The Effectiveness of Program Delivery and Academic Support to the

Performance and Reputation of Liceo de Cagayan University

Mr. Azel M. Valle – MAEd-EdAd

Email add: jeazarvalle@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
This study sought to determine the image and reputation of Liceo de Cagayan University
as an educational institution through service quality and the satisfaction of the students, parents,
and alumni. In this study, a total of 231 respondents were included broken down as follows: 140
students, 46 parents, and 45 alumni selected through convenience sampling. The study disclosed
that, among the three stakeholders the alumni have the highest level of assessment along the four
dimensions of service quality followed by the parents and the students respectively. As to the level
of satisfaction, the alumni have the highest level of satisfaction followed by the parents and then
the students. Finally, the indicators of service quality such as: tangibility, assurance, reliability,
and assurance have a moderate relationship with the stakeholders’ satisfaction. In like manner, the
parents, alumni, and students’ level of satisfaction on the quality of service of the university can
be credited most from tangibility and reliability dimensions. .

Keywords: program, delivery, academic support, and reputation

INTRODUCTION
Liceo de Cagayan University as a private educational institution has to depend on the
interaction and mechanism of the market. As a result, competition to attract as many students as
possible or so-called potential customer may become more and more intense. To make the matter
harder, as a private institution, it does not have the privilege to receive any subsidy or financial
assistance from the government. Thus, the university has to ensure stakeholders’ satisfaction by
providing quality services beyond their expectations for them to become loyal to the institution.
According to Alridge and Rowley (1999) as cited in the work of Ramaiyah, Zain, & Ahmad (n.d.)
an expectation that cannot be fulfilled on the institutions is the key factors for students’ withdrawal.

In like manner Kanji, Abdul Malek and Wallace (1999) as cited by Hasan (2008) most
institutions in Malaysia do give a great deal of importance to meeting customers' expectations
which is similar to business organization, but they still lack customer awareness among the staff,
and it has become a common drawback for many institutions. This bring to an understanding that
students will have more opportunity to support their continued enrolment into higher educational
institutions and on how well the educational programs and services met students' expectations for
services.

Education is such a prestigious and fruitful investment that it always rewards in multiple
ways. The strong and effective educational system results in the greater performance of the
students. The educational institutions where the system is affective and administration is willing
to provide the quality services always enjoy more incoming of brilliant and talented students. In
order to make the institution progressive and effective the knowledge of students’ expectations,
academic preferences and quality perception about the educational environment should be kept
by the higher authorities of the institute (Palacio, Meneses and Perez 2002). Particularly the
students who are at a higher academic level studying in a higher educational institution seek more
quality education and perfection of the system at study place because it satisfies their esteem and
develops them with all the essentials and capabilities to be an effective educational personality.
It is on this context that the researchers are motivated to conduct this study in order to find
out the reputation of the university in terms of the quality of services rendered to her stakeholders
and how they are satisfied with such services. The results may serve as a base line data for the
institution to further improve her services that would redound to the satisfaction and loyalty of her
stakeholders. Thus this study is conceived.

FRAMEWORK

This study was anchored on the model developed by (Parasuraman et. al, 1985) as cited in
the work of Badri, et. al (2005) stating that based on successful experiences a customer forms an
opinion about the service quality by using same criteria to assess quality regardless of the type of
service. The model comprises four service quality dimensions namely: tangibility; reliability;
responsiveness; and assurance.

Tangibility dimension refers to the appearance of physical facilities, equipment, personnel

and communication materials. Reliability as a service dimensions includes the ability to perform
the promised service dependably and accurately. Responsiveness is the willingness to help
customers and to provide prompt service to the stakeholders on the other hand, assurance as a
service dimension refers to the knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to convey
trust and confidence.

Service quality is commonly noted as a critical prerequisite for establishing and sustaining
satisfying relationship with valued customers. In this way, the association between service quality
and customer satisfaction has emerged as a topic of significant and strategic concern (Hasan,
2008). Bigne, Moliner and Sanchez (2003) found out that the overall service quality have a
significant relationship with satisfaction. Ham and Hayduk (2003) had confirmed that in higher
educational settings, there is a positive correlation between perception of service quality and
student satisfaction.

In this study the variables are categorized into independent and dependent variables. The
independent variables include the service quality dimensions in terms of: reliability, tangibility,
responsiveness, and assurance. On the other hand, the dependent variable is the level of satisfaction
of the stakeholders. The researchers hypothesized that service quality dimensions of tangibility,
assurance, reliability and responsiveness predict the satisfaction of the students, parents, and
alumni.

SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION
 Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Stakeholders’
Assessment of Service
Quality in terms of the
following Dimensions:

• Tangibility

• Assurance Stakeholders’ Satisfaction

• Responsiveness

• Reliability

OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to ascertain the reputation of the university through the quality of
services rendered to her stakeholders. Specifically, it aimed to attain the following objectives:

1. to determine the stakeholders’ assessment on the service quality of the university along
the following dimensions: tangibility, assurance, reliability, and responsiveness;

2. to find out the level of satisfaction among the stakeholders;

3. to correlate between the assessment of service quality dimensions and stakeholders’

satisfaction;

4. to identify service quality dimension that best predicts satisfaction,

5. to describe the stakeholders’ comments and suggestions to further improve the service
quality of the university.

METHODOLOGY

This study made use of the descriptive-correlational design. The respondents of the study
were the university stakeholders namely: students, parents and alumni. The main tool in gathering
the necessary data was a modified questionnaire using a four (4) point scale. Items were taken
from the work of Badri, et. al (2005). Since the instrument was modified it was tried out to 20
individuals who were not included as respondents in the study, Cronbach’s alpha was then
computed and it was valid and reliable hence; the computed value is 0.979. After the test of validity
and reliability of the instrument the researchers wrote a letter address to the deans of the different
departments in the university asking permission to administer the questionnaires to the target
respondents using the convenience sampling technique. To encourage the respondents to provide
an honest response, they were assured that the information given will be kept in strictest
confidence. Weighted mean was used to determine the service quality and satisfaction of the
stakeholders. Chi-square was employed to determine the significant relationship between the
service quality dimensions and satisfaction. Linear Regression was used to find out which of the
service quality dimension predicts most to satisfaction.

Scoring Procedure

Range Score Service Quality Stakeholders’ Satisfaction

3.26- 4.00 Very Efficient Very Satisfied
2.51-3.25 Moderately Efficient Moderately Satisfied
1.76-2.50 Efficient Satisfied
1.0-1.75 Less Efficient Not Satisfied

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The findings of the study are presented based on the objectives of the study.

Objective 1. To determine the stakeholders’ assessment on the service quality of the

university along the following dimensions: tangibility, assurance, reliability, and
responsiveness.
Table 1
Stakeholders Assessment on the Quality of Services in Terms of Tangibility Dimension

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive Rating

Deviation
1. appearance of building and grounds 2.86 0.72 Moderately Efficient
2. overall cleanliness 2.79 0.72 Moderately Efficient
3. appearance of personnel 3.05 0.66 Moderately Efficient
4. access to the school automate 3.01 0.78 Moderately Efficient
5. the organizational culture, belief and 3.09 0.73 Moderately Efficient
value in the university
Overall Mean 2.96 0.53 Moderately Efficient

Table presents the stakeholders’ assessment on the service quality of the school in terms of
tangibility dimension. The data reveals that the highest mean rating (3.09) verbally described as
efficient is obtained by indicator “the organizational culture, belief and value in this university.”
This is closely followed by indicator “appearance of personnel” with a mean rating of (3.05)
verbally described as moderately efficient. On the other hand, the lowest mean rating (2.79)
verbally described as moderately efficient is obtained by indicator “overall cleanliness.” This is
followed by indicator “appearance of building and grounds” with a mean rating of (2.86) verbally
described as efficient.
The data suggest that the organizational culture, beliefs and values of the university are
properly disseminated to the students, parents, and alumni hence; they rated it efficient. Moreover,
during the university’s general orientation as well as of the department the university mission,
vision, and core values are presented and explain to them. In addition, in the Social Orientation 1
classes the VMGO of the university are discussed thoroughly for the students to internalize.
 On the other hand, the stakeholders’ assessment of the overall cleanliness of the school is
somewhat low among the five indicators of tangibility dimension. This implies that the school
must do something to enhance the cleanliness of the school’s environment hence; this can be
directly observed by the stakeholders. A good school ambiance is one of the factors that could
attract and satisfy the clients.This is supported by the study conducted by Hadikoemoro (2002) as
cited in the work of Ramaiyah, Zain, and Ahmad (n.d.) where they identified tangible: appearance
of the university based on complete and modern equipments, physical facilities and neat employees
factors that can attract and satisfy the stakeholders.

Table 2
Stakeholders Assessment on the Quality of Services in Terms of Assurance Dimension

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive Rating

Deviation
1. friendly and courteous university staffs 2.93 0.82 Moderately Efficient
2. friendly and courteous faculty 3.21 0.75 Moderately Efficient
3. university staff’s knowledge on rules and 3.03 0.71 Moderately Efficient
procedures
4. the degree to which the university 2.98 0.75 Moderately Efficient
involve with the community
5. security measures in the university 2.96 0.77 Moderately Efficient
Overall Mean 3.02 0.61 Moderately Efficient

Table 2 shows the stakeholders’ assessment on the service quality of the university in terms
of assurance dimension. The overall mean rating of (3.02) indicates that the stakeholders find the
service quality of the university along this dimension is moderately efficient. The highest mean
rating (3.21) is obtained by indicator “friendly and courteous faculty” verbally described as
moderately efficient. This is followed by indicator “university staffs’ knowledge on rules and
procedures” with a mean rating of (3.03) verbally described as moderately efficient. On the other
hand, rated lowest among the five indicators are the “friendly and courteous university staff” and
“security measures in the university” with mean ratings of (2.93) and (2.96) respectively verbally
described as moderately efficient.

The data imply that the university’s teaching force exhibits good rapport with the
stakeholders for this reason the respondents rated it high among the five indicators. Mehdipour
and Zerehkafi (2013) research findings collaborate with the outcome of this study disclosing that
when there is a provision of good rapport between faculty and students, availability of faculty
when needed, and warm staff students are satisfied with the University services. In contrast there
is a need for the university to enhance the interpersonal relationship of the staff in dealing with the
clients and the security of the entire university for them to be more satisfied with the service quality
of the institution. According to Sudha ((2013) if quality system in place, the internal process would
be systematic making every department complementing each other’s service domain and helping
in developing customer satisfaction leading to high morale and motivation.
 Table 3

Stakeholders Assessment on the Quality of Services in Terms of Reliability Dimension

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive Rating

Deviation
1. transaction is timely and error free 2.55 0.83 Moderately Efficient
2. the university keeps its records 2.87 0.82 Moderately Efficient
accurately
3. staffs have sincere interest in solving 2.70 0.85 Moderately Efficient
stakeholder’s concerns and problems
4. the university provides its services at a 2.62 0.84 Moderately Efficient
time it promises to do so
5. staffs’ capability to render services 2.78 0.79 Moderately Efficient
Overall Mean 2.71 0.70 Moderately Efficient

Table 3 displays the stakeholders’ assessment on the quality of services in terms of

reliability dimension. It can be noted from the table that the overall mean of the five indicator on
reliability dimension is (2.71) verbally described as moderately efficient. The highest mean rating
(2.87) verbally described as efficient is acquired by indicator “the university keeps its record
accurately. This followed by indicator “staff’s capability to render services” with a mean rating of
(2.78) verbally described as moderately efficient. In contrast, the lowest mean rating (2.55)
verbally illustrated as moderately efficient is obtained by indicator “transaction is timely and error
free”, closely followed by indicator “the university provides its services at a time it promises to do
so” with a mean rating of (2.62) still described as moderately efficient.

The data entail that the university has the capability of keeping students’ records in utmost
confidentiality hence; the stakeholders rated this high among the five indicators. On the other hand,
there is a need for the university to provide prompt and accurate transaction to the clients to
increase their satisfaction. Kumar and Yang (2014) emphasized that satisfaction of the services
rendered by an institution is a major driver for student loyalty; thus the students would be able to
finish their degree in the school where they enrolled. Furthermore, Shah (2013) pointed out that
customer service and quality are driving forces in the business community thus; any educational
institution should also do the same in order to compete with other schools in attracting students.

Table 4

Stakeholders Assessment on the Quality of Services in Terms of Responsiveness Dimension

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive Rating

Deviation
1. availability of personnel to assist you 2.78 0.78 Moderately Efficient
2. capacity of the staff to solve problems 2.79 0.75 Moderately Efficient
when they arise
3.channels for expressing complaints are 2.69 0.83 Moderately Efficient
readily available
 4. queries are dealt with efficiently and 2.76 0.79 Moderately Efficient
promptly
5. the university is fair and unbiased in their 2.71 0.88 Moderately Efficient
treatment of every client
Overall Mean 2.74 0.69 Moderately Efficient

Table 4 reveals the stakeholders’ assessment on the quality of services in terms of

responsiveness dimension. It can be gleaned from the table that the stakeholders rated this
dimension as efficient as evident on the overall mean of (2.74). The highest mean rating (2.79)
verbally described as moderately efficient is obtained by indicator “capacity of the staff to solve
problems when they arise” this is closely followed by indicator “availability of personnel to assist
you” with a mean rating of (2.78) verbally described as moderately efficient. In contrast, the lowest
mean rating (2.69) verbally described as efficient is attained by indicator “channels for expressing
complaints are readily available” this is followed by indicator “the university is fair and unbiased
in their treatment of every client” with a mean rating of (2.71) still verbally described as
moderately efficient.

The findings indicate that the university give assurance to the clients that whenever they
transact business in any of the offices in the university somebody is willing to help and provide
and outright service to them in so doing they feel satisfaction on how their concerns and issues are
acted upon. Moreover, the study of Sudha (2013) stressed that with globalization, the educational
environment will be seized by increased competition. He further stressed that in order to survive
in such situation, the educational institutions need to worry about the quality of services they
extend to their clients.

On the other hand, the university should think of some measures in addressing concerns
and issues of the stakeholders hence; among the five indicators this is rated lowest by them. In the
study conducted by Shah (2013) it was disclosed that responsiveness had a significant relations
with customer satisfaction. Thus, an increase in the responsiveness of services increase customer
satisfaction.

Table 5

Comparison of Stakeholders’ Assessment on the Quality of Services

Service Quality Students Parents Alumni

Dimensions (140) (46) (45)
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Tangibility 2.82 0.47 3.08 0.58 3.26 0.54
Assurance 2.88 0.56 3.09 0.68 3.35 0.54
Reliability 2.50 0.65 3.01 0.70 3.03 0.62
Responsiveness 2.52 0.63 3.01 0.70 3.14 0.60
Overall Mean 2.68 0.58 3.05 0.67 3.19 0.57
 Table 5 reveals the comparison of the overall assessment of the stakeholders on the four
dimensions of service quality of the university. It can be noted in the table that the highest mean
rating (3.19) is obtained by the alumni this is followed by the parents with a mean rating of (3.05).
On the other hand, the students’ assessment on the service quality of the university has the lowest
mean (2.68).

The highest assessment rating given by the alumni along the four dimensions of service
quality could have been due to the fact that they were able to finish their degree program in the
university and most likely felt satisfied during their stay in the school. The data further suggest
that the sense of loyalty among the alumni is strong and the university can tap them in boasting
the image and reputation of the university. According to Shaildlin (2017) alumni form the largest
group of stakeholders in the school and they form the only permanent community at an institution.
Further he said that, alumni are both insiders and outsiders as insiders they have a personal interest
in the university’s success. And as outsiders to the daily life of the institution, they bring external
perspective of semi-detached observers. Considered together, these points will form the foundation
for engaging alumni to enhance the image and reputation of the institution.

On the other hand, the parents and students had lower assessment on the four dimensions
of service quality of the university compared with the alumni. This could have been due to the fact
that students have day to day transactions and interaction with faculty, staff, and personnel in the
university, and most likely they have some unpleasant experiences in the institution. Hence, this
is a wakeup call to the university to further enhance the services extended to her clients for them
to feel satisfied with the services offered by the institution. It is only for this reason that the
university can compete with other universities in the region in enticing the stakeholders to enrol in
the school. Ming (2010) emphasized that competitive pressure has forced higher educational
institutions to look for more competitive marketing strategies in order to compete for students in
their respective markets.

Objective 2. To find out the level of satisfaction among the stakeholders.

Table 6
Level of Satisfaction among the Stakeholders

Indicators Mean Standard Descriptive Rating

Deviation
1. I am satisfied with my decision to choose 2.98 0.82 Moderately Satisfied
this University.
2. If I have a choice to do it all over again, 2.74 0.94 Moderately Satisfied
I still choose this University.
3. My decision to choose this University is 2.88 0.86 Moderately Satisfied
a wise decision.
4. I am happy on my decision to choose this 2.90 0.88 Moderately Satisfied
University.
5. I did the right decision when I decided to 2.86 0.89 Moderately Satisfied
choose this University
 6. I am happy to choose this University. 2.90 0.90 Moderately Satisfied
Overall Mean 2.87 0.82 Moderately Satisfied

Table 6 exhibits the level of satisfaction among the stakeholders. It can be observed in the
table that the overall mean of the five indicators of satisfaction is (2.87) verbally described as
moderately satisfied. The highest mean rating among the six indicators of satisfaction is “I am
satisfied with my decision to choose this university” with a mean rating of (2.98) verbally
described as moderately satisfied. This if followed by indicators “I am happy on my decision to
choose this university” and “I am happy to choose this university” with a mean rating of (2.90)
verbally described as moderately satisfied. On the other hand, the lowest mean rating (2.74)
described as satisfied is on indicator “If I have a choice to do it all over again, I still choose this
university”.
The data suggest that in general the stakeholders are satisfied with the service quality of
the university, however; much more has to be done on the part of the institution to improve the
reputation and image of the school. Liceo de Cagayan University as an education hub in the Region
there is a need for the school administrators to develop management strategies that will lead the
institution to succeed in this very competitive environment. To maintain a competitive edge, higher
education institutions must handle reputation seriously in order to gain support from the
stakeholders (Woo, et al., 2016).

Table 7

Comparison of Stakeholders’ Level of Satisfaction

Stakeholders Number Mean Descriptive Rating Standard
Deviation
Student 140 2.62 Moderately Satisfied 0.76
Parent 46 3.14 Moderately Satisfied 0.78
Alumni 45 3.38 Very Satisfied 0.74
Total 231 2.87 Moderately Satisfied 0.82

The data in table 7 reflects the comparison of students, parents, and alumni level of
satisfaction. The data reveal that among the three stakeholders the alumni has the highest level of
satisfaction with a mean rating of (3.38) verbally described as very satisfied. This is followed by
the parents with a mean rating of (3.14) verbally described as moderately satisfied. On the contrary,
the students has the lowest level of satisfaction with a mean rating of (2.62) still verbally described
as moderately satisfied.
The high level of satisfaction among the alumni find support to the previous finding of this
study where their assessment on the service quality of the university is higher compared to the
parents and students. This can be attributed to the fact the alumni obtained their diploma from the
institution, for this reason their loyalty is already with the university. On the other hand the
university should take some measures to enhance the service quality extended to the students since
their satisfaction level is lower than compared to the other stakeholders. Ming (2010) stated that
educational facilities such as classroom, laboratories and libraries are important in a student’s
selection of a college or university. Hence, the university should ensure that the expectations of
the students in choosing the university will be met otherwise this will lead to students’ withdrawal
from the school.
Objective 3. To correlate between the assessment of service quality dimensions and stakeholders’
satisfaction.

Table 8
Correlation Analysis between Service Quality Assessment and Satisfaction
Independent Variables Correlation Probability Descriptive
Coefficient (r) Rating
Tangibility 0.652 .000** High
Relationship
Assurance 0.618 .000** High
Relationship
Reliability 0.659 .000** High
Relationship
Responsiveness 0.622 .000** High
Relationship
** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 8 displays the test of relationship between the service quality assessment and level
of satisfaction among the stakeholders. The data in the table reveals that the four dimensions of
service quality namely: tangibility, assurance, reliability, and responsiveness had a significant
relationship on the level of satisfaction among the students, parents and alumni. The table further
shows that among the four dimensions of service quality, reliability has the highest positive
relationship on the stakeholders’ satisfaction as evident on the r-value of (0.659) described as
having a high relationship this is closely followed by tangibility with an r-value of (0.652) depicted
as high relationship. Responsiveness as service quality dimension has still a high positive
relationship with satisfaction as indicated in the r-value of (0.622).On the other hand, assurance
dimension has the lowest positive relationship among the five dimensions of service quality
denoted by its r-value of (0.618). Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, tangibility,
assurance, reliability, and responsiveness have significant relationship on the stakeholders’
satisfaction.
The data imply that the ability to perform the promised service dependably and accurately
to clients is a powerful element to clients’ satisfaction. In like manner, factors that are readily
noticeable by the stakeholders have a strong bearing on their level of satisfaction compared to
service quality dimensions which are intangible or cannot be perceived immediately by the senses.
Research findings of Arambewela and Hall (2006), Keok and Thong (2007), and Khan, et. al.
(2011) stressed that responsiveness and tangibility have a significant positive relation with
satisfaction. In contrast, the finding of Dimas, et al. (2011) found out that tangibles had low
relationship on satisfaction. This could have been due to the fact that their study included other
dimensions such as study program, academic staff, and administrative services which are more
vital to an educational institution compared to tangibility. More so, the respondents of the study
were only students compared to the present investigation where parents and alumni were included
as respondents.

Problem 4. To identify service quality dimension that best predicts satisfaction.

Table 9
Multiple Regression Analysis between Independent Variables and Stakeholders’ Satisfaction
 Variables Unstandardized Standard T Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
Beta
B Std. Error
(Constant) -342 .221 -1.546 .124
Tangibility .479 .101 .312 4.758 .000

Assurance .181 .100 .134 1.814 .071

Reliability .257 .103 .218 2.508 .013

Responsiveness .202 .090 .169 2.246 .026

R = .732 R2 = .535 F = 65.370 Sig. = .000

Multiple regression generally allows this study to model, explain, and examine the
relationship between multiple independent or multiple predictor variables and a dependent or
criterion variable. As such, predictor variables included in the study were the following: a)
tangibility; b) assurance; c) reliability; and d) responsiveness. Multiple regression analysis
examines the extent of influence of the predictor variables on the criterion variable of stakeholders’
level of satisfaction.
Table 9 presents the influence of the independent variables to the dependent variables.
Obviously, the stakeholders’ satisfaction was affected by the four dimensions of service quality
namely: tangibility, ß = .312, t = 4.758, (p<.01), assurance, ß = .134, t = 1.814, (p<.01), reliability,
ß = .218, t = 2.508, (p<.01), responsiveness, ß = .169, t = 2.246, (p<.01). The findings imply that
tangibility, assurance, reliability, and responsiveness significantly influence the stakeholders’ level
of satisfaction.
More precisely, the predicted scores for values of the independent variables are indicated
by the beta weights (β) which means that each additional score/unit accounted by these four
measure variables would imply an increase of stakeholders’ level of satisfaction. This entails that
the higher is the assessment on these dimensions of service quality the higher is the stakeholders’
level of satisfaction.
In addition, the figures in the table disclose that for every unit change in the tangibility
dimension of service quality, there is a corresponding increase of 0.312 in the stakeholders’
satisfaction. This further means that the higher is the service quality, the higher is the satisfaction.
As to reliability dimension, there is a corresponding increase of 0.134 in the stakeholders’ level of
satisfaction. This holds true with the service quality dimensions of responsiveness and assurance
with beta weights (β) of 0.218 and 0.169 respectively. This would mean that the higher is the
assessment on these dimensions the higher is the stakeholders’ satisfaction.
Furthermore, R2 value explains the amount of influence of the whole set of independent
variables taken as one on the stakeholders’ level of satisfaction. The measure of the total variation
of the dependent variable consisted of 53.5% which reflects the amount of variance explained by
the four dimensions of service quality namely: tangibility, assurance, reliability, and
responsiveness while 46.5% of the variance can be attributed to other factor variables not included
in the study.
From the foregoing analysis, however, the equation useful in predicting the percentage of
stakeholders’ satisfaction (Y) as indicated by the F-value (65.370) with its corresponding
probability value (.000) is significant at (p<.01).
 This model is illustrated:
Y = .479X1 + .181X2 + .257X3 + .202X4 - .342
Where: -.342 = constant
Y = Stakeholders’ Level of Satisfaction
X1 = Tangibility
X2 = Assurance
X3 = Reliability
X4 = Responsiveness
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no independent variable, singly or in
combination, best predicts stakeholders’ level of satisfaction is rejected. In agreement to this result,
Vaniarajan and Vijayadurai (2010) in their study found out that service quality was a strong
predictor of student satisfaction. In like manner, Arambewela and Hall (2006); Arokiasamy and
Abdulla (2012); and Mustafa, et al. (2012) as cited by Srivastava and Beri (n.d.) collaborates with
these findings stating that student satisfaction is directly influenced by service quality.
Objective 5. To ascertain the stakeholders’ comments and suggestions to further improve
the service quality of the university

Table 10
Comments and Suggestions of the Stakeholders

Comments/Suggestions Frequency Rank

Cleanliness of the surroundings/toilets 12 1st
Improve school facilities and laboratories 10 2nd
Additional cashier counter during exams 8 3rd
Courteous staff (values) 7 4.5th
Upgrade the canteen 7 4.5th
Expensive tuition not worth 5 6th
Security 4 7th
Aircon fee to be included in the miscellaneous 3 9th
Maximize the use of books 3 9th
Internet connection 3 9th
Transparency on the part of the 2 11th
school/questionable transaction
Proper dissemination of activities 1 12th

Table 10 presents the comments and suggestions of the students, parents, and alumni to
enhance the service quality of the university that will boil down to the satisfaction of her
stakeholders. It can be noted in the table that “cleanliness of the surroundings/toilet” ranked first;
second “improve school facilities and laboratories”; third “additional cashier counter during
exams; 4.5th “courteous staff (values)” and “upgrade the canteen”. On the other hand, “proper
dissemination” and “transparency on the part of the school/questionable transaction” got the lowest
rank of 12th and 11th respectively.
The findings imply that there is a need for the university to enhance the overall cleanliness
of the school environment under the tangibility dimensions, hence; an increase in the quality of
tangible services increases customer satisfaction. This is in accord with Skallerud (2011) statement
that for school managers who want to obtain or maintain a good school reputation should
emphasize the importance of ensuring parent satisfaction. Moreover, parents who are satisfied with
the school services provide more favourable ratings of school reputation.
 In like manner, Li and Hung (2009) a good reputation has an effect on parents’ loyalty and
increased loyalty is important with regard to retaining existing students and attracting new ones.
Favourable reputations of an institution increase the likelihood that a school will be chosen by
parents. However, with a poor reputation, the school had to exert effort in increasing stakeholders
satisfaction with the services provided and focusing on service improvement goals, as well as
identifying sources of dissatisfaction of the parents.
On the other hand, although only few of the stakeholders suggested “proper dissemination
of activities” and “transparency on the part of the school/questionable transaction”, however; this
is a wakeup call to the university administration to look into some of her practices in order to
increase the image and reputation of the university thereby; intensifying the satisfaction of the
stakeholders. According to Arison, et al. (2016) enhancing customer satisfaction leads to customer
loyalty.

CONCLUSIONS

The reputation of the university is good as reflected on the stakeholders’ assessment of the
service quality of the university which is described as efficient and their level of satisfaction
described as moderately satisfied; however the university can still enhance the delivery of her
services for an utmost satisfaction of the students, parents, and alumni. Among the three
stakeholders the alumni have the higher level of assessment along the four dimensions of service
quality followed by the parents and the students respectively. As to the level of satisfaction, the
alumni have the highest level of satisfaction followed by the parents and then the students. Service
quality dimensions such as: tangibility, assurance, reliability, and assurance have a moderate
relationship with the stakeholders’ satisfaction. In like manner, stakeholders’ satisfaction can be
attributed most from tangibility and reliability dimensions. In addition, the four dimensions of
service quality namely: tangibility; assurance; responsiveness; and reliability had a high
relationship to stakeholders satisfaction. More so, all the service quality dimensions are best
predictors to stakeholders’ satisfaction.

Service quality dimensions have a direct influence on the stakeholders’ satisfaction and
most likely enhance customers’ loyalty and boast the image and reputation of the institution. In
order to achieve a high recruitment rate, attract high quality students, and enhance competitiveness
the university needs to play an active role in building their own reputation. To attain this goal the
university may ensure high quality of teaching, which enhances student satisfaction and offer
quality services to other stakeholders particularly the parents, alumni, and the public that would
redound to a unique image of the university and turns satisfied students into loyal students and
stakeholders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The researchers recommend the following to improve the quality of service of the
university to enhance the level of satisfaction of her stakeholders:
The university may enhance the service quality to her stakeholders specifically on
assurance and responsiveness dimensions, hence, this predictors of satisfaction can be easily
observed by the stakeholders. In like manner, cleanliness of the surroundings, toilet and other
facility that is visible by the stakeholders should be kept in order to increase the level of satisfaction
of her stakeholders.
The staff may be trained ethically and be given formation course more on sincerity and
genuine concern in solving and addressing client’s concern. In addition, offices should be properly
staffed to provide quality service to the clients in terms of their queries and university concerns.
Stakeholders experiences in doing transactions with offices that are undermanned influence greatly
their level of satisfaction. A more comprehensive study can be conducted by taking a larger sample
size including other educational institutions to come up a comprehensive service quality and
student satisfaction model.

LITERATURE CITED

Arambewala, R. & Hall, J.(2006).A Comparative Analysisn of International Education

Satisfaction Using SERQUAL. On line Journal of Services Research
Arokiasamy and Raj. A.(2012). Service Quality in Higher Education Institutions in Malaysia.
Online Journal on Contemporary Business Studies
Badri, M., Dodeen, H., Al Khaili, M. And Abdulla, M. (2005). Development of the National in-
patient Satisfaction Constructs and items for the United Arab Emirates. Ohez, J.Online
International Journal of Applied Health Studies
Bigne, E., Moliner, M.A., and Sanchez, J. (2003). Perceived Quality and Satisfaction in Multi
Service Organization: The Case of Spanish Public Services. Online Journal of Services
Marketing
Dimas, G., Gaulla, A. , and Peirrakos, G. (2011). Quality Issues in Higher Education: A
multiricist Framework of Satisfaction Measures. Online Journal Creative Education
Hasan, Hishamuuddin. (2008) Service Quality and Student Satisfaction a Case Study at Private
Higher Education Institutions. Date Retrieved: October 18, 2017 from www.ccsenet.org.
journal.html
Ham, L. and Hayduk, S. (2003). Gaining Competitive Advantages in Higher Education:
Analysing the Gap between Expectations and perceptions of Service Quality. Online
International Journal of Value-based Management
Keok, C. And Thong, L. (2007). Linking Transnational Engineering Student’s Satisfaction with
perceptions of Education Quality. Online Paper 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference
Khan, M., Ahmed, I., and Nawaz, M. (2011). Student’s Perspective of Service Quality in Higher
Learning Institutions:An Evidenced- based Approach. Online International Journal of
Business and Social Science
Kumar, J. And Yang, C.L. (2014). Service Quality and Loyalty of International Students
Studying in the Field of Hospitality and Tourism. Malaysian Online Journal of
Educational Management
Lassar, W.M., Manolis, C., and Winsor, R.D. (2000). Service Quality Perspectives and
Satisfaction in Private Banking. Online Journal of Service Marketing
Li, C.K., and Hung, C.H. (2009). Marketing Tactics and Parents’ Loyalty:The Mediating Role of
School Image. Online Journal of Educational Administration. Vol. 47 No. 4
Mahiah, S., Suhaimi, S., and Ibrahim, A. (2006). Measuring the Level of Customer Satisfaction
among Employees of Human Resource Division. Online Journal Advances Research.
Vol. 3. No. 1
Ming, Joseph S.(2010). Institutional Factors Influencing Students’ College Choice Decision in
Malaysia: A Conceptual Framework. Date Retrieved: December 20, 2017 from
www.ijbssnet.com/journals/vol1_3_December_2010/6.pdf
Palacio, A.B., Meneses, G.D., and Perez, P. J. (2002). The Configuration of the University Image
and its Relationship with the Satisfaction of Students. Online Journal of Educational
Administration. Vol. 40. No. 5
Quinco, Daryl S.(2008). Student Satisfaction towards the Service Quality of La Salle University.
DateRetrieved: Dcember 8, 2017 from local.lsu.ph /institutional _ research_ office/
publications/ Vol.15

Ramaiyah, A., Zain, A., and Ahmad, H. (n.d). Exploring the Dimensions of Service Quality in
Higher Education Research. On line South African Journal of Business Management
Shah, F.T. (2013). Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction in Higher Education in Pakistan.
On line Journal of Quality Technology Management
Shaindlin, Andrew. (2017). Alumni Networks: Allies for Institutional Reputation. Date Retieved
December 20, 2017 from https://www..linkedin.com/pulse/alumni-networks-allies-
institutional-reputation-andrew-shaindlin?articleld=84807733786170895
Skallerud, Kare. (2011). Schoo Reputation and its relation to Parents’ Satisfaction and Loyalty.
Date Retrieved: January 12, 2018 from www.emeraldinsight.com.0951-354X.htm
Srivastava, A. and Beri, A.(n.d.). Students Satisfaction with Service Quality in Higher Education
Institutions: An Analytical review.
Sudha T. (2013). Total Quality Management in Higher Education Institutions. On line
International Journal of Social Science & Interdisciplinary. Date Retrieved: August 15,
2017 from www.indianresearchjournals.com
Wong, A., Tong, C., and Woo, A. (2016). Study of the Determinants to School Image and
Reputation in Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong. Date Retrieved: August 23,
2017 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29775476
Woo, Arison, Tong, Canon and Wong, Anthony. (2016).A Study of the Determinants to School
Image and Reputation in Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong. Date retrieved:
January 12, 2018 from https//www.researchgate.net/publication/297752476