Keywords
University Education; Quality of Services; University Management; NPS; Consumer Satisfaction.
How to Cite
Rodriguez-Fernández, C. M. (2018). The quality of educational service preliminary results at the Fidélitas University. Praxis, 14(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.21676/23897856.2670
Abstract
The investigation addressed the quality of the educational service at the Fidélitas University, during the year 2017, perceived by undergraduate students. The object of study was analyzed in the two venues of the University, and in the different class schedules. The objective on the one hand was to construct in a participatory way the quality assessment instrument, and on the other to determine the factors that explain the quality of the service received. To this end, the Student Teaching Evaluation Questionnaire was built collaboratively with students, academic and administrative directors through focus groups and in-depth interviews. Subsequently, a stratified probabilistic sampling of the questionnaires was carried out. The instrument was validated according to Alpha de Cronbach. The Kruskall-Wallis test was used to find differences in campus and schedules, and the Spearman Rho correlation to identify the variables associated with the teacher's performance. A Teacher's Net Promote Score of 51,42 % was found, with small differences per campus, and a better recommendation during daytime hours. Seven key factors were identified, that explain largely the student's satisfaction with their teacher, emphasizing attitudinal as the key to the perception of quality.References
Cronin, J. y Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring Service Quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.
Feldman, K. A. (1997). Indentifying Exemplary Teachers and Teaching. Evidence from Student Ratings. En R. P. Perry y J. C. Smart (Ed.), Effective teaching in Higher Education. Research and Practice. (pp. 368-395). Amsterdam, Holanda: Springer Netherlands.
Greenwald, A. G. y Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading Leniency is a Removable Contaminant of Student Ratings. American Psychologist, 51(11), 1209-1217.
Guba, E. G. y Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. En N. K. Denzin e Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 105-117). California, Estados Unidos: Sage Publications.
Hayes, B. E. (2008). The True Test of Loyalty. Quality Progress, 41(6), 20–26.
King, J. A. (1981). Beyond Classroom Walls. Indirect Measures of Teacher Competence. En J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of Teacher Evaluations (pp. 707-754). California, Estados Unidos: Sage Publications.
Kotler, P. y Sydney, L. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33(1), 10-15.
Laureate Network Office, L. (2018). Net Promote Score. Estados Unidos: Laureate Network Office. Recuperado de http://lno.laureate.net/net-promoter-score/
Mainardes, E. W. (2010). An exploratory research on the stakeholders of a University. Journal of Management and Strategy, 1(1), 76-88.
Marsh, H. W. (2001). Distinguishing Between Good (Useful) and Bad Workloads on Students’ Evaluations of Teaching. American Educational Research, 38(1), 183-212.
Marsh, H. W. y Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students’ Evaluation of University Teaching. A Multidimensional Perspective. En J. C. Smart (Ed.) Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory and Research. (pp. 143-223) Estados Unidos, Nueva York: Agathon Press.
Martínez Rizo, F. (2011). Los rankings de las universidades: una visión crítica. Revista de la Educación Superior, 40(157), 77-97.
Matters Customer Experience, T. G. (2017). Report: Tech Vendor NPS Benchmark, Estados Unidos: Temkin Group Insig Report. Recuperado de https://experiencematters.blog/2017/09/11/report-tech-vendor-nps-benchmark-2017-b2b/
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. y Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Ortiz, A. (2011). Hacia una nueva clasificación de los modelos pedagógicos: el pensamiento configuracional como paradigma científico y educativo del siglo XXI. Praxis, 7, 121-137.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. y Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Reichheld, F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 46-54.
Rindermann, H. y Schofield, N. (2001). Generalizability of Multidimensional Student Ratings of University Instruction Across Courses and Teachers. Research in Higher Education, 42(4), 377-400.
Risopatron, V. E. (1991). El concepto de calidad de la educación. Santiago, Chile: UNESCO.
Severson, D. (2016). Answering the Ultimate Question: What’s a Good NPS Score? Promoter. Recuperado de: https://www.promoter.io/blog/good-net-promoter-score/
Torres, K. M., Ruiz, T., Solís, L. y Martínez, F. (2012). Calidad y su evolución: una revisión. Dimensión Empresarial, 10(2), 100-107.
Yan, J. (2018). What is a good Net Promoter Score? QuestionPro. Recuperado de https://www.questionpro.com/blog/nps-considered-good-net-promoter-score/
Feldman, K. A. (1997). Indentifying Exemplary Teachers and Teaching. Evidence from Student Ratings. En R. P. Perry y J. C. Smart (Ed.), Effective teaching in Higher Education. Research and Practice. (pp. 368-395). Amsterdam, Holanda: Springer Netherlands.
Greenwald, A. G. y Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading Leniency is a Removable Contaminant of Student Ratings. American Psychologist, 51(11), 1209-1217.
Guba, E. G. y Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. En N. K. Denzin e Y. S. Lincoln (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research. (pp. 105-117). California, Estados Unidos: Sage Publications.
Hayes, B. E. (2008). The True Test of Loyalty. Quality Progress, 41(6), 20–26.
King, J. A. (1981). Beyond Classroom Walls. Indirect Measures of Teacher Competence. En J. Millman (Ed.), Handbook of Teacher Evaluations (pp. 707-754). California, Estados Unidos: Sage Publications.
Kotler, P. y Sydney, L. J. (1969). Broadening the concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33(1), 10-15.
Laureate Network Office, L. (2018). Net Promote Score. Estados Unidos: Laureate Network Office. Recuperado de http://lno.laureate.net/net-promoter-score/
Mainardes, E. W. (2010). An exploratory research on the stakeholders of a University. Journal of Management and Strategy, 1(1), 76-88.
Marsh, H. W. (2001). Distinguishing Between Good (Useful) and Bad Workloads on Students’ Evaluations of Teaching. American Educational Research, 38(1), 183-212.
Marsh, H. W. y Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students’ Evaluation of University Teaching. A Multidimensional Perspective. En J. C. Smart (Ed.) Higher Education: A Handbook of Theory and Research. (pp. 143-223) Estados Unidos, Nueva York: Agathon Press.
Martínez Rizo, F. (2011). Los rankings de las universidades: una visión crítica. Revista de la Educación Superior, 40(157), 77-97.
Matters Customer Experience, T. G. (2017). Report: Tech Vendor NPS Benchmark, Estados Unidos: Temkin Group Insig Report. Recuperado de https://experiencematters.blog/2017/09/11/report-tech-vendor-nps-benchmark-2017-b2b/
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R. y Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
Ortiz, A. (2011). Hacia una nueva clasificación de los modelos pedagógicos: el pensamiento configuracional como paradigma científico y educativo del siglo XXI. Praxis, 7, 121-137.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. y Berry, L. L. (1985). A Conceptual Model of Service Quality and Its Implications for Future Research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41-50.
Reichheld, F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81(12), 46-54.
Rindermann, H. y Schofield, N. (2001). Generalizability of Multidimensional Student Ratings of University Instruction Across Courses and Teachers. Research in Higher Education, 42(4), 377-400.
Risopatron, V. E. (1991). El concepto de calidad de la educación. Santiago, Chile: UNESCO.
Severson, D. (2016). Answering the Ultimate Question: What’s a Good NPS Score? Promoter. Recuperado de: https://www.promoter.io/blog/good-net-promoter-score/
Torres, K. M., Ruiz, T., Solís, L. y Martínez, F. (2012). Calidad y su evolución: una revisión. Dimensión Empresarial, 10(2), 100-107.
Yan, J. (2018). What is a good Net Promoter Score? QuestionPro. Recuperado de https://www.questionpro.com/blog/nps-considered-good-net-promoter-score/
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.