Student satisfaction and expectations in a service marketing approach in the Hungarian higher education 1st Central European Higher Education Conference Budapest, 29th January 2015

1. Ensuring the competitiveness of
knowledge as the fourth mission of higher
education
Student satisfaction and expectations in a service
marketing approach in the Hungarian higher education
László Horváth - horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.hu
Eötvös Loránd University
Institute of Education, Doctoral School of Education
1st Central European Higher Education Conference
Budapest, 29th January 2015

2. Theoretical background
• Knowledge economy poses different expectations on higher education
institutions  emphasize different functions to adapt (Deiaco, Hughes and
McKelves, 2012)
• Decreasing funds, massification  labor market needs, applicable
knowledge (Poór, Bencsik, Fekete, Majó and László, 2008)
• Quality management, performance management (Halász, 2010)
 new mission: ensuring knowledge competitiveness (Zhang and Liao, 2010)
• Education as a service (Polónyi, 2013)
 challenge: understand the needs and expectations of customers and
satisfy them (Wilson, Zeithaml, Bitner and Gremler, 2012)
• Growing expectations: accountability, accreditation (Teichler, 2014), brand
management (Shin, 2014), rankings (Fábri, 2009)
• Multiple stakeholders (Kotler and Fox, 1985)
• Competitive higher education (Ng and Forbes, 2009; Barakonyi, 2009)
• Student satisfaction is an important quality aspect (Cerri, 2012; Foropon,
Seiple and Kerbache, 2013; etc.) – SERVQUAL (expectations and perceived
satisfaction)
• Gap model of service quality (Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry, 1988) in higher
education (Rajasekhar, Muninarayanappa and Reddy, 2009)

3. Results
Suggestions
Methodology
Summary
Aims
Aims of the research:
To explore the interpretations of quality in Hungarian higher
education regarding student expectations and satisfaction using the
GAP-model of service quality.
Research questions:
1. Interpreting higher education as service what is the main
output, who are the main client and how is the student
defined?
2. What are the main expectations of students and how can we
differentiate them regarding quality higher education? Are
these expectations met?
3. What are the differences between student expectations
and the perception of higher education leaders about
these?
4. What can be the content of a psychological contract
between students and higher education institutions regarding
expectations and obligations?

4. Results
Suggestions
Methodology
Summary
Aims
Hypotheses:
• Higher education leaders consider
1. the graduates as the output of higher education
2. the employer and the state as main clients
3. students based on the commodity-metaphor
• Fee-paying students
4. expectations are dominated by elements regarding quality of
education
5. think that they have a lower return on investment in their
education compared to state-funded students
6. Students consider themselves alongside the consumer-metaphor
7. Gap 1 and Gap 5 will be notable in the GAP model.
8. Students can be segmentated alongside their expectations and
obligations can be assigned to these groups. This relationship can
be interpreted with the term of pyschological contract.

5. Results
Suggestions
Aims
Summary
Methodology
Sample and tools
Population:
• Hungarian higher education students
• Leaders of Hungarian higher education institutions
Sample selection: based on access, snowball method
Tool: online survey
Student survey:
• General data
• Expectations and their fullfilment, return on investment + etc. (Davies,
2002; Kandiko and Mawer, 2013; Tan and Kek, 2004; Eagle and Brennan, 2007;
Pereira and da Silva, 2003)
• Role (metaphor) (Nordensvärd, 2011)
• Obligations (Pietersen, 2014)
Leader survey:
• General data
• Output, client and the definition of student in higher education
• Student expectations
• Student role (metaphor)

6. Results
Suggestions
Aims
Summary
Methodology
Leader survey (N=117)
The sample
• SZIE (27)
• BCE (26)
• ELTE (19)
• DE (10) …
• Rector (2)
• Vice-rector (8)
• Dean (8)
• Vice-dean (34)
• Head of Institute (19)
• Head of Department (38)
• etc. (8)
• Years in the given
leadership role (mean):
7,54 years
Student survey(N=327)
• ELTE (161)
• SZIE (37)
• BME (36)
• BCE (16)
• SZTE (15) …
• 68,8% female | 31,2% male
• 23,4% graduated | 74,3% still learning
• 33% humanities | 16,5% economics | 9,2%
teacher education …
• 81,7% state-funded/state-scolarship | 18,3% fee-
paying/self-funded
• 89,3% full-time | 10,7% part-time
• 79,2% without student loan
• 39,4% participated in talent development

7. Methodology
Suggestions
Aims
Summary
1) Perception of leaders
service
6%
course
1%
graduates
72%
learning
7%
other
14%
Output
Results
state
11%
employer
24%
student
42%
society
14%
other
9%
Client
Student
role
Rector
Vice-
rector
Dean
Vice-
dean
Head of
Inst.
Head of
Dep.
Commodity
(α=0,603)
Manager
(α=0,626)
Consumer
(α=0,473)
H1:
H2: ?
H3: ?

8. Methodology
Suggestions
Aims
Summary
2) Hypotheses regarding students
Results
H4:
H5: ?
H6: ?
Student expectations
• Partnership
• Growth
• Quality of teaching and learning
• Labor market relevance
• Support system
• Comfort
• Flexibility
Principal component analysis
(varimax):
• KMO=0,771 (p<0,001)
• 7 principal components: 60%
partnership growth quality relevance support comfort flexibility
state-funded fee-paying
ROI
Funding
(1-self; 0-state)
r = - 0,112*
p = 0,044
Cluster 1 Consumer
Cluster 2 Commodity
Cluster 3 Manager
Cluster 4 Consumer

9. Methodology
Suggestions
Aims
Summary
3) Gap-model and segmentation
H7:
H8:
Expectations
Perception of
leaders
Student
expectations
Gap 1
Improve my analytical skills 2,71 3,36 -0,65
Improve my ability to work in teams 2,45 3,02 -0,57
To be preapared for life long learning 2,59 3,05 -0,47
Improve my communication skills 2,88 3,34 -0,46
Available and extensive library 2,72 3,15 -0,43
…
Gap Mean: -0,18
Results

10. Methodology
Suggestions
Aims
Summary
3) Gap-model and segmentation
H7:
H8:
Expectations
Student
expectations
Student
satisfaction
Gap 5
Competent teachers who can clearly
communicate complex ideas.
3,82 2,91 0,91
Flexibility in offered courses. 3,40 2,42 0,98
To be prepared for the labor market 3,65 2,29 1,36
Timely accurate and precise
information
3,78 2,41 1,37
…
Gap Mean: 0,63
Results

11. Methodology
Suggestions
Aims
Summary
3) Gap-model and segmentation
H7:
Results
1 2 3 4
Important needs comfort, flexibility relevance, flexibility quality, relevance
quality, support,
flexibility
Not important
needs
relevance, support quality, support flexibility, partnership relevance
Obligations
Complete tasks on
time; don’t be late from
class
-
Obtain educational
materials; complete
tasks on time; inform
teachers
activity in the learning
process; obtain
educational materials
Not obliged
Prepare for every
class; activity in the
learning process
everything Respect office hours
Don’t be late from
class; complete tasks
on time; inform
teachers
Discipline
humanities, law,
teacher education
humanities, economics,
agricultural
economics, engineering
medical, natural
sciences
humanities, social
sciences
Funding fee-paying fee-paying state-funded state-funded
Graduates graduated still learning still learning graduated
Full-time/part-time part-time full-time part-time part-time
Student loan typical typical mixed not typical
Gender female male mixed male
Talent
management
typical not typical not typical typical
Metaphor consumer commodity manager consumer
ROI low moderately low moderately high high

12. Methodology
Results
Aims
Summary
Suggestions
 Higher education leaders should reconsider the role of
students alongside the manager metaphor
 Reverse the psychological contracts of fee-paying
students: demand accountability for quality, take
responsibility for their investment
 Treat the service quality gaps based on the Gap-model
 Encourage market research
 Improve bottom-up communication
 Improve relationship focus
 Improve service
 Higher education leaders should identify students along the
clusters and develop differentiated strategies to enhance
quality based (but not exclusively) on their needs

13. Methodology
Results
Aims
Suggestions
Summary
• Higher education leaders consider
1. the graduates as the output of higher education
2. the employer and the state as main clients
3. students based on the commodity-metaphor
• Fee-paying students
4. expectations are dominated by elements regarding quality
of education
5. think that they have a lower return on investment in their
education compared to state-funded students
6. Students consider themselves alongside the consumer-
metaphor
7. Gap 1 and Gap 5 will be notable in the GAP model.
8. Students can be segmentated alongside their expectations
and obligations can be assigned to these groups. This
relationship can be interpreted with the term of pyschological
contract.
?
?
?
?

14. References
1. Barakonyi, K. (szerk., 2009): „Bologna Hungaricum” Diagnózis és terápia. Budapest, Új Mandátum Könyvkiadó, 312 p.
2. Cerri, S. (2012): Assessing the quality of higher education services using a modified SERVQUAL scale. Annales
Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, 2:664-667.
3. Davies, S. (2002): Marketing in Higher Education: Matching Promises and Reality to Expectations. In: OECD (szerk.):
Responding to Student Expectations. OECD, Paris, 152 p., 103-114. p.
4. Deiaco, E. - Hughes, A. - McKelvey, M. (2012): Universities as strategic actors in the knowledge economy. Cambridge
Journal of Economics, 36:525-541.
5. Eagle, L. - Brennan, R. (2007): Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in
Education. 1:44-60.
6. Fábri Gy. (2009): Ideje újragondolni a felsőoktatási rangsorokat. Felsőoktatási Műhely, 4:13-17. URL:
http://www.felvi.hu/pub_bin/dload/FeMu/2009_04/oldal13_18_fabri.pdf(Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10. 08.)
7. Foropon, C. - Seiple, R. - Kerbache, L. (2013): Using SERVQUAL to Examine Service Quality inthe Classroom: Analyses
of Undergraduate and Executive Education Operations Management Courses. International Journal of Business and
Management, 20:105-116.
8. Halász Gábor (2010): A tanulás minősége a felsőoktatásban: intézményi és nemzeti szintű folyamatok. Kézirat. URL:
http://halaszg.ofi.hu/download/A_study_TANULAS.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10. 07.)
9. Kandiko, C. B. - Mawer, M. (2013). Student Expectations and Perceptions of Higher Education. King’s Learning Institute,
London, 82 p.
10.Kotler, P. - Fox, K. F. A. (1985): Strategic Marketing for Educational Institutions. Prentice Hall, New Jearsey, 484 p.
11.Ng, I. C. L. - Forbes, J. (2009): Education as Service: The Understanding of University Experience Through the Service
Logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 1:38-64.
12.Nordensvärd, J. (2011): The consumer metaphor versus the citizen metaphor: different sets of roles for students. In:
Molesworth, M. - Scullion, R. - Nixon, E. (szerk.): The Marketisation of Higher Education and the Student as Consumer.
Routledge, London, 264 p., 157-169. p.

15. References
13.Parasuraman, A. - Zeithaml, V. A. - Berry, L. L. (1988): SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer
perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 1: 12-40.
14.Pereira, M. A. C. - da Silva, M. T. (2003): A Key Question for Higher Education: Who are the customers? Proceedings
of the 31st Annual Conference of the Production and Operations Management Society, April 4-7, 2003, Atlanta.
15.Pietersen, C. (2014): Negotiating a Shared Psychological Contract with Students. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 7:25-33.
16.Polónyi I. (2013): Az aranykor vége. Bezárnak-e a papírgyárak? Budapeset, Gondolat Kiadó, 283 p.
17.Poór J. - Bencsik A. - Fekete I. - Majó Z. és László Gy. (2008): Trendek és tendenciák a magyarországi állami
egyetemek HR–rendszereinek továbbfejlesztése területén. Competitio, 2:115–145. URL:
http://http//www.econ.unideb.hu/userfiles/File/tudomany/competitio/folyoirat/7evfolyam_2szam/07_poor_bencsik_feket
e_majo.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 09. 25.)
18.Rajasekhar, M. - Muninarayanappa, M. - Reddy, S. V. S. (2009): The GAP Model Analysis of Service Quality in Indian
Higher Education. Asia-Pacific Journal of Social Sciences, 2:214-229.
19.Shin, J. C. (2014): The University as an institution of higher learning: evolution or devolution. In: Shin, J. C. - Teichler,
U. (szerk.): The future of the Post-Massified University at the Crossroads. Restructuring Systems and Functions.
Springer, New York, 255 p., 13-28. p.
20.Tan, K. C. - Kek, S. W. (2004): Service Quality in Higher Education Using an Enhanced SERVQUAL Approach. Quality
in Higher Education, 1:17-24.
21.Teichler, U. (2014): Possible Futures for Higher Education: Challenges for Higher Education Research. In: Shin, J. C. -
Teichler, U. (szerk.): The future of the Post-Massified University at the Crossroads. Restructuring Systems and
Functions. Springer, New York, 255 p., 145-166. p.
22.Wilson, A. - Zeithaml, V. A. - Bitner, M. J. - Gremler, D. D. (2012): Services Marketing: Integrating Customer Focus
Across the Firm. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, 608 p.
23.Zhang, J. - Liao, H. (2010): Upgrading knowledge competitiveness is the new mission of higher education. US-China
Education Review, 10:78-86. URL:
http://www.davidpublishing.com/davidpublishing/Upfile/7/16/2012/2012071603521048.pdf (Utolsó letöltés: 2014. 10.
09.)

16. Thank you for your
attention!
László Horváth - horvath.laszlo@ppk.elte.hu
Eötvös Loránd University
Institute of Education, Doctoral School of Education