Ensuring the competitiveness of

knowledge as the fourth mission of higher

education
Student satisfaction and expectations in a service
marketing approach in the Hungarian higher education

1st Central European Higher Education Conference

Budapest, 29th January 2015

László Horváth - horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.hu

Eötvös Loránd University
Institute of Education, Doctoral School of Education
 Theoretical background
• Knowledge economy poses different expectations on higher education
institutions  emphasize different functions to adapt (Deiaco, Hughes and
McKelves, 2012)
• Decreasing funds, massification  labor market needs, applicable
knowledge (Poór, Bencsik, Fekete, Majó and László, 2008)
• Quality management, performance management (Halász, 2010)
 new mission: ensuring knowledge competitiveness (Zhang and Liao, 2010)
• Education as a service (Polónyi, 2013)
 challenge: understand the needs and expectations of customers and
satisfy them (Wilson, Zeithaml, Bitner and Gremler, 2012)
• Growing expectations: accountability, accreditation (Teichler, 2014), brand
management (Shin, 2014), rankings (Fábri, 2009)
• Multiple stakeholders (Kotler and Fox, 1985)
• Competitive higher education (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Barakonyi, 2009)
• Student satisfaction is an important quality aspect (Cerri, 2012; Foropon,
Seiple and Kerbache, 2013; etc.) – SERVQUAL (expectations and perceived
satisfaction)
• Gap model of service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988) in higher
education (Rajasekhar, Muninarayanappa and Reddy, 2009)
 Aims of the research:
To explore the interpretations of quality in Hungarian higher
education regarding student expectations and satisfaction using the
GAP-model of service quality.
Aims

Research questions:
Methodology 1. Interpreting higher education as service what is the main
output, who are the main client and how is the student
defined?
Results
2. What are the main expectations of students and how can we
differentiate them regarding quality higher education? Are
these expectations met?
Suggestions
3. What are the differences between student expectations
and the perception of higher education leaders about
Summary these?
4. What can be the content of a psychological contract
between students and higher education institutions regarding
expectations and obligations?
 Hypotheses:
• Higher education leaders consider
1. the graduates as the output of higher education
Aims 2. the employer and the state as main clients
3. students based on the commodity-metaphor
• Fee-paying students
Methodology
4. expectations are dominated by elements regarding quality of
education
Results 5. think that they have a lower return on investment in their
education compared to state-funded students
6. Students consider themselves alongside the consumer-metaphor
Suggestions
7. Gap 1 and Gap 5 will be notable in the GAP model.
8. Students can be segmentated alongside their expectations and
Summary obligations can be assigned to these groups. This relationship can
be interpreted with the term of pyschological contract.
 Sample and tools
Population:
• Hungarian higher education students
• Leaders of Hungarian higher education institutions
Aims
Sample selection: based on access, snowball method
Tool: online survey
Methodology Student survey:
• General data
Results • Expectations and their fullfilment, return on investment + etc. (Davies,
2002; Kandiko and Mawer, 2013; Tan and Kek, 2004; Eagle and Brennan, 2007;
Pereira and da Silva, 2003)
Suggestions • Role (metaphor) (Nordensvärd, 2011)
• Obligations (Pietersen, 2014)

Summary
Leader survey:
• General data
• Output, client and the definition of student in higher education
• Student expectations
• Student role (metaphor)
 The sample
Leader survey (N=117)
• SZIE (27) • Rector (2) • Years in the given
Aims • BCE (26) • Vice-rector (8) leadership role (mean):
• ELTE (19) • Dean (8) 7,54 years
• DE (10) … • Vice-dean (34)
• Head of Institute (19)
Methodology
• Head of Department (38)
• etc. (8)
Results Student survey(N=327)
• ELTE (161) • 68,8% female | 31,2% male
Suggestions • SZIE (37) • 23,4% graduated | 74,3% still learning
• BME (36) • 33% humanities | 16,5% economics | 9,2%
• BCE (16) teacher education …
Summary • SZTE (15) … • 81,7% state-funded/state-scolarship | 18,3% fee-
paying/self-funded
• 89,3% full-time | 10,7% part-time
• 79,2% without student loan
• 39,4% participated in talent development
 1) Perception of leaders
other
service Client
6% other state
14% course
Aims 9% 11%
1% society
14% employer
learning 24%
Methodology
7%
graduates
72%
Results student
42%
Output
Suggestions
Student Vice- Vice- Head of Head of
Rector Dean
role rector dean Inst. Dep.

Summary Commodity
(α=0,603)

H1: Manager
(α=0,626)
H2: ? Consumer
(α=0,473)
H3: ?
 2) Hypotheses regarding students
Principal component analysis Student expectations
(varimax): • Partnership
• KMO=0,771 (p<0,001) • Growth
Aims • 7 principal components: 60% • Quality of teaching and learning
• Labor market relevance
• Support system
Methodology • Comfort
• Flexibility

Results

partnership growth quality relevance support comfort flexibility

Suggestions

state-funded fee-paying
Summary Cluster 1 Consumer
ROI
Cluster 2 Commodity
H4:
Funding r = - 0,112* Cluster 3 Manager
H5: ? Cluster 4 Consumer
(1-self; 0-state) p = 0,044
H6: ?
 3) Gap-model and segmentation

Aims Perception of Student

Expectations Gap 1
leaders expectations

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

Improve my ability to work in teams 2,45 3,02 -0,57
To be preapared for life long learning 2,59 3,05 -0,47
Results
Improve my communication skills 2,88 3,34 -0,46
Available and extensive library 2,72 3,15 -0,43
Suggestions
…
Gap Mean: -0,18
Summary

H7:
H8:
 3) Gap-model and segmentation
Student Student
Expectations Gap 5
expectations satisfaction
Aims
Competent teachers who can clearly
3,82 2,91 0,91
communicate complex ideas.
Methodology

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

Results

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

Suggestions

Timely accurate and precise

3,78 2,41 1,37
Summary information
…
H7:
H8: Gap Mean: 0,63
 1 2 3 4
quality, support,
Important needs comfort, flexibility relevance, flexibility quality, relevance
flexibility
3) Gap-model and segmentation
Not important
relevance, support quality, support flexibility, partnership relevance
needs

Aims Obtain educational

Complete tasks on activity in the learning
materials; complete
Obligations time; don’t be late from - process; obtain
tasks on time; inform
class educational materials
teachers
Methodology
Don’t be late from
Prepare for every
class; complete tasks
Not obliged class; activity in the everything Respect office hours
on time; inform
Results learning process
teachers

economics, engineering
humanities, law, humanities, economics, humanities, social
Discipline medical, natural
Suggestions teacher education agricultural sciences
sciences
Funding fee-paying fee-paying state-funded state-funded
Graduates graduated still learning still learning graduated
Summary
Full-time/part-time part-time full-time part-time part-time
Student loan typical typical mixed not typical
Gender
H7: female male mixed male
Talent
typical not typical not typical typical
management
Metaphor consumer commodity manager consumer
ROI low moderately low moderately high high
  Higher education leaders should reconsider the role of
students alongside the manager metaphor
Aims  Reverse the psychological contracts of fee-paying
students: demand accountability for quality, take
responsibility for their investment
Methodology
 Treat the service quality gaps based on the Gap-model
 Encourage market research
Results
 Improve bottom-up communication
 Improve relationship focus
Suggestions
 Improve service
 Higher education leaders should identify students along the
Summary clusters and develop differentiated strategies to enhance
quality based (but not exclusively) on their needs
 • Higher education leaders consider
1. the graduates as the output of higher education

Aims ? 2. the employer and the state as main clients

? 3. students based on the commodity-metaphor
• Fee-paying students
Methodology
4. expectations are dominated by elements regarding quality
of education
Results ? 5. think that they have a lower return on investment in their
education compared to state-funded students
? 6. Students consider themselves alongside the consumer-
Suggestions metaphor
7. Gap 1 and Gap 5 will be notable in the GAP model.

Summary
8. Students can be segmentated alongside their expectations
and obligations can be assigned to these groups. This
relationship can be interpreted with the term of pyschological
contract.
References

1. Barakonyi, K. (szerk., 2009): „Bologna Hungaricum” Diagnózis és terápia. Budapest, Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó, 312 p.
2. Cerri, S. (2012): Assessing the quality of higher education services using a modified SERVQUAL scale. Annales
Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 2:664-667.
3. Davies, S. (2002): Marketing in Higher Education: Matching Promises and Reality to Expectations. In: OECD (szerk.):
Responding to Student Expectations. OECD, Paris, 152 p., 103-114. p.
4. Deiaco, E. - Hughes, A. - McKelvey, M. (2012): Universities as strategic actors in the knowledge economy. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 36:525-541.
5. Eagle, L. - Brennan, R. (2007): Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in
Education. 1:44-60.
6. Fábri Gy. (2009): Ideje újragondolni a felsőoktatási rangsorokat. Felsőoktatási Műhely, 4:13-17. URL:
http://www.felvi.hu/pub_bin/dload/FeMu/2009_04/oldal13_18_fabri.pdf(Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10. 08.)
7. Foropon, C. - Seiple, R. - Kerbache, L. (2013): Using SERVQUAL to Examine Service Quality inthe Classroom: Analyses
of Undergraduate and Executive Education Operations Management Courses. International Journal of Business and
Management, 20:105-116.
8. Halász Gábor (2010): A tanulás minősége a felsőoktatásban: intézményi és nemzeti szintű folyamatok. Kézirat. URL:
http://halaszg.ofi.hu/download/A_study_TANULAS.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10. 07.)
9. Kandiko, C. B. - Mawer, M. (2013). Student Expectations and Perceptions of Higher Education. King’s Learning Institute,
London, 82 p.
10. Kotler, P. - Fox, K. F. A. (1985): Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions. Prentice Hall, New Jearsey, 484 p.
11. Ng, I. C. L. - Forbes, J. (2009): Education as Service: The Understanding of University Experience Through the Service
Logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1:38-64.
12. Nordensvärd, J. (2011): The consumer metaphor versus the citizen metaphor: different sets of roles for students. In:
Molesworth, M. - Scullion, R. - Nixon, E. (szerk.): The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer.
Routledge, London, 264 p., 157-169. p.
References
13. Parasuraman, A. - Zeithaml, V. A. - Berry, L. L. (1988): SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer
perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 1: 12-40.
14. Pereira, M. A. C. - da Silva, M. T. (2003): A Key Question for Higher Education: Who are the customers? Proceedings
of the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, April 4-7, 2003, Atlanta.
15. Pietersen, C. (2014): Negotiating a Shared Psychological Contract with Students. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 7:25-33.
16. Polónyi I. (2013): Az aranykor vége. Bezárnak-e a papírgyárak? Budapeset, Gondolat Kiadó, 283 p.
17. Poór J. - Bencsik A. - Fekete I. - Majó Z. és László Gy. (2008): Trendek és tendenciák a magyarországi állami
egyetemek HR–rendszereinek továbbfejlesztése területén. Competitio, 2:115–145. URL:
http://http//www.econ.unideb.hu/userfiles/File/tudomany/competitio/folyoirat/7evfolyam_2szam/07_poor_bencsik_feket
e_majo.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 09. 25.)
18. Rajasekhar, M. - Muninarayanappa, M. - Reddy, S. V. S. (2009): The GAP Model Analysis of Service Quality in Indian
Higher Education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Social Sciences, 2:214-229.
19. Shin, J. C. (2014): The University as an institution of higher learning: evolution or devolution. In: Shin, J. C. - Teichler,
U. (szerk.): The future of the Post-Massified University at the Crossroads. Restructuring Systems and Functions.
Springer, New York, 255 p., 13-28. p.
20. Tan, K. C. - Kek, S. W. (2004): Service Quality in Higher Education Using an Enhanced SERVQUAL Approach. Quality
in Higher Education, 1:17-24.
21. Teichler, U. (2014): Possible Futures for Higher Education: Challenges for Higher Education Research. In: Shin, J. C. -
Teichler, U. (szerk.): The future of the Post-Massified University at the Crossroads. Restructuring Systems and
Functions. Springer, New York, 255 p., 145-166. p.
22. Wilson, A. - Zeithaml, V. A. - Bitner, M. J. - Gremler, D. D. (2012): Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus
Across the Firm. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 608 p.
23. Zhang, J. - Liao, H. (2010): Upgrading knowledge competitiveness is the new mission of higher education. US-China
Education Review, 10:78-86. URL:
http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/7/16/2012/2012071603521048.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10.
09.)
Thank you for your
attention!

László Horváth - horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.hu

Eötvös Loránd University
Institute of Education, Doctoral School of Education