Service Quality in State-Own Technical ICT Training Institutes and the Students Satisfaction

Service Quality in State-Own Technical ICT Training Institutes and the Students Satisfaction

Silva GRP  

University of Colombo, Sri Lanka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2024.912059

Received: 12 December 2024; Revised: 20 December 2024; Accepted: 23 December 2025; Published: 24 January 2025

ABSTRACT 

Extension of globalization in to education and the education driven practical and vocational training have been recognized as significant. In catering to the exogenous demand for the information technology and the online operationalization of all aspect of the businesses have been committed to drive demand for It professionals not only within the national context but also regional and international arena. Especially the indexed and the facts derive that there is a greater tendency among the generation z for the information, telecommunication technology, and computing driven studies. Especially within the formal sector education conceded facts reviled that there are 4 Million students in nearly 10,000 schools under the mentorship of 200,000 teaches to ensure 98% information Technology literacy among the generation Z youth.  Still there are many concerns for students to continue with the advance IT education, and it has been phenomenon that both formal and informal sector contribute for opening an avenue through higher education opportunities. According to the survey conducted many of the stakeholders believes that formal sector institution connected to state-sector is more trusted in education and advancement of the IT education. Still the survey conducted indicates that student’s satisfaction towards to services and the service quality of the information and telecommunication professional education service providers with a 20% drop which is being recognized as the research issue. Within the calibration of the research problem it is to explore impact of the service quality of the treasury education institutes on the student satisfaction. Respecting to deductive approach aligning with the theories of service quality and the models will be tested using survey strategy. Scope has been recognized as the current students of the ICT programs in treasury high education organizations driven by state. The regression analysis used to extend the data analysis and interpretations reviled that there is a significant relationship between academic materials, Administrative facilities Administrative Support, Infrastructure and the Support services while Academic facilities are not indicating any relationship with the academic facilities, leaving an opportunity for the state-own IT service providers to take necessary initiatives to enhance the student satisfaction.

Key Word: Service Quality, ICT Education, State-sector

INTRODUCTION 

The digital era has been the key concern for many scholars and practitioners as it has created deliberation over the essence and the importance of development and value creation. Concerning the development of the grounded concentration of the soil indicates while experiencing 3.1 % negative growth (Central Bank Report, 2022), the IT sector has contributed a 3.6 % contribution as the 3rd largest export revenue generator to the national income (SLASSCOM, 2023). Further, it has recorded a 90% value addition in the national production driven by highest paying jobs, which has made a significant impact on the growth of the Sri Lankan Economy (SLEDB, 2022). Contribution to the employment creation seems gigantic with 24% employment growth where over a decade, the IT sector has grown by 300% (ICTA, 2022), to become a desirable hub in the field such as research and development and business and knowledge process outsourcing initiatives attempting to serve predominantly as a consultancy services provider to the main markets such as Europe, United States and Australia with their extended skilled workforce touching upon the competitive operational cost structure, language proficiency and government support. To cater to that mammoth requirement both state sector, private sector and even international educational organizations as they are attempt to provide different levels of vocational and developmental efforts for especially generation Z. However vocational learning and development opportunity creation, the state-owned educational sector has a competitive advantage over the other sectors ICTA, 2022).

To attaché especially the Generation Z customers it is essential to provide better facilities than other entities where state-own organizations are struggling to provide a greater extent of service due to extensive bureaucracy (James, 2017). Still, student satisfaction is highly important to an educational institute as satisfaction is a customer response to the service provided (Tso & Wilton, 1998). Oliver (1989) insists that customer satisfaction is the fairness for the purchase consideration and it is further confirmed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry (1985) indicating that the consumers feel satisfaction or dissatisfaction due to the trade between the service provided and the purchase consideration.  Students are satisfied whenever the services provided by the institutions are more than the price paid, and they are dissatisfied whenever services provided are less than the price paid. In higher education, studies on student satisfaction are few due to its complexity (Marzo Navarro, Pedraja Iglesias, & Rivera Torres, 2005).

Oliveira and Ferreira (2009) reported that to develop a positive perception toward the service provider, a student must be satisfied with the provided services as academic, administrative, courses, programs, and convenient access by the institute. In tertiary education, Cronin and Taylor (1992) have suggested that student’s feedback about the service quality they receive from their institutions is both crucial and strategic to the relationship with students and further Young and Vrabel (1997) deliberately target the service quality as a vital prerequisite to build up a strong positive bond with the customers. Manholes and Winsor (2000) have recognized the importance of a comprehensive understanding of customer satisfaction and a clear understanding would lead to better monetary outcomes in the competitive market setting (Abu Hasan,Ilias, Rahman & Abd Razak 2008). Alves and Raposo (2009) highlight that exploring the factors which are driving student satisfaction is important for the sustainability of educational institutions. Even though there is a lack of literature on the application of models and theories that are different in terms of several aspects explored and the methodologies used to measure the relationships (Douglas et al., 2015; Elliot and Shin, 2002; Guolla, 1999; Gruber et al., 2010; Petruzellis et al., 2006; and Smith, 2004). Aligning the employee’s knowledge, skills and positive attitudes, to create new ideas for the company (Ernon, 2014) since service quality has become the most decisive and it has been recognized by Parasuman as the antecedent of overall customer satisfaction (Zeithaml andBitner, 1996). Further, it depicts there is a greater demand for the technical training provided by the Tertiary Vocational and Educational Commission (TVEC).

Figure 01: Certificate Issued By TEVC

In addition to that it is to recognize the problem prevailing in the present context concerning student satisfaction.

Figure 02: Student Enrolment and Dropout Rate TEVC

Figure 02 indicates that there is a greater discrepancy between student enrolment and the student completing the programs therefore it is to recognize the reason for such discrepancy and the satisfaction survey indicates that there is 49% dissatisfaction among the students about the service quality and the services rendered by the IT training providing organization in selected district. Further, it depicts that there are no sufficient literature available within the context except Alves & Raposo (2009); Duarte et al., 2012);.Suhre, Jansen, & Harskamp (2007). The research attempted to address the student satisfaction issue among the state-owned technical IT training institutes and the research aimed at the objective of recognizing the impact of the service quality on the student satisfaction of the state-owned technical IT training institutes.   Further research would add value to the organization to provide a possible solution to the existing issue of student satisfaction and address the issues associated with service quality in the selected state-owned training organization.

LITERATURE REVIEW 

Service Quality 

Modern-day business entities ways expect to field of quality to be the fitness for the purpose (Kanakana, 2014), aligning to address the necessities along with the freedom from variation. Further, when plugging and selling good/product, quality plays a significant role alternatively quality is the most influential factor in shopping behavior, especially concerning tangible goods/products, quality would be measured using characteristics such as sturdiness, usage, and packaging. In variably, the intangible services service quality is the consideration with victimization security, quality, responsibility, responsiveness etc. that area unit subjective (Daniel& Berinyuy, 2010). Service quality cannot be restricted to the market-based commercial sector, even to the education and vocational education sector (Arambewela & Hall, 2006; Calvo-Porral et al.,2013; Kanakana, 2014; You apron paiboon, 2014; Afridi et al., 2016). Characteristicsof the service quality perspectives have been categorized into tangible and intangible dimensions (Nadiria et al., 2009). Eight-dimensional approaches are also considered to be very popular in measuring the service quality in high education, competencies, capabilities, management situation, assurance, effectiveness, efficiency, dependability and grading (Sultan & Tarafder,2007; Sultan & Wong, 2010). In variably the Tamil Nadu Higher Indian Technical Training Institution of India has attempted to develop a service quality measurement along with the tangibility, with a focus on the physical facilities, equipment, and appearance of personnel. As a key element, reliability has been taken into consideration which depicts the ability to perform the service dependably and accurately. Representing responsiveness, mostly it is to consider the willingness to help customers and the ability to inspire trust and confidence towards to organization and self. Further, assurance depicts the knowledge and courtesy of employees at the service point while empathy addresses the caring, service, support and administrator-related activities (Afridi et al., 2016; Parasuraman et al (1988).  The United Nations Agency used these 5dimensions to improve service quality. However, some authors have used the subsequent eight dimensions to live service quality in higher education: competencies, capabilities, management’s scenario, assurance, effectiveness, efficiency, responsibility and grading (Sultan & Tarafder, 2007; Swayer & Wong, 2010).  In addition, the Latvia Educational Activity Department have used educational employees, course content, market place readiness and skills, facilities, library, body employees and knowledge system to gauge the standard of services (Purgailis & Zaksa, 2012; Tangchitcharoenkhul& Wiratchai, 2012).

With reference to the development of the service quality measurement scale,  the gap between perceived performance and the ideal amount of a feature and the characteristics rather than the customer’s assumptions (Abdullah, 2006). Such development directly addressed the existing conceptual and operational problems combined with the SERVQUAL P-E perceived quality measurement (Kenneth, 1993). The consumer’s assumption on a commodity could be conceptualized as the product’s relative congruence with the ideal product features in connection with the criterion and construct validity was tested and shows that evaluated performance (EP) is higher than the SERVQUAL P-E and Normed Quality (NQ) measurement framework (Kenneth, 1993). To measure the service quality in higher education HEdPERF model developed by Abdullah (2005) addresses the key areas of non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access and program issues, Recent studies indicate that the application of EduQUAL model by Mahapatra and Khan (2007); (Pradhan, 2008) addressing to a more accurate and systematically integrated approach for modeling in a technical education applied for customer expectation evaluation through a survey model.

Figure 1 : SQM-HEI mediated model (Arulraj, 2012)

Stakeholder Satisfaction 

Specifically, the student’s favored education is one of the key expectations in service quality-driven satisfaction (Tahir, Bakar, & Ismail, 2010) which directed to a greater level of student loyalty (Annamdevula & Bellamkonda,2016). It further confirmed that Duarte et al., (2012) on education in Portugal and it is further profound that the indebted relationship between student satisfaction and student loyalty. Writer (2008) generally represented customer satisfaction driven by the concept of promoting success.  Kotler (2003) highlighted that customer satisfaction is the feeling of a personal towards the performance of a product or service which is aimed at measuring the overall students’ satisfaction, duplicating the essence of customers’ satisfaction. Measuring students’ satisfaction is extraordinarily vital as a result of its effect on the institution’s performance and continuous improvement inclusive of teaching facet and info style (Nair, Murdoch, & Mertova, 2011). Annamdevula & Bellamkonda, (2016) found a positive relationship between service quality and student satisfaction leading to a high level of service quality with student loyalty and student satisfaction with student loyalty which has been confirmed by Duarte et al. (2012) on education in Portugal. Conversely, in contrast Dib & Mokhles (2013) UN agency with a focus on Asian nations identified that there is no important relationship between service quality and student satisfaction.

Yusoff et al. (2015),found that the quality of academic faculty and their behaviors depict a direct and significant impact on student satisfaction levels in the higher education industry additionally these results are further supported by many studies conducted by Douglas et al. (2006); Garcl a-Aracil (2009); Wilkins and Balakrishnan (2013); Karna and Julin (2015). However, Martirosyan (2015) has recognized a negative significant relationship between student satisfaction levels with faculty teaching styles and graduate teaching assistants leaving an avenue for deductive reasoning. Weerasinghe, Salinda & Fernando, (2018) addressed the fact that student satisfaction with the light of the quality of academic staff, the quality the university facilities, quality the degree programs and quality of the university administrative staff, which directed the impact and the importance of the administrative support for the student satisfaction. Academic facilities such as all equipment, objects and structures designed to provide prospective services to the student to make smooth functioning of the academic endeavors driveling particularly the convenience or service in academics (Gbadosami & De Jager, 2010) recognize with a greater dominance to the student satisfaction including academic library, lecture halls, display projectors, lightning system, computer rooms, etc. Providing a physical environment that supports educational processes to a greater extent (Daigneau,2006). Andrea and Benjamin (2013) highlighted the determinants of students’ overall satisfaction levels regarding the location and its features with a greater positive correlation.  Specifically the chances of socializing, sense of community, community assets and natural environment of the location of the institute where Hanssen and Solvoll (2015) further insisted that the hosting area has a strong influencing power on overall student satisfaction levels. As an integral part of student satisfaction, support systems including tutorials, technical support, access to library and information services, advising-counseling, peer support, etc. have been recognized as determinants (Weerasinghe & Fernando 2018). Based on the empirical evidence following hypothesis has been formed for texting.

Ha1: Academic materials and conduct have an impact on the Student satisfaction

Ha2: Administrative facilities have an impact on the student satisfaction

Ha3: Academic facilities have an impact on the student satisfaction

Ha4: Infrastructure has an impact on the student satisfaction

Ha5: Support services have an impact on the student satisfaction

METHODOLOGY 

The research philosophy has been recognised as theguideline for the researcher to behave ethically and it is known as a collectionof beliefs and assumptions about the development of knowledge (Saunders et al.,2012). The ontological and epistemological assumptions about knowledgewould entail cognitive extimations of the beliefs the one’s perspectiveabout the real world. Further based on the research philosophical foundationSaunders et al. (2012) have recognised major philosophies as, positivism, criticalrealism, interpretivism, postmodernism and pragmatism. With the technicalconsideration categorically the positivist research philosophy has been utilised with the survey strategy empoweredby the quantitative mechanism. Further, as the research focuses on the useand testing of hypotheses as per the merit of the research and the evidence ofthe previous studies (Vidalakis et al.,2013; Weerasinghe, Salinda & Fernando, 2018), it isto use deductive reasoning exploring the existing body of knowledge and thetheoretical contributions. With extensive attention to 15 differentstate-own training service providers, consisting of 27,550 student populationssample has been selected about the convenience sampling strategy 379respondents were selected as per the krejcie & Morgan Table (1970). Withgreater theoretical baning pre-tested questionnaire has been developed and usedfor the purpose of recognising the substantial recognition and validation ofthe findings. Data analysis was conducted with reference to the extendedapplication of the regression analysis as it is suggested by the merits of theresearch.  Further, it is toassume that there is no relation between the demographic variables with studentsatisfaction.

Data Analysis 

The demographic data has been given the attention to recognize the basic composition of the sample and it has given a basic foundation for the analysis and interpretation.  Further figure 04 indicates that there is a 68% female domination in the sample as well as in the state-own IT training service-providing organization.

Figure 4: Demographics of survey 2024

In relation to social science research Cronbach’s alpha recognizes the appropriate reliability and Sekaran and Bougie (2016) indicated that Cronbach’s alpha value is required to be greater than 0.7 and figure 05 given below indicates the same.

Figure 4: Realiability

As to the generic measures, the Kiser -Mayer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMOMeasure) and cumulative value should be greater than 0.5 and the acceptable significant value expected to be less than 0.05 which is in line and the sample indicating the acceptable validity.

Figure 6: validity

Statistical Analysis

Figure 7: Correlation Analyis

The regression analysis indicated that the significance of each variable except for academic facilities and significant relationship indicated in line with the p-value for the Academic material, Academic facilities, Administrative facilities, Infrastructure and Support service along with indices which are below the 0.05 value (Figure 08).

Figure 08: Model Summary

Regression Equation

Y index = -0.204 + 0.420 Academic materials Index + 0.306 Administrative facilities Index – 0.107 Infrastructure   Index + 0.372 Support Service Index

(Since Academic facilities index is not show a significance it is excluded in the regression equation)

Along with the regression analysis, it indicates that there is no effect from significant factors on student satisfaction which is -0.204 which leads to believe that student satisfaction does not exist in the absence of the effective factors. Further Academic Materials Index improved by a unit, Student Satisfaction would uplift by 0.420 units while if the Administrative Facilities Index is increased by a unit, Student satisfaction would increase by 0.306 units. Additionally, with an increase of the infrastructure index by one unit, Student satisfaction would reduce by 0.107 units and finally if the Support service index is increased by a unit, Student satisfaction could increase by 0.372units. The R-square is 0.800 which indicates that 89.6% of Student satisfaction which has been indicated in the model and the coefficient of determinant which this model recognized as 0.796 further it drives an approximately 80%variation of the total variation of Student satisfaction described by the considered factors of the model in other words it means that 80% of the dependent variable has been explained by the model and it is considered to befit. Mostly similar studies have been in ignorance with the HieEduQual model with 37 scaled items and researchers have given substantial attention to the SERVQUAL model. Further   Latif et. al(2017) attempted to recognize the impact of service quality in higher educational institutions using six determinants of service quality in Higher Education such as quality of the teacher, administrative services, knowledge services, events and activities, incessant improvement and quality of leadership.

Figure 09: Normality Test

Prospects of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and the Shapiro-Wilk test amounted to 0.077 and 0.096 and the p values were recognized as insignificant, which designates that the residuals are normally distributed with zero mean and confirm the validity of the regression model.

Finally, it is to confirm that the service quality (Academic material, Academic facilities, Administrative facilities, academic facilities, Infrastructure, and Support service) has a significant relationship with student satisfaction in the selected state-owned IT training providers.  In the individual analysis, it is found that Academic facilities have no relationship with the same of the student satisfaction (.547). Further, it is confirmed by the regression analysis that the 80% variability with Adj R2 = .795.  In addition to that the Kejenthran and Karunanithy (2015) indicate that the general perspective of the service quality has a positive correlation with student satisfaction. Further confirmation of the finding has been evident with Abdullah & Warokka (2011) which focuses on the five dimensions of service quality namely tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy which is introduced by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, et. al., (1985) conducted on the student satisfaction. However, it is to recognize that there are various other factors to consider in determining student satisfaction and possible moderators such as field of study, age and the education level of the student could be considered for the future studies.

REFERENCES 

1. Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S., (2012). Development of HiEdQUAL for Measuring Service Quality in Indian Higher Education Sector. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 412-416.
2. Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S., (2016). The effects of service quality on student loyalty:    the mediating role of student satisfaction. Journal of Modeling in Management.
3. Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus  SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning.
4. Alves, H., &Raposo, M. (2009). The measurement of the construct satisfaction in higher           education. The service industries journal, 29(2), 203-218.
5. Arambewela, R., & Hall, J. (2006). A comparative analysis of international education satisfaction   using SERVQUAL. Journal of Services Research, 6(Special), 141-163.
6. Calvo-Porral, C., Lévy-Mangin, J. P., & Novo-Corti, I. (2013). Perceived quality in higher education: an empirical study. Marketing Intelligence & Planning
7. Chandra, T., Ng, M., & Chandra, S. (2018). The Effect of Service Quality on Student Satisfaction and Student Loyalty:. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 109-131.
8. Duarte, P. O., Raposo, M. B., & Alves, H. B. (2012). Using a satisfaction index to compare students’ satisfaction during and after higher education service consumption. Tertiary Education and Management, 18(1), 17-40.
9. Exporters | Export Development Board Sri Lanka | Sri Lankan Export Industry. (n.d.). www.srilankabusiness.com.https://www.srilankabusiness.com/exporters/overview.html
10. ‌Financial Stability Review 2023 Central Bank of Sri Lanka. (n.d.). https://www.cbsl.gov.lk/sites/default/files/cbslweb_documents/publications/fssr/fssr_2023e.pdf
11. ‌Firdaus Abdullah, (2006),”Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF”, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 Iss: 1 pp. 31 – 47
12. Gblonyah,, R. K., Ofosu, G. L., Boateng, E., Dzakpasu, S. T., Quaicoe, V., & Dzakpasu, I. (2018). Educational Services Quality, Student’s Satisfaction and Royalty.A Tale of Business Education Students. University Of Cape Coast.
13. Georgiadou, I., Vlachou, A., & Stavroussi, P. (2020). Development of the “special-vocational-education service-quality scale”. Quality Assurance in Education, 89-103.
14. Hassan, S., Shamsudin, M. F., Hasim, M. A., Mustapha, I., Jaafar, J., Adruthdin, K. F., & Ahmad, R,. (2019). Mediating effect of corporate image and students’ satisfaction on the relationship between service quality and students’ loyalty in TVET HLIs. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 24, 93-105.
15. James E. W., (2017). Meet Generation Z. Baker Books.
16. ‌Kajenthiran, M K., & Karunanithy, M. (2015). Service quality and student satisfaction: A case study of private external higher education institutions in Jaffna, Sri Lanka. Journal of Business, 1(2).
17. ansori, S., Vaz, A. F., & Ismail, Z. (2014). Service quality, satisfaction and student loyalty in Malaysian private education. Asian Social Science, 10(7).
18. Kanakana, M. G. (2014). Assessing service quality in higher education using the SERVQUAL tool. In International Conference on Industrial Engineering and operations Management (Vol. 1, pp. 68-74).
19. Khattab, F. (2018). Developing a Service Quality Model for Private Higher Education. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 24 – 33.
20. Knight, P.T. (2002) Being a teacher in higher education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.
21. Magdy A. Khalaf Nevien Khourshed, (2017),” Performance-based service quality model in postgraduate education “, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 34 Iss 5 pp.
22. Ng, M. N. M. (2018). The effect of service quality on student satisfaction and student loyalty: an empirical study. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(3), 109-131.
23. Onditi, E. O., & Wechuli, T. W. (2017). Service Quality and Student Satisfaction in Higher Education Institutions: A Review of Literature. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 328-335.
24. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1985). Measuring festival quality and its implication for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-40.
25. Proceedings of 2022 IEEE International Conference on Integrated Circuits, Technologies and Applications (ICTA). (2022). 2022 IEEE International Conference on Integrated Circuits, Technologies and Applications (ICTA). https://doi.org/10.1109/icta56932.2022.9963058
26. ‌Rowley, Jennifer. (2003). Retention: Rhetoric or realistic agendas for the future of higher education. International Journal of Educational Management. 17. 10.1108/09513540310487578.
27. Silva, D. S., Moraes, G. H. S. M. d, Makiya, I. K., & Cesar, F. I. G. (2017). Measurement of perceived service quality in higher education institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(4), 415–439. https://doi.org/10.1108/qae-10-2016-0058
28. Suarman, S. (2015). Teaching Quality and Students Satisfaction: The Intermediatory Role of Relationship between Lecturers and Students of the Higher Learning Institutes. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. 6. 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2p626.
29. Subrahmanyam A., Bellamkonda A, (2016),”Effect of student perceived service quality on student satisfaction, loyalty and motivation in Indian universities: development of HiEduQual”, Journal of Modelling in Management, Vol. 11 Iss 2 pp.
30. Sultan, P., & Wong, H. Y. (2010). Service quality in higher education–a review and research agenda. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences.
31. Suyanto, M. A., Usu, I., & Moodoeto, M. J. (2019). The Role of Service Quality on Building Student. American Journal of Economics, 17-20.
32. Tahir, I. M., Bakar, N. M. A., & Ismail, W. Z. W. (2010). Importance-performance analysis of service quality among business students: An exploratory study. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contempory Research of Business, 2(1), 330-341.
33. Uddin , M., Ali, K., & Khan, A. M. (2018:). Impact of Service Quality (Sq) on Student Satisfaction: Empirical Evidence in The Higher Education Context of Emerging Economy.Journal 0f Islamic Social Sciences and Humanities, 31-68.
34. Unleash Excellence In the New Normal”: SLASSCOM to hold 6th Successive Quality Summit. (2023). SLASSCOM. https://slasscom.lk/publications/unleash-excellence-in-the-new-normal-slasscom-to-hold-6th-successive-quality-summit/
35. ‌Usman, A. (2013). ‘The Impact of Service Quality on Students. Satisfaction in Higher Education Institutes of Punjab, ’’Journal of Management Research, 2(2).
36. Weerasinghe I. M. S. & Fernando, R. L. S,  (2018) “Critical factors affecting students’ satisfaction with higher education in Sri Lanka”, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 26 Issue: 1, pp.115-130, https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2017-0014
37. Yeo, R. K. (2008). Servicing service quality in higher education: quest for excellence. On the Horizon.