A

Project Report
On

Assessing the Relationship between Higher

Education Service Quality dimensions and
Student Satisfaction

Month and Year of submission-

March 2012

Under Supervision To: Submitted By:

Mr. Chander Prakash Deepak Gautam
Asst. Prof. at KAIM MBA 3rd Semester
Roll No =10036

KEDARNATH AGGARWAL INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT

(AFFLIATED FROM MDU, ROHTAK)
8
 PREFACE

Project work is conducted as an integral part of the management course it provides an

opportunity to apply the theoretical aspect in practical it gives on excellent opportunity to a
student to apply his ability, capability, intellect, knowledge, brief reasoning and mantle by
giving a solution to the assigned problem, which reflects his caliber. 

To develop managerial and administrative skill market, has a significance role play in the
subject of business. It is necessary that they combine their classroom learning with the
knowledge of real business environment. 

Being a global world service quality in educational institutes is very important to develop
grow the students in their respective field I really wanted to be a part of it and it is essential
for me being a Marketing student.  I did my project on “Assessing the Relationship between
Higher Education Service Quality dimension and Student Satisfaction.”

          
 

8
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Behind every success there are thousands of hands. I wish to pay my gratitude to each one of
them. At the outset, I wish to express my gratitude towards my lovable faculty & thankful to
all who contribute to the completion of this report.

 I am extremely grateful to Mrs. Supriya Dhillon (Director, KAIM, Ch.Dadri) whose

continues encouragement, cheerful, willing & sincere co-operation and invaluable
suggestions which makes this project fruitful and gives me a great help in the preparation of
this project. 

I am heartily thankful to Mrs. Chander parkash (Astt. Prof. in KAIM) for their invaluable
help regarding my project.  

I am glad to say that they all accorded a very kind and affectionate treatment to me and
helped me a lot during this Project with their pleasant experience.             

Specially, I am thankful to my parents and God for their blessings and showing me the right
way at all moments. Last but not least I thank all those who are responsible for the success of
this report. 
 
 

                                           (Deepak Gautam) 

8
 Contents

Sr. No. Topic Page No.

1 Significance of the study 6

2 Introduction of the topic 8-14

3 Review of Literature 16-18

4 Objective of the study 20

5 Research Methodology 22-23

 Research Design

 Data Collection Methods/Sources

 Sampling Plan

6 Data Analysis and Interpretation 25-42

7 Findings 44

8 Suggestions 46

9 Limitations 48

10 Conclusion 50

12 Annexure 52-53

13 References 55
8
SIGNIFICANCE
OF THE STUDY
8
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Student satisfaction largely determines the productivity levels of the higher education
institutions. An institute with unsatisfied students will have more problems of irregularity,
misbehavior.
Thus institute need to device studies which can fetch the causes of dissatisfaction along and
design their quality of services that will eventually overcome the problem. In this study we
have focused relationship between service quality and students satisfaction which is the need
of current time.
In recent times there has been mushrooming of a number of professional institutions all over
the country. It becomes very difficult for the students to shortlist the Institutes and select one
that helps fulfill his needs and cherish his dreams ideally. Thus in this competitive era it is
essential for the providers of higher education to focus on all aspects of quality and pay
attention in delivering the same. It is only by delivering good quality education that the
Institutions can secure a distinctive position in the minds of the students and create
competitive advantage. A satisfied student speaks volumes about the Institute. The success
and positive word of mouth from a satisfied student helps in attracting potential students with
good caliber to the Institute and also improves the brand image of the Institution.
This study has thus made an attempt to understand the satisfaction level of students from
various technical institutions of Haryana on various aspects of service quality and thus help
service providers in delivering quality education.
8
Introduction of
the topic
8
 INTRODUCTION

Higher Education
In the current socioeconomic context, the service sector has become increasingly more
important, revealing the need to know and study the particularities of its operations and to
institute specific management methodologies that fit its context and specificity. But it is
necessary to understand that service processes are different from manufacturing processes,
especially due to their intangible nature and the direct participation of clients. Aiming to
make clients loyal, companies have made every effort to meet their needs and exceed their
expectations. The SERVQUAL scale is one of the tools that can help in this sense.
Higher education institutions are also in search of improvements in teaching service quality
to satisfy the expectations of their students. However, since education services have very
particular characteristics, the SERVQUAL model must be adapted according to the most
important determining factors: reliability, tangibility, responsibility, security and empathy, as
proposed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985).
Thus, the survey question that guided the elaboration of this study was: how is it possible to
adapt quality tools, more specifically the SERVQUAL scale, to measure quality in Higher
education service activities? The main objective of this project is to adapt the SERVQUAL
scale to the Higher education service activity and to present the results of its application in an
institution for teaching engineering.
Recruiting students has been always an important activity for the higher educational
institutions. However, the rapid expansion of colleges and universities, significant increases
in college education costs combined with demographic shifts in the population may force
colleges to think differently about the role of student satisfaction for their survival (Kotler
and Fox, 1995). Even though the successful completion and enhancement of students’
education are the reasons for the existence of higher educational institutions, college
administrators tend to focus disproportionately more time on programs for attracting and
admitting students rather than enrollment management. Similar to the importance of
satisfying customers to retain them for profit-making institutions, satisfying the admitted
students is also important for retention. It might be argued that dissatisfied students may cut
8
back on the number of courses or drop out of college completely. Hence, the satisfaction
intention retention link for students in higher education should be studied and carefully
managed. Also, higher educational institutions that are heavily populated by commuter
students have higher dropout rates while institutions with strong residential dormitory
programs have lower drop out rates (Baldridge, Kemerer, and Green, 1982).
Service is an intangible activity that is the main objective of transaction that serves to meet
the needs of customers. Service quality is an ability of an organization to meet or exceed
customer expectations. Higher education in developing countries has serious quality
problems. In today's competitive academic environment where students have many options
available to them, factors that enable education institutions to attract and retain students
should be seriously studied. Higher education institutions which want to gain competitive
edge in future may need to begin searching for effective and creative ways to attract, retain
and foster stronger relationship with students. Therefore, it is necessary to invest in quality
system and tools for improvement. Higher education institutions are also in search of
improvement in teaching service quality to satisfy the expectations of their students.
However, since education service has very particularly characteristics, the 'SERVQUAL'
model must be adapted according to the most important determining factors: Reliability,
Tangibility, Responsiveness, Assurance and Empathy as proposed by 'Parasuraman',
Zeithmal and Berry (1985). In this competitive market, satisfaction with services may make
the difference (Parasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry 1996).

SERVQUAL
SERVQUAL or RATER is a service quality framework. SERVQUAL was developed in the
mid eighties by Zeithaml, Parasuraman & Berry.
Concept
SERVQUAL was originally measured on 10 aspects of service quality: reliability,
responsiveness, competence, access, courtesy, communication, credibility, security,
understanding the customer and tangibles. It measures the gap between customer expectations
and experience.
By the early nineties the authors had refined the model to the useful acronym RATER:
Reliability
Assurance
Tangibles
Empathy, and
8
Responsiveness
SERVQUAL has its detractors and is considered overly complex, subjective and statistically
unreliable. The simplified RATER model however is a simple and useful model for
qualitatively exploring and assessing customers' service experiences and has been used
widely by service delivery organizations. It is an efficient model in helping an organization
shape up their efforts in bridging the gap between perceived and expected service.
The five gaps that organizations should measure, manage and minimize:
•Gap 1 is the distance between what customers expect and what managers think they expect -
Clearly survey research is a key way to narrow this gap.
•Gap 2 is between management perception and the actual specification of the customer
experience - Managers need to make sure the organization is defining the level of service
they believe is needed.
•Gap 3 is from the experience specification to the delivery of the experience - Managers need
to audit the customer experience that their organization currently delivers in order to make
sure it lives up to the spec.
•Gap 4 is the gap between the delivery of the customer experience and what is communicated
to customers - All too often organizations exaggerate what will be provided to customers, or
discuss the best case rather than the likely case, raising customer expectations and harming
customer perceptions.
•Gap 5 is the gap between a customer's perception of the experience and the customer's
expectation of the service - Customers' expectations have been shaped by word of mouth,
their personal needs and their own past experiences. Routine transactional surveys after
delivering the customer experience are important for an organization to measure customer
perceptions of service.
SERVQUAL is a conceptualisation of service quality which measures service quality as
perceived by customers (therefore Gap 5). Parasuraman et al. (1985) applied this label to the
questionnaire developed in conjunction with their model and it is now common for the model
we discussed earlier to carry the same name.
The SERVQUAL questionnaire is used to help service organizations better understand the
service expectations and perceptions of their customers and it operationalises and measures
service quality along five dimensions.
Tangibles physical environment, appearance of employees etc
Reliability if firm has kept its promise
Responsiveness firm's ability to meet customers' needs
8
Assurance customers' trust and confidence in the firm
Empathy firm's willingness to go beyond customer needs.
Turn now to the next reading to find out more about Parasuraman et al.'s (1985) model and an
examination of the reliability of the SERVQUAL measure for ocean freight shipping
services.
GAP 1
What is it?
GAP 1 is the discrepancy that can exist between the perception of executives and the real
expectations of consumers.
What causes it?
Management’s failure to correctly identify client expectations.
How to correct it?
Open formal and informal channels of communication from the clients to the top, passing
through the people in contact with the public; better market surveys on service quality and
apply them with greater frequency, and; reduce hierarchy levels.

GAP 2
What is it?
GAP 2 is the discrepancy between management's perception of client expectations and the
specifications of service quality, that is, it is the supply of low quality even though the
company has appropriate procedures.
What causes it?
Limited resources, lack of operational tools to bring the client’s voice to service
specifications; management’s indifference and rapid change in market conditions.
How to correct it?
Management’s commitment; Make resources available and use tools to bring the voice of the
client to specifications (for example, QFD – Quality Function Deployment)

GAP 3
What is it?
GAP 3 is the discrepancy between service quality specifications and the service actually
delivered.
What causes it?
8
Lack of knowledge about specifications, lack of ability to carry out the specified or lack of
commitment by collaborators.
How to correct it?
Make specifications known, ensure the necessary profile of the collaborator at recruiting or
complete it with training; and assess collaborator performance through greater and better
supervision or improvements in team work and in the organizational climate.

GAP 4
What is it?
GAP 4 is the discrepancy between the service’s specified quality and what the company
communicates externally.
What causes it?
Lack of communication and the client does not know what to expect or more is promoted
than actually delivered.
How to correct it?
Improve the communication between the diverse sectors of the company and between it and
the target public for the communications or hold communication to what is actually delivered.

GAP 5
What is it?
GAP 5 is the difference between what the client expects and what the company actually
delivers.
What causes it?
A gap or a series of gaps from 1 to 4.
How to correct it?
Correcting those gaps with problems.
Model Of ServQual

This model seeks to help the manager or administration to understand the sources of
problems in quality and how they can improve them (COELHO, 2004).
8
 Figure 1 : Quality in Services Model
Source : Parasuraman, Zeithmal and Berry 2005
8
The five main dimensions are explained as follow:-

(i) Tangibility:- Appearance of physical facilities, personnel and communication

material.
(ii) Reliability:- ability to perform the promised service accurately.
(iii) Responsiveness:- willing to help customer and provide prompt service.
(iv) Assurance:- Knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey trust
and confidence.
(v) Empathy:- Caring, Individualized attention that the firm provides to its customers.

8
REVIEW OF
LITERATURE

8
 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Service Management
Lovelock (2001), suggested services were economic activities that create value and provide
benefits to the client at specific times and in specific places as a result of a desired change in,
or on behalf of, the one that receives the service.
Meirelles (2006), a service was essentially intangible and only assessed when combined with
other functions, that is, with other tangible productive processes and products. This intangible
nature is associated with this process, which à priori cannot be touched. In other words, the
providing of a service tends to occur simultaneously with consumption. Production occurs
starting the moment the service is ordered and it finishes as soon as the demand is met.
Gianesi and Corrêa (2004) said the following special characteristics of service operations
are the main ones: intangibility, client participation and simultaneous production and
consumption Services have some specific characteristics that differentiate them from the
manufactured goods.
Coelho (2004), viewed that "in service management it is important to understand how clients
assess the quality of the service provided, that is, how quality is perceived by the client".

Quality Management
Quality management is a broad theme that encompasses every sort of organization,
multinational or national, eastern or western, large or small, services or manufacturing and
public or private.
Oliveira (2004) stated that its concept depends on the context in which it is applied, in face
of the subjectivity and complexity of its meaning. Bateson (2001) says “quality is generally
considered an attribute in consumer choices”.
SATOLLO (2005) showed that Quality in services can be defined as a customer satisfaction
index for any service, and this satisfaction can be measured by any criteria
(ZANELLA, LIMA and LOPES, 2006) told that Quality in services provides a competitive
factor for continued consumption, especially when intangibility relations are tightened
between quality and the services. Responsibility and trust, two of the dimensions of service
quality grouped by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985), generated by prior experience,
are important factors for determining perceived quality by clients.
8
According to Gronroos (2005), perceived quality is determined "by the gap between
expected quality and experienced quality", that is, it is the difference between client
perceptions and expectations. Quality is judged according to perceived satisfaction.
(COELHO, 2004) viewed that Satisfying the clients’ immediate and explicit expectations
should be sought in the short term. However, in the mid and long term, it is important to
develop competences to achieve their real needs, even those that are not explicit or are
unconscious.
According to the same author, quality is only measured at the end of the process, that is,
when the service has been concluded, and there is no way to change client perception
regarding the service received.

Higher Education Service

The quality of Higher education is fundamental to a country’s development because
universities are the ones that prepare the professionals who will work as managers in
companies and manage public and private resources and care for the health and education of
new generations.
(MELLO, DUTRA and OLIVEIRA, 2001) told that “Higher education has been
increasingly recognized as a service industry and, as a sector, it must strive to identify the
expectations and needs of its clients, who are the students”.
Lovelock (2001), education service is classified as a service with intangible actions, directed
towards the minds of people, with continuous delivery, conducted through a partnership
between the service organization and its client, and although it provides high personal
contact, there is low customization.
(PEREIRA, 2004) determined that the institutions must work to obtain a standard of quality
that exceeds client and/or student expectations and needs, extrapolating the assessments from
legal demands. In this study, students in the Production Engineering program at the São Paulo
State University (UNESP), Bauru Campus, were given the SERVQUAL questionnaire
adjusted to Higher education services.
(FLEURY, 2008), the Production Engineering concerns the design, improvement and
installation of integrated systems of people, materials, information, equipment and energy for
the production of goods and services. It is based on specific knowledge and abilities
associated with physical and social sciences and mathematics, as well as the principles and
8
methods of project engineering analysis in order to specify, predict and assess the results
obtained for these systems.

Satisfaction from higher education

Kotter and Clarke (1987) defined that satisfaction as a state felt by a person who has
experience performance or an outcome that fulfill his or her expectation. The expectation
may go as before the students ever enter the higher education, suggest that it is important to
the researcher to determine what student expect before entering university.
Lovelock (2001) stressed that education service is classified as service with intangible
actions, directed towards the minds of people, with continuous delivery, conducted through a
partnership between service organization and its client and although it provides high personal
contact, there is low customization.
Kin and Nair (2003) also found that the quality work has directly linked with student
satisfaction. The survey was conducted to measure the student's experience and opportunities
for improvement. The study revealed quality assurance was normalized in the university
experience and the students were conscious of the Quality and Continuous improvement in
the staff.
Jeevan Jyoti and Jyoti Sharma (2009) examined that relationship between quality of
teaching and student satisfaction. The study revealed majority of students were satisfied with
teaching quality and teacher's attitude toward the students, but were least satisfied with
temperament of the teacher.

8
RESEARCH
OBJECTIVES

8
 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the study is to explore the student satisfaction various aspects, namely
tangibility, Responsiveness, Assurance, Reliability and Empathy. The basic objectives of the
study are:-
 To assess important factors in service quality dimensions (Tangibility,
Responsiveness, Reliability, Assurance and Empathy) those contribute most to the
satisfaction of student.
 To know the level of student satisfaction with service quality dimensions (Tangibility,
Responsiveness, Reliability, Assurance and Empathy)
 To find the problems and difficulties faced in higher education institutions.
 To suggest appropriate measures for improving the quality and efficiency in higher
education institution.

8
 Research
Methodology

8
 Research design

A research design is the detailed blue print used to guide a research study towards its
objectives. It helps to collect, measure and analysis of data.
The present study seeks to find out the student satisfaction from higher education institutions.
The study also aims at findings out the drawbacks of the Higher education institutions.

 Type of Research

The study undertaken is of ―Exploratory Research in nature.

Sources of Data

 Secondary Source

Secondary data are those which have been collected by someone else and which have already
passed through statistical process.
As this project is concerned nature of data is primary.

 Primary Source

The Primary source of collecting data for research is: Questionnaire filled by Students of
different higher education institutions.

Primary Data of Collection

Research Technique

In this study the ―survey method is used as a research technique. This method helps to
obtain right information from respondents.
8
 Sampling plan

Sampling is a process of obtaining. The information about the entire population by examine a
part of it .The effectiveness of the research depends on the sample size selected for the survey
purpose.

(A) Population:-

The survey was conducted in 7 institutes. The population size is 1000

(B)Sampling Unit:-

It means ―Who is to be surveyed. Here target population is decided and it is who are
studying in Higher education institutions and sampling frame is developed so that everyone
in the target population has known chance of being sampled.

(C)Sample size:-

For the purpose of proper survey, there is need of perfect research instruments to find out
sample size for more accurate result about buying behavior of bike. The sample size is 98
respondents.

(G) Sampling Procedure

The sampling procedure followed is convenience.

(H) Tools & Techniques

We use descriptive statistics in which we develop graphs tables charts and SPSS software
package used to determine various statistics.
8
Data Analysis &
Interpretation

8
 Data Analysis And Interpretation

Different Courses of the Respondent Students.

Table 2
Course Frequency
B.Ed 21
B.Tech 11
BAMS 3
BBA 9
MBA 53
Ph.D. 1
Total 98

Interpretation : According to table 2 the respondent students are from 21-B.E.d, 11-B.Tech,
3-BAMS, 9-BBA, 53-MBA, and 1 from Ph.D Course

Age Group of Respondent.

8
 Table 3

Age Group  Frequency Percent

15-20 32 32.7
21-25 64 65.3
26-30 2 2.0
Total 98 100.0

Interpretation : According to table 3 the response of 32 students are from 15-20 age, 64
students are from 21-25 age, and 2 students are from 26-30 age.

Category of Sudents
Table 4
8
  
Frequency Percent
Male 36 36.7

Female 62 63.3

Total 98 100.0

Interpretation : According to table 4 36 male students and 62 female students response the
survey.

Place of the respondent

Table 5
8
  
Frequency Percent
Village 30 30.6

Town 38 38.8

City 30 30.6

Total 98 100.0

Interpretation : According to table 5 in the survey 30 students are from village, 38 from
town and 30 from city response the questionnaire.

Current location of student

Table 6
8
  
Frequency Percent
Hostel 16 16.3

Outside 82 83.7

Total 98 100.0

Interpretation : According to table 6 from 98 respondents 16 students reside in hostel and

remaining 82 are the commuters.

Mean of all Dimensions

8
 Mean

Variables Tangibility Assurance Reliability Responsiveness Empathy

Expectation 4.1928571 4.1297376 4.19047619 4.244897959 4.241497

Perception 3.8183673 3.6938776 3.75 3.852040816 3.840136

gap 0.3744898 0.4358601 0.44047619 0.392857143 0.401361

Interpretation: From this table gap of mean for reliability is highest and for tensibility the
gap is very low.

Mean Of tangibility
8
 Variables Mean

Expectation
37.58

Perception
34.26

Interpretation: Here we analyse that expectation is higher than perception

Mean of the variable of the tangibility

Expectation Mean Perception Mean

Variables Gap
8
 4.19 4.04
Classroom Layout .15
4.35 4.04
Appearance of faculty .31
4.21 3.67
Lighting / Ventilation in
class room .54
4.36 4.01
Appearance of Building .35
4.20 3.82
Overall cleanness .39
3.99 3.60
Availability of parking .39
4.02 3.78
Updated curriculam .24
Computer adequately 4.16 3.83
provided .34
4.09 3.47
uses of software used .62
Timings 4.35 3.93 .42

Interpretation: From this table we saw in tangibility dimension that the students are satisfied
by the infrastructure of the classroom and less satisfied from latest software used.
Mean Of Assurance

Variable Mean
8
 Expectation 28.91

Perception 25.86

Gap 3.05102

Interpretation: From this table we can saw that there is also less perception than expectation

Mean of the varible of the assurance dimension

8
 Friendly Institute's
and Friendly Faculty is staff
 
courteous and Faculty's innovative Security knowledge
institute courteous research and measureat Communication of rules
office Faculty efficiency/ change your skill course and
staff members Productvity agent institute well tought procedures
Expectation 4.18 4.15 4.00 4.01 4.22 4.11 4.22
Mean
Perception 3.84 4.05 3.64 3.39 3.58 3.53 3.83
Mean

Gap .35 .10 .36 .62 .64 .58 .40

Interpretation: Here the students are satisfy from the friendly and courteous nature of
faculty member and less satisfy from security measurment of the institutes.
Mean of Responsivaness
8
 Variable Mean

Expectation 16.98

Perception 15.41

Gap 1.57

Interpretation: This table also shows that expectation are high than the perception.

Mean of the variable of the dimention of Responsivaness

8
 Faculties Channel for
capabilites to expressing
solve problem Quaries are student
 
Availability of of student dealt with complaints are
lecturer to assist when problem efficiently readily
student arises and promptly available
Expectation 4.24 4.19 4.21 4.33
Mean
Perception 3.82 3.98 4.01 3.60
Mean
Gap .43 .21 .20 .72

Interpretation: From this table acc. to students there is no channel for handling the students
complaints and the instiutes are good in query handling.

Mean of Reliability
8
 Variable Mean
Expectation 25.14
Perception 22.50
Gap 2.64

Interpretation: From this table we analyse that there is very big gap in expectation &
perception

Mean of the variables of the relibility dimention

8
 institute office
provides Faculty staff
its takes takes
services sincere sincere
  its interest interest
Institute services in in
keep General at time it solving solving
record reliability promises student's Proficiency student's
accurately of faculty to do problem in teaching problem
Expectation 4.28 4.23 4.09 4.18 4.21 4.14
Mean
Perception 3.94 3.95 3.56 3.85 3.69 3.51
Mean
Gap .34 .29 .53 .34 .52 .63

Interpretation: From this table we analyse that according to survey office staff is less
concern about solving the problem of students and the students are satisfied from general
relibility of the faculty.
Mean of Empthy
8
 Variable Mean

Expectation 12.72

Perception 11.52

Gap 1.20

Interpretation: In this table also expectation is high and perception is low.

Mean of the Variables of the EMPTHY dimension

8
 Faculty willing
to give the
  students Faculty Administration has
individual sympathetic and student's best interest
attention supportive at heart
Expected Mean 4.26 4.32 4.15

Perception Mean 3.92 3.90 3.70

Gap .34 .42 .45

Interpretation: In the empthy dimention more satisfaction of students is from the paying
individual attention by the faculty members and less satisfy from attention of
administrationtowards students

Overall Mean
8
 Variable Mean
Expectation 4.31

Perception 3.94

Gap .37

Interpretation: In Overall service quality also perception is low and expectation is high.
8
Findings

8
 Findings
In order to achieve the main research objectives of the study, the obtained data were
processed by computation of mean. The result provided by this analysis has been presented
with the help of above tables and graphs.
 Overall Service Quality of the institutions is not fulfilling the expectation of the
students. Here on an average expectation is more than perception.
 In tangibility dimension the students expectations and perception gap reaching high
where in assurance dimension it is very low.
 It can be seen that the highest satisfaction for dimension under 'Tangibility' Variable
was 'infrastructure of classroom'. The least mean score was related to the ‘latest software
used'. It means the institutes are not providing the latest software to the students.
 "Assurance" variable ' Friendly and courteous' ‘Lecturer played an important role in
affecting student satisfaction’ as it had obtained lowest gap between expectation & perception
and highest gap score was obtained by variable ‘security measurement at your institute’.
 In the responsiveness variable majority of respondents felt that queries dealing by the
lecturer are good and complaint handling channel are not available as per their expectation.
 ‘Reliability’ the highest gap between expectation & perception scored was referred to
(office staff takes sincere interest in solving student's problem) means office staff is less
concern about by the problem of the students. Whereas least gap score was related to
(General reliability of faculty) means students are having more satisfaction in general
reliability of faculty.
 Empathy dimensions revealed that Students are highly satisfied from the faculty
member for their paying individual attention to the interest area of the student and students
are less satisfies from the administration because they are less concern about their interest
area.
 Analysis shows that 'Reliability' scored that highest gap in mean followed by
Assurance, Empathy, Responsiveness, and Tangibility.
8
Suggestions

8
 SUGGESTIONS
Keeping in mind the findings and problem faced in higher education sector following
suggestions are given to improve their service quality.
 There is a significant gap between expectation & perception in Overall service quality
so there is a need of continuous improvement in the institutions.
 The higher education institutes should have more focus on the assurance dimension
apart of other dimension.
 The institutes have to give the knowledge of latest software in tangibility dimension
 The institutions should have more concern about the security measurement
 There is a requirement of complaint handling channels for the students in the
institutes.
 Office staff should have more focus on the solution of the student’s problem.
 Administrations of the institutes have to work on the interest area of the students.

8
LIMITATION

8
 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY:

The data might be over generalized by the respondents while giving the information. They
might have made inaccurate observation and given the data based on it. They might have
provided made-up information. There might be respondent’s ego involvement in
understanding and filling the questionnaire.

There’s possibility that the respondents might not have given frank opinions. Also it was
observed that employees felt that these completed questionnaires might reach the top
management and strict action would be taken against them based on their frank opinion.

The research findings are being generalized for the organization based on the responses of
few samples from the universe.

 Expensive
 Biasness in answers

 Lack of support by Employees

 Lack of experience

 Small sample size 8

Conclusion

8
 CONCLUSION

Service quality is a journey not destination so there is a requirement of continuous

improvement processing for satisfaction of the students and modification in the standard of
education of higher education institution. This study has revealed certain aspects of the
student satisfaction. It is found that student satisfaction is depending upon the quality of
service in higher education institution. In contemporary era, education is covered under
service sector and the teachers and educational institutions as service providers. Their job is
to satisfy their customers.
During our study we found that service quality in surveyed institutes in expectation from the
student’s side are higher however perception regarding the service is not as much as their
expectation.
Out of five dimension tangibility dimension is the dimension where education institutes are
doing good. However reliability dimension need more attention to increase overall service
quality of the institutes.
To provide consistent service quality and value to the student, educational institute must
focus on empathy, responsiveness and assurance.

8
Annexure

8
 Questionnaire for Relationship between Higher education service quality
dimension and student satisfaction

Name (Optional)

Name of the Institute

Age 15-20 21-25 26-30

Gender Male Female

Do you come from Village Town City

Currently you reside in Hostel Outside

The following sets of statement relates to your opinion/experience in your institute.

Circle 1 for least score and circle 5 for maximum score. If your feelings are not so strong circle
middle one.

1- Highly Dissatisfied, 2-Dissatisfied, 3-Neutral, 4- Satisfied, 5-Highly Satisfied

Sr. Name of Variables Expectation Perception

No.
TANGIBILITY: The appearance of the school physical facilities, HD D N S HS HD D N S HS
equipment, personnel, and communication materials.

1. Layout of classroom 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
2. Appearance of Faculty 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
3. Lighting / Ventilation in class room 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
4. Appearance of building 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
5. Overall cleanliness 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
6 Availability of parking 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
7. Updated curriculum 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
8. Computer adequately provided 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
9. Usages of software used 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
10. Timings 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
ASSURANCE: The knowledge and courtesy of school office HD D N S HS HD D N S HS
staff/faculty and their ability to convey trust and confidence.

11. Friendly and courteous institutes office staff 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

12. Friendly and courteous Faculty Members 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
13. Faculty's research efficiency/ productivity 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
14. Faculty is innovative and change agent 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
15. Security measure at your institute 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
8
16. Communication skill courses well taught 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
17. Institute's staff knowledge of rules and procedures 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
RELIABILITY: The school’s ability to perform the promised services HD D N S HS HD D N S HS
dependably and accurately.

18. The institute keeps records accurately 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

19. The general reliability of Faculty i.e. keep time/don't cancel 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
class
20. The institute provides its services at time it promises to do 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
21. Faculty takes sincere interest in solving student's problem 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
22. Proficiency in Teaching 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
23. Office staff takes sincere interest in solving student’s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
problem
RESPONSIVENESS: The school’s willingness to help students and HD D N S HS HD D N S HS
provide prompt service.

24. Availability of Lecturer to assist student 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

25. Faculty capability to solve problem of student when 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
problem arises
26. Queries are dealt with efficiently and promptly 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
27. Channel for expressing student complaints are readily 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
available
EMPATHY: The school office staff’s ability to provide a caring and HD D N S HS HD D N S HS
individualized attention to students

28. Faculty willing to give the students individual attention 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

29. Faculty sympathetic and supportive 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
30. Administration has student's best interest at heart 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Overall Service Quality 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

References
8
 REFERENCES
1. Parasuraman, A, Zeithmal, V.A and Berry L.L, "A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for further research" Journal of marketing, 49, 41-50 (1985)

2. Cronin J.J and Taylor S.A, “Measuring Service Quality : An Assessment of the
SERQUAL Dimensions”, Journal of retailing, 66 spring, 33-56 (1990).

3. Cuthbert, Fredrick and Peter Shanham, "Managing service Quality in Higher

education" Journal of managing service Quality, 6, 11-16 (1996)

4. Soucar, G and MC Neel, M.C," Measuring service quality in a territory institution,"

Journal of education Administration, 34 (1), 72-82 (1996).

5. Perisour S.E and MC Daniel, J.R," Assessing service quality in school of business,
"International Journal of quality and Reliability management 14 (3), 218 (1996).
8
6. Cheng, Y.T and W.M, Tam", multi-models of Quality in education", Journal of
Quality Assurance in Education, 5, 22-31 (1997).

7. Atheryaman, A, "Linking student satisfaction and service quality perception. The

case of University education", European Journal of marketing, 31 (7), 528-540 (1997)

8. Ericson, David and Fredereck Ellett, "The Question of the student in education
Reform", Education policy Analysis Archives 10 (3), 67-69 (2002).

9. Jeevan Jyoti and Jyoti Sharma, "Impact of Quality of teaching on student

satisfaction. A study of Jammu University", NICE Journal of Business, 4 (1) 59-69 (2009)

10. A. Indhulika," Higher education: Quality, equity and efficiency," South Asian
Journal of socio-political studies (SAJOSPS), 9 (2) Jan-June, 71-73 (2009)

11. http://www.scribd.com/
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
13. http://www.ibef.org/