Exploring the Mediating Role of Lecturer Competence in the Relationship Between Service Quality and Academic Engagement in Higher Education

Abstract

The higher education sector has witnessed significant changes in recent years, with an increasing emphasis on service quality, lecturer competence, and academic engagement as important determinants of academic success. This research aims to explore the mediating role of lecturer competence between service quality and the academic engagement of students in higher education. The relational survey model was used to determine the relationships between service quality, lecturer competence, and academic engagement. A conceptual model regarding service quality, academic engagement, and lecturer competence was developed in this regard. To test the model, appropriate data were collected and analyzed. The findings indicate that the quality of service in higher education is directly related to academic engagement. There is a positive and significant relationship between service quality and lecturer competence. Similarly, a positive and significant relationship exists between lecturer competence and academic engagement. Furthermore, lecturer competence is a mediating factor in the relationship between service quality and academic engagement.

Keywords

• Service quality
• higher education
• academic engagement
• lecturer competence

Yükseköğretimde Hizmet Kalitesi ile Akademik Katılım Arasındaki İlişkide Öğretim Elemanı Yetkinliğinin Aracılık Rolünün İncelenmesi

Öz

Son yıllarda yükseköğretim sektörü, hizmet kalitesi, öğretim elemanı yetkinliği ve akademik katılım gibi akademik başarıyı belirleyen önemli unsurlara giderek daha fazla vurgu yapılmasıyla birlikte önemli değişikliklere tanıklık etmiştir. Bu araştırma, yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi ile öğrencilerin akademik katılımı arasındaki ilişkide öğretim elemanı yetkinliğinin aracılık rolünü incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Hizmet kalitesi, öğretim elemanı yetkinliği ve akademik katılım arasındaki ilişkileri belirlemek amacıyla ilişkisel tarama modeli kullanılmıştır. Bu kapsamda, hizmet kalitesi, akademik katılım ve öğretim elemanı yetkinliğine ilişkin kavramsal bir model geliştirilmiştir. Modeli test etmek için uygun veriler toplanmış ve analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesinin akademik katılımla doğrudan ilişkili olduğunu göstermektedir. Hizmet kalitesi ile öğretim elemanı yetkinliği arasında pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmaktadır. Benzer şekilde, öğretim elemanı yetkinliği ile akademik katılım arasında da pozitif ve anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmaktadır. Ayrıca, öğretim elemanı yetkinliği, hizmet kalitesi ile akademik katılım arasındaki ilişkide aracılık eden bir faktördür.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Hizmet kalitesi
• yükseköğretim
• akademik katılım
• öğreitm elemanı yetkinliği

References

1. Abdul Latip, L.S., Nawaz, F.T., & Ramasamy, R. (2020). Students’ perception of lecturers’ competency and the effect on institution loyalty: the mediating role of students’ satisfaction. Asian Journal of University Education (AJUE), 16(2), 183-195.
2. Ali, M. M., & Hassan, N. (2018). Defining concepts of student engagement and factors contributing to their engagement in schools. Creative Education, 9, 2161-2170. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2018.914157
3. Amoako, G.K., Ampong, G.O., Gabrah, A.Y. B., de Heer, F., & Antwi-Adjei, A. (2023). Service quality affecting student satisfaction in higher education institutions in Ghana, Cogent Education, 10:2, 2238468, DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2023.2238468
4. Angell, R. J., Heffernan, T. W., & Megicks, P. (2008). Service quality in postgraduate education. Quality Assurance in Education, 16(3), 236-254.
5. Annamdevula, S., & Bellamkonda, R. S. (2012). Development of HiEdQUAL for measuring service quality in Indian Higher Education Sector. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(4), 412–416.
6. Avalos, R. B., & Sanchez, J. C. (2016). Impacto de la evaluación y acreditación de las carreras profesionales ofertadas por la Universidad Nacional de Chimborazo desde la percepción de los estudiantes/Impact of the assessment and accreditation of the careers offered by the National University of Chimborazo from the perception of the students. Ciencia Unemi, 9(21), 36-47.
7. Baron, M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173-1182.
8. Baron, P. & Corbin, L. (2012). Student engagement: rhetoric and reality. Higher Education Research & Development, 31 (6), 759-772.

9. Bektaş, H., & Ulutürk Akman, S. (2014). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi ölçeği: Güvenilirlik ve geçerlilik analizi. Istanbul University Econometrics and Statistics e-Journal, 18, 116–133.
10. Can, E. (2021). Öğrenci görüşlerine göre yükseköğretimde kalite göstergeleri (Kırklareli Üniversitesi Örneği) Muğla Sıtkı Koçman Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi [MSKU Journal of Education], 8(1), 54-71. DOI: 10.21666/muefd.754193
11. Carter, S. & Yeo, A. C.-M. (2016). Students-as-customers’ satisfaction, predictive retention with marketing implications: The case of Malaysian higher education business students. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(5), 635-652. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/ IJEM-09-2014-0129
12. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research methods in education. London: Routledge Falmer.
13. Council of Higher Education of the Republic of Türkiye [CoHE]. (2010). Reconstruction in higher education. The implementations of the Bologna Process in 66 questions. Retrieved from https://uluslararasi.yok.gov.tr/Documents/yay%C4%B1nlar/yuksekogretimde_yeniden_yapilanma_66_soruda_bologna_2010.pdf on 27 July, 2024.
14. Cronin, J. J. Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring services quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68.
15. Çınkır, Ş., & Yıldız, S. (2018). Bir Bologna değerlendirme çalışması: eğitim yönetimi lisansüstü program yeterliklerine ilişkin kazanımların incelenmesi. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 8 (1), 55-67.
16. Çınkır, Ş., Yıldız, S., & Kurum, G. (2021). Yükseköğretimde hizmet kalitesi ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 11(1), 161-173.
17. Doğanay, A., Yeşilpınar-Uyar, M., Dinçer, S., & Karaçoban, F. (2021). Öğretim elemanlarının öğretim yeterliklerini değerlendirme ölçeği (ÖYDÖ): Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Trakya Eğitim Dergisi, 11(1), 201-214.
18. Dora, Y.M., Lisdayanti, A. and Borshalina, T. (2019), “Word of Mouth implications of service quality mediated student satisfaction: a study on a private university in Bandung”, Journal of Advance Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 1049-1055, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337210883_
19. European Commission. (2018). The European Qualifications Framework: supporting learning, work and cross border mobility. 10th Anniversary. Luxembourg. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ehea.info/Upload/TPG_A_QF_RO_MK_1_EQF_Brochure.pdf
20. European Commission. (2024). The European higher education area in 2024: Bologna process implementation report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
21. EHEA. (2020). Recommendations to National Authorities for the Enhancement of Higher Education Learning and Teaching in the EHEA, Annex III of the Rome Ministerial Communique, 10 November 2020.
22. ENQA. (2015). Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area-ESG. Brussels: Eurashe.
23. Finn, J. D. & Voelkl, K. E. (1993). School characteristics related to student engagement. The Journal of Negro Education, 62 (3), 249-268.
24. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: the potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59-109.
25. Fredricks, J. A., Filsecker, M., & Lawson, M. A. (2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.002
26. Farida, U. (2023). Compensation and work culture for lecturer performance through organizational climate. Proceedings of the First Australian International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Sydney, Australia, 2448 – 2454.
27. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
28. Gunuc, S., & Kuzu, A. (2015). Student engagement scale: Development, reliability and validity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40 (4), 587–610.
29. Gürbüz, S., & Şahin, F. (2014). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri: Felsefe-yöntem-analiz. Ankara: Seçkin.
30. Hanapi, Z., & Nordin, M. S. (2014). Unemployment among Malaysia graduates: Graduates’ attributes, lecturers’ competency and quality of education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1269
31. Hansen, U., Hennig-Thurau, T., & Wochnowski, H.(2000). TEACH-Q: Ein valides und handhabbares Instrument zur Bewertung von Vorlesungen Bernd Stauss, Ingo Balderjahn, Frank Wimmer (Eds.), Dienstleistungsorientierung in der universitären Ausbildung, Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 311-345
32. Hair, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-151.
33. Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd Ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
34. Hill, F.M. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: the role of the student as primary consumer. Qual Assur Educ, 3 (3), pp. 10-21
35. Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38 (5), 758-773. doi:10.1080/03075079.2011.598505
36. Kızılkaya, H., & Doğan, İ. (2022). Üniversite öğrencilerine yönelik akademik aidiyet ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi/Journal of Higher Education and Science, 12(1), 60-68.
37. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press
38. Kobayashi, S., Dolin, J., Søborg, A., Turner, J. (2017). Building academic staff teaching competencies: How pedagogic continuous professional development for academic staff can be organised and developed in research-intensive universities. In: Stensaker, B., Bilbow, G., Breslow, L., van der Vaart, R. (eds) Strengthening teaching and learning in research universities. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
39. Lagunas, E. A., Ramírez, D. M., & Téllez, E. A. (2016). Percepción de la calidad educativa: caso aplicado a estudiantes de la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León y del Instituto Tecnológico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey. Revista de la educación superior, 45(180), 55-74.
40. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99-128.
41. Maroco, J., Maroco, A. L., Campos, J. A. D. B., & Fredricks, J. A. (2016). University student’s engagement: development of the University Student Engagement Inventory (USEI). Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 29 (1). doi:10.1186/s41155-016-0042-8
42. Obadimeji, C. C., & Oredein, A. O. (2023). Postgraduate college staff digital competence as a predictor of lecturers’ job satisfaction for sustainable education. GEN-Multidisciplinary Journal of Sustainable Development GMJSD,1(1),1–14.
43. Opatha, H. H. D. N. P. (2020), Influence of lecturers’ competence on students’ satisfaction of lecturing: evidence for mediating role of lecturing behaviour. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1167-1179. DOI: 10.13189/ujer.2020.08040
44. Osman, A. R. & Saputra, R. S. (2019). A pragmatic model of student satisfaction: a viewpoint of private higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(2), 142-165. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2017-0019
45. Owlia, M. S., & Aspinwall, E. M. (1996). A framework for the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 4(2), 12–20.
46. Ozdemir, M. (2015). Examination of instructional procedures and learning resources within the context of European Union higher education quality indicators (The sample of Gaziantep University). (Unpublished Master Thesis). Gaziantep University, Turkey.
47. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V., & Berry, L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(19), 12–40.
48. Patrick, J., & Smart, R. M. (1998). An empirical evaluation of teacher effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 165-178.
49. Salanova, M., Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I., & Breso´, E. (2010). How obstacles and facilitators predict academic performance: The mediating role of study burnout and engagement. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 23, 53–70.
50. Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481.https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033005003
51. Schumacher, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
52. Snijders, I., Wijnia, L., Rikers, R. M., & Loyens, S. M. (2020). Building bridges in higher education: Student-faculty relationship quality, student engagement, and student loyalty. International Journal of Educational Research, 100, 101538.
53. Sultan, P., & Wong, H. (2010). Performance based service quality model: An empirical study on Japanese universities. Quality Assistance in Education, 18(2), 1266–143.
54. Sun, J.C., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 191-204. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01157.x
55. Wells, P. J. (2018). The role of quality assurance in higher Education: Challenges, developments, trends. NY: UNESCO Publication.
56. Yidana, P., Bawa, G.M., Gariba, H.A., Adabuga, J.A. (2023). Service quality in higher education based on students’ perspectives. British Journal of Education, Learning and Development Psychology, 6(2), 22-41. DOI:10.52589/BJELDP-9FYKUGFI
57. Yildirim, K., & Aslan, A. (2021). Examination of the quality teaching in Turkish higher education based on the external evaluation reports from multiple perspectives. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 25, 102-125. doi: 10.14689/enad.25
58. Yildirim, K. (2018). Human resource management at school. N., Cemaloglu, & M. G., Gurkan (Ed.) In School administration from theory to application. 187-218. Ankara: Pegem Publishing.
59. YÖKAK. (2017). The law concerning Higher Education Quality Council of Türkiye. Retrieved from https://www.yokak.gov.tr/documents/mevzuatlar/Annex1_THEQC_Establishment_Law.pdf
60. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206.
61. Zhao, F. (2003). Enhancing the quality of online higher education through measurement. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(4), 214-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09684880310501395
62. Zineldin, M., Camgöz Akdag, H., & Vasicheva, V. (2011). Assessing quality in higher education: New criteria for evaluating students’ satisfaction. Quality in Higher Education, 17(2), 231–243.