Investigating Language Learners’ Satisfaction in Private Language Schools: A Factor Analysis of EduQual Model of Quality Assessment in Educational Contexts

Document Type : مقالات علمی پژوهشی

Authors
S. M. R. Amirian 1
M. Bonjakhi 2
S. M. Amirian 3
1 Associate Professor of TEFL, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
2 PhD Candidate in TEFL, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran
3 Master of Management MBA, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran
10.29252/LRR.13.4.13
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to examine the views of language learners receiving English language teaching services about the quality of educational services and institutions’ facility. One of the models that is used to assess the quality of education is EduQual model, which was used to design a questionnaire consisting of 28 items. The participants of this study were 254 language learners of a private English language institution, and after receiving the questionnaires, 200 questionnaires were approved and analyzed. In quantitative phase of the study, a quantitative review of the questionnaire, as well as, the fitness of this model was investigated through factor analysis in AMOS. The results of the quantitative part of this study by two indicators confirmed the fitness of the model (RMSEA and CFI), however, the other two indicators of the fitness indices were not at the desired level (p-value for Chi square and CMIN / DF). The factor load for all items of this questionnaire was also evaluated acceptable and the correlation coefficients between the aspects were in the appropriate range. In interviews, this model was mostly accepted, but some aspects of this questionnaire were questioned. The interviewees also added other factors to the quality of English language institutions that were discussed in this study. Due to the large scope of institutions, the need to create a special model for quality assessment in English language institutions in this study was strongly suggested.



Introduction

Undoubtedly, one of the factors which leads into quality improvement of the educational programs is assessing the quality of the educational services provided by the centers and perceived by those who have received the services. Due to undeniable competition among language schools in English language teaching, quality plays an important role in being selected. In this context, language learners are the main receivers of the service, therefore, the authorities need to know about their ideas and perceptions of quality. Investigating their ideas, in addition to assessing the quality of services, can help the school owners have a better educational planning and facility provision in line with quality enhancement. One of the models in estimating the quality in educational settings is EduQual model which is mainly designed to be used in higher educational settings. Thus, the main aim of the present paper is to investigate if the EduQual model, which mainly assess quality in higher education, fits the data gathered from language schools. Participants in this research are language learners at a language school in Sabzevar, Iran who have received English language learning services for a while in the language school.

Research Questions

The main question of the present study is to investigate if it is feasible to hire EduQUAL model on Iranian Institutional context to evaluate the quality of educational services?




Literature Review

EduQual model has been designed to estimate educational quality of higher education which is used in this study as an instrument to measure quality of English language learning service quality. The questionnaire which is designed based on this model is made of five aspects including 28 items (learning outcomes (8 items), responsiveness (6 items), physical facilities (7 items), personality development (4 items), and academics (3 items)). This model, itself, has been extracted from another model, namely ServQUAl which assesses the quality of the services provided. This model, itself, is a result of Total Quality Management (TQM). TQM is “a systematic and rationalized philosophy for change and quality management in higher education institutions” (Hammersley & Pinnington, 1999). The items of EduQual questionnaire are designed for higher educational settings, therefore, four items, which were irrelevant to language school settings, have been removed from the original form and then translated into Persian. The overall idea of this model is based on the distance between customers’ expectation and perception of the educational services they have received. The distance between the two shows the level of quality. The higher their expectations and the lower their perception, the quality will be estimated higher. The lower their expectation and the higher their perception, the quality will be estimated as higher.




Methodology

Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected in this study. The quantitative data was gathered through a modified version of EduQual questionnaire in five aspects and the qualitative data was gathered through interviewing the volunteered participants. The participants of the present study were 254 language learners of a private language school in Sabzevar, Iran. However, after distributing the questionnaire only 200 questionnaires were accepted to be analyzed. Firstly, the results gathered through questionnaires were entered into the SPSS software, then, investigating the relationship between aspects of the questionnaire and educational quality, the fitting indices (RMSEA, CFI, Chi-square and CMIN/DF) were calculated through AMOS software and then path diagram, factor loads of items and correlation coefficients of the aspects were reported and analyzed. The qualitative data was coded through coding procedure of Grounded Theory while analyzing the interviews. The participants in interviews were among those who have filled out the questionnaires and volunteered to participate in the interviews. The researchers set an appointment and then asked about the questions and their ideas.




Results

The quantitative results of two fitting indices (RMSEA and CFI) confirmed model fitness, however, two the others (p-value for Chi-square and CMIN/DF) didn’t reach their thresholds to fit the model confidently. In addition, factorial loads of all items of the questionnaire, as well as, correlational coefficients between the aspects were estimated and ensured to be acceptable. To ensure its fitness the interviews play an important role. Therefore, researchers ran a couple of interviews and the discussions were recorded and transcribed in order to be analyzed deeply.




Discussion

In interviews, the model was generally accepted to measure the quality level, however, a couple of items were under question such as related academic degree. This idea has raised by the interviewees because they had experienced some good teachers with unrelated degree to English language teaching. Interestingly, the interviewees added some themes which was not considered in the questionnaire. They believed that the instrument lacks a couple of aspects of quality in language schools. The aspects they believed were the importance of placement test before being assigned to a class (which is not sensitive in higher education as the students are mostly at the same level based on the university entrance examinations) and age homogeneity of the students in each class (which is not a concern in EduQual as the students are at the same age at higher education), accessible language learning consultants within the school, and regular and descriptive evaluations of the language learning progress of the language learners; each of which could be added to the model as further studies. Finally, aspects of educational quality were analyzed and some suggestions were provided to improve the model according to private language schools. Due to high number of service receivers and providers in English language teaching schools, it is necessary to develop a new model to measure quality in this specific context and based on its needs and considerations. This suggestion is because of the difference between the two contexts (language schools and higher education) has been provided.

Keywords

Subjects

Andaleeb, S., & Conway, C. (2006). Customer Satisfaction in the Restaurant Industry. Journal of Services Marketing. 20, 3-11.
Chalmers, D. (2010). National Teaching Quality Indicators Project-Final Report Rewarding and Recognizing Quality Teaching in Higher Education Through Systematic Implementation of Indicators and Metrics on Teaching and Teacher. Centre for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning (M401). The University of Western Australia.
Chulani, S., & Boehm, B. (1999). Modeling software defect introduction and removal: COQUALMO (COnstructive QUALity MOdel). Technical Report USC-CSE-99-510, University of Southern California, Center for Software Engineering.
Crawford, F. (1991). Total Quality Management. Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. Occasional paper, London.
Dromey, R. G. (1995). A model for software product quality. IEEE Transactions on software engineering, 21(2), 146-162.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Improvement Groups. The TQM Magazine, 11(1), 29-34.
Harvey, L. (2004), “The Power of Accreditation: Views of Academics”, Accreditation Models in Higher Education Experiences and Perspectives, ENQA, Helsinki, ENQA Workshop Reports 3, available at: www.enqa.eu/files/workshop_material/UK.pdf
NJ. Hammersley, G., & Pinnington, A. (1999). Employee Response to Continuous Hart, C. W., & Casserly, G. D. (1985). Quality: A Brand-New, Time-Tested Strategy. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 26(3), 52-63.
Khan, A. A., Tareen, N. A. K., & Jadoon, S. (2018). Impact of SERVQUAL and Interaction Quality on Customer Satisfaction and Delight in Transportation Services. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports, 1(11).
Manuel, N. (2008). Customer Perception of Service Quality at the Business Studies Unit of the Durban University of Technology (Doctoral Dissertation).
Mahapatra, S. S., & Khan, M. S. (2007). A Neural Network Approach for Assessing Quality in Technical Education: An Empirical Study.
McEwen, M. (2004). Considerations in Determining Soil Quality and a Conceptual Strategy for the Appraisal, Maintenance and Improvement of Soil Quality. The Evolution of Herbicide Resistance. pdf http://www. phasm. co. uk.
Mosadeghrad, M. (2014). Why TQM Programmes Fail? A Pathology Approach. The TQM Journal, 26(2), 160-187.
Narang, R. (2012). How do Management Students Perceive the Quality of Education in Public Institutions? Quality Assurance in Education, 20(4), 357-371.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A Cognitive Model of the Antecedents and Consequences of Satisfaction Decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460-469
Parry, S. (2017). Fit Statistics Commonly Reported for CFA and SEM. Cornell Statistical Consulting Unit: Cornell University.
Philip, G., & Hazlett, S. A. (1997). The Measurement of Service Quality: a New P‐C‐P Attributes Model. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management.
Sahney, S. (2012). Designing Quality for the Higher Educational System: A Case Study of Select Engineering and Management Institutions in India. Asian Journal on Quality, 13(2), 116-137.
Sakthivel, P. B., Rajendran, G., & Raju, R. (2005). TQM Implementation and Students' Satisfaction of Academic Performance. The TQM Magazine, 17(6), 573-589.
Santana, S., Moreira, C., Roberto, T., & Azambuja, F. (2010). Fighting for Excellence: the Case of the Federal University of Pelotas. Higher Education, 60(3), 321-341.
Santos, G., Gomes, S., Braga, V., Braga, A., Lima, V., Teixeira, P., & Sá, J. C. (2019). Value Creation Through Quality and Innovation–a Case Study on Portugal. The TQM Journal.
Shahin, A. (2019). Quality and Innovation: How to Create Value for Customers by Value-Added Innovation. The TQM Journal.
Sirvanci, M. (1996). Are Students the True Customers of Higher Education? Quality Progress, 29(10), 99.
Terry, G., Hayfield, N., Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2017). Thematic Analysis. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research in Psychology, 17-37
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of marketing, 52(2), 35-48.
اکبری رامین, بهشتی پرور میلاد, & کیانی غلامرضا (2017). ارائه الگوی کیفیت مدرس از دیدگاه ذی نفعان در آموزش زبان انگلیسی: ایجاد پرسش نامه.‎ دوماه نامه جستارهای زبانی 8(1). صص 23-47.
نوه ابراهیم, عبدالرحیم, کریمی, & وجیهه. (2006). بررسی رابطه مهارتهای سه‎ گانه مدیران گروههای آموزشی با کیفیت آموزشی. فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی در آموزش عالی, 12(1), 61-78.‎
Language Related Research
Volume 13, Issue 4 - Serial Number 70
September and October 2022
Pages 431-465