7. Marco Teórico Referencial
8.16 Actividades de Implementación
The customer satisfaction study is focused on five variables, i.e., facility, instructor, staff, budget, and time. Descriptive statistics of the variables are represented as follows.
Table.1 Descriptive Statistics
Variables N Mean Deviation Std. Error Std. Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum
Facility 120 5.95 1.091 .100 5.75 6.15 3 8
Instructor 120 6.68 1.001 .092 6.49 6.86 4 9
Staff 120 6.21 1.232 .113 5.99 6.43 2 8
Budget 80 5.68 2.145 .240 5.20 6.15 1 9
Time 120 6.22 1.284 .117 5.99 6.46 2 9
The statistics describe the customer satisfaction degree of the five variables. Description of each of these variables is presented in the following presentation.
Facility
The facility variable in this study consists of facilities of instruction, instruction support, and general purpose. The study investigates the three aspects of facility variable’s customer satisfaction degree in terms of their availability, usability, and accessibility
The rating mean of availability, usability, and accessibility of the facility aspects is 5.9 and its standard deviation is 1.091. This means the availability, usability, and accessibility of facility’s satisfaction degree are 77%. Its standard deviation of 1.091 indicated the sample’s rating is heterogeneous. This is supported by their range of 3 (23%) to 8 (96%), and 95% confidence interval for mean, 5.75 and 6.15.
One-way ANOVA to examine the significant difference of the means indicated F= 27.427 with p-value=.00 which meant it is significant. Post-hoc analysis using Bonferroni method indicates the different between the students’ and the instructors’ means is not significant at α=.05, for its p-value=.888, whereas the others are significant, each at α=.01, for each of their p-value=.000.
In terms of availability and usability of the three facility aspects, they indicate the means of instruction, instruction support, and general facilities’ are over 60 (their satisfaction degree is 77%), namely 6.64, 6.45, and
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 9, Issue 1, January2019
Page 56
6.13 respectively. These means are over those of their accessibility which is less than 6.00 (their satisfaction degree is 60%), namely 5.43, 5.42, and 5.13 respectively. Thus, the satisfaction degree concerning availability and usability of instruction, instruction support, and general facilities are 77%; and their accessibility is 60%.
Instructors
The degree of customer satisfaction concerning instructors are focused on 1) sufficiency of teaching time, 2) teaching quality, 3) content of teaching relevance, 4) teaching media utilization, 5) academic advisory, 6) thesis/dissertation supervisory, and 7) student-instructor human relation.
The ratings mean given by three clusters of the sample, concerning instructors, was 6.68, or its satisfaction degree is over 77%, and its standard deviations is 1.011 which indicates the ratings are heterogeneous. This is supported by the lowest rating of 4 or 40% and its highest of 9 or 100%; and its 95% confidence interval of 6.49 - 6.86.
One way ANOVA with regard to examining the significant difference of the means indicated F=13.719 which is significant at α=.01, with p-value=.000. Post-hoc analysis using Bonferroni method indicates the different between the students’ and graduates’ means is significant at α=.01 with p-value=.000. The difference between the students’ and the instructors’ means is also significant at α=.01, p-value=.000, but the difference between graduates’ and the instructors’ means is not significant α=.05 with p-value=1.000.
Detail aspects the respondent's rate more are to the instructors’ teaching time sufficiency, the content of teaching relevancy, and teaching media utilization of which their means are 6.88, 6.89, and 6.83 respectively. Lower means are those of the aspects of academic advisory, 6.33, student and instructor human relationship, 6.34, and thesis/dissertation supervisory, 6.36; whereas the aspect of teaching quality mean is 6.67. Among the three clusters of the sample, the graduates' mean is the highest, 7.02, followed by instructors’, 6.95; and the lowest mean is that of the students’. Among the lowest aspects, are students-instructors human relation, 5.63, followed by thesis/dissertation supervision, 5.68, academic advisor, 5.69, and teaching media utilization.
Staff
University staff consists of academic-related and administrative staff. The academic-related staff consists of librarian and laboratory man. Those who are not included in the category of instructors and the former staff category are the administrative one. The sample’s rating mean is 6.21, and its standard deviation is 1.242. Thus, they rate the degree of satisfaction is 77%. The standard deviation indicates the sample’s ratings are heterogeneous. This is consistent with its minimum score is 2, or 11% satisfy while its maximum score is 8, or 96% satisfy, and the 95% confidence interval between 5.99 and 6.43.
One way ANOVA to examine the significant difference of the means indicates F=19.400 that is significant at α=.01 since its p-value=.000. Post-hock analysis using Bonferroni method to examine significant differences among the means indicates the difference between the students’ and the graduates’ means is significant at α=.01 with p-value=.000. The difference between the students’ and the instructors’ means is significant at α=.01 with p-value=.001, and the difference between the instructors’ and the graduates’ means is not significant at α=.05 with p-value=1.34.
Budget
Variable of budget or finance includes the budget of academic and non-academic activities. Customer satisfaction degree is indicated by the mean of 5.68 or 60%. The standard deviation of 2.146 indicates a large variability in the rating to this variable. This is consistent with the wide range indicated by the minimum rate of 1, or 4%, and the maximum one of 9, or 100%; and the 95% confident interval of 5.20 and 6.15.
One way analysis of variance to examine the significant difference between the means is indicated by F=34.038 that is significant at α=.01 and p-value=.000, or the two means are significantly different. Both clusters of sample rate the customer satisfaction degree concerning budget is 60% given by students and 77% given by graduates.
Time
Variable of time is related to length or duration of the study (in general) and length or duration of thesis/dissertation supervision. Total rating mean concerning this variable is 6.32 which means that its satisfaction degree is 77%. The standard deviation of 1.284 indicates the ratings are heterogeneous. This is supported by the minimum rating of 2 or 11%, and the maximum rating of 9, or 100% satisfy; and 95% confidence interval of 5.99 and 6.46.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 9, Issue 1, January2019
Page 57
One way ANOVA with regard to examining the significant difference between the rating means is significant. It is indicated by F=12.600 that is significant at α=.01 with p-value=.00. Post-hock analysis using method of Bonferroni shows that difference between the students’ mean and graduates’ is significant at α=.01 with p- value=.000. However, the comparison between the instructors’ mean and the graduates’ is not significant at α=.05, with p-value = 0.302.
5. Discussion
This study has the main objective of exploring the customer satisfaction degree of Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia’s graduate school, as the case study. This is regarded to giving the management feedbacks for attempting continuous improvement so that the organization’s quality meet its customers’ needs and expectations. Referring to what Deming (1986) mentioned, quality means customer satisfaction. This means the organization should deliver services that meet or even exceed its customer expectation.
The attempt of meeting or exceeding the customer satisfaction requires the entire organization components involvement in the continuous quality improvement of every aspect of the organization including that of a university. Dilshad and Iqbal (2010) suggested that a university quality is reviewed from education, research, instructors and professors, facility and equipment, and budget and management. This study focused on the quality indicators of facility, instructors, staff, budget, and time. Findings of the study indicate the condition of the graduate school’s facility quality (in general), is less satisfactory; whereas its instructors’ condition is slightly less satisfactory. Conditions of staff quality, budget, and time of completing education are slightly less satisfactory.
With respect to the condition of facility elaboration, accessibility aspects of instruction, instruction support, and general facilities' satisfaction degree are below their availability and usability conditions. With respect to instructors, the condition of their qualification is satisfactory. Those slightly less satisfactory concerning with this variable are the aspects of teaching time sufficiency, teaching content relevancy, and teaching media utilization. The other aspects that are less satisfactory are teaching quality, academic advisory, thesis/dissertation supervisory, and student-instructor human relation.
The condition of staff’s satisfactory degree indicates less satisfactory concerning both the academic and non- academic services aspects. This is assumed influenced by some of their employment statuses as contractual staff. This condition is not significantly different with that of time for completing education and for thesis/dissertation supervision. This is slightly better than the condition of budget-related satisfactory degree that indicated lower both in the aspects of the budget for academic and non-academic activities.
The satisfactory degree of the entire aspects of each variable is judged based on the assessment of the organization’s customer. In this case, the assessment made by instructors and staff, as the organization’s internal customer; and students, as its primary external customer, to the entire aspects of each variable’s condition is not significantly different. On the other side, the assessment made by graduates and parents, as its secondary external customer, and that of graduates employers, as its tertiary external customers is better. Based on their assessment the satisfactory degree is slightly higher
Ali (2014) categorizes instructor and staff as an organization’s internal customer and students as its primary external customer. The fact indicates that those customer categories witnessed real condition of every aspect of the education practice in the organization so they considered giving more reliable assessment and evaluation. Further, these customer categories, particularly students, should be better taken into account with regard to an attempt to meet or exceed their expectation. Therefore, their assessment of the satisfactory degree should be the primary feedback for an attempt to continuously improve the organization’s quality. It is true that if both internal and customer perceive the service to be of high quality, they will be satisfied. Then they will recommend that service to others and will have a tendency to continue the relationship with the service provider, in this case, higher education institution (Munteanu et.al, 2010). Therefore, it is very important for higher education institutions to take into account every aspect of customer assessment as a primary feedback in order to improve quality. The better the quality is, the more customers satisfy. This will lead to customer loyalty.
The above findings imply in the organization’s need for improving the quality of the aspects related to education practice in attempts to achieving their optimum customer satisfaction degree. These are related to: Needs of the organization to continuously improve the quality of instruction, instruction support, and general facilities in terms of their availability and usability, and accessibility.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 9, Issue 1, January2019
Page 58
Needs of the organization to encourage its instructors, including professors, to continuously improve the quality of their services in terms of their teaching content relevance, teaching media utilization, academic advisory, and thesis/dissertation supervisory, and their relation to the students.
It also needs to encourage staff to continuously improve the quality of their services, both to the students and instructors; as well as keeping to prioritize budget for academic activities; and to give better service to the students with regard to completing their study and thesis/dissertation writing supervision on time.
The study has a major limitation, namely the lack of generalization. In regard to reevaluate its significance it needs to further study by broadening the sample and applying a relevant survey method. However, referring to the study’s findings, when an education institution applies the TQM, it should change its culture through changing attitude, behavior, work performance, and management (Ali, 2015b., Hashmi, 2015; Gilbert, 1992: Gupta, 2014). It will create the cultures of trust, participation, teamwork, quality orientation, and continuous improvement (Sha’ri and Aspinwall, 2000). Therefore, The School of Postgraduate Studies, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, should continuously improve its quality so that its customer expectation is satisfied. As a Postgraduate school plays a pivotal role as the “show window” of the entire university quality, whereas quality serves as its branding key element (Arsovsky, 2007). For this regard, implications of this study might be the feedback to the organization in an attempt to commit the improvement. This improvement will give a significant impact to the marketing of the organization.
6. Conclusion
The organization's customer satisfaction degree concerning the variables being the focus of this study indicates the following states:
The facility does not meet an optimum customer satisfactory degree with respect to the aspects of instruction and instruction support facilities’ availability and usability. The slightly worse condition is indicated by general facility’s availability and usability, and the worst condition is its accessibility.
The instructors’ academic qualification and sufficiency of teaching time meet the optimum satisfactory degree. The other aspects, including the relevance of teaching content, utilization of teaching media, academic advisory and thesis/dissertation supervisory, and student-instructor human relation aspects are less satisfactory.
The staff does not meet the optimum degree of satisfactory with respect to the extent to which they serve academic and administrative services to the students and instructors.
The budget variable does not meet the optimum satisfactory degree with respect to aspects of the budget of academic and non-academic activities.
The time variable slightly does not meet the satisfactory degree with respect to the aspects of length or duration of the study (in general), and length or duration of thesis/dissertation supervision in particular.
References
Ali, M., (2015a) Congruence of quality policy with its implementation: An education quality management issue. Proceeding of Seminar on Teacher Education Development for Sustainable Education Quality Improvement, pp. 31-46. Available at www.upi.edu
Ali, M., (2015b). Manajemen kualitas pendidikan. In Hamied, F.A., and Suryana (Eds.). Pendidikan Disiplin Ilmu Abad Ke-21: Sebuah Kajian Prospektif. Bandung: UPI Press.
Ali, M., (2014). Education for national development: A case study of Indonesia. Bandung: Imtima Publishing Co.
Ali, M., (2006). Future school management and leadership: The case of Indonesia. Proceeding of 1st Asia- Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Future Education Forum, Busan, South Korea, pp.45 - 54.
Arsovski, Z., (2007). approach to quality assurance in higher education. International Journal of Quality Research. Vo. 1, No. 1, pp. 53-60.
Constantine, C., (2013). The necessity to improve the quality of higher education services, the case of Romania. Polish Journal of Management Studies. Vol. 8, pp. 57-65.
Crawford, L. E. D., and Shutler, P., (2006). Total quality management in education: Problems and issues for the classroom teacher. International Journal of Education Management. Volume 13, Issue 2, pp. 67-73. Dale, B.G., and Plunket, J. J., (1994). Managing quality 2nd edition. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods ISSN: 2251-6204
Vol. 9, Issue 1, January2019
Page 59
Deming, W.E. (1982). Quality, productivity and competition position. Cambridge, MA: MIT Institute for Advanced Engineering Study.
Dilshad, M., and Iqbal, H.M., (2010). Quality indicators in teacher education programs. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS). Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 401-411.
Gilbert, G. (1992). Quality improvement in a defense organization. Public Productivity and Management Review. Volume 16, number 1, pp. 65-75.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3380806
Global University Network for Innovation.(2009). New dynamics for social responsibility. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Gronroos, C. (1978), A service oriented approach to marketing of service, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 588-601
https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004985
Gupta, R. (2014). The role of total quality management in education. Global Journal of Research Analysis.Volume 3, Issue 2.
Hamdatu, M.A.M, Siddick, A.G., and Al-Olyan, F.A.R., (2013). Application of quality assurance & accreditation in the Institute of Higher Education in the Arab world (Descriptive & analytical survey). American International Journal of Contemporary Research. Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 104-116.
Hashmi, K. (2015). Introduction and Implementation of Total Quality Management. http://isisigma.com/methodology/total quality management, April 18, 2015.
Kotler, P., (2000). Marketing management analysis, planning, and control. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India. Lewis, R.C. and Booms, B.H. (1983). The Marketing Aspects of Service Quality, in Berry, L., Shostak, G. and Upah, G. (Eds). Emerging Perspectives on Services Marketing, American Marketing, Chicago, IL, pp. 99-107. Mohanti, R.P., and Lakhe, R.R., (2000). Handbook of total quality management. Mumbai, India: Jaico Publishing House.
Munteanu, C., et.al. (2010). An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context. International Journal of Public Sector Management. Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 124-140.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011022483
Oakland, J. S., (1994). Total quality management (2nd edition). Sydney: Butter-worth-Heinemann Ltd. Sallis, E. (2002). Total quality management (Third edition). Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing Inc.
Sha’ri, M. Y. and Aspinwall, E., (2000), Total quality management implementation issue: Review and case study. International Journal of Operation and Production Management, Volume 20, pp. 634-635.
https://doi.org/10.1108/01443570010321595
Shemwell, D.J., Yavas, U. and Bilgin, Z. (1988). Customer-service provider relationship: an empirical test of a model of service quality, satisfaction, and relationship oriented outcome. International Journal of Service Industry Management. Vol. 9, pp. 129-150.
Stanley, J. C., and Hopkins, K. D., (1978). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Private Limited.
Strictland, J., (1998). Total quality management. Army Research Development and Acquisition Bulletin. May – June, pp. 1–5. Available at http://src.allionscience.com.
Zakuan, N., (2012). Critical success factors of total quality management implementation in higher education institution: A review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences. Volume. 2, Number 12, pp. 19-32.