ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ON THE QUALITY EXPECTATION IN SCHOOL
SERVICES, FROM THE STUDENT'S PERCEPTION
Paulo Cesar Chagas Rodrigues
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de São
Paulo (IFSP), Brazil
E-mail: paulo.rodrigues@ifsp.edu.br
Eddaniella Moraes Silva Fernandes
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de
São Paulo (IFSP), Brazil
E-mail: eddaniella_moraes@hotmail.com
Franco da Silveira
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
E-mail: franco.da.silveira@hotmail.com
Bruno Miranda dos Santos
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
E-mail: brmiranda10@gmail.com
Filipe Molinar
Universidade Regional Integrada do Alto Uruguai e
Missões (URI), Brazil
E-mail: fmacmec@gmail.com
Submission: 01/10/2019
Accept: 02/11/2019
ABSTRACT
The improvement of educational services can have a direct
impact on the student's avoidance rate in the concomitant / subsequent
technical courses. Being of vital importance to be able to anticipate and
anticipate the factors that are important in the provision of educational
services aiming at satisfying the student's satisfaction. The purpose of this
study is to apply a questionnaire that allows to evaluate the perception or
expectation of the students who are already attending and those who are
beginning their study day in the concomitant / subsequent technical courses in
Administration. It will become the basis for future studies as to the main
quality factors in service that affect student satisfaction and loyalty. For
this purpose, the SERVQUAL tool will be used to measure the quality of the
services provided.
Keywords: ServQual;
Quality; Education; Technician; Administration
1. INTRODUCTION
Organizational
success is related to the profile of the administrative leaders who have the
competencies to lead the concurrent demands of the competitors (SMITH; TRACEY,
2016). Their decisions are crucial and they become an effective competitive
strategy for the company (ROSS; SHARAPOV, 2015). Thus, the incessant search for
the guarantee of excellence in the provision of services and the
competitiveness in the global market are directly linked to the improvement in
quality. Longo and Vergueiro (2003) corroborate that Quality Management aims at
the survival of organizations through consumer satisfaction.
As a way of studying the internal
factors that contribute to the fulfillment of consumers' expectations, whether
they are students of the integrated technical course, concomitant or subsequent
in administration, or other courses, the SERVQUAL quality tool was used.
According to research by Dettmer, Socorro and Katon (2002) and Rosemberg et al.
(2018), SERVQUAL allows structuring quality factors in five dimensions:
tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, security and empathy. These factors
may contribute to the identification of problems in the educational processes
of the institution as a whole.
Wagner et al. (2017) corroborate
that the service sector has been important in the world economy, including in
academic sectors, as mentioned by Loures and Camponar (2005), this importance
has been reflected in the academic area since the 1960s, when the marketing
researchers began to demonstrate the differences between goods and services,
but it was only during the 1980s that we began to study the subject more
deeply.
Cukier and Silva (2012) complement
that the quality of service from the SERVQUAL tool should be measured from the
gap between the expectation and the quality perceived by the consumer, be they
students, teachers or employees, and the research should be compared in three
different moments: before, during and after the service.
The
paper was structured in different sections. In section 2 the research method is
outlined, highlighting a flow chart that bases the steps of data collection,
analysis and interpretation obtained and its main aspects. Subsequently, the
bibliographic review is contextualized presenting the main contributions of
research relevant to the area under study in this article. In the sequence, the
results are shown. Finally, the conclusions of the research and their
respective references are presented.
2. METHOD OF RESEARCH
From the flow shown in Figure 1 and
Figure 2, the steps that were necessary for the practical realization of the
research are sequentially observed. The initial stage was the formulation of
the research problem and its delimitation, where an interface between the
educational area and quality. Next, the general and specific objectives of this
work were elaborated. In the third stage, the theoretical study was made.
Figure 1: Activities carried out
to conduct the action research
Source:
Authors (2017)
In the fourth stage, through the
theoretical study, we determined the general framework of questions to be
listed in the SERVQUAL tool. In the fifth step, the operators were selected to
compose the factor guidelines. In the sixth step, the theoretical factors were
elaborated, in tabular form, through the selected indicators. In the seventh
stage, the factors were discussed and the need for textual description was
verified.
Figure 2: Key steps activities
for conducting action research
Source:
Authors (2017)
The public in study is represented
by the students of the concomitant/ subsequent technical courses in
administration, logistics and interior design. As for the data collection
period, because it is a cross-sectional study, it was applied to the students
who attend the institution in the afternoon and evening period and who are
already studying or are beginning their studies.
The data collection was performed
based on a questionnaire applied in the course and the results obtained in this
research underwent a process of analysis. In order to keep the students
confidential, they were not identified in the present study. The questions in
the questionnaire were related to procedures of quality dimensions, such as
tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, safety and empathy. The procedures
used to analyze the information were: coding of the answers, tabulation of data
and interpretation of the particularities. MS Excel was used for data
tabulation.
According to Araujo et al. (2017),
the SERVQUAL tool is a model of ordering, increasingly, notes that are
obtained, aiming at measuring the strengths and weaknesses of quality in
consideration of five dimensions: tangibility, reliability, responsiveness,
security and empathy. Table 1 presents the questions used in the institution.
Table 1: Description of
constructor dimensions
|
Constructor |
|
Dimensions |
|
Tangibles |
Q1 |
• Modern
equipment |
|
Q2 |
• Visually
attractive physical facilities |
|
|
Q3 |
• Clean and
well-dressed staff |
|
|
Q4 |
• Visually
attractive service equipment and materials |
|
|
Reliability |
Q5 |
• Show real
interest in solving the problem |
|
Q6 |
•
Non-discriminatory treatment provided by employees |
|
|
Q7 |
• Perform the
service in the promised time |
|
|
Responsiveness |
Q8 |
• Reliably
save service history |
|
Q9 |
• First time
customer problem solving |
|
|
Q10 |
• Inform
about the period of execution of the services |
|
|
Warranty |
Q11 |
• High
quality service standards |
|
Q12 |
• High
quality administrative services |
|
|
Q13 |
•
High-quality academic services |
|
|
Empathy |
Q14 |
• Student
friendly service |
|
Q15 |
• Provides easy-to-understand
information |
|
|
Q16 |
• Convenient
operating hours |
Source: Adaptado de Parasuraman, Zeithaml e Berry (1988), Cukier e Silva (2012)
e Leonard (2018)
The questionnaire was applied
through the use of the Google Drive platform, which consists of the concept of
cloud computing, facilitating the storage of files and the formulation of
questionnaires using the internet as a means of relation to apply them in
companies. The data obtained, together with the students, were used as a basis
to characterize the process of development of school management for the
teachers participating in the research. Finally, the general structuring of the
research is classified as descriptive and comparative, of an exploratory
nature.
Based on the analyzes of the
researches and their respective authors, as well as the research reference made
by Leonard (2018), the following research hypotheses were developed:
·
Research
hypothesis 1 (H1): Perception of tangible dimension has a positive relation on
general perceptions of quality of service in relation to educational services;
·
Research
hypothesis 2 (H2): Perception of the reliability dimension has a positive
relation in the general perception of service quality in relation to
educational services;
·
Research
hypothesis 3 (H3): The perception of the responsiveness dimension has a
positive relation in the general perceptions of service quality in relation to
educational services;
·
Research
hypothesis 4 (H4): Perception of guarantee dimension has a positive relation on
general perceptions of quality of service in relation to educational services;
·
Research
hypothesis 5 (H5): The perception of empathy has a positive relation in general
perceptions of quality of service in relation to educational services.
As for sampling, Gil (2002) points
out that in social surveys, different forms can be assumed, depending on the
type of population, its extent and the material conditions for carrying out the
research. In this sense, the sample is not accidental probabilistic, since the
elements of the population are referring to the students who attend the
concurrent / subsequent technical courses afternoon and evening and daily.
In this direction, Cukier and Silva
(2012) treat SERVQUAL as a multi-item scale constructed to measure expectations
(E) and/or perceptions (P) of the learning consumers according to the service
provided. Quality (Q) is the result of the difference between (P) and (E).
The
evaluation of quality satisfaction is done by subtracting perceived performance
(P) from expectations (E). After this step the scores found in perceptions and
expectations are calculated, and three responses can be obtained:
·
1st
point: Unmet expectation (Expectation> Perception). It occurs when the
consumer creates a high expectation and this is not satisfied;
·
2nd
point: Expected attention (Perception> Expectation). It occurs when the
consumer realizes that his expectation has been met;
·
3rd
point: Expectation surpassed (Perception >> Expectation). It occurs when
the perception of the benefits acquired by the consumer surpasses all the
competitive value propositions, having high engagement.
3. SERVQUAL APPROACH TO MEASURE THE QUALITY OF
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES
According to Clewes (2003) and
Marzo-Navarro, Pedraja-Iglesias and Pilar Rivera-Torres (2005), there is no
agreement on the best model to measure the quality of the educational service.
Each model used has its own advantages and disadvantages. In general, the
models most used to measure the quality of service in educational services are
SERVQUAL (PARASURAMAN; ZEITHAML; BERRY, 1988), SERVPERF (ABDULLAH, 2006b),
HEdPERF (ABDULLAH, 2006a) and Wagner et al. (2017).
According to Parasuraman, Zeithaml
and Berry (1988), the core of this model is the ability to measure whether the
actual performance of services exceeds consumer expectations. To measure this,
five dimensional measures are used:
a)
Tangibles:
are related to the physical condition and availability of facilities and human
resources;
b)
Reliability:
it is related to the capacity of service providers to provide services as
promised;
c)
Responsiveness:
is related to the ability of service providers to provide the best service to
consumers;
d)
Guarantee:
deals with the knowledge and skills of the employees of the service providers;
e)
Empathy:
deals with the personal care provided by the service provider to customers /
consumers.
The use of SERVQUAL in educational
services has been the focus of new studies on student and teacher behavior
(ZAMMUTO; KEAVENEY; O'CONNOR, 1996; BROWNE et al., 1998; OLDFIELD; BARON, 2000;
DE JAGER; GBADAMOSI, 2013; WAGNER et al., 2017).
4. RESULTS
The analysis of the results was
performed based on the attributes related to the quality of the service, always
with the objective of finding the elements responsible for the quality of
service and customer satisfaction. Subsequently, a classificatory analysis will
be carried out of the dimensions that were better evaluated by the students and
which need to focus on improving satisfaction.
Table 2 presents the questions, as
well as the value that each student gave for each item, in which 1 means
unimportant and 5 very important. It also shows the total amount that each
question received.
Table 2: Description of the
questions and their respective values
|
|
Student
respondents |
Totall |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seq |
Description |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
|
|
1 |
Modern
equipment |
4 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
114 |
|
2 |
Visually
appealing physical facilities |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
- |
5 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
- |
93 |
|
3 |
Clean
and well-dressed staff |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
114 |
|
4 |
Visually
appealing service equipment and materials |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
- |
106 |
|
5 |
Show
real interest in resolving the problem |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
- |
119 |
|
6 |
Non-discriminatory
treatment provided by employees |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
- |
112 |
|
7 |
Carry
out the service in the promised time |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
- |
110 |
|
8 |
Save
service history reliably |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
- |
116 |
|
9 |
Solving
the Customer Problem the First Time |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
108 |
|
10 |
Inform about the period of execution of the services |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
111 |
|
11 |
High
quality service standards |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
117 |
|
12 |
High-quality
administrative services |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
123 |
|
13 |
High-quality
academic services |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
- |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
110 |
|
14 |
Student
friendly service |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
2 |
118 |
|
15 |
Provides
easy-to-understand information |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
3 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
113 |
|
16 |
Convenient
operating hours |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
117 |
|
17 |
I
would talk about the quality of the institution to the public |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
5 |
5 |
119 |
|
18 |
I
would recommend the institution to the public |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
128 |
|
19 |
I
will remain faithful to this institution until my studies are completed, as
well as for my studies in the future |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
5 |
125 |
From
Table 2, the best evaluated item was item "18" and the worst
evaluated was item "2". Regarding item 2, it is emphasized that it is
a very subjective factor if we analyze under the prism of the student, because
each one forms a perception of the physical facilities based on their
experience. However, actions such as the renewal of physical structures can
contribute to reduce this negative perception. Regarding item 18, an extremely
positive convergence was observed in the direction of a free marketing of the
institution, since the students themselves would recommend to the public.
Table 3 shows the percentage values,
based on the maximum value that each question obtained and the maximum overall
value, being the sum of all the maximum values computed.
Table 3: Percentage values of
each question
|
Seq |
Description |
Line
(%) |
General
(%) |
|
1 |
Modern
equipment |
87,6923 |
5,2462 |
|
2 |
Visually
appealing physical facilities |
71,5385 |
4,2798 |
|
3 |
Clean and
well-dressed staff |
87,6923 |
5,2462 |
|
4 |
Visually appealing
service equipment and materials |
81,5385 |
4,8780 |
|
5 |
Show real
interest in resolving the problem |
91,5385 |
5,4763 |
|
6 |
Non-discriminatory
treatment provided by employees |
86,1538 |
5,1542 |
|
7 |
Carry out the
service in the promised time |
84,6154 |
5,0621 |
|
8 |
Save service
history reliably |
89,2308 |
5,3382 |
|
9 |
Solving the
Customer Problem the First Time |
83,0769 |
4,9701 |
|
10 |
Inform about
the period of execution of the services |
85,3846 |
5,1081 |
|
11 |
High quality
service standards |
90,0000 |
5,3843 |
|
12 |
High-quality
administrative services |
94,6154 |
5,6604 |
|
13 |
High-quality
academic services |
84,6154 |
5,0621 |
|
14 |
Student
friendly service |
90,7692 |
5,4303 |
|
15 |
Provides
easy-to-understand information |
86,9231 |
5,2002 |
|
16 |
Convenient
operating hours |
90,0000 |
5,3843 |
|
17 |
I would talk
about the quality of the institution to the public |
91,5385 |
5,4763 |
|
18 |
I would
recommend the institution to the public |
98,4615 |
5,8905 |
|
19 |
I will remain
faithful to this institution until the completion of my studies, as well as
for my future studies |
96,1538 |
5,7524 |
Table
4 shows the distribution of the points between the 5 dimensions of the survey,
in which the total value of the distribution should be the maximum value of 100
points. The red markings mean the size with the least importance, the yellow
mark means the dimension with the second most important and the mark in green
means the most important dimension.
Table 4: distribution of points
between dimensions
|
A |
Tangibility: The appearance of physical
facilities. The staffs look good. The equipment looks well maintained |
30 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
15 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
25 |
10 |
15 |
20 |
10 |
- |
30 |
25 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
27 |
30 |
10 |
20 |
10 |
202 |
|
B |
Reliability: ***'s ability to deliver the promised
service with reliability and accuracy |
10 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
30 |
20 |
20 |
25 |
20 |
20 |
15 |
15 |
15 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
30 |
190 |
|
|
C |
Responsibility: The willingness of employees to
assist customers and provide prompt service |
10 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
15 |
50 |
20 |
15 |
20 |
15 |
25 |
20 |
20 |
35 |
20 |
25 |
30 |
20 |
20 |
35 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
210 |
|
|
D |
Guarantee: The knowledge and courtesy of employees
and their ability to convey trust and security |
40 |
20 |
30 |
20 |
20 |
25 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
10 |
20 |
25 |
20 |
25 |
- |
20 |
15 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
13 |
10 |
20 |
20 |
25 |
183 |
|
E |
Empathy: The concern and individualized attention
that employees offer to their clients |
10 |
20 |
20 |
30 |
20 |
25 |
10 |
30 |
15 |
20 |
30 |
20 |
20 |
20 |
15 |
15 |
20 |
10 |
30 |
20 |
15 |
30 |
30 |
20 |
25 |
215 |
It
is observed that the dimension "Empathy" was the best evaluated. The
"Responsibility and Guarantee" dimensions were considered second, and
the dimension "Tangibility" was considered the least important.
Table 5 shows the distribution of
dimensions, in which item 1 means the most important, 2 the second most
important and 3 the least important, as well as the general distribution, by
sex and the embranco.
Table 5: cross-distribution
between dimension and importance
|
Occurrences |
Male |
Female |
White |
|||||||||
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
A |
2 |
4 |
11 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
10 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
B |
6 |
6 |
5 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
|
C |
7 |
7 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
|
D |
3 |
7 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
6 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
E |
8 |
2 |
5 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
5 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
In
this Table 5, the “Tangibility” dimension was considered by two students as the
most important and by four students as the second most important and by eleven
students as the least important. The “Reliability” dimension, however, remained
within an average of distribution, in which six students answered that it was
the most important or the second most important and five students answered that
it is the least important.
The
Dimension “Responsibility” was considered by seven students as the most important
and the second most important and only one student considered less important.
The “Guarantee” dimension was considered by three students as the most
important, by seven students as the second most important and by four students
as the least important. To conclude, the dimension "Empathy" was
considered the most important by eight students, two students considered it the
second most important and five students regarded it as the least important.
In this way it is observed that
there was a variation in the students' responses, a fact that can be analyzed
by the cross-distribution between sex and age, since the majority of the
students are in the age range between 15 and 19 years, according to Table 6.
Table 6: cross-distribution
between size and age group
|
Most
Important |
2nd
Most Important |
Less
Important |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Female audience |
Female audience |
Female audience |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
36 |
45 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
36 |
45 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
36 |
45 |
|
|
A |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
|
B |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
C |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
D |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
E |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Male audience |
Male audience |
Male audience |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
36 |
45 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
36 |
45 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
36 |
45 |
|
|
A |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
B |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
C |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
D |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
E |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
5. CONCLUSION
The main characteristics of each of
SERVQUAL's five dimensions were presented in the research, with the intention
of being a facilitating agent that helps and directs teachers and students
involved in the educational process, since it seeks to make a comparison
between the expectations and perceptions presented. It should be emphasized
that the objective of the research is to broaden the discussion and the
theoretical basis surrounding the theme of educational quality.
Evaluating the context, it is important
to mention that with the constant evolution of technology, new changes in
educational proposals, their behaviors and ways of determining the new
student-teacher relationship to administer and facilitate educational
management activities and processes are remodeled.
In this way, the work contributed to
those who seek to better understand the definitions and concepts related to
SERVQUAL, thus providing researchers and stakeholders with a study on the
subject. As a limitation of this study, it is possible to say that, the study
is in the phase of forming an interdisciplinary team to propose solutions to
the data presented in this study, which will involve baccalaureate students,
integrated technical, concomitant and subsequent.
But as a way to validate students'
scores and perceptions regarding the quality of service provided, the students
were asked to inform which of the 5 constructs they considered most important
and was marked Empathy, the second most important were responsibility and
guarantee and the least important was the tangibility of the.
Allowing to observe in a
cross-analysis that the tangible construct obtained the third highest score,
but was marked as being the least important, the construct guarantee that in
the score obtained the lowest score, was marked as the second most important,
together with the construct responsibility.
Observing the distribution of points
and the choices between the most and least important, there were some cases of
inconsistency, because a high score was given and in the classification of
importance was not given the same importance. In this group occurs the
predominance of women and the majority are young, between 15 and 19 years.
Having only two respondents above the age of 30. Five respondents did not want
to report their age as well as genre.
The research is being extended to
other classes of technical courses, as a way to improve the validation of
research questions, as well as to improve the answers to the research question,
which will be made available in future works.
REFERENCES
ABDULLAH, F. (2006a) The development of HEdPERF: a new
measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector, International Journal of Consumer Studies,
v. 30, n. 6, p. 569-581. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00480.x
ABDULLAH,
F. (2006b) Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus
SERVPERF, Marketing Intelligence &
Planning, v. 24, n. 1, p. 31-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02634500610641543
ARAÚJO, A. M.; FILHO, J. M. M.; PINTO,
R. J.; MACHADO, W. R.B.: SILVA, A.C.G.C. (2017) Análise da qualidade em um
restaurante universitário através da ferramenta SERVQUAL. Exacta – EP, São Paulo, v.
15, n. 4, p. 103-115.
BROWNE,
B. A.; KALDENBERG, D. O.; BROWNE, W. G.; BROWN, D. J. (1998) Student as
customer: Factors affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional
quality, Journal of Marketing for Higher
Education, v. 8, n. 3, p. 1-14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v08n03_01
CHUI,
T. B.; BIN AHMAD, M. S. (2016) Evaluation of servisse quality of Private Higher
education using service improvement matrix. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, n. 224, p. 132-140. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.417
CLEWES,
D. (2003) A student-centred conceptual model of servisse quality in higher
education, Quality in Higher Education,
v. 9, n. 1, p. 69-85.
CUKIER, R.; SILVA, O. R. (2012) Análise
dos GAPS da qualidade de serviços medidos pelo modelo servqual em farmácia de
manipulação. ENIAC Pesquisa, Guarulhos
(SP), v. 1, n. 1, p. 77-91, jan.-jun.
DE
JAGER, J.; GBADAMOSI, G. (2013) Predicting students’ satisfaction through
service quality in higher education, The
International Journal of Management Education, v. 11, n. 3, p. 107-118.
DETTEMER, B.; SOCORRO, C.; KATON, H. T.
(2002) Marketing de Serviços- Análise da percepção da qualidade de serviços
através da ferramenta Servqual em uma instituição de ensino superior de Santa
Catarina. Revista de Ciências da
Administração, v. 4, n. 08, jul/dez.
GIL, A. C. (2002) Como elaborar projetos de pesquisa. 4 ed. – São Paulo: Atlas.
LEONNARD. (2018) The
Performance of SERVQUAL to Measure Service Quality in Private University, Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in
Education and Science, v. 11, n. 1, p. 16-21. DOI: 10.7160/eriesj.2018.110103.
LONGO, J. M. R.; VERGUEIRO,W. (2003)
Gestão da qualidade em serviços de informação do setor público: características
e dificuldades para sua implantação. Revista
Digital de Biblioteconomia e Ciência da Informação, Campinas, v. 1, n. 1,
p. 39-59, jul/dez. ISSN: 1678-765X.
LOURES,
C. A. S.; CAMPOMAR, M. C. (2005) Um estudo sobre o uso da evidência física como
forma de gerar percepções de qualidade de serviços: casos de hospitais
brasileiros. Revista Brasileira de
Gestão e Negócios, São Paulo, v. 7, n. 17, p. 38-46, abr.
LOVELOCK, C. (2001) Serviços: marketing e gestão. São Paulo: Saraiva.
MARZO-NAVARRO, M.; PEDRAJA-IGLESIAS, M.;
PILAR RIVERA-TORRES, M. (2005) Measuring customer satisfaction in summer
courses, Quality Assurance in Education,
v. 13, n. 1, p. 53-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880510578650
MATTAR, F. N. (2000) Pesquisa de marketing. 2. ed. São
Paulo: Atlas.
NAIDU,
P.; DERANI, N. E. S. (2016) A comparative study on quality of education received
by students of private universities versus public universities. Procedia
Economics and Finance,
v. 35, p. 659-666.
NORMANN. R. (1993) Administração de Serviços: estratégia e
liderança na empresa de serviços. São Paulo:
Atlas.
OLDFIELD,
B. M.; BARON, S. (2000) Student perceptions of service quality in a UK
university business and management faculty, Quality Assurance in education, v. 8, n. 2, p. 85-95.
PARASURAMAN,
A.; ZEITHAML, V. A.; BERRY, L. L. (1988) Servqual: A multiple-item scale for
measuring consumer perception of service quality, Journal of retailing, v. 64, n. 1, p. 12.
ROSS, J. M., SHARAPOV, D. (2015) When the leader
follows: avoiding dethronement through imitation. Academy of Management Journal, v. 58, n. 3, p. 658-679.
SMITH, W. K.; TRACEY, P. (2016) Institutional
complexity and paradox theory: Complementarities of competing demands. Strategic Organization, v. 14, n. 4, p.
455-466.
ZAMMUTO, R. F.; KEAVENEY, S. M.;
O’CONNOR, E. J. (1996) Rethinking student services: assessing and improving
servisse quality, Journal of Marketing
for Higher Education, v. 7, n. 1, p. 45-70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v07n01_05.
WAGNER, A.; MERINO, E. A. D.; MARTINELLI,
M.; POLACINSKI, É.; DA SILVA WEGNER, R.; GODOY, L. P. (2018). The quality of
services in a higher education institution: an evaluation for the integration
of AHP, SERVQUAl and QFD methods. Disciplinarum Scientia| Sociais Aplicadas, v.
13, n. 1, p. 109-130.