, A. and Ahmed, M. (2014), “E-service quality in higher education and frequency
of use of the service”, International Education Studies, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 1-10.
Kotler, P. and Keller, K.L. (2012), Marketing Management, 14th ed., Pearson Education, NY.
Lamming, R. and Hampson, J. (1996), “The environment as a supply chain management issue”, British
Journal of Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 45-62.
Latif, K.F., Latif, I., Farooq Sahibzada, U. and Ullah, M. (2019), “In search of quality: measuring higher
education service quality (HiEduQual)”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence,
Vol. 30 Nos 7/8, pp. 768-791.
Lemmink, J., Schuijf, A. and Streukens, S. (2003), “The role of corporate image and company
employment image in explaining application intentions”, Journal of Economic Psychology,
Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Lin, W.K., Chiu, C.K. and Tsai, Y.H. (2008), “Modeling relationship quality and consumer loyalty in
virtual communities”, CyberPsychology and Behavior, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 561-564.
Makoe, M. and Nsamba, A. (2019), “The gap between student perceptions and expectations of quality
support services at the University of South Africa”, American Journal of Distance Education,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 132-141.
Marimon, F., Mas-Machuca, M. and Berbegal-Mirabent, J. (2020), “Fulfilment of expectations on
students’ perceived quality in the Catalan higher education system”, Total Quality Management
and Business Excellence, Vol. 31 Nos 5/6, pp. 483-502.
Martinez-Arguelles, M.J. and Batalla-Busquets, J.M. (2016), “Perceived service quality and student
loyalty in an online university”, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 264-279.
McMullan, M. (2005), “A multiple-item scale for measuring customer loyalty development”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 470-481.
Mohamad, M. and Awang, Z. (2009), “Building corporate image and securing student loyalty in the
Malaysian higher learning industry”, The Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 4
No. 1, pp. 30-40.
Murgatroyd, S. and Tully, J. (2015), “The impact of the commonwealth of learning, 2006-2015: value
through learning for development”, British Columbia.
Narayanan, S. and Hosseini, M.P. (2014), “Drivers of innovation in the Malaysian services sector:
an analysis based on firm-level data”, Institutions and Economies, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 95-118.
Nguyen, N. and Leblanc, G. (2001), “Corporate image and corporate reputation in customers’ retention Integrative
decisions in services”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 227-236.
conceptual
Njeru, L.M., Cheruiyot, T.K. and Maru, L. (2019), “Effect of service quality on customer loyalty in
selected african airlines”, Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, Vol. 3,
framework
pp. 1-19, Vol 10.
Noor, K.M., Khalil, M.A.K.M. and Latif, L.A. (2016), “Harnessing the power of service quality to attract
and retain students: an OUM experience”, Presented in 8th Pan-Commonwealth Forum on Open
Learning (PCF8), 27-30 November 2016, November, pp.1-15, Kuala Lumpur Malaysia. 573
Nsamba, A. (2019), “Maturity levels of student Support E- services within an open distance E-learning
University”, International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 61-78.
Ojasalo, J. (2010), “E-Service quality: a conceptual model”, International Journal of Arts and Sciences,
Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 127-143.
Oliver, R.L. (1999), “Whence consumer loyalty?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. Special issue,
pp. 33-44.
Osman, A.R. and Saputra, R.S. (2019), “A pragmatic model of student satisfaction: a viewpoint of
private higher education”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 142-165.
Othman, S.N., Isa, F.M., Ahmdon, M.A.S. and Sharaf, M.A. (2019), “Postgraduate recruitment
strategies of Malaysian public higher education institutions to achieve an innovative hub”,
International Journal of Management in Education, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 338-354.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1985), “A conceptual model of service quality and its
quality and implications for future research”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. and Berry, L.L. (1988), “SERQUAL A multiple item scale for measuring
consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 12-40.
Rauschnabel, P.A., Krey, N., Babin, B.J. and Ivens, B.S. (2016), “Brand management in higher
education: the university brand personality scale”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8,
pp. 3077-3086.
Reichheld, F.F. and Sasser, J.W.E. (1990), “Zero defects: quality comes to services”, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 68, pp. 105-111.
Reynolds, K. and Arnold, M.J. (2000), “Customer loyalty to the salesperson and the store: examining
relationship customers in an upscale retail context”, Journal of Personal Selling and Sales
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 89-98.
Ribbink, D., van Riel, A.C.R., Liljander, V. and Streukens, S. (2004), “Comfort your online customer:
quality, trust and loyalty on the internet”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 446-456.
Richard, J.E. and Zhang, A. (2012), “Corporate image, loyalty, and commitment in the consumer travel
industry”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 28 Nos 5/6, pp. 568-593.
Riedl, C., Leimeister, J.M. and Krcmar, H. (2009), “New service development for electronic services -
a literature review”, Proceedings of the 15th Americas Conference on Information Systems,
AMCIS, San Francisco, CA, USA, 2009, pp. 1-9.
Riordan, C.M., Gatewood, R.D. and Bill, J.B. (1997), “Corporate image: employee reactions and
implications for managing corporate social performance”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16
No. 4, pp. 401-412.
Rowley, J. and Dawes, J. (2000), “Disloyalty: a closer look at non-loyals”, Journal of Consumer
Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 538-547.
Rutter, R., Roper, S. and Lettice, F. (2016), “Social media interaction, the university brand and
recruitment performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 8, pp. 3096-3104.
Saanen, Y.A., Verbraeck, A. and Sol, H.G. (1999), “Snapshots of e-commerce’s opportunities and
threats”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 181-189.
HESWBL Sandstr€om, S., Edvardsson, B., Kristensson, P. and Magnusson, P. (2008), “Value in use through
service experience”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 18 No. 2,
13,3 pp. 112-126.
Shrum, L.J., Liu, M., Nespoli, M. and Lowrey, T.M. (2013), “Persuasion in the marketplace: how
theories of persuasion apply to marketing and advertising”, The SAGE Handbook of
Persuasion: Developments in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California,
pp. 314-330.
574 Stephenson, A.L. and Yerger, D.B. (2014), “Does brand identification transform alumni into university
advocates?”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 243-262.
Sultan, P. and Wong, H.Y. (2012), “Service quality in a higher education context: an integrated model”,
Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 755-784.
Sung, M. and Yang, S.U. (2008), “Toward the model of university image: the influence of brand
personality, external prestige, and reputation”, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 357-376.
Surjadjaja, H., Ghosh, S. and Antony, J. (2003), “Determining and assessing the determinants of e-service
operations”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 39-53.
Teeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T.J. and Seebaluck, A.K. (2016), “Measuring service quality in
higher education: development of a hierarchical model (HESQUAL)”, Quality Assurance in
Education, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 244-258.
Venkatesan, R. and Jacob, J. (2019), “Does loyalty and satisfaction support customer retention in life
insurance sector? - an empirical study”, International Journal of Business Excellence, Vol. 18
No. 4, pp. 435-449.
Wetsch, L.R. (2006), “Trust, satisfaction and loyalty in customer relationship management an
application of justice theory”, Journal of Relationship Marketing, Vol. 4 Nos 3/4, pp. 29-42.
Wilson, A., Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D. (2016), Services Marketing: Integrating Customer
Focus across the Firm, 3rd ed., McGraw Hill, NY.
Yale, A.T. (2020), “Quality matters: an in-depth exploration of the student–personal tutor relationship
in higher education from the student perspective”, Journal of Further and Higher Education,
Vol. 44 No. 6, pp. 739-752.
Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman, A.P. and Malhotra, A. (2002), “Service quality delivery through
websites: a critical review of extant knowledge”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 362-376.
Zheng, Z. and Yu, W. (2015), “Analysis of small and medium-sized enterprises’ E-commerce
development status in China in the new economy era”, Cross-Cultural Communication, Vol. 11
No. 2, pp. 97-101.
Zhou, R., Wang, X., Shi, Y., Zhang, R., Zhang, L. and Guo, H. (2019), “Measuring e-service quality and
its importance to customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical study in a telecom setting”,
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 477-499.
Zhu, X. and Sharp, J.G. (2022), “Service quality and higher education: investigating Chinese
international student and academic perspectives at a UK university”, Journal of Further and
Higher Education, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Corresponding author
Yon Rosli Daud can be contacted at: yroslidaud@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com