Are there study mode differences in perceptions of university education service quality? Evidence from Zambia

Bruce Mwiya, Beenzu Siachinji, Justice Bwalya, Shem Sikombe, Moffat Chawala, Hillary Chanda, Maidah Kayekesi, Eledy Sakala, Alexinah Muyenga and Bernadette Kaulungombe

Cogent Business & Management, 2019, vol. 6, issue 1, 1579414

Abstract: While a plethora of studies examines the relationships amongst university education service quality, customer satisfaction and loyalty, there is hardly any focus in the literature on study mode differences. Further, many developing country contexts such as Zambia are under-researched, limiting generalisability of prior research conclusions. Hence, the purpose of this paper is to examine university study mode differences in the under-researched context of Zambia. Specifically, it examines study mode differences among undergraduate students in relation to service quality dimensions and overall satisfaction. Based on a quantitative approach, survey data were collected from 824 students at a public university and analysed using correlation and one-way analyses of variance techniques. The findings indicate that while each of the five dimensions of service quality performance (tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, empathy and assurance) is significantly related to overall student satisfaction for all study modes, distance students were the most satisfied on all dimensions, followed by evening students and the least were full-time students. For scholars, administrators and policymakers, the study shows that the service performance model is a valid and useful framework for assessing and monitoring how the primary stakeholders form their service quality perceptions of higher education. However, the students with less contact with university staff and facilities seem to be more satisfied, a phenomenon that requires amelioration and reconnoitring. Since the study took place in one public university, increasing the sample base by covering more universities would improve generalisability.

Date: 2019
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/23311975.2019.1579414 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:oabmxx:v:6:y:2019:i:1:p:1579414

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://cogentoa.tandfonline.com/journal/OABM20

DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2019.1579414

Access Statistics for this article

Cogent Business & Management is currently edited by Len Tiu Wright and Tahir Nisar

More articles in Cogent Business & Management from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().