Evidence Based on Areas of Change and its Effects in Higher Education Institutions

Authors

  • B. Shanmuga Priya Assistant Professor, Department of Business Administration, Kalasalingam University, Tamil Nadu, India
  • M. Jeyakumaran Professor, Department of Business Administration, Kalasalingam University, Tamil Nadu, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.51983/arss-2015.4.1.2760

Keywords:

Higher education, Decision making, EduQUAL, predictor, Perception

Abstract

The most important characteristic of the evaluation of higher education services is its’ multidimensionality and the difficulty of weighting indicators/dimensions according to the various needs of different users/beneficiaries. Different categories of stakeholders need specific information to enable informed decision-making processes. Prospective students and their parents might be interested in the global performance of universities in education, employability of graduates from a particular field of study, study conditions etc., thus aiming at choosing a specific supplier for educational services. In order to raise quality and relevance of higher education, an analysis was developed to see the extent to which the acquired knowledge allows the graduates to be employed on the labour market, to develop their own business or to continue higher education studies at the next level. The paper estimate validity of individual constructs forming part of EduQUAL structured questionnaire for its primary data collection. The significant coefficient is Assurance and the remaining 6 predictors are non-significant. The non-significance variable exceeds 0.05, and do not contribute much to the regression model. This means that the Assurance dimension is the main predictor for overall satisfaction of students. 

References

Brennan, J., & Shah, T. (2000). Managing Quality in Higher Education: An International Perspective on Institutional Assessment and Change. Buckingham: OECD, SRHE and Open University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2273.00168

Csizmadia, T., Enders, J., & Westerheijden, D. F. (2008). Quality management in Hungarian higher education: organizational responses to governmental policy. Higher Education, 56(4), 439-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10734-007-9103-3

Fan, W., & Gao, Y. (2010). The topics of higher education research in China: 1979-2008. Journal of Higher Education, 31(2), 43-52.

Harvey, L., & Newton, J. (2007). Transforming quality evaluation: Moving on. In D. F. Westerheijden, B.Stensaker, & M. J. Rosa (Eds.), Quality Assurance in Higher Education: Trends in Regulation, Translation and Transformation (pp. 225-245). Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6012-0_9

Higher Education Evaluation Center. (2013). Information collected on the organization’s website. Retrieved from http://www.pgzx.edu.cn/index.jsp

Hill, R. (1995). A European student perspective on quality. Quality in Higher Education, 1(1), 67-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1353832950010107

J.Mohanthy (2000), Current Trends in Higher Education, Deep and Deep, New Delhi, India.

Nancy M. Levenburg and Thomas V. Schwarz (2008), The Journal of Entrepreneurship, 17(1), 15–35. SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore DOI: 10.1177/097135570701700102

Evans, T. (2001). 'Education industry revenues top the $100 billion mark', Markets and Opportunities, an Eduventures, Inc., annual report.

Downloads

Published

23-01-2015

How to Cite

Shanmuga Priya, B., & Jeyakumaran, M. (2015). Evidence Based on Areas of Change and its Effects in Higher Education Institutions. Asian Review of Social Sciences, 4(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.51983/arss-2015.4.1.2760