Elsharnouby2015

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education
ISSN: 0884-1241 (Print) 1540-7144 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20
Student co-creation behavior in higher education:

the role of satisfaction with the university
experience
Tamer H. Elsharnouby
To cite this article: Tamer H. Elsharnouby (2015) Student co-creation behavior in higher
education: the role of satisfaction with the university experience, Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 25:2, 238-262, DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2015.1059919
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1059919
Published online: 02 Jul 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 701
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 5 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wmhe20
Download by: [University of New England] Date: 14 December 2017, At: 06:38
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 2015
Vol. 25, No. 2, 238 –262, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1059919
Student co-creation behavior in higher education: the role of

satisfaction with the university experience
∗
Tamer H. Elsharnoubya,b
a
Department of Management and Marketing, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar; bDepartment
of Business Administration, Cairo University, Giza, Egypt
Downloaded by [University of New England] at 06:38 14 December 2017
(Received 27 January 2015; accepted 11 April 2015)
This study explores what constitutes students’ satisfaction with university

experience and examines the influence of overall satisfaction with the
university experience on students’ co-creation behavior – namely,
participation behavior and citizenship behavior. Drawing upon a sample
of 379 students and using structural equation modeling, the results
suggest that perceived university reputation and perceived faculty
competency are the key influential factors in determining students’
satisfaction with university experience. The findings also provide
empirical support to the direct role student satisfaction plays in enabling
student participation and citizenship behavior. The results support the
notion that student satisfaction mediates the relationship between the
antecedent variables of perceived university reputation and perceived
faculty competency, and student citizenship behavior. The findings have
implications for universities seeking to compete in a complex market-
driven higher education setting.
Keywords: student satisfaction; co-creation behavior; student participation
behavior; student citizenship behavior; university experience; higher
education; Gulf region
Introduction
With the marketization of higher education institutions (HEIs) (Lowrie &
Hemsley-Brown, 2011), university administrators’ rhetoric and practice are
now replete with marketing terms such as student orientation, student satisfac-
tion, branding, positioning, and service orientation. Applying marketing
theories and concepts that have been proved effective in the business domain
may offer benefits to the higher education (HE) sector (Hemsley-Brown &
Oplatka, 2006). However, gaps appear to exist between the language and rheto-
ric of marketing in the HE literature and their actual implementation in practice.
Ng and Forbes (2009, p. 54) identified what they refer to as an ideological gap –
∗
Email: telsharnouby@qu.edu.qa
# 2015 Taylor & Francis
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 239
namely, ‘the difference between designing the service toward fulfilling stu-
dents’ expectations and designing the service toward what the institution
believes the students should experience’ – and call for further research to
understand this gap as a means to better understand HE marketing.
In practice, as a response to universities’ concerns regarding the quality of
their programs, student satisfaction with their HE experience has become an
important area for universities’ performance indicators (e.g. feedback
surveys). Today, it is imperative for universities to listen closely to what stu-
dents are saying. Student satisfaction can be considered an indispensable objec-
tive for HEIs because of its related favorable consequences. Another factor that
makes student satisfaction of special importance to universities is that it has
become a measure used to compile rankings and league tables (Wilkins &
Balakrishnan, 2013). However, determining which aspects of the university-
wide experience are crucial for students and the degree to which they influence
student satisfaction are subjects of continuous examination.
Another gap in the HE literature relates to student co-creation behavior. In
marketing literature, it is recognized that customer co-creation behavior is a
multidimensional construct made up of two factors: customer participation be-
havior (CPB) and customer citizenship behavior (CCB) (Yi & Gong, 2013).
Research on the applicability of the co-creation concept within the HE
context and the role student satisfaction might play in enabling co-creation be-
havior is lacking. This gap in the literature is surprising given the attention this
concept has been receiving in services marketing scholarship, particularly in
terms of the way customers are viewed as ‘partial employees’ of the organiz-
ation (Groth, 2005).
It is important to realize that, with few exceptions, the considerable research
attention on university students’ satisfaction and co-creation behavior has been
developed in Western contexts, which differ markedly from the Gulf
Cooperation Council (GCC) setting. The current study was conducted in the
context of HE in Qatar. Therefore, within this largely unexplored research
context, this paper aims to advance knowledge in HE marketing literature in
the GCC region through a three-fold objective. First, the study conceptualizes
what constitutes student satisfaction with the university experience. Second, it
examines the antecedents of student satisfaction with their university experi-
ence. Third, it examines the role of satisfaction with the university experience
in enabling students’ co-creation behavior – namely, student participation be-
havior (SPB) and student citizenship behavior (SCB).
Theoretical background
A research model was developed to diagrammatically explain the proposed
relationships between the study constructs. As illustrated in Figure 1, the
model suggests that satisfaction with university experience is determined by
240 T.H. Elsharnouby
Figure 1. The conceptual model.
the perceived university reputation, perceived faculty competency, quality of

interactions with administrative/IT staff, and interactions with other students.
Student co-creation behavior is expected to be influenced by students’ overall
satisfaction with the university experience. The following sections present the
study constructs and the development of research hypotheses.
Student satisfaction with university experience

Student satisfaction with university experience is a complex and multifaceted
phenomenon, and a consensus concerning the best way to conceptualize and
measure it is lacking. The university experience in itself is complex, and
there has been less effort in the literature to ‘capture the varied aspects of the
university experience into a unifying framework that brings in salient issues
in education’ (Ng & Forbes, 2009, p. 46). It is commonly acknowledged that
students’ university-wide experience involves two levels: core and supplemen-
tary. The core level centers around the learning experience, which is shaped by
factors deemed crucial for enabling students to meet their study obligations
(Clemes, Gan, & Kao, 2008). In addition to the core, the literature identifies
different supplementary factors that shape students’ university experience,
such as quality of the physical environment (Parahoo, Harvey, & Tamim,
2013), library facilities and educational technology (Mavondo, Tsarenko, &
Gabbott, 2004), university layouts (Ford, Joseph, & Joseph, 1999), social
environment (Clemes et al., 2008), and campus climate (Elliott & Healy,
2001). In the construction of students’ university experience, supplementary
elements could embellish or deplete the core of their learning experience.
University students’ satisfaction is defined as ‘a short-term attitude resulting

from an evaluation of a student’s educational experience’ (Elliott & Healy, 2001,
p. 2). To measure student satisfaction, many HEIs employ students’ evaluation of
university service quality. Although many argue that good service quality leads to
satisfaction (Clemes et al., 2008; Mavondo et al., 2004), others differentiate
between quality and satisfaction, contending that quality is based on general per-
ception, whereas satisfaction is linked to specific transactions (Mai, 2005).
Others distinguish between the two constructs based on the latitude and time-
frame of the evaluation. For example, Athiyaman (1997, p. 539) conceptualizes
perceived service quality as an attitude that is constructed as ‘an overall evalu-
ation of the goodness or badness of a product or service’ whereas satisfaction
is ‘similar to attitude, but it is short-term and results from an evaluation of a

specific consumption experience’. In an attempt to integrate and develop a defi-
nitional framework of satisfaction that considers different contextual settings,
Giese and Cote (2000) argue that satisfaction is an emotional or cognitive
response relating to a particular focus (expectations, product, consumption
experience, etc.) that occurs at a particular time (after/during consumption,
after choice, based on accumulated experience, etc.).
Measuring student satisfaction in an HE setting has been a challenge. When
creating a university experience that genuinely satisfies students’ needs, univer-
sities should realize that these needs are not as simple as they may seem, but
rather latent and emergent (Ng & Forbes, 2009). This makes it difficult for uni-
versities not only to figure out students’ needs but also to determine the key
attributes for students to satisfy these needs. Furthermore, satisfaction is typi-
cally measured as a cognitive process in which customers compare their prior
expectations about the company with the company’s actual performance.
These expectations are formed as a result of experiences with other companies.
However, students typically do not have a benchmark against which to compare
the university’s actual performance and, over time, the expectations students
have prior to enrolment change dramatically.
Added to this is the transitory nature of satisfaction in HE. Student satisfaction
with university experience is elusive to capture. Unlike other service settings,
university experience is evolving, uncertain, and not pre-established (Ng &
Forbes, 2009). Hence, evaluating the quality of this experience is complex due
to the dynamic nature of students’ expectations and the lack of consensus con-
cerning which aspects of the university-wide experience are relevant for students.
Being heterogeneous in nature, students would differ in what they value within
the university experience (Ng & Forbes, 2009). Researchers have further argued
that determining the appropriate point in time to measure satisfaction is a chal-
lenge, as satisfaction can vary considerably over time and is only determined
at the time when the evaluation occurs (Giese & Cote, 2000).
A common approach to measuring student satisfaction in the HE literature is
to identify the appropriate items of evaluating the service quality attributes
(Bennett & Ali-Choudhury, 2009; Gibson, 2010; Parahoo et al., 2013). The
key premise underpinning this perspective is that high-quality service attributes

could lead to a better student experience, which in turn would generate satisfac-
tion. Four key antecedents were suggested in the recent literature in the GCC
region (Parahoo et al., 2013) to constitute student satisfaction with university
experience: perceived university reputation, perceived faculty competency,
quality of interactions with administrative/IT staff, and interactions with other
students.
Perceived university reputation

The image of a university is constructed in students’ minds through two
sources: the outside community and their personal experiences within the uni-
versity (Clemes et al., 2008). Before enrolment and at the early stage of univer-
sity experience, perceived image is formed mainly by external factors. Over
time, students acquire more inside knowledge, and it is likely that their percep-
tions of the university’s image will change (Clemes et al., 2008). Studies
include attributes such as innovation, involvement in the community, and up-
to-date programs to capture university reputation (Sohail & Shaikh, 2004).
Turner (1999) measures university image through three factors: study environ-
ment (e.g. whether the institution is viewed by students as friendly, supportive,
innovative, student-centric, and offering a good range of courses); practicality
(e.g. how practically oriented the courses are, flexibility of enrolments, and
how job oriented the study programs are); and conservativeness (e.g. whether
the institution is long-established or perceived as traditional or prestigious)
(as cited in Brown & Mazzarol, 2009). Similar to some other service experi-
ences, student satisfaction with their university experience is affected by the
university’s reputation (Gibson, 2010). Students’ perception of an institution’s
ability to provide a good intellectual environment is a significant contributor of
satisfaction (Hartman & Schmidt, 1995). Empirical evidence in HE suggests
that university reputation/image has a direct effect on students’ satisfaction
(Alwi & Kitchen, 2014; Clemes et al., 2008; Palacio, Meneses, & Perez,
2002). Hence, it is hypothesized that:
H1a: Perceived university reputation is positively related to student satisfaction.
Role of faculty
Students’ perception of faculty is paramount to the extent that some might
argue that – for some students, particularly freshman – the instructor is the
institution (Schee, 2011). Voss, Gruber, and Szmigin (2007) recognize that
faculty is the key determinant of students’ perceptions of service quality
and that the faculty’s ability to adapt behavior to their students’ underlying
expectations would positively impact students’ perceived service quality and
their levels of satisfaction. Students as customers of a service organization

operating in education expect to be personally improved and intellectually
developed by the lecturers (Mavondo et al., 2004). Thus, some researchers
argue that, for students, expertise is the most critical attribute of faculty
(Mai, 2005; Voss et al., 2007). The ultimate benefit students look for from
competent faculty is ‘valuable learning experience’ which is considered as a
means toward acquiring skills and knowledge and, ultimately, an important
step for their profession (Voss et al., 2007). Other researchers argue that stu-
dents’ classroom experience in terms of quality of lecturer/classroom delivery
is the most important factor for students’ perception of education quality (Hill,
Lomas, & MacGregor, 2003) and the most significant determinants of stu-
dents’ overall satisfaction (Gibson, 2010).

Others consider faculty –student interaction quality as a primary construct
when studying perceptions of HE service quality (Hill et al., 2003; Oldfield &
Baron, 2000). As with other services, the perception of education quality is
based on the quality of interactions in relationships with employees directly
involved in service encounters. Several research findings support the conten-
tion that the nature of the interpersonal interaction between the customer and
the service provider’s employees often affect post-experience consequences
such as satisfaction, trust, and commitment (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr, 1994;
Elsharnouby & Parsons, 2010). Thus, in HE it is expected that students’ per-
ceptions of the qualities and behavior of faculty will have a significant impact
on their satisfaction. Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is
developed:
H1b: Perceived faculty competency is positively related to student satisfaction.
Student – administrative/IT interaction

In a technology-enabled learning environment, universities need to adopt
approaches that balance between offering high technology solutions and
high-quality human interactions. Many universities are now adopting online
learning platforms through which students can register, access course materials,
interact with their instructors, submit assignments, and receive their grades.
Thus, it is believed that IT facilities are now a ‘must-have’ requirement in
HE. However, these aspects of university experience require experienced IT
staff to support students who encounter technical difficulties. In the HE litera-
ture, in addition to faculty, Parahoo et al. (2013) identified two other key players
with which students interact in an HE setting that eventually influence their sat-
isfaction: the IT support team and administrative staff. Non-academic attributes
such as student responsiveness (responsiveness to students’ concerns by admin-
istrative departments) (Gibson, 2010), quality of and accessibility to IT facilities
(Mai, 2005), access to up-to-date technology and the availability of student
services (Mavondo et al., 2004) are found to be significant predictors of student

satisfaction. Arising from this discussion, it is hypothesized that:
H1c: Student–administrative/IT interaction is positively related to student

satisfaction.
Student – student interaction

As previously discussed, students’ satisfaction is partially shaped by the class-
room environment. Students favor classrooms with a high level of student –
student social interaction (Elliott & Shin, 2002). Student – student interaction
goes beyond the classroom setting to include other interactions in the campus
environment. The degree of social integration with other students appears to

be particularly important to students in large institutions (Gibson, 2010).
Aspects of student –student interaction, such as opportunities to socialize and
engage in enjoyable experiences with peers (Gibson, 2010), as well as introdu-
cing students to the social life of the campus (Schee, 2011), have been demon-
strated as significant predictors of satisfaction. Accordingly, it is postulated that
the student – student interaction influences satisfaction:
H1d: Student–student interaction is positively related to student satisfaction.
Student co-creation behavior

The marketplace is viewed as a sphere where the value is co-created by con-
sumers through playing a more collaborative and active role (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2004). According to the service-dominant logic perspective,
the role of customers has transformed from a passive audience to an active
participant in co-creating the service experience (Lusch, Vargo, & O’Brien,
2007). Consumers extract the value primarily from interactions with the
company (Ramaswamy, 2011). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) suggest
that firms should create platforms of personalized interactions as the locus
of value creation and value extraction. The inputs of the customer and
company are of special importance for a successful co-creation experience.
Consumers may bring their knowledge, skills, and their willingness to
explore and learn when they engage in an active dialogue with other consu-
mers or with service providers’ personnel (Fagerstrøm & Ghinea, 2013). On
the other side, the company can allow customers to access important
resources, especially information.
The notion of students as co-producers in the learning process is addressed
in the education literature (Mavondo et al., 2004), which has shown that effec-
tive learning implies the co-creation of value (Ng & Forbes, 2009). Students
who consider themselves as co-producers ‘take full responsibility for their
learning and use teachers and other resources to support their effort and
ensure more successful outcomes’ (Mavondo et al., 2004, p. 46). Attaining the
desired outcomes of learning without students’ participation and involvement is
considered to be impossible (Astin, 1984). However, an exploration of the stu-
dents’ co-creation behavior outside the classroom in the HE literature is lacking.
A debate exists in the literature regarding the dimensionality of co-creation
behavior as a construct, and too little is known about this construct dimension-
ality in the HE literature. Recently, Yi and Gong (2013) developed a scale for
measuring customer co-creation behavior. They operationalized co-creation be-
havior as a multidimensional construct made up of two factors: CPB and CCB.
Yi and Gong (2013) identified four dimensions of the CPB – information
seeking, information sharing, responsible behavior, and personal interaction
– and four other dimensions for CCB: feedback, advocacy, helping, and toler-
ance. This study adopts Yi and Gong’s (2013) operationalization of co-creation
behavior because the scale dimensions cover the entire co-creation experience
(i.e. prior to, during and after the interaction experience). This offers a broader
picture of the student co-creation experience outside the classroom.
Student participation behavior (SPB)

Participation behavior is conceptualized in this study as a multidimensional
construct made up of four broad dimensions: information seeking, information
sharing, responsible behavior, and personal interaction (Yi & Gong, 2013).
Information seeking is defined as customers’ (i.e. students’) propensity to
look for information to clarify service requirements, understand their expected
roles, and learn how to perform their tasks (Yi & Gong, 2013). The approach
consumers use to gather information about products and how they get and
consume this information has fundamentally changed over the last decade
(Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). Consumers are becoming active information
seekers and do not rely solely upon information released by the organization.
Consumers not only seek alternative sources of information, such as infor-
mation derived from other consumers or informal and personal forms of infor-
mation, but also prefer these sources over the formal sources (Fagerstrøm &
Ghinea, 2013). In a university setting, students might seek information by
asking other students or employees, searching for information on the univer-
sity’s website or other online platforms, or observing other students’ behavior
while getting the service.
Information sharing occurs when customers (students) provide essential
information to the service provider personnel to enable them to perform their
duties and provide the service that meets their needs (Yi & Gong, 2013). For
example, it is expected that students provide university employees with the
necessary information and answer the employees’ service-related questions to
help them offer the right service. A third dimension of SPB relates to what
might be recognized as responsible behavior. Such behavior recognizes that
the customers have duties and responsibilities as partial employees (Ennew &
Binks, 1999). Bettencourt (1997) uses the term ‘co-operative behavior’ to refer
to ‘the extent to which customers conform to the role expected of them by the
service provider’ (as cited in Ennew & Binks, 1999, p. 124). For successful
service provision, it is important for the customer (student) to be co-operative,
observe the rules and policies, act with courtesy and accept direction from the
service provider’s employees (Bettencourt, 1997). Finally, personal interaction
refers to interpersonal relationships between customers (students) and the
service provider’s employees that are necessary for successful service delivery
(Ennew & Binks, 1999). As a service encounter occurs in a social setting,
interaction elements such as courtesy, friendliness, and respect are of critical
importance (Kelley, Donnelly, & Skinner, 1990).
Student citizenship behavior (SCB)

The organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) concept is well established in
organizational behavior literature (Organ, 1988; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Organ
(1988, p. 4) defines OCB as
individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by

the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective func-
tioning of the organization . . . . (T)he behavior is rather a matter of personal
choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as punishable.
In the HE domain, there has been a call for promoting citizenship behavior in
and out of class (Mazen, Herman, & Ornstein, 2008), particularly given the
evidence that shows this construct is positively related to students’ academic
success (Allison, Voss, & Dryer, 2001).
In this study, citizenship behavior is conceptualized as a multidimensional
construct consisting of four broad dimensions: helping behavior, tolerance,
advocacy, and feedback (Yi & Gong, 2013). Helping behavior involves
volunteer activities directed at benefiting others (Podsakoff, MacKenzie,
Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). In a university setting, this may include students’
willingness to help other students with difficulties, briefing a student who was
absent or arrived late, sharing personal creation of an important model with
classmates (Mazen et al., 2008), and helping fellow students run a software
application (Allison et al., 2001). Tolerance is conceptualized as the key
ingredient of sportsmanship in the OCB literature and is defined as ‘a willing-
ness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work
without complaining’ (Organ, 1990, p. 96). Mazen et al. (2008) identified
several examples of students’ tolerance behavior in class, such as having to
endure a change of classrooms, accepting inconvenient study conditions,
accepting alternative class meeting times to accommodate the majority, and
undertaking an extra assignment not included in the syllabus but relevant
to the course goals.
The third dimension, advocacy (labeled as organizational loyalty in the OCB

literature), consists of behavior that entails promoting the organization to out-
siders, spreading goodwill, and endorsing, supporting, and defending the organ-
ization (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Examples of student advocacy behavior include
speaking positively about the class to outsiders and recommending the course to
others (Mazen et al., 2008), continuously supporting the university’s core and
social activities (Khalid, Abdul Rahman, Madar, & Ismail, 2013), being
willing to recommend the institution to others, staying in touch with the
faculty, choosing the institution again for future study or joining the alumni
groups (Brown & Mazzarol, 2009). Finally, feedback, which is constructed
as a civic virtue in Podsakoff et al.’s (2000) seminal review, includes voluntary
acts in which organizational members engage to make constructive suggestions

for the sake of organizational improvements. Examples in HE include making
suggestions to improve communication between students and suggesting a
group feedback system that was shown to be successful in a different course
(Mazen et al., 2008). However, this study ultimately focuses on SCB outside
the classroom setting.
Satisfaction with university and students’ co-creation behavior

Empirical evidence in the literature suggests that satisfied customers are
expected to engage in different forms of participation and citizenship behav-
ior. For example, satisfied customers are more likely to co-operate and inter-
act with firms by sharing and providing information as well as making
constructive, insightful suggestions (Bagozzi, 1995; Bettencourt, 1997; Eisin-
gerich, Auh, & Merlo, 2013). It is also believed that satisfied customers are
more likely to communicate their problems and provide feedback for service
improvement (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996), whereas the majority
of dissatisfied customers leave the firm silently, without providing suggestions
on how to improve dysfunctional aspects of the products or services (Eisin-
gerich et al., 2013). A link between customer satisfaction and citizenship be-
havior has been clearly established in the services literature (Groth, 2005). In
the HE literature, researchers have observed that satisfied students are more
likely to engage in certain types of co-creation behavior. For example, satis-
fied students may encourage new students to join the university through
word-of-mouth communication, return to the university to take further
courses (Mavondo et al., 2004), involve and co-operate with their institution
both during and after their studies (Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013), rec-
ommend the university to employers for recruitment purposes (Clemes
et al., 2008), and be potential donors as alumni (Parahoo et al., 2013).
Thus, it seems plausible to hypothesize that students satisfied with
their university experience are more likely to engage in participation and
citizenship behavior:
H2: Student satisfaction is positively related to SPB.

H3: Student satisfaction is positively related to SCB.
Methodology
Measures
All construct measures employed in this research were sourced from validated
established scales in the services marketing and HE literature. However, the
wording of the items was modified to be relevant to a sample of university stu-
dents. The antecedents of student satisfaction were measured using Parahoo
et al.’s (2013) scales. The respondents were asked to rate four facets of their uni-
versity experience – perceived university reputation, perceived faculty compe-
tency, quality of interactions with administrative/IT staff, and interactions with
other students – using a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼
strongly agree). The items for the satisfaction scale were based on items from
Sivadas and Baker-Prewitt (2000). Students’ co-creation behavior dimensions
were measured using Yi and Gong’s (2013) scales. Based on their experience
with their current university’s services, students gave their opinions regarding
SPB and SCB. SPB measures included four dimensions: information seeking,
information sharing, responsible behavior, and personal interaction. SCB con-
sisted of four dimensions: helping behavior, tolerance, advocacy, and feedback.
Answers were provided on a five-point Likert scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree, 5 ¼
strongly agree).
Data collection and sample

The current study was conducted in the context of HE in Qatar. Since 2003, the
HE sector in Qatar has experienced a number of reforms to increase the number
of HEIs, collaborate with world-class universities and produce indigenous
research capacity to meet Qatar’s quest to support economic and social devel-
opment (Qatar National Development Strategy, 2011). The Qatari HE sector
consists of 15 public and private institutions. In 2003, 8145 students were
enrolled in HEIs; this number increased to around 17,000 in 2012 (Qatar
Social Statistics, 2014). In the 2011 – 2012 academic year, female students con-
stituted 65% of students enrolled in universities because male students often
enter the labor force immediately after high school (Qatar Social Statistics,
2014).
A questionnaire was developed following a critical review of the services
marketing and HE literature. The questionnaire was developed to cover differ-
ent facets of university experience, with a particular emphasis on students’
co-creation behavior of university services. To ensure the readability, validity,
clarity, and relevance of the instrument, the questionnaire was pilot tested
with a sample of five faculty members and a dozen students. This resulted in
some modifications in the wording of the statements. Following this procedure,

data were collected from a leading state-owned university in Qatar using an
online self-administered questionnaire during the 2014 spring semester.
Online data collection was deemed appropriate in this study for reaching out
to the target respondents in different university colleges. A link to the online
questionnaire was emailed to professors, who were asked to post it to their stu-
dents on Blackboardw (the university’s formal communication platform with
students). At some colleges, the vice dean of the students’ affairs office was
also contacted; those who agreed to help distributed the questionnaire link
among their students. Students were informed that their participation in the
questionnaire was voluntary and were assured of anonymity. To avoid bias, stu-
dents were also informed that the questions in the questionnaire were germane
to their overall university experience and not related to a specific class.
A total of 447 responses were obtained, of which 385 were complete. Six
respondents were removed due to the unengaged pattern (the standard deviation
was calculated for each respondent’s answers to the Likert scale questions, and
respondents were removed if their answers had a standard deviation less than
0.3). This procedure yielded 379 usable questionnaires, which were deemed to
be adequate for structural equation modeling (SEM) (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, &
Black, 1998). An effort was made to ensure that the sample was a reasonably
close match to the university population. The majority of the samples were
females (73.6%). The sample comprised 64.9% domestic and 35.1% international
students; almost all were undergraduates (94.5%). In terms of age, slightly more
than 82% of the students were between 18 and 25 years old. Respondents were
from seven different colleges. The data were coded and cleaned using SPSS 22,
then transferred to AMOS 22 for further analysis.
Analysis and results

The study followed a two-step SEM approach using AMOS 22: the measure-
ment model and the structural model.
Measurement model
The scales were first subjected to a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFA)
(maximum likelihood with promax with Kaiser Normalization rotation) to
determine the appropriate dimensions of the study constructs. An iterative
process eliminated items that had a factor loading below .40, were cross-
loaded, or had low commonalities below .30 (Clemes et al., 2008). The final
factor analysis resulted in eight factors with eigenvalues exceeding 1 and
explained 66.5% of the total variance (Table 1). The factors identified were
(1) perceived university reputation; (2) perceived faculty competency; (3)
student – administrative/IT staff interaction; (4) interactions with other students;
(5) overall satisfaction; (6) participation behavior; (7) helping behavior; and (8)
Table 1. EFA and CFA results.

Factor
CFA loadings PUR PFC SAIT IWOS SAT PB HB ADV
Perceived university reputation (PUR)

PUR1 .89 .76
PUR2 .90 .99
PUR3 .76 .53
Perceived faculty competency (PFC)
PFC1 .70 .61
PFC2 .82 .89
PFC3 .80 .85
PFC4 .85 .86
PFC5 .84 .87

PFC6 .75 .71
PFC7 .76 .75
PFC8 .79 .70
PFC9 .69 .66
Student –admin/IT staff interaction (SAIT)
SAIT1 .51 .43
SAIT2 .69 .68
SAIT3 .65 .53
SAIT4 .89 .93
SAIT5 .85 .87
SAIT6 .83 .83
Interactions with other students (IWOS)
IWOS1 .77 .76
IWOS2 .82 .87
IWOS3 .82 .78
IWOS4 .70 .58
Overall satisfaction (SAT)
SAT1 .88 .69
SAT2 .90 .96
SAT3 .88 .83
SAT4 .85 .93
Participation behavior (PB)
PB1 .73 .75
PB2 .82 .89
PB3 .85 .93
PB4 .89 .88
PB5 .82 .74
PB6 .71 .73
PB7 .77 .63
Helping behavior (HB)
HB1 .89 .78
HB2 .92 .95
HB3 .81 .87
HB4 .79 .82
Advocacy (ADV)
ADV1 .80 .44
ADV2 .88 1.07
ADV3 .92 .70
Notes: Total variance extracted ¼ 66.5%; extraction method: maximum likelihood; rotation method: promax with
Kaiser Normalization; loadings , 0.40 not shown.
advocacy. Participation behavior was loaded as a unidimensional construct

which contradicts the multidimensional treatment of this construct in the co-cre-
ation literature. However, this may be attributed to the fact that CPB measures
were developed in different domains (e.g. retailing, restaurants, hair salons,
healthcare facilities, and travel) rather than the HE setting. Furthermore, only
two dimensions of citizenship behavior – helping behavior and advocacy –
met the above-mentioned criteria and were accordingly included in the sub-
sequent analysis (see appendix).
To examine the factor structure of the co-creation behavior constructs, a con-
firmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed. The model demonstrated a good
fit to the data, x2 (716) ¼ 1471, x2/df ¼ 2.05, p , .001, CFI ¼ 0.93, TLI ¼
0.93, RMSEA ¼ 0.05. The CFA statistics showed that the Cronbach’s alpha
values for the eight factors ranged from .86 to .93, all exceeding the .70 cut-off
value recommended in the literature. In addition, average variances extracted
(AVEs) for all model constructs exceeded the .50 threshold typically rec-
ommended in the literature (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Both values demon-
strated high internal consistency and, hence, the reliability of all constructs. The
convergent validity of the scales is also supported as all CFA item loadings
exceeded .5 (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Finally, to assess discrimi-
nant validity, AVEs were compared with squared correlations between all pairs of
constructs (Hair et al., 2010). In all cases, AVEs exceeded squared correlations
between all pairs of constructs, indicating discriminant validity (Table 2). The
following section reports the results of the hypotheses testing.
Hypotheses testing
As shown in Table 3, the results indicate that two attributes proved to be stat-
istically significant variables in terms of influencing student satisfaction with
Table 2. Composite reliability, correlation matrix, and average variance extracted scores for all the
constructs.
Composite
reliability AVE (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)
Perceived university .89 .729 .854

reputation (1)
Perceived faculty .93 .594 .606 .770
competency (2)
Participation behavior (3) .92 .636 .265 .260 .798
Student –admin/IT staff .88 .551 .490 .526 .221 .742
interaction (4)
Overall satisfaction (5) .92 .734 .703 .571 .144 .459 .857
Interactions with other .86 .605 .458 .469 .242 .504 .443 .778
students (6)
Citizenship behavior (7) .76 .611 .526 .495 .570 .538 .539 .422 .781
Note: AVE ¼ Average variance extracted.
Table 3. Structural model results.

Hypothesized paths Beta t-Value Hypothesis result
∗∗
H1a: University reputation Satisfaction 0.52 8.91 Supported
H1b: Perceived faculty competency Satisfaction 0.18∗∗ 3.21 Supported
H1c: Student –admin/IT interaction Satisfaction 0.08† 1.49 Rejected
H1d: Interaction with other students Satisfaction 0.09† 1.74 Rejected
H2: Satisfaction Participation 0.18∗∗ 3.34 Supported
H3: Satisfaction Citizenship 0.54∗∗ 10.33 Supported
R2
Satisfaction 0.41
Participation 0.52
Citizenship 0.47
∗∗
Sig.at p , .01.
†
Not significant.
university experience. Perceived university reputation showed a strong sig-

nificant effect on student satisfaction (b ¼ .52, p , .01) supporting H1a.
The results also supported H1b, as superior perceived faculty competency
increases student satisfaction (b ¼ .18, p , .01). However, the results indi-
cated that neither student – administrative/IT interaction nor student – student
interaction had a significant effect on student satisfaction (b ¼ .08, p . .05
and b ¼ .09, p . .05); thus, H1c and H1d were not supported. The four ante-
cedents explained 41% of the variation in student satisfaction. As hypoth-
esized, the results showed a significant positive relationship between
satisfaction and participation behavior (b ¼ .18, p , .01), thereby supporting
H2. Student satisfaction explained 52% of the variation in participation be-
havior. As anticipated, the results indicated that citizenship behavior was
positively related to student satisfaction (b ¼ .54, p , .01), thereby support-
ing H3. Finally, 47% of the variance in citizenship behavior could be
explained by student satisfaction.
Mediation analysis
Given that the main aim of this study is to examine the role of student satisfaction
with the university experience in shaping co-creation behavior, a mediation test
was conducted to examine the direct as well as indirect effects of the antecedents
of student satisfaction through student satisfaction. Following the bootstrapping
approach suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008), a mediation test was
employed based on 1000 bootstrap samples. The mediation test was conducted
to determine whether satisfaction mediated the relationship between the antece-
dent variables of perceived university reputation, perceived faculty competency,
student – administrative/IT staff interaction, and interactions with other students
and the dependent variables of participation and citizenship behavior.
The mediation tests in Table 4 show that satisfaction mediates the effect of
perceived university reputation (b ¼ .125, p , .01) and perceived faculty
Table 4. Mediation analysis.

Direct effect Indirect effect
Dependent Std regression Std regression
Independent variable variable Mediator coef coef Result
∗
Perceived university Participation Satisfaction .214 .084 (NS) Direct only
reputation behavior non-
mediation
Perceived faculty .127 (NS) .029 (NS) No-effect non-
competence mediation
Student –admin/IT .069 (NS) .011 (NS) No-effect non-
interaction mediation
Student –student .127(NS) .014 (NS) No-effect non-
Perceived university Citizenship .148 (NS) .125∗∗ Indirect only

reputation behavior mediation
Perceived faculty .037 (NS) .043∗ Indirect only
competence mediation
Student –admin/IT .251∗∗ .016 (NS) Direct only
interaction non-
mediation
Student –student .107(NS) .020 (NS) No-effect non-
Note: NS, not significant.
∗∗
Sig. at p , .01.
∗
Sig at p , .05.
competency (b ¼ .043, p , .01) only on citizenship behavior. According to the

mediation classification suggested by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010), this result
demonstrates an ‘indirect only’ or ‘full mediation’ effect of satisfaction as the
direct effect becomes insignificant when the indirect effect is included in the
analysis. Furthermore, the mediation tests show a ‘direct only non-mediation’
effect in the perceived university reputation – participation behavior (b ¼
.214, p , .05) path and the student –administration/IT interaction – citizenship
behavior (b ¼ .251, p , .01) path. For the remaining relationships, ‘no-effect
non-mediation’ was observed.
Conclusions and implications

The centrality of university students’ satisfaction has given rise to the need to
identify the key drivers of this construct in different research settings (e.g.
countries). As one of the first studies to examine university students’ satisfac-
tion in Qatar, the results of hypotheses 1a to 1d demonstrate that not all univer-
sity service attributes are equally important in creating satisfaction for students
in different countries. Perceived university reputation and perceived faculty
competency were found to be crucial in generating students’ satisfaction in
this study. An especially strong significant correlation exists between university
reputation and student satisfaction, implying that university reputation is
perceived as the most important factor shaping students’ satisfaction with their
current university. Perceived university reputation comprised three items related
to the university’s perceived image to offer reputable academic programs that
suit students’ educational needs. Thus, perhaps this construct related to some
desired consequences in students’ minds, such as a good job/career and a result-
ing good quality of life. This result supports the positive relationship between
university image (e.g. reputation) and student satisfaction identified by Clemes
et al. (2008) and Palacio et al. (2002).
The significant relationship between perceived faculty competency and sat-
isfaction might reflect a different perception of teacher – student relations in
different cultures. In Western cultures, academics are largely seen more as pro-
fessionals who facilitate learning, whereas in some Asian cultures, academics

are seen more as instructors to be trusted and to provide guidance (Mavondo
et al., 2004). Therefore, students’ reliance on instructors has a strong influence
in shaping their university learning experience. These findings are consistent
with a recent study conducted by Parahoo et al. (2013) in Saudi Arabia,
where female students’ satisfaction was driven solely by university reputation,
and male students’ satisfaction was influenced by only two drivers – namely,
university reputation and perceived academic staff competence. The finding
related to the impact of perceived faculty competency on student satisfaction
appears to agree with the contention of most university student satisfaction
studies (Browne, Kaldenberg, Browne, & Brown, 1998; Clemes et al., 2008;
Elliot & Shin, 2002; Wilkins & Balakrishnan, 2013).
The lack of support for a significant relationship between student satisfac-
tion and both student – administrative/IT interaction and student – student inter-
action is not that surprising in and of itself. It is important to note that these
findings are in line with the idea pointed out by some student satisfaction
studies that classified satisfaction predictors as ‘satisfiers’ or ‘dissatisfiers’
(Gibson, 2010). Both the categories of services/facilities (e.g. student – admin-
istrative/IT interaction) and social integration (e.g. student –student interaction)
are usually found to be dissatisfiers; thus, negative experience may lead to dis-
satisfaction, but positive experience does not necessarily lead to overall satis-
faction (Gibson, 2010). It may be also that, in some cultures like the Gulf
culture, the local cultural norms and values may preclude interactions
between students and their peers, especially those who come from different
backgrounds (e.g. nationality, social class, and income status). The results indi-
cate that the proposed antecedents accounted for only 41% of the variation in
student satisfaction. This implies that other important antecedents of university
student satisfaction exist that have not been identified in the proposed model.
The study findings also support the contention of earlier consumer market-
ing studies (Bagozzi, 1995; Bettencourt, 1997; Eisingerich et al., 2013), which
proved the satisfaction –participation relationship. These findings provide
empirical support to the direct role of student satisfaction in enabling student
participation in co-producing the university services. This implies that a
higher level of satisfaction will enhance students’ intention to participate

actively in co-producing the university services. It is thus important for HEIs
to capitalize on students’ satisfaction with university experience as a means
of promoting students’ participative behavior outside the classroom sphere.
This importance stems from the notion emphasized in the service literature
that consumers’ participative behavior in the service offering can be thought
to yield superior benefits for consumers (Ennew & Binks, 1999).
The findings also support the view that satisfaction is related to students’
favorable behavior. These results empirically support the similar findings of
Clemes et al. (2008) – namely, that students’ high level of satisfaction will
enhance their favorable behavioral intentions. A higher satisfaction level
reinforces the decision to engage in some forms of citizenship behavior, includ-

ing assisting other students when they need help or when they come across pro-
blems with the university services. Satisfied students are also far more likely to
advocate the university’s services than unsatisfied students. Such advocacy
includes saying positive things about the university’s services, recommending
the services to other students and encouraging other students to use the univer-
sity services. Thus, satisfied students could be used as marketers to advocate the
position and image of their institutions in the minds of other students and
stakeholders.
In addition to the direct effects, the findings show support for the mediating
effect of student satisfaction. Specifically, satisfaction mediates the effect of
perceived university reputation and perceived faculty competency on citizen-
ship behavior. In other words, citizenship behavior is not achieved directly
from perceived university reputation or perceived faculty competency, but by
paying attention to student satisfaction. This result implies that, when satisfied,
students who perceive their university to be a reputable institution are far more
likely to engage in some forms of citizenship behavior. It also suggests that the
same consequence can be expected among students who perceive their faculty
to be highly competent. Furthermore, it is not sufficient for a university to be a
reputable institution or have highly competent faculty staff to get students to
become actively engaged in citizenship behavior. Hence, this finding under-
scores the critical role that student satisfaction plays in reinforcing citizenship
behavior. This aligns with Alwi and Kitchen’s (2014) and Davies and Chun’s
(2002) findings that corporate brand image affects post-experience behavior
(e.g. citizenship behavior) via satisfaction. Through both the direct effect and
mediating role of student satisfaction, this study has demonstrated the centrality
of this construct among students in HEIs.
Some important implications emerge from these findings. The findings
provide insights for those who might be designing a student satisfaction
survey for use in the GCC region. Surveys developed in Western universities
do not necessarily reflect the major attributes that might influence students’ sat-
isfaction in other research settings. The study highlights the need for a culture-
bound perspective when looking at students’ satisfaction with university-wide
experience that reflects the uniqueness of the HE context in this region. Students
in the current study were primarily concerned with university reputation and
faculty competency as well as interactions with faculty. University reputation,
which is not addressed in most student satisfaction studies (Gibson, 2010)
and considered a pre-enrolment factor, stood out as the key predictor of
current university students’ satisfaction. From a university administrator’s
standpoint, it is critically important to recognize that university reputation
might not only affect prospective students’ university choice, but also consist-
ently influences current students’ overall student satisfaction with the univer-
sity. This also highlights the notion that – despite the tremendous progress in
brand building in other sectors – the focus on branding and university brand
image in HEIs is likely to remain challenging (Williams & Omar, 2014).

Thus, HEIs could go beyond classic student recruitment activities to develop
vibrant strategic branding campaigns that focus on each institution’s distinctive
competences to better position itself in students’ minds.
The evidence from the current study strongly suggests that perceived faculty
competency is critically important in shaping students’ satisfaction with univer-
sity experience. The results give insights into the desired qualities that faculty
should have from a student’s point of view. Students want faculty to be highly
competent in their respective subject matter, caring, responsive, and enthusias-
tic. They should also have a positive attitude toward students, be available for
consultation and provide students with feedback on assignments in a timely
manner. HEIs which pay more attention to these qualities are more likely to
enrich the students’ experience and influence students’ evaluations of faculty
and the course without compromising rigor in the classroom.
Another implication is that universities might consider placing more empha-
sis on students’ satisfaction as a means of facilitating their co-creation behavior
of university services. As discussed earlier, students’ university experience is a
dynamic phenomenon comprised of different academic and non-academic
aspects. The non-academic aspects could also include those areas through
which students’ university experience is enriched. Thus, drivers of student sat-
isfaction, especially outside the classroom, should be considered to enable stu-
dents to be co-creators of value when obtaining university services. Satisfied
students are more likely than dissatisfied students to actively engage in co-pro-
ducing the university’s services. Participation in university service provision is
thought to equip them with knowledge of the services, which might help them
access the services that appropriately meet their needs. Knowledge of university
services provides students with a sense of belonging (Schee, 2011). Thus,
service design and delivery options should be appealing for different students.
Finally, the study highlights the role of cultural context when looking at stu-
dents’ co-creation behavior, as certain norms and values embedded in the local
culture might preclude effective co-creation behavior by local students. Find-
ings from recent research suggest that universities can benefit from SCB, as stu-
dents who share their knowledge to help other students assist universities in
executing their educational missions (Schwager et al., 2014). Thus, it could be

argued that some types of co-creation behavior like SCB need to be learned and
practiced by students before graduation to prepare them to provide significant
contributions to their future jobs. This might require university administrators
to become better acquainted with and nurture the SCB concept in students.
Limitations and future research

It is hoped that this study will be helpful in paving the way for more studies
addressing students as co-creators of university services. However, as with
any research endeavor, the current study has some limitations. Student satisfac-
tion was operationalized as a cumulative evaluation of actual university experi-

ence stemming from an evaluation of four antecedents. Although the
measurement scale is commonly used in the HE literature, this evaluation
occurred at a specific point in time. Given the transitory and changing nature
of student satisfaction, measuring it at a particular point in time is a key limit-
ation of the current study. Therefore, future research could map the dynamism
of student satisfaction by conducting a longitudinal study to eliminate the effect
of measuring satisfaction at a specific time. Furthermore, the debate will con-
tinue concerning the issue of measuring student satisfaction. Thus, future
research should develop a measurement that reflects the dynamic and multifa-
ceted nature of university experience. It would be of interest to develop a multi-
dimensional scale of satisfaction that accommodates the cognitive, hedonic,
emotional, and social facets of student experience of core and supplementary
aspects of the university experience.
Most operationalization of co-creation behavior has been developed in
different domains rather than the HE setting (e.g. retailing, restaurant, hair
salons, healthcare facilities, and travel). More effort and further research are
required to improve the conceptualization and operationalization of co-creation
behavior in the HE domain. Further research is also needed to provide concep-
tual clarity to students’ co-creation behavior and offer recommendations to
researchers concerning which constructs are most appropriate for conceptualiz-
ing and measuring this variable in the HE context. In terms of co-creation
measurement, although SPB has been treated in this study as a unidimensional
construct, citizenship behavior proved to have only two dimensions: helping
behavior and advocacy. Co-creation behavior is multidimensional in other con-
texts (Yi & Gong, 2013), but the nature of this multi-dimensionality in HE
requires further investigation. The use of self-ratings of students’ co-creation
behavior could also be considered a shortcoming of the present study.
However, research on co-creation behavior frequently relies on self-ratings
(Yi & Gong, 2013) because such behavior is difficult for others to observe,
which jeopardizes research endeavors relying solely on others’ ratings.
Future research could incorporate others’ ratings (e.g. faculty and administra-
tive staff) with self-rating to measure student co-creation behavior.
The sample was drawn from a single university and single country in the
GCC. Although the sample was reasonably diverse in terms of students’ charac-
teristics (e.g. gender, age, college, nationality, and the study level) and the stat-
istical modeling was robust, future research could aim to replicate the findings
with other student populations from other GCC countries. Finally, given that
this region has its distinct culture, traditions, and social norms which vary con-
siderably from those of other regions, the findings of this study are not general-
izable to all universities globally.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Allison, B. J., Voss, R. S., & Dryer, S. (2001). Student classroom and career success: The role of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Education for Business, 76, 282 –288.
Alwi, S., & Kitchen, P. (2014). Projecting corporate brand image and behavioral response in
business schools: Cognitive or affective brand attributes? Journal of Business Research,
67, 2324 – 2336.
Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297 –308.
Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perception: The case of
university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528 – 540.
Bagozzi, R. (1995). Reflections on relationship marketing in consumer markets. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 272– 277.
Bennett, R., & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2009). Prospective students’ perceptions of university
brands: An empirical study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 85 – 107.
Bettencourt, L. (1997). Customer voluntary performance: Customers as partners in service deliv-
ery. Journal of Retailing, 73(3), 383– 406.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical service encounters: The employee’s
viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58, 95– 106.
Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student sat-
isfaction and loyalty within higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 58(1), 81 –95.
Browne, B. A., Kaldenberg, D. O., Browne, W. G. J., & Brown, D. (1998). Students as custo-
mers: Factors affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal of
Marketing for Higher Education, 8(3), 1– 14.
Clemes, M., Gan, C., & Kao, T. (2008). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis.
Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292– 325.
Davies, G., & Chun, R. (2002). Gaps between the internal and external perceptions of the cor-
porate brand. Corporate Reputation Review, 5(2/3), 144 – 158.
Eisingerich, A. B., Auh, S., & Merlo, O. (2013). Acta non verba? The role of customer partici-
pation and word of mouth in the relationship between service firms’ customer satisfaction
and sales performance. Journal of Service Research, 17(1), 40 –53.
Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruit-
ment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1 –11.
Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this
important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197 –209.
Elsharnouby, T., & Parsons, E. (2010). A broader concept of relationships: Identifying new
forms of consumer-provider interactions in Egyptian financial services. Journal of
Marketing Management, 26, 1367 – 1388.
Ennew, C. T., & Binks, M. R. (1999). Impact of participative service relationships on quality,
satisfaction and retention: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Research, 46,
121– 132.
Fagerstrøm, A., & Ghinea, G. (2013). Co-creation of value in higher education: Using social
network marketing in the recruitment of students. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, 35(1), 45– 53.
Ford, J. B., Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (1999). Importance-performance analysis as a strategic tool
for service marketers: The case of service quality perceptions of business students in New
Zealand and the USA. The Journal of Services Marketing, 13(2), 171– 186.
Gibson, A. (2010). Measuring business student satisfaction: A review and summary of the major
predictors. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 32(3), 251– 259.
Giese, J., & Cote, J. (2000). Defining consumer satisfaction. Academy of Marketing Science
Review, 1(1), 1– 22.
Groth, M. (2005). Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet
service deliveries. Journal of Management, 31(1), 7 – 27.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hartman, D. E., & Schmidt, S. L. (1995). Understanding student/alumni satisfaction from a con-
sumer’s perspective: The effects of institutional performance and program outcomes.
Research in Higher Education, 36(2), 197 –217.
Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: A
systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316– 338.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E. C., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., &
Skiera, B. (2010). The impact of new media on consumer relationships. Journal of Service
Research, 13, 311 –330.
Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher edu-
cation. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15– 20.
Kelley, S. W., Donnelly, J. H., & Skinner, S. J. (1990). Customer participation in service pro-
duction and delivery. Journal of Retailing, 66, 315– 335.
Khalid, S. A., Abdul Rahman, N., Madar, A. S., & Ismail, M. (2013). Undergraduates’ organ-
izational citizenship behavior: The role of religiosity. International Journal of Academic
Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(7), 572 –584.
Lowrie, A., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2011). This thing called marketization. Journal of Marketing
Management, 27(11 –12), 1081 – 1086.
Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., & O’ Brien, M. (2007). Competing through service: Insights from
service – dominant logic. Journal of Retailing, 83(1), 5 – 18.
Mai, L. (2005). A comparative study between UK and US: The student satisfaction in higher
education and its influential factors. Journal of Marketing Management, 21, 859– 878.
Mavondo, F., Tsarenko, Y., & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local student satisfaction:
Resources and capabilities perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(1),
41– 60.
Mazen, A. M., Herman, S., & Ornstein, S. (2008). Professor delight: Cultivating organizational
citizenship behavior. Journal of Management Education, 32(5), 563– 579.
Ng, I. C., & Forbes, J. (2009). Education as service: The understanding of university experience
through the service logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 38– 64.
Nunnally, C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oldfield, B. M., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in a UK university
business and management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(2), 85 –95.
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The subtle significance of job satisfaction. Clinical Laboratory
Management Review, 4, 94 – 98.
Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional pre-
dictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775– 802.
Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Perez, P. J. P. (2002). The configuration of the university
image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational
Administration, 40(4/5), 486– 505.
Parahoo, S., Harvey, H., & Tamim, R. (2013). Factors influencing student satisfaction in univer-
sities in the Gulf region: Does gender of students matter? Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, 23(2), 135 – 154.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citi-
zenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and sugges-
tions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513 – 563.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value
creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5 –14.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40,
879– 91.
Qatar National Development Strategy. (2011). Qatar general secretariat for development plan-
ning. Retrieved from http://www.gsdp.gov.qa/portal/page/portal/gsdp_en/nds.
Qatar Social Statistics. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.qsa.gov.qa/eng/publication/Social_
publications/QatarSocialStatistics/QatarSocialStatistics-2003 – 2012-Pub-May-2014-Eng.
pdf.
Ramaswamy, V. (2011). It’s about human experiences and beyond, to co-creation. Industrial
Marketing Management, 40(2), 195 – 196.
Schee, B. A. V. (2011). Students as consumers: Programming for brand loyalty. Services
Marketing Quarterly, 32(1), 32– 43.
Schwager, I. T. L., Hülsheger, U. R., Lang, J. W. B., Klieger, D. M., Bridgeman, B., & Wendler,
C. (2014). Supervisor ratings of students’ academic potential as predictors of citizenship and
counterproductive behavior. Learning and Individual Differences, 35, 62 – 69.
Sivadas, E., & Baker-Prewitt, J. L. (2000). An examination of the relationship between service
quality, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty. International Journal of Retail and
Distribution Management, 28(2), 73 –82.
Sohail, M. S., & Shaikh, N. M. (2004). Quest for excellence in business education: A study of
student impressions of service quality. International Journal of Educational Management,
18(1), 58 –65.
Turner, J. (1999). University preference: A conjoint analysis (Master’s thesis). Edith Cowan
University.
Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of
student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949 –959.
Wilkins, S., & Balakrishnan, M. S. (2013). Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher
education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2), 143– 156.
Williams, R. L., & Omar, M. (2014). How branding process activities impact brand equity
within Higher Education Institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 24(1),
1– 10.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and vali-
dation. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1279 –1284.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(4), 31– 46.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths
about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197– 206.
Appendix
Scaled items for constructs

Perceived university reputation:
My current university:
PUR1: . . .. . is known for its excellent quality academic programs
PUR2: . . . . . is known for its reputable academic programs
PUR3: . . . . . offers programs that suit my educational needs
Perceived faculty competency

The faculty members:
PFC1: . . . . . are highly competent in their respective subject matter.

PFC2: . . . . . deal with students in a caring manner.
PFC3: . . . . . respond promptly to students’ requests for assistance.
PFC4: . . . . . show a sincere interest in solving students’ problems.
PFC5: . . . . . show a positive attitude toward students.
PFC6: . . . . . are available for consultation.
PFC7: . . . . . communicate information clearly to students.
PFC8: . . . . . provide students with feedback on assignments in an adequate time.
PFC9: . . . . . provide students with detailed feedback on assignments.
Student–admin/IT staff interaction

SAIT1: Administrative staff are accessible.
SAIT2: IT staff are accessible.
SAIT3: Administrative staff provide reliable information.
SAIT4: IT staff provide good technical support.
SAIT5: IT staff provide good technical training.
SAIT6: IT support is provided in a timely manner.
Interactions with other students

IWOS1: There is good collaboration among students in course assignments.
IWOS2: There is good communication among students for course group assignments.
IWOS3: There is good collaboration among students during in-class course activities.
IWOS4: It is easy to get support from students’ clubs/unions at the college.
Overall satisfaction
SAT1: Overall I am very satisfied with the services provided by my university
SAT2: My university has met my expectations
SAT3: My university has helped me to fulfill my aspirations
SAT4: My university has met my needs
Participation behavior
PB1: I clearly explain what I want the employee (service provider) to do.
PB2: I give the employee (service provider) proper information.
PB3: I provide necessary information so that the employee (service provider) can
perform his or her duties.
PB4: I answer all the employee’s service-related questions.

PB5: I tend to perform all the tasks that are required (e.g. fill out forms).
PB6: I adequately complete all the expected behavior (e.g. being physically present on
time).
PB7: I follow the employee’s (service provider’s) instructions or orders.
Helping behavior
HB1: I assist other students if they need my help when getting/ using university
services.
HB2: I help other students if they seem to have problems with university services.
HB3: I teach other students to use the university services correctly.
HB4: I give advice to other students regarding university services.
Advocacy
ADV1: I say positive things about the university services to others.
ADV2: I recommend the university services to other students.
ADV3: I encourage other students to use the university services.

Elsharnouby2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Elsharnouby2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

ISSN: 0884-1241 (Print) 1540-7144 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wmhe20

Student co-creation behavior in higher education:

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2015.1059919

Published online: 02 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 701

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Student co-creation behavior in higher education: the role of

(Received 27 January 2015; accepted 11 April 2015)

This study explores what constitutes students’ satisfaction with university

Figure 1. The conceptual model.

the perceived university reputation, perceived faculty competency, quality of

Student satisfaction with university experience

University students’ satisfaction is deﬁned as ‘a short-term attitude resulting

is ‘similar to attitude, but it is short-term and results from an evaluation of a

key premise underpinning this perspective is that high-quality service attributes

Perceived university reputation

H1a: Perceived university reputation is positively related to student satisfaction.

their levels of satisfaction. Students as customers of a service organization

dents’ overall satisfaction (Gibson, 2010).

H1b: Perceived faculty competency is positively related to student satisfaction.

Student – administrative/IT interaction

services (Mavondo et al., 2004) are found to be signiﬁcant predictors of student

H1c: Student–administrative/IT interaction is positively related to student

Student – student interaction

environment. The degree of social integration with other students appears to

H1d: Student–student interaction is positively related to student satisfaction.

Student co-creation behavior

Student participation behavior (SPB)

Student citizenship behavior (SCB)

individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by

The third dimension, advocacy (labeled as organizational loyalty in the OCB

acts in which organizational members engage to make constructive suggestions

Satisfaction with university and students’ co-creation behavior

H2: Student satisfaction is positively related to SPB.

Data collection and sample

some modiﬁcations in the wording of the statements. Following this procedure,

Analysis and results

Table 1. EFA and CFA results.

Perceived university reputation (PUR)

PFC5 .84 .87

advocacy. Participation behavior was loaded as a unidimensional construct

Perceived university .89 .729 .854

Table 3. Structural model results.

university experience. Perceived university reputation showed a strong sig-

Table 4. Mediation analysis.

Perceived university Citizenship .148 (NS) .125∗∗ Indirect only

competency (b ¼ .043, p , .01) only on citizenship behavior. According to the

Conclusions and implications

fessionals who facilitate learning, whereas in some Asian cultures, academics

higher level of satisfaction will enhance students’ intention to participate

reinforces the decision to engage in some forms of citizenship behavior, includ-

image in HEIs is likely to remain challenging (Williams & Omar, 2014).

executing their educational missions (Schwager et al., 2014). Thus, it could be

Limitations and future research

tion was operationalized as a cumulative evaluation of actual university experi-

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author.

service deliveries. Journal of Management, 31(1), 7 – 27.