INTRODUCTION:
Excellence
is the key milestone of any academic world. But in modern years, the pursuit of
quality has achieved new demands (Duderstadt, 2003). In all facets of the
education community, students' rights to continued existence, assurance, development
and participation are at the centre. This points out that the emphasis is on
learning, which enhances students ' ability to work increasingly on their own
behalf by gaining suitable skills, beneficial aptitude and correct attitudes
(Bernard, 1999).
The
universities operate with increased autonomy and academic freedom from
government inference. Many governments are providing their higher education
institutions with lump-sum subsidies. In lieu of this, the Government calls for
improved accountability (OECD, 2003). At the same time, there is an increase in
the number of private HEIs resulting in the need to establish the quality of
their training and the qualifications of faculty members. In the preface to
'real' school fees in many countries, students and their families increasingly
tend to see education as a consumer product. Mass accessibility and competitive
compensation from industry put pressure on the quality of HEIs (Mitra, 2009).
The attraction of highly competent intellectuals with attractive salaries will
therefore be a major challenge for private HEIs (Mabaso, 2017).
HEIs'
long-term survival can be considered differentiating factors between one HEI
and the other (Aly and Akpovi, 2001; Kanji etc., 1999) and rely upon their
services for their long-term survival. Edhave (2009) realized that university
services are difficult to quantify and often intangible. Additionally, the
outcome is exemplified in the metamorphosis of persons in characteristics,
knowledge and behaviour. Therefore, no generally accepted quality clarification
referring only to the HEI sector is available (Michael, 1998). Furthermore,
when the quality of HEIs is assessed, issues such as independence and autonomy
for the whole procedure (Middlehurst and Gordon, 1995) are justified. In that
respect, the agencies in charge of accreditation operating in each part of the
world attempt to evaluate and accredit their diplomas and the educational work
offered to reassess the quality of the institutions. However, the functioning
of these government bodies seems to have little effect on the industry's quality
perception or on clarifying institutional quality assessment problems (Parri,
2006).
The
overly simplified attempt to assess quality would be to show briefly what
quality is, to align some of the standards that can be evaluated, to compare
them and to show the quality of the institution involved in its work within
each organisation. Unfortunately, higher education quality and the
characterization of the assessment approach are not an easy question (Parri,
2006). Furthermore, the complexity of the practice increases as the
measured characteristics of the quality are not stable and their relative
weight varies according to the different stakeholder analysis points (Parri,
2006).
In
the context of quality-enhancing variables, national programs and writings have
progressively highlighted instructors, schools, and communities as quality
drivers, with an exclusive focus on teacher quality recognized as the main
focus (Wenner, 2017). Senegal (2000) showed during the World Education Forum in
Dakar over the last decade that efforts to enhance enrollment need to be
accompanied by efforts to improve the quality of education if students are to
become involved in education and achieve important learning outcomes.
Modern
educational outcomes tests in some countries have also shown that a significant
proportion of children only get a little bit of the skills and knowledge that
they are supposed to master (WEF, 2000). UNESCO (2003, 2004) points out that,
on the other hand, the increasing importance of the need for quality to go
hand-in - hand with the growth of education remains mulishly secondary to the
unrelenting rush for quality education. Some factors are firm and conceivably
promoting country policies to raise gross enrollment rates, as is the 2000 United
Nations Millennium 2 Declaration on Universal Primary Education (UPE) in all
countries. Certain recent initiatives, such as the Fast Track Program of the
World Bank and the Millennium Challenge Account of USAID, concentrate on
consistency of art while retaining strong visibility over the continued rapid
progress of enrollment (Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Malawi Compact,
2018).
In
brief, quality education is a catalyst to positive human and social progress.
Fossum and Kubow (2003) contend that education supports the growing
society as a mechanism for every nation to develop. Nevertheless, despite the
value of 'quality,' approaches to the definition of educational quality differ
widely. Nevertheless, two main elements of quality have been established in the
broader perspective of high-quality education in most of the country's
policies: cognitive, mental, normative and psychomotor education for students
and psychological, creative and emotional development. (UNESCO, 2004). Developing
cognitive, regulatory, psychomotor dimensions, which can be a key indicator of
the commitment of the system to high-quality education, is a key univocal
target for all educational systems. This is the level in which the system meets
its education goals. Moreover, the cognitive, artistic, and emotional
development of the learner is often not measured or treated meaningfully in any
way. Nicholson (2011) also described quality education as a change. The current
assumption is that education should change the lives of students by improving
or enabling them.
The
main objectives of the paper were to evaluate the determinants of the quality
of service in HEIs, by identifying quality from the point of view of students.
The aim of this study is to determine and test dimensions for the measurement
of the quality of service in higher education, with a detailed reference to
students in undergraduate programs and to assess the inclination of students to
existing teaching services.
The
study aims at determining and studying the variables determining the service
quality, the extent to which the student's outlook is achieved and whether the student's
perceptive differences in the weighting of importance on the basis of
demographic variables exist. An attempt to re-examine the interrelated
literature in the following sections envisages a synopsis of quality assurance
at HEIs.
RESEARCH
PROBLEM:
Over
the last decade, public HEIs have faced intense competition from the high
growth of private universities with respect to their prospective students to be
admitted. Private universities have emerged as mushrooms in Ghana over the last
decade (Kajsa Hallberg Adu, 2009). In 1999, there were only two Private
Universities, currently there are more than 19 Private HEIs and 11 private Polytechnics
offering degree programs in Ghana. (Kajsa Hallberg Adu, 2009) The high growth of
private HEIs necessitated a high demand for service quality in public HEIs.
Thus, in the case of providing quality education services to the public HEIs,
it is necessary to critically analyze what the primary client being a student
sees as the key determinants of their education services in order to be able to
meet their needs and remain competitive in the education sector.
The
challenge of providing quality education services to HEIs lies primarily with
the academic, senior administrative and professional staff of HEIs universities.
Research on the academic quality services of universities is lacking among
students as well as even very little research on exactly what segments of
university training determine perceived quality. Further research is also important
in order to address the differences in previous studies. This study, therefore
uses a quantitative approach to identify this research gap by using the Service
Quality (SERQUAL) model and the Higher Education Service Quality (HESQUAL)
model (Shekarchizadeh, Rasli et al. 2011, and Teeroovengadum and Kamalanabhan
et al. 2016).
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS:
To
achieve the objective of this research, two main research questions were explored,
viz:
1.
What are
the student
perceptions of
academic service
quality in
public and
private
HEIs?
2.
What are the key determinants of academic
service quality in public HEIs?
LITERATURE
REVIEW:
Definition
of Quality in HEIs
The
community of higher education uses quality theory to justify its focused vision
and mission (Stella and Martin 2007). There is no adequate Quality Explanation
for the entire higher education system in accordance with Stella and Martin
(2007). The subsequent thought processes were exposed to view by Martin and
Stella (2007); foremost, owing to the connection between faculty and students.
Higher education is a complicated practice and multi-dimensional. Second, as
higher education gets to be very all-encompassing, student population turns
into further varied; demands on HEIs, and distribution of courses expand
progressively and varied. Though, Martin and
Stella (2007) set 4 different higher-education objectives for creating
competent jobs, university learning for research purposes, higher-education for
training for research professions, higher education as well as well-organized
teaching services and higher education in order to extend life chances, there
is not a compromise on the different objectives of higher education. Eventually,
there is no exclusive or “one length
match all” explanation owing to the piece of evidence that a single explanation
possibly will appear good enough for a
single category of courses or institutions but it is almost certainly
insufficient for others (Martin and Stella, 2007). Berger and Blanco (2014)
said that a better evaluation of quality assurance policies reveals that
practices did not outline quality in concept. Thus, no one explanation is seen as good enough owing
to the
piece of
evidence that
numerous HEIs
delineate quality of their very peculiar perceptions.
Quality
as a term has become increasingly relevant as a policy issue, as a priority on
practice and as a topic in higher education research. (Blanco and Berger,
2014). Lategan (2004), argues that
the idea
of quality
does no
longer necessarily
offer a
straight and
direct interpretation; as a consequence,
educators must comply with an open and bend strategy when dealing with quality
in higher education.
A
host of writers such as Fourie (2000); Harvey and Green (1993); Strydom
et al.,
(1997) indicate
that educators
should rather
use notions
of quality instead of a definition.
Notions
such as:
“Quality
as a transformation, fitness to intent quality, quality as a search for null
defect, quality as a value for money, and quality as a product that is measured
against consumer satisfaction quality as an extremely high level;”.
To
station in the nutshell, quality is an obscure concept that has consistently
stood indeterminate (Blanco and Berger, 2014). In keeping up with the
literature unshaken in this section, researchers, companies, people, and public
and private corporations, who're concerned or running within the place of high-quality, describe
quality as
a concept to
a level
the current
condition of
products and the way services are conveyed. Businesses and organizations
interpret quality in line with their organizational principles, visions, and
premeditated ambitions.
Higher
Education in Ghana:
It
seems to be more than half a century since attempts to encourage higher
education for national growth in Ghanaia began. At independence, the leaders of
the nation were clear about the kind of human resource needed to guide and
facilitate the rapid socio-economic development of the newly liberated nation
(Being, 2005; Addae-Mensah, 2000; Antwi, 1992). The close link between education
and national development, which dates back to the pre-independence era,
continues to drive the domestic search for social progress
and socio-economic improvement.
Education
in Ghana, as elsewhere, has historically been seen as the panacea to national
growth (Manu, Gariba and Budu, 2007; Addae-Mensah, 2000; Antwi, 1992). As a
result, attempts to stimulate economic and social development in Ghana were
defined not only by infrastructural, agricultural development projects and
industrial, but also through educational reforms designed to generate the much
needed human capital to drive the development process. Even before
independence, with the help of the Ghanaian public, early nationalists had
pressured the colonial administration to establish the very first University
College, the University College of the Gold Coast (UCGC), currently the
University of Ghana (UG) (Bening, 2005; Antworti, 1992). Bening (2005: 17) offered
an explanation behind the desire for higher education in the British colonies
of the time, including the Gold Coast:
An
increasing number of technically qualified men and women in every area of human
activity are needed for the social and economic development program in the colonies.
It was necessary to train and hire as large a proportion as possible of
professionals and specialists locally.
Under
colonialism, British efforts to intervene in higher-education demands by
working against the findings of the Asquith Commission and the Elliot
Commission of 1945, both of them, were forced to comply because of ongoing
nationalist protests and demands (Bening, 2005; Ansi, 1992). The reaction to
British Colonial attempts to postpone higher education in the then Gold Coast,
in particular, demonstrates the fears and suspicions of the few African leaders
by the Colonial Administration and the extent of their ability to stir trouble
with the colonial. The Colonizers were definitely very conscious and tried to
impede the advancement of higher education as part of the battle for national
sovereignty, social change and self-rule. Nevertheless, the end of formal
colonialism and the achievement of independence did not stop the situation.
Simile
reactions persisted even after independence, and in the 1980s, for example, at
the height of the World Bank-led Structural Adjustment Programme, efforts were
made to streamline university education. One obvious case was the World Bank's
reticence, even its refusal, to support the establishment, in northern Ghana,
of a fourth state university, the UDS. While, under the leadership of the
National Democratic Congress (NDC), the Government of Ghana (GoG) argued on
equity grounds and special needs, the World Bank was concerned about fiscal expediency
and efficiency (Bening, 2005). When, at the time the World Bank was shaping and
financing major socioeconomic development initiatives in the region, the GoG
went ahead to create, the UDS, it did so from its internal and other capital.
As
already noted, the very first effort at higher education in Ghana goes all the
way back to the 1940s, when the UCGC, now UG, was established in 1948 (Manu et
al, 2007, Bening, 2005; Antworti, 1992). Nevertheless, the effort of a former
British Colonial Governor, Sir Gordon Guggisberg, whose vision of Achimota
College, established in 1927, included his evolution into a university, had
preceded the 1940s attempt. By 1935, Achimota had created their first B.Sc.
Engineering student, working with the University of London (Antwi 1992). Therefore,
just as the UCGC was later founded it had a precedent to learn from. Those
earlier attempts had been inspired by a clear national agenda for development.
At independence, the higher education agenda and mandate were expanded to satisfy
the needs of the newly "liberated" nation state.
The
place of higher education in accelerating national development was recognized
right from the beginning, even though its growth was slow with the State being
the main provider. However, the 1990s were characterized by an explosion in the
establishment of higher education institutions (HEIs), with the expansion of
secondary education, especially in the 1980s, and the changing needs of the
State. Ghana is experiencing today an outbreak in the establishment of HEIs
such as universities, colleges, polytechnics and professional institutes and
schools by both states, such as GoG, MDAs and MMDAs, and private providers such
as faith-based organisations, communities and private individuals.
Concept
of Quality Education:
According
to Cheng (1997) the word quality has multiple interpretations in Management
literature. It has also been defined in different ways as conforming to
specifications, conforming to requirements, preventing defects and meeting customer
needs. As with beauty, quality is peculiar or subjective; it is basically a
matter of personal judgment. In any respect, the above delineations seem to
have no competition, but they are connected. To conclude, a rather contentious
or controversial and vague term for quality education.
The
reality is that the justification in deciding the quality of education ought
not to be quality either, but the headset and the interest in education. Education
has many facets at the end of the day, which can be regarded as the center of
attention because education also has purposes and components. In the end,
quality is an arbitrary and personal decision. As such consistency continues to
be subjective and elusive (Cheng, 1997). Given the controversy over the quality
concept, Doherty (2008) described quality as "something which institutions
do; a framework for determining the degree to which institutions' macro
objectives, priorities and results have been achieved." In other words, it
is a management tool that can contribute effectively to improving
institutional, subject or departmental performance within an institution.
UNESCO
(1990) states that quality education includes freedom, computerization and
practical skills that are taught through the use of content, methodology,
teachers, curricula, policy, review systems and strategic planning management.
With
these definitions, education is expected to add to a sustainable economic and
social development, quality of life at the individual, family, socioeconomic and
global levels. UNESCO (2004) emphasizes that education is a universal right, so
active involvement in high quality education is in itself an important
objective. The promotion of human rights as a right of education promotes the
fulfillment of other rights.
Learning
is the most significant issue in the quality of the education; instructor or
teacher is crucial. Besides the inputs, the processes, atmosphere and outputs
surrounding and promoting learning are also relevant. They have a positive
effect on education quality at two levels: the learning environment and
education system that generates and promotes learning experiences at the level
of the student in his learning environment.
The
improvement of all aspects of quality education, therefore, means ensuring that
everyone has excellent learning outcomes, in particular in literacy, numeracy
and the basic skills of life, that they are identifiable and observable by all.
The Dakar Action Plan directs nations to provide high-quality elementary
education. The framework emphasizes that the improvement of aspects of
qualitative education means that everyone can achieve more beneficial learning
results, especially in the areas of literacy, scoring and critical life skills.
This will nevertheless affect quality only if qualitative education takes place
at the level of the ministry and HEI.
In
summary, juxtaposing the five national league tables confirms a growing world
consensus on the definition and measurement of first-level degree programmes
academic quality. The producers of these commercial league tables suggest that
academic quality can be assessed through input measures and academic reputation.
The quality of the school, the quality of student enrollment as well as the
financial resources offered by a university are parameters here. Student study
and teaching processes are mostly inaccessible, except in the UK where academic
programmes are separately assessed.
Student
Satisfaction with the Quality of Higher Education Service:
Definitions
of perceived value, experience, quality of service, expectations and subsequent
assessment of service are used as background for customer satisfaction (Joseph
et al., 2015). Satisfaction, for example, is the state some person feels
through experience of excellence or a result that meets their expectations (Lagrosen
et al. 2014). The students are the primary clients in the context of university
education (María Cubillo et al., 2016). The concept of taking into
account undergraduates as clients is not uncommon because students are the
primary partners and customers in the university education sector, as they
choose and purchase services deliberately (Oosterbeek et al., 2012).
In
addition, Mazzarol, 2017, argues that student satisfaction gain is a short-lived
attitude. Owlia and Aspinwall (2016) also argues that the satisfaction of
university tutors has an important role to play in shaping the authenticity and
accuracy of the services offered. Parameswaran and Glowacka (2015) indicate
that students’ satisfaction is really the only indication of service quality of
higher education institutions. There are a number of reasons why student
satisfaction variables are present. For instance Parameswaran and Glowacka
(2015) attempted to examine issues such as events outside the learning environment
and the quality of the module. Oh, Peng et al. (2012) also observed that
students are customers or clients and that education providers must give
priority to and meet their expectations. However, Price et al., (2013)
incorporate personal and organisational factors into the factors that can
affect student satisfaction.
Age,
personality, sex, average grade points (GPA), job status and preferred learning
styles were common characteristics (Srikatanyo and Gnoth, 2012). Institutional
factors included: the quality of education, the timeliness and quality of
feedback from the instructor and the clarity of expectations, the style of the
teacher, the size of the classroom and the emphasis of the institution on
research (Sadiq Sohail and Shaikh, 2014). The HEIs must take into account both
the personal and institutional aspects of university education services (Soutar
and Turner, 2012).
Measuring
Service Quality in Education Sector:
A
number of studies used the Servqual model to analyze service quality in higher education
were demonstrated by a literature review. Legčević (2009) examined
the expectations of the students and the quality of their services they
perceived in the Faculty of Law at University of Osijek, Croatia. The
reliability and empathy components were the smallest and most negative means of
the gap. In all, five factors, the expectations and perceptions of students
were also considerably different. In all, five service quality dimensions
(sympathy, assurance, responsiveness, reliability, and tangible) Khan and
Afridi (2010) examined the service quality of eight business schools in
Pakistan, showing students in all institutions to be of low quality. Abu Hasan,
Abd Rahman and Abd Razak (2008) studied service quality in private higher
education institutions and found a strong link between five parameters and overall
service quality. Empathy and student satisfaction were the greatest link,
preceded by tangibility, reactivity, assurance and credibility.
Khodayari
(2011) collected and analyzed the expectations and perceptions of the Islamic
Azad University in Iran, the findings of which show that there is a difference
between student expectations and perceptions of service standards. As a result,
tangible, responsiveness, confidence and sympathy were important to students.
More funds should also set aside to improve reliability the performance of the
Islamic branch Azad Firoozkooh. Mohamad Yusof and others. (2012) studied the quality
of service between research and non-research universities and concluded that
the tangible aspect is the most important, while sympathy and assurance are the
least desirable option.
The
research has led academics and administrators to distribute their resources
fairly. Al-Alnaser and Alak (2012) explored the relationship between service quality
(tangible, responsive, efficacy, safety, and empathy) and overall service
quality with the satisfaction of undergraduate students at the Faculty of
Business of University Jordan. Their findings suggested two main dimensions of
improvement in terms of quality control dimensions and service reliability. Amelia
et al. (2011) stated that there were differences in the quality of IS / IT
service at STMK MDP Palembang in Indonesia between demand and service
performance with the highest and lowest differences in reliability and
dimensions of assurance. Hence, enhancements to service quality in the STMK MDP
contribute to improved customer satisfaction.
A
number of studies are conducted using an exploratory process consisting of
qualitative research methods to identify aspects of high quality education
(HESQUAL) services based on a standardized SERVQUAL structure. Nguyen and
Leblanc (1999) identified 38 components of service quality as a pioneering
piece of work. They were divided into seven components: reputation, management,
curriculum, physical evidence, access to facilities and responsiveness. In a
subsequent study in three countries, the United Kingdom, Australia and Sweden,
Lagrosen et al. (2004) identified 11 factors comprising 31 items. The dimensions
of service quality included organizational cooperation, knowledge and
accessibility, available classes, campus facilities, instructional activities,
internal reviews, external assessments, computer infrastructure, coordination
and comparisons, post-study considerations, and library tools. Similar studies
were performed in different settings. All of these studies have been thoroughly
examined in order to develop the conceptual framework proposed in this study.
METHODOLOGY:
The
descriptive survey design is used for the study. An instrument was designed
based on the SERQUAL model and HESQUAL model. These elements are geared towards
their satisfaction in the HEIs settings. The focus of the assessment instrument
for this study was to evaluate the
services rendered to students in the HEI who
serve as the main customers/consumers of their services. Students serve as the
immediate stakeholders of the Higher Educational
context and
this reason,
their views
and perception about the services rendered by the HEIs cannot be undermined
(Telford and Masson 2005). Having considered the values of the students would
positively affect student participation and satisfaction (Telford and Masson
2005).
Some
Private and Public HEIs in Ghana were chosen from the three regions of the Country
that has the highest number of public institutions for the study. The
instrument was administered at six Public Universities and four accredited
private tertiary institutions. The population of all private and public
University’s students, according to the National. Accreditation Board is 59,714
and 158,383 respectively (Board 2015). Total populations of 424 students were
engaged in this study from both private and public HEIs.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION:
In
this study, descriptive statistics are calculated for every high quality of the
educational service dimension. All observed variables used as measurements of
service quality are measured on a Likert 5 point scale, where 1 represented "Strongly
Disagree", 2 represented "Agree", 3
represented "Not Sure", 4
represented "Disagree" and 5 represented "Strongly Agree".
A total of 424 students from both public and private HEIs responded to this
survey. The respondent comprised male 320 (75.5%) and female 104 (24.5%).
Table: 4.1
Responsiveness and Delivery
|
Responsiveness and
Delivery
|
Public universities
|
Private universities
|
Gap
|
P-Value
|
|
Willing to provide prompt
service
|
3.47
|
3.43
|
004
|
0.808
|
|
Employees are customer friendly
|
3.48
|
3.64
|
-0.16
|
0.0071
|
|
I always feel I have received
the attention I needed
|
3.39
|
3.65
|
-0.26
|
0.071
|
|
Excellent total
educational experience
|
3.82
|
3.73
|
0.09
|
0.229
|
|
Always inform as to when the
needed service will be provided
|
3.64
|
3.65
|
-0.01
|
0.039
|
|
Overall mean and gap
|
3.56
|
3.62
|
-0.06
|
|
Key: “*” indicates there is a significant difference
Based
on Table 4.1, the overall mean agreement score of all dimensions in
responsiveness and delivery were 3.56 (Agree
rate) for public universities and 3.62 (Agree rate)
for private universities. From the table, private university students receive more
attention than public universities (gap= -0.26).
However,
students from public universities receives excellent total educational
experience than the private university students (gap=0.09). From the table,
Public University students always feel satisfied with the attention given to
them (gap= -0.26).
Private
University Students feel their satisfactions are partly because the employees
of their
HEI
are friendly (gap= -0.16)
Table:
4.2 Proffessionalism And Quality Of Staff-Empathy
|
Professionalism and Quality
of Staff-Empathy
|
Public universities
|
Private universities
|
Gap
|
P-Value
|
|
Staff are very professional
in their work
|
4.00
|
3.87
|
0.13
|
0.064
|
|
Staff are very knowledgeable
about their work
|
4.15
|
3.99
|
0.16
|
0.008*
|
|
Courteous and polite staff
|
3.69
|
3.67
|
0..2
|
0.944
|
|
Students’ problems are promptly and satisfactorily handled
|
3.22
|
3.44
|
-0.22
|
0.038*
|
|
Satisfied with student
services
|
3.14
|
3.31
|
-0.17
|
0.251
|
|
Receive individual attention
from staff
|
3.32
|
3.52
|
-0.2
|
0.149
|
|
Satisfied with the
helpfulness of staff
|
3.47
|
3.54
|
-0.07
|
0.666
|
|
Staff understand my needs
|
3.07
|
3.23
|
-0.016
|
0.200
|
|
Overall mean and gap
|
3.51
|
3.5
|
-0.06
|
|
Key: “*” indicates there is a significant difference
From
table 4.2,
Public University
students see
their staff
to be
very knowledgeable
and professional at their work (gap=
0.16 and
0.13 respectively).
Notwithstanding, private university employees
satisfactorily handle students problems than they do (gap= -0.22). For this
reason students
in the
public HEI
are less satisfied with their professionalism
and empathy (gap=
-0.16). Both
HEIs shows at it were, similar level of politeness and courteousness to their
customers (students) (Gap= 0.02).
Table: I4.3 Tangibles Iand Quality Of Facilities
|
Tangibles iand Quality of
facilities
|
Public
university
|
Private
university
|
Gap
|
|
Satisfied with cleanliness within
buildings and its surroundings
|
3.36
|
i3.51
|
i-0.15
|
|
The institution has enough facilities
to attend to my problems
|
i2.66
|
i2.83
|
i-0.17
|
|
Teaching aids and other equipment
look modern
|
3.24
|
3.31
|
-0.07
|
|
Staff appearance
|
3.90
|
3.91
|
-0.01
|
|
General outlook of the campus
|
3.24
|
3.63
|
-0.39
|
|
Overall mean and gap
|
3.28
|
3.44
|
-0.16
|
From
table 4.3, Almost students in HEIs have concerns on Tangibles and quality of
facilities. The major concern is about the adequacy of facilities to attend
their needs (2.66 and 2.83). Some claiming the
available facilities
are not
modernized which
in one
way or
the other
has a
reflection on the general outlook of the campus. On the other hand, both showed
a positive response towards the appearance of staff, which is clearly noted in
their response.
Comparing
the general
outlook of
the various
public and
private HEIs,
students from
the private HEIs tend to appreciate the outlook
of their campus as compared to those in the public sector. This could positively
be linked to the enough facilities available to attend to the needs of students
in both institutions.
Table: I4.4 Satisfied with
Cleanliness Of The Following Facilities
|
Satisfied with cleanliness
of the following facilities
|
Public universities
|
Private universities
|
Gap
|
|
Lecture Halls
|
3.14
|
3.49
|
-0.53
|
|
Hostels
|
3.24
|
3.66
|
-0.42
|
|
Washrooms
|
3.02
|
3.54
|
-0.42
|
|
Administrative and
Faculty offices
|
3.77
|
4.02
|
-0.25
|
|
Overall mean and gap
|
3.30
|
3.68
|
-0.39
|
In
table 4.5, it was observed that a great gap between the two HEIs. This
indicates the levels of cleanliness in the private sectors are more kept intact
as compared to that of the public sector. Both sectors have administrative and
faculty offices that tend to be more or less appreciable to the students.
However, hostels,
lecture halls
and the
washroom are seen not to be of good standard from the students’ point of view for
both HEI.
From
Table 4.8, students commend lecturers’ knowledge in their field of teaching and
this has a positive bearing on their
involvement in the classroom. Lecturers
are seen to be innovative and they communicate well with students. However,
students deem that the channel of expressing their complaints needs to be
attended in order to perfect and facilitate the process of teaching.
Table:
4.9 Marking And Release Of Student Results
|
Marking and Release of
student Results
|
Public universities
|
Private universities
|
Gap
|
P-Value
|
|
I am happy with how papers
are marked
|
2..96
|
2.91
|
0.05
|
0.649
|
|
Examination results are
released on time for student access
|
2.79
|
2.76
|
0.03
|
0.72
|
|
I am privy to the marking
procedures for student scripts
|
2.71
|
2.89
|
-0.18
|
0.212
|
|
Overall mean and gap
|
2.82
|
2.85
|
-0.03
|
|
Key: “*” indicates there is a significant difference
Table
4.9, gives the highest level of disagreement in all the dimensions in this
study. Students have similar levels of concerns in this dimension. The situation
tends out dicey, students have shown more
or less
some level
of disagreement
to how
papers are
marked, the
time examination results are released, and
the marking
procedures of
which they
state their
unawareness on the marking procedures of
scripts.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSIONS:
The
focus of Ghana's public and private universities is on quality in academic
services. Moreover, research results show that all universities in Ghana must
first provide high quality services, as all undergraduates have an interest in
each aspect of their campus experience (both academic and social).
In
addition to note-taking, lectures and guidance, the quality of academic
services includes the ability of graduates to interact with various
non-academic components. (Browne et al., 2008). The results show more that
students are happy and satisfied with the varied characteristics of quality
university services in Ghana, in particular curricula and non-academic aspects
such as access to campuses, cafeterias, professionals and campus sites. The
study shows that university students are satisfied with their work. The results
confirm that the overall quality of service measurement has an enormous impact
on student satisfaction, which also affects the reputation of the organization.
Acceptance of students from all universities is also profoundly affected by
academic quality.
Even
though many researchers study the quality of higher education services, only a small
number of them have focused on the perception of the non-academic aspect of student
life, as in the case of this research. This research thus bridges the gap in the
current literature, as it examines the impact of student satisfaction at the
Ghana University's quality of service measurements as well as their successive
effects on the reputation of organizations and the preferences of students for
accepting such institutions.
This
research therefore contributes to the improvement of evaluation methodologies
that can lead to higher quality training and learning in educational institutions.
In order to meet student expectations, the quality standard of education services
would even serve as a sound basis for the formulation, prioritization,
decision-making and allocation of resources to improve the quality of education
services.
Key Factors That Determine the Quality of Higher Education in Private
HEIs
The
respondents have been asked to identify the important factors influencing the
quality of the education they receive. Nine key factors were found in the
analysis of participant answers: (a) responsiveness and delivery (b)
professionalism and quality of staff-empathy; (c) tangibles and quality of
facilities (d) assurance and communication (e) processes and procedures; (f)
processes of teaching (g) marking and release
of results
(h) satisfaction
with service
quality provided
by offices
(i) reliability.
Private
HEIs have recorded a high score on the overall average of responsiveness and
delivery, professionalism and quality of staff-empathy, satisfaction with the
cleanliness of facilities, assurance and communication. This is an indication
of the constant challenge of these private HEIs to balance needs and requirements
of interested parties in an environment in which funding, poorly qualified
students, inadequate infrastructure, a lack of qualified instructors and a
predisposing regulatory framework can be seen.
There
is an increasing competition between public and private HEIs in Ghana and the
high mean score recorded in the above-mentioned areas, leading to a clear
indication of service packaging by PHEIs to attract students and to remain
viable in the industry.
Key
Differentiators Influencing the Quality of Higher Education in Public HEIs
Universities
around the world are recognized as higher education institutions, which are
considered to be effective and effective agents for national development. Higher
education establishments build, use and disseminate knowledge. Engineers,
academics, experts, managers, scientists, technicians and men of excellence are
the main contributors to the economic growth of universities. Higher education
addresses two main needs: the country's socio-cultural and development needs.
Higher education gives individuals the opportunity to develop their potential.
It meets the needs of the organization's top employee.
Teachers
with education qualifications (usually postgraduate degrees or something
similar) are more rated by students than teachers without such qualifications.
(Nasr et al., 1996). This was reflected in the responses to the Public HEIs. In
Table 4.8 on Teaching and Processes, public HEI students rate their lecturers
as research-oriented, knowledgeable in their field of teaching and communicate
well with students above private HEI students.
One
of the characteristics of teacher qualifications is the years of experience of
the teacher, which is thought to be an important determinant of student
academic performance. Boyd, (2008) concluded that higher education would make
students more successful. It has been shown that unskilled teachers are
generally less successful than experienced teachers (Darling-Hammond, 2000).
Studies have confirmed the positive relationship between the effectiveness of
teachers and their years of experience, and successful teachers have a positive
impact on the student's academic performance (Ademulegun, 2001).
Due
to the shortage of highly qualified academic staff, both public and private
compete with each other and with non-educational organizations when it comes to
the choice, satisfaction and retention of academic staff and experienced
administrative staff. In this case, because of their relatively long period of
establishment and supported by government support, the public universities are
better able to attract competent academic and administrative staff to deliver
and keep the system running.
CONCLUSIONS:
The
University's educational efficiency can be assessed by measuring the level of
satisfaction of its stakeholder groups. Since students are the main customers
of higher education institutions, the services they receive must be at a
desired level and their demands must be attended to; anything other than that,
there may be some consequences, such as dropping out, joblessness, brain drain
and poor science production.
More
attention is required to the relatively high discrepancies in sanitation and hygiene
of the facilities and the professionalism of the employees. Management should
consider implementing initiatives to minimize these discrepancies in
educational quality and to create positive education services for students in
these two sectors.
·
Primarily the study identified the
Marking and
Release of
students’ results
and the
Quality of Tangible facilities as the parameters of Higher Educational Service
quality with the lowest mean score for both Public and Private HEIs.
·
Assurances and Communication parameters
score were at a moderate for both Public and Private HEIs.
·
Dimensions relating to
Process of
Teaching and
Process and
Procedures in
Higher Education Service quality scored the
best average
ratings from
students in
both Private and Public HEIs.
·
This research indicated a positive
trend for the Ghanaian HEIs on the parameters of Process of Teaching. This was
noted from the high mean average score. Despite these mean scores there is
still room for some improvement.
HEIs
are expected to make greater efforts to improve transparency in the marking and
release of student results. Students should receive the necessary feedback on
their performance as well as on the assessment process. Administrative red tape
with a high-quality customer-friendly culture instilled in administrative staff
to see students as key customers should be reduced.
FUTURE
RESEARCH DIRECTIONS:
The
same research approach can also be used for further research in the examination
of the specific objective, such as university programs and faculties.
Assessment may be done for all graduate programs and faculty / staff by comparing
or dividing into the different HEI programmes. This domain will be useful for a
comparative study.
Again,
future research can be conducted on other stakeholders like the community and
the employees’ of the products (students) to access their perception on
academic quality services provided by HEIs. An option to investigate the data
analysis with respect to public and private Universities can explore
distinctively as well as data analysis with respect to regional, cultural and
geographical clusters of the institutions.
REFERENCES:
1.
Abdullah, F. (2006). The development
of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education
sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30(6), 569-581.
2.
Asunbonteng, P., Mccleary, K. J.
and Swan, J. E., 1996. SERVQUAL revisited: a critical review of service
quality. Journal of Services Marketing, 10 (6), 62-81.
3.
Abidin, M. (2015). Students’
Perception of Service Quality Dimensions in Islamic Higher Education.
International Journal of Innovative Research and Development.
4.
Al-Alak, B. A., & Alnaser, A. S.
M. (2012). Assessing the Relationship between Higher Education Service Quality
Dimensions and Student Satisfaction. Australian Journal of Basic & Applied
Sciences.
5.
Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda,
R. S. (2012). Development of HiEdQUAL for Measuring Service Quality in Indian
Higher Education Sector. International Journal of Innovation, Management and
Technology, 3(4), 2012.
6.
Buntat, Y., Jabor, M. K., Saud, M.
S., Mansor, S. M. S. S., & Mustaffa, N. H. (2013). Employability skills
element's: difference perspective between teaching staff and employers
industrial in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences.
7.
Cronin Jr, J. J., & Taylor, S.
A. (1994). SERVPERF versus SERVQUAL: Reconciling performance-based and
perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. The Journal of
Marketing, 125-131.
8.
Brady, M. K., JR., Cronin, J., JR.,
and Brand, R. R., 2002. Performance-only measurement of service quality: A
replication and extension. Journal of Business Research, 55, 27-31.
9.
Gwynne, A. L., Devlin, J. F., &
Ennew, C. T. (2000). The zone of tolerance: insights and influences. Journal of
Marketing Management.
10.
Hanaysha, J., Abdullah, H. H.,
& Warokka, A. (2011). Service quality and students’ satisfaction at higher
learning institutions: The competing dimensions of Malaysian Universities’
competitiveness. Journal of Southeast Asian Research.
11.
Kitcharoen, K. (2004). The
importance-performance analysis of service quality in administrative departments
of private universities in Thailand. ABAC Journal,
12.
Kotler, P. (1994). Marketing
Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
13.
Latifah, A. L., & Ramli, B.
(2010). OUM’s Tracer Study: A Testimony to a Quality Open and Distance
Education. ASEAN Journal of Open and Distance Learning.
14.
Nguyen, N. (1997). Searching for
excellence in business education: an exploratory study of customer impressions
of service quality. International Journal of Educational Management, 11(2),
72-79
15.
Marshall, C. and G. B. Rossman
(2014). Designing qualitative research, Sage publications.
16.
Shekarchizadeh, A., et al. (2011).
"SERVQUAL in Malaysian universities: perspectives of international
students." Business Process Management Journal 17(1): 67-81
17.
Teeroovengadum, V., et al. (2016).
"Measuring service quality in higher education: Development of a
hierarchical model (HESQUAL)." Quality Assurance in Education 24(2):
244-258.
18.
Telford, R. and R. Masson (2005).
"The congruence of quality values in higher education." Quality
Assurance in Education 13(2): 107-119.
19.
Wallen, N. E. and J. R. Fraenkel
(2013). Educational research: A guide to the process, Routledge.
Table: 4.5 Assurances And Communication 
