Perception and Expectation of Students Towards Service Quality

MALAYSIAN ONLINE JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT
(MOJEM)
http://mojem.um.edu.my 73
[1]
Department of Administrative
Studies and Politics,
Faculty of Economics and
Administration,
University of Malaya,
Malaysia
[2]
Student Affairs Division,
Malaysia
[3]
Institute of Biological Science,
Faculty of Science,
Malaysia
Corresponding Author:
50603 Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia
Email:hairolnezam@um.edu.my
Tel: +6012-2516671
ABSTRACT
This study is aimed at evaluating the service quality in a research
university in Malaysia by identifying and analyzing the probable gap
between students’ perception and expectation. It began by an attempt to
understand the needs of students towards the service quality provided by
the university. In addition, this study looked at the relationship between
all the five (5) dimensions of service quality in the new environment based
on a modified service quality framework (SERVQUAL) -- tangibles,
reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy (independent
variables) -- as the expectation and perception of the students with the
overall quality of service (dependent variable). Besides, this study also
seeks to rank the students’ satisfaction towards the existing supportive
facilities and services provided by the university. After conducting a pilot
test study, questionnaires were distributed to 480 students residing in all
residential colleges in the case university. The analysis started with
descriptive analysis followed by one sample t-test to assess the
significance of the gaps based on all the 22 items of the modified
SERVQUAL. This study revealed that all the means of the five dimensions
for the perceptions were lower than the expectations between the ranges
of 1.3 to 1.6. The highest gap was from the dimension of responsiveness
where the gap value showed -1.6726. This was then followed with
empathy and tangible with the gap value of -1.4851 and -1.3686,
reliability with the gap value of -1.3310 and the last dimension assurance
with the gap value of -1.3137. Moreover, the highest satisfaction facilities
and services ranked by the students was the library which contributed
4.85 mean of satisfaction, while the lowest was the wireless internet (Wi-
Fi) with the mean value of 2.55.
Keywords: Students’ Expectation, Students’ Perception, Satisfaction,
Service Quality, Research University
APRIL 2014, VOLUME 2, ISSUE 2, 73 - 91
E-ISSN NO: 2289 – 4489
PERCEPTION AND EXPECTATION OF STUDENTS TOWARDS
THE SERVICE QUALITY: PERSPECTIVE IN MALAYSIAN
RESEARCH UNIVERSITY
Sharifuddin Zainuddin (PhD)
1
, M.Hairolnezam Kahmis
1,2
, Asma
Muhamad
1
&Noorhidayah Mamat
1,3

(MOJEM)
INTRODUCTION
During the last two decades, service quality has become the major area of attention and consideration to
practitioners, managers and researchers. This is because of its strong impact on customer satisfaction and loyalty,
the return of investment, the business performance and also about the gaining of higher profit (Chang & Chen,
1998; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Gammie, 1992; Gummesson, 1998; Hallowell, 1996; Lasser, Manolis, & Winsor, 2000;
Leonard & Sasser, 1982; Newman, 2001; Seth & Deshmukh, 2005; Sureshchander, Rajendran, & Anantharaman,
2002).
Customers nowadays are focusing on what the organization may offer and whether their needs and desires can be
satisfied. Generally, service quality is inter-related to customer satisfaction in many extents and aspects, and
somehow it is difficult to accomplish those aspects. Service quality has been in the world of concern for quite some
time. In order to fascinate customers, accommodate their needs and retain them, service providers and
researchers are aggressively involved in understanding consumers' expectations and perceptions of service quality.
Service quality is not only a feature of the literature in marketing and operations management, but it also has
gained more attention in higher education institutions.
Educational literature suggested that there is mounting pressure from customers of higher education, which
include students, parents, alumni, employers and legislators, to close the widening gap between their expectations
of institutional performance and the actual performance (Brigham, 1994; Susan & McDaniel, 1997). Every higher
education institution in Malaysia provides almost the same major service, which is education to the customers
(students) (Becket & Brookes, 2008). The education services are difficult to standardize due to intangibility
(DiDomenico & Bonnici, 1996), but they try to provide the best courses/programs available, the best facilities,
which include accommodation, libraries, classrooms, lecture halls, laboratories, cafeteria, transportation services,
wireless/internet, online services, and so forth. In addition, they deliver the best tangible physical products to their
main customer which is the student.
Thus, service quality has become an important concern for the survival of organizations such as research
universities. The main problem for the institution is not able to know the perceptions of their students towards the
services provided. Apart of that, the institutions also lack knowledge of student expectations. The institutions will
lose their goodwill and market if they fail to understand consumers' expectations and perceptions of service
quality of their students. The worst scenario is that the institution may not be able to attract new student or retain
the existing students, since nowadays the students choose the best quality institutions that can meet or exceed
their expectations.
This study will contribute to both the literature and the organization. For the research, it may widen the dimension
of quality service field in study, while for the organization, it could improve the performance of the research
university to acquire competitive advantage and provide the best service quality to its students. Accountability
data on service quality of the university is needed not only by the public but also by any entities that supply
educational services, whether public or private institution. The report from this study also can be as a tool to
provide necessary guidance for future researchers, students and public itself who intend to study or conduct
research relevant to this matter. Finally, the research will benefit several organizations that have an interest in the
education field, such as the Ministry of Education as well as other universities.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In terms of defining service quality, this study generally used two prospectives: organizational and customer. For
instance, Wisniewski and Donnelly (1996) have considered the organizational prospective while defining service

(MOJEM)
quality. According to them, service quality means establishing specifications and requirements for a company.
Once it is done, customer’s need satisfaction becomes the primary base for establishing quality goals. In other
words, it then asks for consideration of the customers prospective as well.
Many past studies conducted had conclusive that (1996) and Ruby (1998) outline that higher education possesses
all the characteristics of the service industry such as intangibles, heterogeneous, inseparable from the person
delivering it, the services provided are produced and consumed simultaneously (Sahney et al., 2004). They also
found from previous studies that fewer studies have been made on the service quality in higher education. Several
other researchers have also taken interest in the study area of service quality. For instance, as per the observations
of Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1985), Asubonteng, McCleary, and Swan (1996), and Hairolnezam (2013),
service quality is a difference among customer’s expectation and perceived service. According to them, if
performed service is less than the expectations of a customer, then he or she might get dissatisfied with the
service quality.
Service quality has been shown to be an elusive construct to understand and measure due to the inherent
intangibility, inseparability and heterogenic characteristics of services (Imrie, Dueden & Cadogan, 2000). Research
in this area was limited until the emergence of a seminar article by Parasuraman et al. (1985) exploring the service
quality domain, and ensuing multi-dimensional SERVQUAL measuring instrument. Through numerous qualitative
studies, they evolved a set of five dimensions that have consistently ranked by customer to be the most important
for service quality, regardless any service industry.
These dimensions were defined as followed:
i) Tangibles: appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communication material.
ii) Reliability: ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately.
iii) Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide prompt service.
iv) Assurance: knowledge and courtesy of employees and the ability to convey trust and confidence.
v) Empathy: the caring, individualized attention the firm provide to the customer.
SERVICE QUALITY AND STUDENT’S SATISFACTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
A study conducted by Ross, Heaney and Cooper (2007) elaborated that education and education marketing is a
service industry and this presents a specific set of challenges. Higher education can be seen as a “pure” service
(Oldfield & Baron, 2000) that falls under the field of services marketing (Hennig-Thurau, Langer, & Hensen, 2001).
Therefore, in the current setting of the higher education market, students have become the “customer” and
therefore, as fee payers, their reasonable demands and views should be understood and acted upon (William,
2002).
In depth analysis by Shank, Walker, and Hayes (1995) highlights that the educational services have several
characteristics. The characteristics are principally intangible, perishable, heterogeneous, and the professor’s
teaching efforts concurrently “produced” and “consumed” by both lecturer and student being part of the teaching
experiences.
Student’s satisfaction is generally recognized by their short-term attitude subsequent to their educational
experience depending on whether the actual performance meets or exceeds their expectations. Consequently,
student satisfaction should be prioritized by the services provided by the university. Since the satisfaction is
associated with the experience, student satisfaction is continuously influenced by the students’ overall
experiences. The university thus needs to ensure it can provide good quality in both academic and public amenities
to attract students from the market for the purpose of student retention.

(MOJEM)
Elliot and Healy (2001) have examined the relationship of student educational experience and student satisfaction
related to recruitment and retention strategies; they found that different strategies are required. The strategies
are in attracting students as they are evaluating universities on what is important to them during the selection
process while retaining students requires the university keep the student satisfied and coming back year after
year.
A variety of factors have been identified that influence student satisfaction with services provided by the
university. For example, one recent study conducted by Butt and Rehman (2010) concluded that the teachers’
expertise, courses offered, learning environment and classroom facilities enhance student satisfaction in higher
education. On the other hand, from the psychological standpoint, student satisfaction has been proven to help
students gain confidence in honing their skills and absorbing knowledge (Zakaria et al., 2009). Additionally,
according to Pike (1991), it has been shown that satisfaction has greater influence on grades than academic
performance on satisfaction. Besides, Dembo and Eaton (2000) also concluded that successful students have more
ability and motivation in completing tasks, compared to less successful students who have difficulty in developing
self-motivation skills.
In the case university, students are currently using the Course and Teaching Evaluating System (CTES) to evaluate
the classroom facilities and in particular the teaching and learning activities every semester. The students, as
customers, need to assess the service delivery and the outcome of the evaluation may provide the clear
benchmarking of academic performance and highlight areas of improvement for teaching and learning. Eventually,
the assessment will affect not only the position but also the university image, which has a strong impact on
student retention and attraction of potential students (James, Baldwin, & McInnis, 1999).
SERVQUAL MODEL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The SERVQUAL model has been used across a broad range of services and industries such as health care, banking,
appliance repair and several other professions (Nitecki, 1997) with only minor modification as it was based on the
assumption that customers are able to understand their expectations of the determinants of service quality and
know the differences between their actual perceptions of current service quality (Wisniewski & Donnelly, 1996).
Hence, the SERVQUAL model not only provides evaluation of customers views of current service quality but their
expectations can be the yardstick of what service quality should be.
A study by Saadiatul, Samsinar, and Wong (2000) on satisfaction toward higher education in Malaysia using
SERVQUAL showed that the perceived five dimensions were below expectations. It showed that universities must
maintain service quality in order to maintain the university’s good image among the future students.
One objective of this study has focused on viewing five (5) dimensions of service quality that have potential ability
to influence students’ perception and expectation towards the service quality of the case university. Therefore, the
independent variables consist of five variables: tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy, while
the dependent variable will be overall quality of services provided by the university. Figure 1 shows the proposed
conceptual framework of the study and also has been used by previous researchers such as Hamzah (2009) and
Bashir, Sarki, and Samidi (2012).

(MOJEM)
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study.
Besides, this study is also aimed at determining and exploring the gap analysis between the expectation and
perception (P-E) of service quality provided by the university and their overall services. Thus, Figure 2 shows the
complete SERVQUAL model by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) that measure gap perceived by provider
and customer (Foster, 2001).
For the purpose of exploring the university services quality, this study intends to focus only on the top part (Gap 5)
of this model that is the customers’ expectation and perception towards the quality services. This research is also
aimed at locating the satisfaction evaluation on the specific supportive facilities known as the peripheral aspect
given by previous researcher as outlined by Smith and Ennew (2001).

(MOJEM)
Figure 2. The SERVQUAL Model [Source: Parasuraman et al., 1985]
METHODOLOGY
This study is a cross-sectional study whereby the data are collected once. The questionnaires were distributed
randomly to the 480 respondents (students) residing in residential colleges in the research university. The
questionnaires were adapted from previous studies with some modification and adjustment to suit with the
objectives of this study.
The questionnaire consisted of five sections which were Section 1 concerning the background of the students. For
the Section 2 and 3, each contained 22 questions about SERVQUAL dimensions related to the expectation and

(MOJEM)
perception of service quality. The SERVQUAL items were taken from Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985, 1988
& 1991). Section 4 consisted of questions related to the students’ satisfaction with the existing facilities and
services provided in the university. Finally, Section 5 comprised of a summary for overall perception towards
service quality provided by the university and also students’ personal suggestions for improving the service quality
in the case university.
In Section 2, 3, 4 and 5, all scale items were measured using six (6) point Likert Scale ranging from 6 – 1 (Appendix
1). On top of that, the reliability of the questions that included in the set of questionnaire has been tested using
Cronbach’s alpha method. This method was suggested the minimum acceptable value for Cronbach’s alpha of .7
(Gardner, 2001). In this study, the pilot test was done among 48 randomly selected students. Table 1 displays the
alpha value for the variables towards the expectation and perception.
Table 1
Reliability Analysis Result of Pilot Test
Variables Expectation (α) Perception (α)
Tangibles .937 .855
Reliability .887 .887
Responsiveness .938 .898
Assurances .931 .903
Empathy .898 .883
Subsequently, for data analysis the SPSS version 20.0 was used as a tool for analysis since the research was based
on a quantitative study. In this study both descriptive and inferential statistics, and also one sample t-test were
used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to find the frequencies and percentages of the respondents’
background and also to find the mean for every item in the expectation and perception items. The mean was used
to determine which dimensions in each variable (expectation and perception) scored the highest and the mean of
the satisfaction towards the existing support services was also ranked using the descriptive statistics.
On the other hand, inferential statistics were performed to understand the relationship among variables
(tangibles, reliability, responsiveness, assurances and empathy) as the independent variables and the quality of
service provided by the university as the dependent variable. Besides, one sample t-test has also been used to
identify the significant values of the service quality for the gap analysis.
FINDINGS
A total of 480 questionnaires were distributed among the students residing in all residential colleges in the case
university included the undergraduate and postgraduate students. However, only 420 questionnaires were
returned, giving a response rate of 87.5%.
The Cronbach alpha coefficient is computed in order to test the reliability and validity of the survey questionnaire.
The overall reliability of the questionnaire (Section 2 & 3) was tested and showed a significant result of reliability
because the values are more than .7. In Section 2 (Expectation), the = 0.962 while in Section 3 (Perception), the
value was 0.949 (Table 2). Therefore, all items or questions included in this questionnaire are reliable to be
carried out in this study.

(MOJEM)
Table 2
Reliability Value for Overall Variables in Actual Study
No. Items Number of Item Alpha Value ( )
1
2
Expectation
Perception
22
22
.962
.949
The survey questionnaires includes the basic background of the respondents such as age, gender, race, level of
study at the university, current semester of the student and highest level of education. With reference to Table 3,
about 60% of the respondents are female and about 90% are respondents are between ages 20 to 25 years.
Besides, over 60% respondents are Malay and over 80% are Bachelor degree students, while the majority of the
respondents (80%) are in less than semester 5.
Table 3
Background of Respondent (N=420)
Demography Classification Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Male 175 41.7
Female 245 58.3
Age <20 years old 42 10.0
20 – 25 years old 371 88.3
26 – 30 years old 7 1.7
Race Malay 285 67.9
Chinese 65 15.5
Indian 32 7.6
Others 38 9.0
Level of Study PhD 32 7.6
Master 42 10.0
Bachelor 346 82.4
Semester 1 0 0
2 196 46.7
3 21 5.0
4 140 33.3
5 0 0
6 56 13.3
7 and above 7 1.7

(MOJEM)
On the other hand, Table 4 shows one sample t-test on the gap analysis between the dimensions of perception and
expectation of service quality provided by the university. The analyses of one sample t-test were done at the .05
level of confidence towards all the five dimensions. The results showed that the overall value of t = -22.1836, df=
419 and p = 0.00 which is smaller than .05. This indicates to accept all the alternative hypotheses which meant that
there were gaps between perceptions and expectations of the tangible, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and
also empathy.
Table 4
One Sample T-Test Findings of Gap Value for Five Dimensions
t Df Sig.
(2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
95% Confidence Interval of
the Difference
Lower Upper
Tangible -23.604 419 .000 -1.36857 -1.4825 -1.2546
Reliable -21.887 419 .000 -1.33095 -1.4505 -1.2114
Responsive -23.969 419 .000 -1.67262 -1.8098 -1.5354
Assurance -21.810 419 .000 -1.31369 -1.4321 -1.1953
Empathy -19.648 419 .000 -1.48512 -1.6337 -1.3365
-22.1836
Additionally, the results show that there were gaps in the five dimensions of the SERVQUAL and their overall
towards the university. The negative gap scores between the perception and expectation indicated that the
students seemed to be dissatisfied with the services given by the university. The following Table 5 shows the gap
on the 22 items of the SERVQUAL items.
For the five items of tangible, it showed that the highest gap goes to the “Uses modern technology” with the gap
score of -1.53. This indicates that the most dissatisfied tangible items served by the university for the students
were the modern technology. It then followed by “Materials associated visually appealing” with the gap score of -
1.39, “Physical facilities visually appealing” with -1.34 and “Uses up to date equipment” with -1.30 value of the gap
score. The last item of the tangible that the students were not satisfied of was “Employees are neat appearing” at
value of -1.27.

(MOJEM)
Table 5
Mean Score of Student’s Expectations, Perceptions and Gap Score for Service Quality (N=420)
Dimension Statement
Expec-
tation
Per-
ception Gap
Tangible
Uses up-to-date equipment. 5.38 4.08 -1.30
Physical facilities visually appealing. 5.33 3.99 -1.34
Employees are neat appearing. 5.33 4.06 -1.27
Materials associated visually appealing. 5.41 4.02 -1.39
Uses modern technology. 5.43 3.90 -1.53
Overall tangible gap -1.37
Reliability
Promised to do something and did so. 5.24 3.97 -1.27
Perform the service right the first time. 5.11 3.88 -1.23
Keep the accurate record. 5.35 4.17 -1.18
Show a sincere interest in solving student’s problem 5.31 3.91 -1.40
Provide their services at time promised. 5.37 3.80 -1.57
Total gap -1.33
Responsiveness
Employees give prompt service to student. 5.44 3.70 -1.74
Employees tell students when the services
will be performed. 5.37 3.77 -1.60
Employees are always willing to help student. 5.44 3.84 -1.60
Employees are always response to student’s request. 5.42 3.68 -1.74
Total gap -1.67
Assurance
Employees have the sufficient knowledge to answer
the student questions. 5.33 4.02 -1.31
Employees are consistently courteous with the student. 5.29 3.87 -1.42
Employees can be trusted. 5.34 3.90 -1.44
The student feels safe in the interaction with employees 5.38 4.30 -1.08
Total gap -1.03
Empathy
University gives the student individual attention. 4.92 3.65 -1.27
University has operating hours convenient to all its students. 5.24 3.86 -1.38
University always understand the specific needs of the students. 5.21 3.69 -1.52
Employees have the willingness to place the interest
of the student at heart. 5.29 3.53 -1.76
Total gap -1.48
In addition, for the items of reliability dimension, the students were most unhappy with the “Provide their services
at the time promised” with the gap score value of -1.57 and followed by “Show a sincere interest in solving
student’s problem” with -1.40. Next unhappy items of reliability towards the university were “Promised to do
something and did so” and “Perform the service right the first time” with the gap score value of -1.27 and -1.23
respectively, while the last unhappy item goes to “Keep the accurate record” with -1.18.
Furthermore, among all the five dimensions, responsiveness overall gap score value was the highest with -1.67.
This showed that in the midst of all dimensions, students were really frustrated with the responsiveness given by

(MOJEM)
the university. From the four items in it, “Employees give prompt service to student” and “Employees always
respond to student’s request” seemed to be the worst frustration to the students with the gap score value of -1.74
each. Then it is followed by “Employees tell students when the services will be performed” and also “Employees
are always willing to help student” with the same gap score of -1.60.
On top of that, the dimension of assurance was the lowest overall gap score value with -1.03. This indicates that
even though the students were dissatisfied with all the service quality given by the university, they seemed to be
less dissatisfied with the dimension of assurance compared to the other dimensions. Among the four items,
“Employees can be trusted” had the highest gap score of -1.44, followed by “Employees are consistently courteous
with the student” with -1.42, “Employees have the sufficient knowledge to answer the student questions” with -
1.31, and “The student feels safe in the interaction with employees” with a -1.08 gap score value.
For the last dimension of empathy, out of four items the highest gap score was “Employees have the willingness to
place the interest of the student at heart” with -1.76. The second highest goes to “the university always
understand the specific needs of the students” with -1.52, followed by “the university has operating hours
convenient to all its students” with -1.38 and lastly was “the university gives the student individual attention” with
-1.27 value.
Based on these results, not even one item received score perception greater than expectation. All the results turn
out negatively clearly showing that there was dissatisfaction toward the university’s five dimensions of service
quality. Therefore, in the context of this study, there were no positive gap between the expectation and
perception of service quality provided by the university.
In addition, Table 6 shows the satisfaction ranking of the students towards the other supportive facilities and
services that offered by the case university.
Table 6
Descriptive Findings of Students’ Satisfaction Towards The Existing Supportive Facilities and Services Provided by
The University.
No. N M SD Variance Skewness
Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Statistic Std. Error
1. Library 420 4.85 .818 .669 -.291 .119
2. Financial & Banking Service 420 4.55 1.013 1.026 -.580 .119
3. University Cooperative
Bookshop Ltd
420 4.43 1.049 1.101 -.352 .119
4. Postal Services 420 4.27 1.135 1.288 -.494 .119
5. Mini Market (University’s
Co-op)
420 4.24 1.069 1.144 -.190 .119
6. Student Health Clinic 420 4.21 1.231 1.515 -.684 .119
7. Recreational & Sporting
Facilities
420 4.01 1.238 1.532 -.466 .119
8. Security Services 420 3.93 1.322 1.747 -.585 .119
9. Residential Colleges 420 3.86 1.380 1.905 -.681 .119
10. Shuttle Bus Service 420 3.75 1.285 1.651 -.458 .119
11. Cafeterias 420 3.55 1.307 1.709 -.338 .119
12. Wireless Internet 420 2.55 1.354 1.833 .323 .119
Valid N (listwise) 420

(MOJEM)
The ranking of the mean of satisfaction was sorted in descending order. The highest satisfaction facilities and
services ranked by the students was the library which contributed 4.85 mean of satisfaction while the second
highest rank was the financial & banking service with the mean of 4.55, followed by the university cooperative
bookshop with the mean of 4.43, postal services with the mean of 4.27 and mini market (University’s Co-op) with
the mean of 4.24. On top of that, the wireless internet (Wi-Fi) became the most crucial problem with the mean
value of 2.55. Poor connection of wireless internet became the main cause of this dissatisfaction result.
DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION
Gap between expectation and perception of service quality
The study shows that on the aspect of service quality expectation, the highest mean was the responsiveness
dimension. This was in line with the gap where the dimension of responsiveness became the highest gap between
the perception and expectation among the five dimensions.
In term of service quality perception, the highest mean belonged to the assurance dimension and this was similar
to expectation, the most important to student is the dimension related to the employees of the university. In the
student view, they perceived the quality of the service given is good based on their judgment on the
knowledgeable characteristic and courtesy of the staff when they interacted with them. But this finding was
different from what has been found by two earlier researcher where Noor (2002) and Hamzah (2009) who studied
Northern University of Malaysia (Universiti Utara Malaysia) identified tangible as the most important service
quality perception as compared to the other four dimensions. However, in this study the result was consistent and
supported with previous findings by Pariseau and McDaniel (1997), where they found the most important
determinants of overall service quality for students are assurance dimensions.
Besides, this research also found that for service quality perception, the most significant for students was the
university’s employee knowledge and courtesy as well as the ability to convey trust and confidence in delivering
the services (dimension of assurance). This was because the new staff failed to answer student’s questions
especially in the front counter because of lack of knowledge and experience. The worst part was student being
transferred from one department to another especially when the staff was unsure about something or cannot
solve the problem. This result was supported by a previous study conducted by Hendershott, Wright and
Henderson (1992) that students need knowledgeable and courteous staff to deal with them.
To solve this matter, the university must ensure frontline staff are well trained, full of knowledge or at least have a
sufficient knowledge to answer the student questions before being placed at the counter or telephone service in
any department. Frontline staff project the image of the university and must be looked into seriously, otherwise
the university will lose their sustainable competitive advantage. Other than that, university employees also should
look professional enough so that students can trust and feel safe when dealing with them.
Results of the SERVQUAL gap analysis show that there were gaps (dissatisfaction) between the expectation and
perception of service quality provided by the case university based on the five dimensions of service quality that
introduced by Parasuraman et al. (1985, 1988). The confirmation/disconfirmation paradigm views customer
satisfaction judgments as the result of the consumer’s perception of the gap between their perceptions of
performance and their prior expectations (Parasuraman, et al., 1998).
Recent study by Shekarchizadeh, Amran Rasli, and Huam Hon-Tot (2011), showed that postgraduate international
students of the university have negative perceptions of education service quality, as their expectations were not
met in the performance of education services and the negative values indicate dissatisfaction. Interestingly, these

(MOJEM)
findings are in line with results from a survey on local students which indicates that Malaysian students also have
negative perceptions of quality as well as express dissatisfaction with the services rendered in the university (Noor,
2002).
On the other hand, the dimension of responsiveness became the highest service quality gap, and this is consistent
with the earlier finding; where the highest mean for service quality expectation was for responsiveness. This result
supported Frost and Kumar (2000) which found that responsiveness influenced service quality the most.
The issues were about the willingness of the university’s employees to help students and provide prompt service.
Bureaucracy in process might be the main reason for this problem; until now the university still has a lot of red
tape; delivering their services involves a long procedure. Students are caught when they need to wait for a long
time to get the response from the services that they asked for.
Second highest service quality gap was in the dimension of empathy where this dissatisfaction existed because the
students feel less caring and individualized attention provided by the university for them. Besides giving student
individual attention, the university should also have operating hours convenient to their entire student population.
It is good to have counter services during lunch hours like what most departments in the university are
implementing now.
Tangibles appeared as the third highest in rank for the service quality gap provided by the university. If the
university administrators look closely, they will find the main factors for this gap were caused by the student
dissatisfaction with the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel and communication material.
In order to fill this gap, the university should have up to date equipment and use modern technologies. It is
acceptable for the university to preserve some of the valuable equipment and heritage since the university is the
first university in this country but the physical facilities should be visually appealing. One clear example is the using
of 30-year- old buses to provide shuttle services in the campus. Even though the buses are still in good condition
and working properly, the image of the university will be a little bit tarnished because of the use of old vehicles
where other universities do not use them anymore.
The fourth vital by descendent rank for service quality gap was the dimension of reliability, in contrast with Curry
and Sinclair (1992), who found that reliability is the most important determinant in service quality. The reason
behind this dissatisfaction was contributed by unclear perception of the student towards the ability of the
university to perform the promised services dependably and accurately. They doubt the university’s employees
manage to perform the services right the first time. However, previous study conducted by Kelly, Strassberg, and
Kircher (1990) highlighted that customers may not bother whether they have increased the productivity of the
organization through their participation, but they probably do bother a great deal about whether or not their
needs are fulfilled.
In this study, the smallest service quality gap was the dimension of assurance. Perhaps, if compared to the other
four dimensions of service quality; assurance was the better one but still had a gap that considered as
dissatisfaction which needs to be improved so that the quality of services by the university management will
improve as soon as possible.
Students’ satisfaction towards the existing supportive of facilities and services
A study conducted by DiDomenico and Bonnici (1996) showed that satisfaction of existing students towards the
university services would bring the positive impact to the public. It also will encourage the university to acquire

(MOJEM)
competitive advantage. Satisfaction of the university’s service quality will enhance the university’s image and will
raise this university as their first choice to study as recommended by Smith and Ennew (2001) and Parasuraman et
al. (1991).
The highest mean of satisfaction was for library facilities and services. No doubt the university’s libraries have their
own benchmark which they can be proud of. Being as the largest collections among all the universities in Malaysia
in term of books, journals, theses and online resources; it made the library manage to get the highest student
satisfaction score. There are also quality facilities provided by the library for persons with disabilities (handicapped
students) which not all universities have. In addition, the university’s libraries also provide online services in order
to ease student access to information from their place of residence requiring just a good internet connection.
Other facilities and services such as financial and banking services, university cooperative bookshop, postal
services, mini market (university’s Co-op), student health clinic and recreational and sporting facilities need to be
maintaining the level of service quality. The university is recommended to monitor and revisit these facilities and
services from time to time regularly with a proper strategic planning; inclusive of short term and long term
strategies in order to preserve the level of satisfaction that they enjoy right now. With strategic planning, the
university is suggested to set up a higher target in their satisfaction level to be achieved every year as a challenge
to the management.
Furthermore, there were four facilities and services that received a mean above 3 and below 4 in the Likert scale.
The facilities and services are security services, residential colleges, shuttle bus services and cafeterias. The
highest rank in this zone was the security service, followed by the residential colleges, shuttle bus service and
cafeterias.
Lastly, the study showed there was dissatisfaction toward the facility and service in the case university which had a
mean below 3 in the Likert scale which was wireless internet (Wi-Fi). To avoid heavy traffic in user of Wi-Fi, Pusat
Teknologi Maklumat (Information Technology Centre) who manage university Wi-Fi; make a rule of only one IT
Gadget (either laptop or smart phone or tablet) can be used at one time with their given username and password.
Sometimes, students need to go to the library or faculty where there are fewer users in order to get better Wi-Fi
reception. It is recommended that the university create more one stop centers with strong internet connectivity
for students to rest while waiting for their next classes, or when they just finished their lecture, and when they
need to surf the internet.
According to Andrews, Boyne, and Walker (2011), academic productivity is highly dependent on the indicators
such as “facilities available to students” and “support services”. Therefore, a strong area of consideration must be
taken on the physical environment of universities. As observed by Price, Matzdorf, Smith, and Agah (2003), the
students’ interpersonal growth is positively related to adequate facilities available in the universities. Thus, it is
important for the university to provide and ensure good facilities and services in the campus for the benefit of
their students.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, results of this study portrayed that there are gaps between students’ expectation and perception for
each dimension of service quality provided by the case university. Negative gaps were found in all the dimensions
which are tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy. Students perceived that quality of
services provided by the university is lower than what they expect the services should be. The overall perception
was strengthened with the findings found for students’ satisfaction level towards supportive facilities and services
provided in the case university. Supportive facilities and services such as security services, residential colleges,

(MOJEM)
shuttle bus services and cafeterias were rated as moderate and students are highly dissatisfied with the wireless
internet (Wi-Fi) service provided on campus by the university. This research showed that even though the case
university is among the best in the country, students still voiced dissatisfaction toward the service quality and this
is essential to be solved immediately. Otherwise, the case university will lose the goodwill of their potential
customer.
Therefore, it is vital for the case university to take necessary action and consider the suggested solutions in order
to narrow the service quality gaps and at the same time lower the dissatisfaction level toward supportive facilities
and services provided in the university. According to Arena, Arnaboldi and Azzone (2010), four critical aspects of
performance delivery, namely personnel competencies, personnel courtesy, services near to students and time
taken in dealing with student’s problems in appropriate opening hours would be useful to improve overall student
satisfaction. Hence, investment to equip administrative staff with the ability to interact in fluent English medium
and other soft skills on top of communication skill would be the most noteworthy elements for improving the
university’s administrative services.
The case university is the first public university in Malaysia to implement a QMS across all departments and
faculties within the institution and being accredited for it. In December 2002, the university was certified with the
international standard of MS ISO 9001: 2000 Certification for Quality Management System. The case university is
also listed in the Malaysian Book of Records as the first public university to achieve ISO 9001:2000 certification in
the design and development of first degree and postgraduate programs; research activities and provision of
educational support services. The goals of ISO 9000 and its family are to cause continual improving of quality
performance, resulting in the continuous enhancement of customer satisfaction.
These research results implied that the attainment of ISO 9001:2000 by the case university does not mean that the
students as the main customer would acquire satisfaction with the five dimensions of service quality. Therefore,
this kind of study should be conducted regularly to measure the service quality of an organization so as to keep
track of their performance. ISO 9000 version 1994 and its family are now being replaced by ISO 9001 version 2000.
This new version contains five sets of requirements, which are systematic, management, resource, realization and
analytical (Coppola, 2000). The gap analysis tools of the SERVQUAL are well-known assessment tools that can be
used to identify the gap in the five requirements of ISO 9001:2000 for filling in the gap (Coppola, 2000).
Henceforth, it is recommended that university uses it as one of the tools in assessing ISO 9001:2000 requirements
as gap analysis is one of the best procedures to help lead the university to improve its processes and at the same
time recognize which processes need improvement.
Finally, according to Ham, Johnson, Weinstein, Plank, and Johnson (1988), Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry
(1997) and Brady and Robertson (2001) information on service quality gaps can help managers to make a diagnosis
where performance improvement can best be targeted by identifying the largest negative gaps, combined with
assessment of where expectations are highest, to facilitate prioritization of performance improvement. Equally,
positive gap scores will imply expectations are not just being met but exceeded. This information will allow
managers (university management) to review whether they may be “oversupplying” this particular feature of the
service and whether there is potential for re-deployment of resources into features which are underperforming
(Shahin, 2008).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was supported by the research grants RG338-11HNE (UMRG) from University of Malaya, also co-
operation from Student Affairs Division, University of Malaya and respondents of residential colleges.

(MOJEM)
REFERENCES
AAHE Continuous Quality Improvement Project. (1994). 25 Snapshots of a Movement: Profiles of Campuses
Implementing CQI. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G., & Walker, R. (2011). The Impact of Management on Administrative and Survey Measures
of Organizational Performance. Public Management Review, 13(2), 227-255.
Arena, M., Arnaboldi, M., & Azzone, G. (2010). Student Perception and Central Administrative Services: the case of
higher education in Italy. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 941-959.
Asubonteng, P., McCleary, K. J., & Swan, J. E. (1996). SERVQUAL revisited: A critical review of service quality.
Journal of Services Marketing, 1(6), 62-81.
Bashir, S., Sarki, I. H., & Samidi, J. (2012). Students' perception on the service quality of Malaysian universities'
hostel accommodation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(15), 213-222.
Brady, M. K., & Robertson, C. J. (2001). Searching for a consensus on the antecedent role of service quality and
satisfaction: An exploratory cross-national study. Journal of Business Research, 51(1), 53-60.
Butt, B. Z., & Rehman, K. (2010). A study examining the student satisfaction in higher education. Procedia Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 5446-5450.
Chang, T. Z., & Chen S. J. (1998). Market orientation, service quality and business profitability: a conceptual model
and empirical evidence. Journal of Services Marketing, 12(4), 246 - 264.
Coppola, S. (2000). Gap analysis. Retrieved 4th March 2013, from http://www.freequality.org/html/training.html
on.
Cronin, J., & Taylor, S. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A Reexamination and Extension. Journal of Marketing,
56(3), 55-68.
Curry, A., & Sinclair, E. (2002). Assessing the quality of physiotherapy services using SERVQUAL. International
Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance. 15(5), 197-205.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation in academic learning in middle-level schools. The Elementary
School Journal, 100(5), 251-267.
DiDomenico, E., & Bonnici, J. (1996). Assessing service quality within the educational environment. Education,
116(3), 353-359.
Elliot, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and
retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1-11.
Fitzsimmons, J. A., & Fitzsimmons, M. J. (2010). Service management: operational, strategy and information
technology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Foster, S. T. (2001) Managing quality: An integrative approach. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

(MOJEM)
Frost, F. A., & Kumar, M. (2000). INTSERVQUAL: An internal adaptation of the GAP model in a large service
organization. Journal of Service Marketing, 14(5), 358-377.
Gammie, A. (1992). Stop at nothing in the search for quality. Human Resource, 5(Spring), 35-38.
Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.),
Motivation and second language acquisition, (pp. 422-459). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second
Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Gummesson, E. (1998). Productivity, quality and relationship marketing in service operations. International Journal
of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 10(1), 4-15.
Hairolnezam Kahmis, M. (2013). Expectation and perception towards University of Malaya’s service quality.
(Master Thesis). University of Malaya, Malaysia.
Hallowell, R. (1996). The relationships of customer satisfaction, customer loyalty, and profitability: An empirical
study. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(4), 27-42.
Ham, C. L., Johnson, W., Weinstein, A., Plank, R., & Johnson, P. L. (2003). Gaining competitive advantages:
Analyzing the gap between expectations and perceptions of service quality. International Journal of Value-
Based Management, 16(2), 197-203.
Hamzah, N. H. (2009). A study on students' perception towards the service quality provided the student' residential
halls. (Master of Science (Management), University Utara Malaysia, Malaysia.
Hendershott, A. B., Wright, S. P., & Henderson, D. (1992). Quality of life correlates for university students. National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators Journal, 30(Fall), 11-19.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hensen, U. (2001). Modelling and managing student loyalty: An approach
based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 331-344.
Imrie, B. C., Durden, G., & Cadogan, J. W. (2000). Towards a conceptualization of service quality in the global
market arena. Retrieved 12 February 2013, from http://www.apri.ac.nz/aimfinal.html
James, R., Baldwin, G., & McInnis, C. (1999). Which university? The factors influencing the choices of prospective
undergraduates. Melbourne, Australia: Center for the Study of Higher Education.
Kelly, M. P., Strassberg, D. S., & Kircher, J. R. (1990). Attitudinal and experimental correlates of anorgasmia.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19(2), 165-177.
Lasser, W. M., Manolis, C., & Winsor, R. D. (2000). Service quality perspectives and satisfaction in private banking.
Journal of Service Marketing, 14(3), 244-271.
Leonard, F. S., & Sasser, W. E. (1982). The incline of quality. Harvard Business Review, 60(5), 163-171.
Mohd. Jamil, M. N. (2002). Service quality expectation and perception towards Universiti Utara Malaysia. (Master
Thesis). Universiti Utara Malaysia, Malaysia.
Newman, K. (2001). Interrogating SERVQUAL: A critical assessment of service quality measurement in a high street
retail bank. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 19(3), 126-139.

(MOJEM)
Nitecki, D. A. (1997). SERVQUAL: Measuring service quality in academic libraries. Retrived 16
th
January 2013, from
http://www.arl.org/newsltr/191/servqual.html
Oldfield, B. M., & Baron, S. (2000). Student perceptions of service quality in UK University business and
management faculty. Quality Assurance in Education, 8(2), 85-95.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications
for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer
perceptions of service quality, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale.
Journal of Retailing, 67(4), 420-450.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1997). Multiple-method listening: The building of a service quality
information system. Sloan Management Review, April, 65-76.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithmal, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1990). Five imperatives for improving service quality. Sloan
Management Review, 31(4), 29-38.
Pariseau, S. E. & McDaniel, J. R. (1997). Assessing Service Quality in School of Business. International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 14(3), 64-218.
Pariseau, S. E., McDaniel, J. R. (1997). Assessing service quality in schools of business, International Journal of
Quality and Reliability Management, 14(3), 204-218.
Pike, G. R. (1991). The effects of background, coursework and involvement on students’ grades and satisfaction.
Research in Higher Education, 32(1), 15-31.
Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agah, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities,
21(10), 212-222.
Ross, M., Heaney, J., & Cooper, M. (2007). Institutional and managerial factors affecting international student
recruitment management. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(7), 593-605.
Ruby, C. A. (1998). Assessing satisfaction with selected student services using SERVQUAL, a market-driven model of
service quality. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 35(4), 275-285.
Saadiatul, I., Samsinar, M. S., & Wong, C. M. (2000). Customer satisfaction towards service quality of higher
education in Malaysia. Seminar
FEP 2000, Pulau Pinang, 20-23 October 2000, Department of Accounting and Finance, Faculty of
Economics and Management, University Putra Malaysia.
Seth, N., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2005). Service quality models: A review. International Journal of Quality & Reliability
Management, 22(9), 913-949.

(MOJEM)
Shahin, A. (2008). SERVQUAL and Model of Service Quality Gaps: A framework for determining and prioritizing
critical factors in delivering quality services. Retrieved 4
th
March 2013, from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8486222/Servqual-a-Shahin on.
Shank, M. D., Walker, M., & Hayes, T. (1996). Understanding professional service expectations: Do we know what
our students aspect in a quality education. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 13(1), 71-89.
Shekarchizadeh, A., Amran, R., & Huam, H. (2011). SERVQUAL in Malaysian Universities: Perspectives of
International Students, Business Process Management Journal, 17(1), 67-81.
Smith, R., & Ennew, C. (2001). Service quality and its impact on word-of-mouth communication in higher education.
Discussion Paper Series. Division of Business and Management. University of Nottingham in Malaysia
Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran, C. & Anantharaman, R.N. (2002). The relationship between service quality and
customer satisfaction – A factor approach, Journal of Services Marketing, 14(4), 363-379.
Susan E. Pariseau, J.R. McDaniel, (1997) "Assessing service quality in schools of business", International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, 14(3), 204 – 218.
William (2002) The student satisfaction approach: Student feedback and its potential role in quality assessment
and enhancement. 24th EAIR Forum, Prague, 8 – 11.
Wisniewski, M. & Donnelly, M. (1996). Measuring service quality in the public sector: The potential for SERVQUAL.
Total Quality Management, 7(4), 357-365.
Zakaria, Z., Ahmad, A., & Norzaidi, M. D. (2009). Determining world class university from the evaluation of service
quality and students satisfaction level: An empirical study in Malaysia. International Journal of Scientific
Research in Education, 2(2), 59-66.

Perception and Expectation of Students Towards Service Quality

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Perception and Expectation of Students Towards Service Quality

Similar to Perception and Expectation of Students Towards Service Quality (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Perception and Expectation of Students Towards Service Quality