whole service provided, (Dale, 2003

whole service provided, (Dale, 2003) and by implication, their impression of the organisation itself. As Deming (1982) commented, most people form their opinions based on the people that they see, and they are either dissatisfied or delighted, or some other point on the continuumin between.Inorderto deliver high qualityservicesto students,universities must manage every aspect of the student’s interaction with all of their service offerings and in particular those involving its people. Services are delivered to people by people, and the moments of truth can make or break a university’s image (Banwet and Datta, 2003). In order to deliver total student satisfaction, all employees of a university should adhere to the principles of quality customer service, whether they be front-line contact staff involved in teaching or administration, or non-contact staff in management or administrative roles (Gold, 2001; Low, 2000, cited in Banwet and Datta, 2003). In a recent survey conducted with 310 all male Saudi Arabian students attending the King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Sohail and Shaikh (2004) found that “contact personnel” was the most influencing factor in student’s evaluation of service quality. However, physical environment, layout, lighting, classrooms, appearance of buildings and grounds and the overall cleanliness also significantly contributed to students’ concepts of service quality. Galloway (1998) studied the role of the faculty administration office in one UK University on student perceptions of service quality. He found that it impacted directly on students and influencedtheir perceptions of the quality of the whole institution. The office performance also had a direct impact on academic and technical staff within the faculty. These front-line staff in their turn had a direct impact on students, potential students and other clients. The main predictors of quality for students were found to be: . office has a professional appearance; . staff dress smartly; . never too busy to help; and . opening hours are personally convenient.
Banwet and Datta (2003) believed that satisfied customers are loyal, and that satisfied students were likely to attend another lecture delivered by the same lecturer or opt for another module or course taught by her/him. In their survey of 168 students who attended four lectures delivered by the same lecturer, covering perceived service quality, importance and post-visit intentions, they found that students placed more importance on the outcome of the lecture (knowledge and skills gained, availability of class notes and reading material, coverage and depth of the lecture and teacher’s feedback on assessed work) than any other dimension. This supports the findings of Schneiderand Bowen (1995)who deduced thatthe quality ofthecoreserviceinfluences the overall quality of the service perception. For universities the core service delivery method is still the lecture. Overall Banwet and Datta (2003) found that students’ intentions to re-attend or recommend lectures was dependent on their perceptions of quality and the satisfaction they got from attending previous lectures. This is supported by the research of Hill et al. (2003) who utilised focus groups to determine what quality education meant to students. The most important theme was the quality
QAE 14,3
254
of the lecturer including classroom delivery, feedback to students during the session and on assignments, and the relationship with students in the classroom. Research by Tam (2002) to measure the impact of Higher Education (HE) on student’s academic, social and personal growth at a Hong Kong university found that as a result of their university experience students had changed intellectually, socially, emotionally and culturally. This growth was evidenced as students progressed from one year to another as their university career developed. Is this also the case with student’ perceptions of service quality and satisfaction? A number of researchers have suggested that this might indeed be the case (Hill, 1995; O’Neil, 2003) although obtaining valid and reliable data to support such a stance is difficult. This study aims to determine if there are differences in those aspects of a university service that students consider important, as well as their satisfaction levels, associated with their year/level of study, i.e. first, second and third.
Methodology A quantitative survey was designed to elicit student satisfaction levels across the University’s service offerings.Thequestionnaire consisted of60questionsinformedby previous research studies and subdivided into the various categories of the service-product bundle including, lecture and tutorial facilities, ancillary facilities, the facilitating goods, the explicit service and the implicit service. At the end students were asked for their overall satisfaction rating and whether they would recommend the University to a prospective student. The satisfaction questions were preceded by a series of demographic questions that would allow the sample population to be segmented. These included, interalia, questions regarding gender, age, level of study, mode of study and country of origin. Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and anonymous. The length and complexity of the questionnaire was influenced, in part, by the balance between the quest for data and getting students to complete the survey. The questionnaire was piloted among 100 undergraduate volunteers. The length of time it took them to complete the survey was noted and at the end they were asked for any commentsregarding thevalidity and reliabilityofindividualquestions. They were also asked if there was anything “missing” from the questionnaire. Based on the feedback received a number of questions were amended and the design of the questionnaire altered slightly. It took on average 12 minutes to complete the questionnaire. In order to get as large and representative a sample as possible, core modules from programmes in all five Schools within the Faculty of Business and Law at all three undergraduate levels were targeted. Staff teaching these modules were approached and permission sought to utilise 15 minutes of their lecture time in order to explain the rationale behind the survey and to persuade students to complete the survey in class. Generally this “personal touch” was successful in eliciting a good response. Over the course of the two weeks the survey was undertaken, only one person refused to complete the questionnaire. Researchers are divided as to whether or not determinants of satisfaction should be weighted by their importance because different attributes may be of unequal importance to different people (Angur, 1998; Harvey, 1995; Patterson and Spreng, 1997). In this study both satisfaction and importance were measured.
Measuring student satisfaction
255
There is no such thing as the perfect rating scale. However, some produce more reliable and valid results than others. Devlin et al. (1993) determined that a good rating scale should have, inter alia, the following characteristics: . minimal response bias; . discriminating power; . ease of administration; and . ease of use by respondents.
In order to accommodate these characteristics, the rating scale contained five points with well-spaced anchor points representing the possible range of opinions about the service. The scale contained a neutral category and the negative categories were presented first (to the left). Thus, undergraduates were required to respond utilising a 5-point Likert scale of 1 to5,where1isveryunsatisfactory,2isunsatisfactory,3isneutral(neithersatisfactory or unsatisfactory), 4 is satisfactory and 5 is very satisfactory. This type of scale provides a common basis for responses to items concerned with different aspects of the University experience. The importance that students place on each criteria was measured utilising a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 is very unimportant, 2 is unimportant, 3 is neutral (neither important or unimportant) 4 is important and 5 is very important. Respondents were asked to tick the box next to the number that represented their opinion on each item. A sample of 865 students from a total within the Faculty of 3800 was surveyed. The questionnaires were analysed using SPSS v. 11 and Quadrant Analysis conducted in order to determine those areas perceived as being the least satisfactory with the greatest importance rating. Finally, respondent focus groups were assembled to discuss some of the issues that required more in-depth analysis and which, due to constraints of space and time, were not explicitly asked about in the original survey.
Results A total of 864 questionnaires were returned, although not all had complete data sets. Table I details the demographic mix of the respondents. Based on all student responses, the most important (i.e. list of the top ten starting from the highest value) and least important (i.e. list of the bottom ten starting from the lowest value) aspects of the University service are shown in Table II. Ascan be seen fromTable II the most important areas ofthe University services are those associated with learning and teaching. Interestingly, given the recommendations of a Government White Paper (HEFCE et al., 2003) that from 2006 all newly recruited university teaching staff should obtain a teaching qualification that incorporates agreed professional standards, the most important aspect of the service is the teaching ability of staff, closely followed by their subject expertise. The consistency of teaching quality irrespective of the teacher is also considered by the respondents as important, recognising that teaching quality can be variable. The students also recognise the importance of the lecture and tutorial, which is not surprising given that for most universitiesthatisstillthecoreservice offering andisverymuchlinkedtotheteaching ability and subject know

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

toàn bộ dịch vụ cung cấp, (Dale, 2003) và bởi ngụ ý, Ấn tượng của họ của tổ chức riêng của mình. Như Deming (1982) nhận xét, hầu hết mọi người hình thành ý kiến của mình dựa trên những người họ thấy, và họ là một trong hai dissatisfied hoặc rất vui mừng, hoặc một số điểm trên continuumin giữa.Inorderto cung cấp cao qualityservicesto học sinh, trường đại học phải quản lý mọi khía cạnh của các sinh viên tương tác với tất cả các dịch vụ dịch vụ và đặc biệt những người liên quan đến người dân của nó. Dịch vụ được cung cấp cho những người, và những khoảnh khắc của sự thật có thể thực hiện hoặc phá vỡ hình ảnh của một trường đại học (Banwet và Datta, 2003). Để cung cấp sự hài lòng tất cả học sinh, tất cả nhân viên của một trường đại học nên tuân thủ các nguyên tắc của các dịch vụ khách hàng chất lượng, cho dù họ là phục liên hệ nhân viên tham gia vào giảng dạy, hành chính, hoặc không tiếp xúc nhân viên quản lý hoặc vai trò hành chính (vàng, năm 2001; Thấp, 2000, trích dẫn trong Banwet và Datta, 2003). Trong một khảo sát gần đây thực hiện với 310 tất cả học sinh nam ả Rập Saudi tham dự King Fahd Đại học dầu khí và khoáng sản, dat và Shaikh (2004) thấy rằng "liên hệ nhân viên" là nhất influencing yếu tố trong đánh giá của sinh viên dịch vụ chất lượng. Tuy nhiên, vật lý môi trường, giao diện, ánh sáng, Phòng học, sự xuất hiện của tòa nhà và Sân vườn và vệ sinh tổng thể cũng significantly đóng góp cho học sinh những khái niệm về chất lượng dịch vụ. Galloway (1998) nghiên cứu vai trò của office quản lý giảng viên tại một trường đại học Vương Quốc Anh ngày sinh viên nhận thức về chất lượng dịch vụ. Ông thấy rằng nó ảnh hưởng trực tiếp trên sinh viên và influencedtheir nhận thức về chất lượng của cơ sở giáo dục toàn bộ. Hiệu suất office cũng đã có một tác động trực tiếp vào nhân viên học tập và kỹ thuật trong các giảng viên. Các nhân viên tiền tuyến của họ lần lượt có một tác động trực tiếp về học sinh, sinh viên tiềm năng và khách hàng khác. Dự đoán chính của chất lượng cho học sinh đã được tìm thấy là:. office có một sự xuất hiện chuyên nghiệp;. nhân viên phục vụ ăn thông minh;. không bao giờ quá bận rộn để giúp; và. giờ mở cửa là cá nhân thuận tiện.Banwet và Datta (2003) tin rằng satisfied khách hàng là trung thành, và rằng satisfied học sinh đã có khả năng tham dự một bài giảng giao bởi giảng viên cùng hoặc lựa chọn không cho một mô-đun hoặc khóa học giảng dạy bởi her/him. Trong cuộc khảo sát của 168 sinh viên tham dự bốn bài giảng giao bởi giảng viên cùng một, bao gồm chất lượng cảm nhận dịch vụ, tầm quan trọng và ý định sau chuyến thăm, họ tìm thấy rằng học sinh đặt tầm quan trọng hơn trên kết quả các bài giảng (kiến thức và kỹ năng đã đạt được, cung cấp các ghi chú lớp và đọc tài liệu, bảo hiểm và chiều sâu của các bài giảng và phản hồi của giáo viên về đánh giá công việc) hơn bất kỳ kích thước khác. Điều này hỗ trợ findings Schneiderand Bowen (1995), những người suy luận rằng chất lượng ofthecoreserviceinfluences chất lượng tổng thể của nhận thức dịch vụ. Đối với trường đại học cách phân phối dịch vụ cốt lõi vẫn là các bài giảng. Nói chung, Banwet và Datta (2003) thấy rằng sinh viên ý định để tái tham dự hoặc đề nghị bài giảng là phụ thuộc vào nhận thức của họ về chất lượng và sự hài lòng của họ nhận từ tham dự bài giảng trước đó. Điều này được hỗ trợ bởi các nghiên cứu của Hill et al. (2003) người sử dụng các nhóm tâm điểm để xác định những gì giáo dục chất lượng có nghĩa là cho sinh viên. Chủ đề quan trọng nhất là chất lượngQAE 14,3254của giảng viên bao gồm giao hàng lớp học, thông tin phản hồi cho sinh viên trong phiên họp và trên bài tập, và mối quan hệ với học sinh trong lớp học. Nghiên cứu của tâm (2002) để đo lường tác động của giáo dục đại học (HE) của học sinh học, xã hội và cá nhân tăng trưởng một Hong Kong đại học thấy rằng là kết quả của kinh nghiệm đại học của học sinh đã thay đổi trí tuệ, xã hội, tình cảm và văn hóa. Sự tăng trưởng này được chứng minh khi học sinh tiến triển từ một năm khác như đại học của sự nghiệp phát triển. Đây cũng là trường hợp với sinh viên ' nhận thức về chất lượng dịch vụ và sự hài lòng? Một số nhà nghiên cứu đã gợi ý rằng điều này có thể thực sự là trường hợp (Hill, 1995; O'Neil, 2003) mặc dù việc thu thập dữ liệu hợp lệ và đáng tin cậy để hỗ trợ một lập trường là difficult. Nghiên cứu này nhằm mục đích xác định nếu có sự khác biệt trong những khía cạnh của một dịch vụ đại học mà học sinh xem xét quan trọng, cũng như mức độ hài lòng của họ, liên quan đến năm/mức độ nghiên cứu, tức là chính, thứ hai và thứ ba.Methodology A quantitative survey was designed to elicit student satisfaction levels across the University’s service offerings.Thequestionnaire consisted of60questionsinformedby previous research studies and subdivided into the various categories of the service-product bundle including, lecture and tutorial facilities, ancillary facilities, the facilitating goods, the explicit service and the implicit service. At the end students were asked for their overall satisfaction rating and whether they would recommend the University to a prospective student. The satisfaction questions were preceded by a series of demographic questions that would allow the sample population to be segmented. These included, interalia, questions regarding gender, age, level of study, mode of study and country of origin. Participation in the survey was entirely voluntary and anonymous. The length and complexity of the questionnaire was influenced, in part, by the balance between the quest for data and getting students to complete the survey. The questionnaire was piloted among 100 undergraduate volunteers. The length of time it took them to complete the survey was noted and at the end they were asked for any commentsregarding thevalidity and reliabilityofindividualquestions. They were also asked if there was anything “missing” from the questionnaire. Based on the feedback received a number of questions were amended and the design of the questionnaire altered slightly. It took on average 12 minutes to complete the questionnaire. In order to get as large and representative a sample as possible, core modules from programmes in all five Schools within the Faculty of Business and Law at all three undergraduate levels were targeted. Staff teaching these modules were approached and permission sought to utilise 15 minutes of their lecture time in order to explain the rationale behind the survey and to persuade students to complete the survey in class. Generally this “personal touch” was successful in eliciting a good response. Over the course of the two weeks the survey was undertaken, only one person refused to complete the questionnaire. Researchers are divided as to whether or not determinants of satisfaction should be weighted by their importance because different attributes may be of unequal importance to different people (Angur, 1998; Harvey, 1995; Patterson and Spreng, 1997). In this study both satisfaction and importance were measured.Measuring student satisfaction255There is no such thing as the perfect rating scale. However, some produce more reliable and valid results than others. Devlin et al. (1993) determined that a good rating scale should have, inter alia, the following characteristics: . minimal response bias; . discriminating power; . ease of administration; and . ease of use by respondents.In order to accommodate these characteristics, the rating scale contained five points with well-spaced anchor points representing the possible range of opinions about the service. The scale contained a neutral category and the negative categories were presented first (to the left). Thus, undergraduates were required to respond utilising a 5-point Likert scale of 1 to5,where1isveryunsatisfactory,2isunsatisfactory,3isneutral(neithersatisfactory or unsatisfactory), 4 is satisfactory and 5 is very satisfactory. This type of scale provides a common basis for responses to items concerned with different aspects of the University experience. The importance that students place on each criteria was measured utilising a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 is very unimportant, 2 is unimportant, 3 is neutral (neither important or unimportant) 4 is important and 5 is very important. Respondents were asked to tick the box next to the number that represented their opinion on each item. A sample of 865 students from a total within the Faculty of 3800 was surveyed. The questionnaires were analysed using SPSS v. 11 and Quadrant Analysis conducted in order to determine those areas perceived as being the least satisfactory with the greatest importance rating. Finally, respondent focus groups were assembled to discuss some of the issues that required more in-depth analysis and which, due to constraints of space and time, were not explicitly asked about in the original survey.Results A total of 864 questionnaires were returned, although not all had complete data sets. Table I details the demographic mix of the respondents. Based on all student responses, the most important (i.e. list of the top ten starting from the highest value) and least important (i.e. list of the bottom ten starting from the lowest value) aspects of the University service are shown in Table II. Ascan be seen fromTable II the most important areas ofthe University services are those associated with learning and teaching. Interestingly, given the recommendations of a Government White Paper (HEFCE et al., 2003) that from 2006 all newly recruited university teaching staff should obtain a teaching qualification that incorporates agreed professional standards, the most important aspect of the service is the teaching ability of staff, closely followed by their subject expertise. The consistency of teaching quality irrespective of the teacher is also considered by the respondents as important, recognising that teaching quality can be variable. The students also recognise the importance of the lecture and tutorial, which is not surprising given that for most universitiesthatisstillthecoreservice offering andisverymuchlinkedtotheteaching ability and subject know