Advertisement

Measuring the Impact of University Service Quality on Academic Motivation and University Engagement of Students

  • Fatma Kutlu GündoğduEmail author
  • Umut Asan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the impact of university service quality on academic motivation and school engagement as well as the impact of school engagement on academic motivation. In order to analyze the structural model, not only hypotheses about the causal relationships but also indicators operationalizing the concepts have been proposed. Data was collected by means of an online questionnaire, applied to students in private and state universities, and analyzed using structural equation modelling based on partial least squares. According to the findings, academic aspects and physical characteristics among the service quality dimensions are the most important ones explaining the variation in school engagement perception. The results also show that school engagement has a strong significant impact on academic motivation.

Keywords

SmartPLS Structural equational modelling Service quality School engagement Academic motivation 

References

  1. Alderman, M. K. (2004). Motivation for achievement: Possibilities for teaching and learning. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  2. Arastaman, G. (2006). High school students regarding the status of firstclass affiliations school students, teachers and administrators opinions.Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, P. R., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 74–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bagozzi, R. P., & Philips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories. A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(3), 459–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barclay, D., Higgins, C., & Thompson, R. (1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to causal modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration. Technology Studies, 2(2), 285.Google Scholar
  6. Cronin, J. J., Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. The Journal of Marketing, 55–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eyüp, Y., & Bozer, E. N. (2015). The adaptation of the academic motivation scale for Turkish context. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 14, 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Finn, J. D. (1993). Student engagement and student at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  11. Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Finn, J. D., & Rock, Donald A. (1997). Academic success among students at risk for school failure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 221–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Firdaus, A. (2004). Managing service quality in higher education sector: A new perspective through development of a comprehensive measuring scale. In Proceedings of the Global Conference on Excellence in Education and Training: Educational Excellence through Creativity. Singapore: Innovation & Enterprise.Google Scholar
  14. Firdaus, A. (2006a). Measuring service quality in higher education: Three instruments compared. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29, 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Firdaus, A. (2006b). The development of HEdPERF: A new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30, 569–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, Phyllis C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman, D. L., Anthony, A., & Cancelli Roland, K. (1988). Academic engagement of elementary school children with learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 327–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Guolla, M. (2015). Assessing the teaching quality to student satisfaction relationship: Applied customer satisfaction research in the classroom. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hair, J. F., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC: SAGE.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modelling in marketing research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 414–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hwang, H., Malhotra, N., Kim, Y., Tomiuk, M. A., & Hong, S. (2010). A comparative study on parameter recovery of three approaches structural equation modelling. Journal of Marketing Research, 699–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. İlgan, A., Oğuz, E., & Yapar, B. (2013). Okul yaşam Kalitesine İlişkin Algı ile Akademik Motivasyon Düzeyi Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi.Google Scholar
  23. Kerlinger, F. N. (1978). Foundations of behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hil.Google Scholar
  24. Marimuthu, M., & Ishak, I. (2009). Students’ perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management, 20, 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nadiri, H., Kandampully, J., & Hussain, K. (2009). Students’ perceptions of service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management, 20(5), 523–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn, S. D. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American schools. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rashid, T., & Raj, R. (2006). Customer satisfaction: Relationship marketing in higher education E-learning. Innovative Marketing, 24–34.Google Scholar
  28. Ryan, Richard M., & Deci, Edward L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Pshycology, 25, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sakarya, M. C. (2006). Yükseköğretimde Öğrenciye Yönelik Hizmet Kalitesinin Ölçülmesi: Akdeniz Üniversitesi İ.İ.B.F. Öğrencileri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma Antalya: Akdeniz Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.Google Scholar
  30. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. A series of books in psychology. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  31. Tayyar, N., & Dilşeker, F. (2012). Devlet ve Vakıf Üniversitelerinde Hizmet Kalitesi ve İmajın ÖğrencivMemnuniyetine Etkisi. Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 184–203.Google Scholar
  32. Thomson, S. (2005). Engaging students with school life. Youth Studies Australia.Google Scholar
  33. Vallerand, R. J., & Blssonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Weinstein, C., & Mayer, R. (1986). Handbook of Research on Teaching and Learning: The teaching of learning strategies. New York: Mc Millian.Google Scholar
  35. Wong, K. K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32.Google Scholar
  36. Yükseköğretim Kurulu. (2018, January 9). Retrieved from http://www.yok.gov.tr/.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Industrial Engineering Department, Engineering FacultyIstanbul Kültür UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Industrial Engineering Department, Management FacultyIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations