CC BY
20
Оценка воспринимаемого качества и удовлетворенности образовательными услугами студентов профильных российских вузов.
НАУКА И ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ / SCIENCE AND EDUCATION
УДК 378
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6964466
RUSSIAN PROFILE UNIVERSITIES STUDENTS' EDUCATIONAL SERVICES QUALITY PERCEPTION AND SATISFACTION
ASSESSMENT
Elena V. SHAMALOVA
I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (Moscow, Russia);
PhD in Economics, Associate Professor, Department of Economics and Management; e-mail: shamalova_e_v@staff.sechenov.ru Elena A. KOSTROMINA
Russian State University of Tourism and Service (Moscow, Russia);
PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, The higher school of business, management and law; e-mail: ea_kostromina@mail.ru Liubov V. ZASOVA
Eurasian Academy of Good Practices (Moscow, Russia);
Deputy chief executive for educational activity; e-mail: lvzasova@mail.ru
Yury V. KOSOLAPOV
Russian University of Transport (Moscow, Russia);
PhD in Chemistry, Associate Professor, Department of Customs Law and Organization of Customs; e-mail: pan_kosol apov@mail. ru
Abstract. Assessment of the perceived quality and satisfaction of students with educational services is an urgent and significant issue for universities. Both of these categories largely determine the competitive positions of higher education institutions. The purpose of this article is to assess satisfaction with the quality of education received at universities with different rating positions in academic rankings and to identify the most significant factors that affect the perceived quality and the student's desire to recommend the university to potential applicants. The research was conducted at two Russian profile universities, ranking differently: Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (MSMU) and Russian State University of Tourism and Service (RSUTS). SERVQUAL method has been applied to evaluate and assess educational services quality perception and satisfaction with the services received by students. According to the results, the students of both universities are mostly satisfied with the received educational services, whereas the students of Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (MSMU) have shown to be less satisfied. This result may occur due to higher expectations of MSMU students. Evaluation of different factors, affecting perception of educational services quality and satisfaction of students, revealed the following pattern: the same factors have various impacts on the Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University students and students of the Russian State University of Tourism and Service. Results of the study may be beneficial for the universities to revise their operational activities in order to increase students' satisfaction and, consequently, to increase loyalty of customers receiving services in higher education.
Keywords: higher education, educational services quality, perceived quality, students' satisfaction, customer loyalty, SERVQUAL method
For citation: Shamalova E.V., Kostromina E.A., Zasova L.V., Kosolapov Yu.V. (2022). Russian profile universities students' educational services quality perception and satisfaction assessment. Service plus, 16(2), Pp. 95105. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6964466.
Submitted: 2022/04/27.
Accepted: 2022/05/13.
Russian profile universities students' educational services quality perception and satisfaction assessment.
ОЦЕНКА ВОСПРИНИМАЕМОГО КАЧЕСТВА И УДОВЛЕТВОРЕННОСТИ ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНЫМИ УСЛУГАМИ СТУДЕНТОВ ПРОФИЛЬНЫХ РОССИЙСКИХ ВУЗОВ
ШАМАЛОВА Елена Викторовна
Первый Московский государственный медицинский университет имени И.М. Сеченова Министерства здравоохранения РФ (Москва, РФ);
Кандидат экономических наук, доцент кафедры экономики и менеджмента; e-mail: shamalova_e_v@staff.sechenov.ru КОСТРОМИНА Елена Александровна
Российский государственный университет туризма и сервиса (Москва, РФ);
Кандидат филологических наук, доцент высшей школы бизнеса, менеджмента и права; e-mail: ea_kostromina@mail.ru
ЗАСОВА Любовь Владимировна
Евразийская академия надлежащих практик (Москва, РФ);
Заместитель исполнительного директора по образовательной деятельности, кандидат социологических наук; e-mail: lvzasova@mail.ru КОСОЛАПОВ Юрий Вячеславович
Российский университет транспорта (Москва, РФ);
Кандидат химических наук, доцент кафедры таможенного права и организации таможенного дела Юридического института; e-mail: pan_kosolapov@mail.ru
Аннотация. Оценка воспринимаемого качества и удовлетворенности студентов образовательной услугой - актуальный и значимый вопрос для вузов. Обе эти категории во многом определяют конкурентные позиции высшего учебного заведения. Целью данной статьи является оценка удовлетворенности качеством получаемого образования в вузах, имеющих разные рейтинговые позиции в академических рейтингах и определение наиболее значимых факторов, которые влияют на воспринимаемое качество и желание студента рекомендовать вуз потенциальным абитуриентам. Исследование проводилось в двух российских вузах, которые являются профильными университетами и занимают разную позицию в рейтинге: Сеченовском университете и РГУТИС. Для оценки воспринимаемого качества образования использовалась методика SERVQUAL. Результаты исследования позволили сделать вывод о том, что студенты обоих вузов в целом удовлетворены качеством образовательных услуг, при этом менее удовлетворены студенты Сеченовского университета, поскольку их ожидания более завышены. Оценка влияния различных факторов на воспринимаемое качество и удовлетворенность образовательными услугами позволила выявить закономерность, которая подтверждена исследованиями зарубежных авторов: одни и те же факторы оказывают разное влияние на удовлетворенность студентов Сеченовского университета и РГУТИС. Результаты проведенного исследования позволят вузам скорректировать свою деятельность таким образом, чтобы повысить удовлетворенность и, как следствие, -лояльность потребителей образовательной услуги.
Ключевые слова: высшее образование, качество образования, воспринимаемое качество, удовлетворенность, лояльность, методика SERVQUAL
Для цитирования: Шамалова Е.В., Костромина Е.А., Засова Л.В., Косолапов Ю.В. Оценка воспринимаемого качества и удовлетворенности образовательными услугами студентов профильных российских вузов. // Сервис plus. 2022. Т.16. №2. С. 95-105. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.6964466.
Статья поступила в редакцию: 27.04.2022.
Статья принята к публикации: 13.05.2022.
SERVICE plus
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL
Оценка воспринимаемого качества и удовлетворенности образовательными услугами студентов профильных российских вузов.
Introduction
Nowadays in Russia educational services quality perception is considered to be increasingly important from the customers' view as the authorities and public pay particular attention to the issue of services' quality in higher education and their competitiveness. Customer satisfaction with educational services and, ultimately, customer loyalty to a university are greatly influenced by the following factors: image, expectations, value perception and perception of quality.
Loyalty is closely related to the concept of satisfaction. Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with quality of education is linked to perceived level of a university meeting students' expectations. The perception of educational services quality offered by a university may be confirmed or not confirmed by reality. Satisfaction is an emotion, arising solely after a service is acquired and used.
Perceived quality is a customer's subjective opinion on the experience of using a product or service (O'Neill, Palmer, 2003). It may also be viewed as a cognitive response to accepting and assessing the extent, to which the service is considered good or bad (Oliver, 1997).
Educational services quality perception emerges as a result of a student (as one of the educational service recipients along with employer, family, public and state) having compared his own expectations and experience gained during the learning process in one of the universities. If perceived educational services quality meets expectations, the customer is satisfied and viceversa: if perceived quality does not meet expectations, it results in dissatisfaction.
Researchers from the University of Valencia, Gallarza and Saura (2006), undertook an extensive study on perceived quality and concluded that the quality itself translates into further services' quality perception (i.e. subjective customer evaluation), which predetermines customer satisfaction and some forms of loyalty.
The research aims to: 1) assess students' satisfaction with the quality of educational services at universities ranking differently both in Russia and internationally; 2) define the most significant factors affecting the students' perception of higher education
quality and which influence the students' willingness to recommend particular universities to potential bachelors.
In order to achieve the objective of the research, the following hypotheses will be tested:
1) Students, studying at higher education institutions, which rank higher in Russia and internationally, are more satisfied with offered educational services.
2) Students, who initially had higher expectations due to their choice of an institution, acknowledged by experts and public, are more demanding.
3) A variety of factors influence perceived education quality and satisfaction of students studying at the universities, ranking higher in Russia and internationally.
Literature review
Quality perception alone and quality of services in higher education in particular are considered important and therefore are often addressed in a variety of studies by international researchers. Recent publications bring forward conclusions on one of the aspects of services quality perception in education: client satisfaction (Sultan, P. and Yin Wong, H. , 2012; Farahmandian, Minavand, Afshardost, 2013; Maksüdünov, Qavu§, Eleren, 2016); public and private university students' perception of quality (Calvo-Porral, Cristina&Mangin, Jean-Pierre&Novo-Corti, M Isabel, 2013); study on students' perception of higher education quality regarding curriculum, learning and instruction experience (Allam, Zafrul, 2018); study on perception of perceived learning outcomes (Lola C. Duque , 2014); effectiveness of quality assurance assessment framework (Cardoso, Rosa, Stensaker, 2016; Seyfried, Pohlenz, 2018).
However, research in the field of quality perception in Russia is fragmented, therefore only some publications on customer loyalty in higher education may be found (Borisova, 2012; Kostromina, 2016; Velichko, 2016).
Recently, academic rankings have gained in importance as they are public and professionals consider them as a tool to measure the quality of universities' scientific and educational activities (Salmi, Froumin, 2013; Arefyev, 2014; Stukalova I.B.,
СЕРВИС plus 2022 Том 16 №2 97
НАУЧНЫЙ ЖУРНАЛ
РНИ РГУТИС
Russian profile universities students' educational services quality perception and satisfaction assessment.
2019). There are studies conducted on universities' competitiveness and correlation of tuition fees and university ranking (Donetskaya, 2014; Stukalova A.A., 2014; Stukalova I.B., Stukalova A.A., 2016), all of which only partly, but not wholly address the related topics.
Materials and methods
The choice of the universities, namely Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University (MSMU) and Russian State University of Tourism and Service, is attributable to the following factors: 1) the universities are profile higher education institutions, the area of professional training is clearly defined: tourism and medicine; 2) feasibility to find interviewees and low costs to conduct the survey; 3) the universities rank differently.
In 2018 MSMU ranked 115th among the BRICS universities in the credible QS World University Rankings BRICS1, and in 2019 the British edition "Times Higher Education" (THE), which evaluates top universities from the developing countries, included MSMU in the Emerging Economies University Rankings-201 92.
Russian State University of Tourism and Service is not included in any international rankings. In the 2019 Forbes' Russian university ranking, Russian State University of Tourism and Service was 56th, while Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University ranked 20th3.
In order to measure quality perception in education, SERVQUAL method was used, which is widely practically applied to evaluate users' satisfaction with services and products' quality (Hamzah, 2017; Cigdem, Amitava, 2015; Ladhari, 2009 etc.).
While assessing quality perception in education, students have been asked to assess the following major aspects (Hasan, 2009): 1) tangibility, which refers to the condition of the organization's
i
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University enters QS BRICS [Electronic Resource], URL: https://www.sechenov.ru/pressroom/news/sechenovskiy-universitet-voshel-v-reyting-qs-brics/?sphrase_id= 1014166
The Times Higher Education Emerging Economics University Rankings 2019 [Electronic Resource], URL: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankings/2019/emerging-economies-university-rankings#!/page/0/length/-1/sort_by/rank/sort_order/asc/cols/stats
Universities for the future elite. Forbes' 100 best universities [Electronic Resource]. URL: https://www.forbes.ru/karera-i-svoy-biznes/378695-universitety-dlya-budushchey-elity-100-luchshih-vuzov-rossii-po-versii
physical facilities; 2) reliability, which is defined as customer trust and reliance on university and its credibility; 3) responsiveness, meaning professional competence and discipline of organisation's personnel; 4) assurance, which is related to personnel's politeness and their competence, confidence and attentiveness to a student; 6) empathy, which considers individual approach to a customer as well as understanding his needs and providing personal care.
The following questionnaire has been developed, where every quality criterion has been represented by a set of factors (see Table 1).
Students' expectations of the five above-mentioned quality aspects of service are recorded in the first column of the questionnaire and represent students' expectations of their university. The items have been measured on Likert 5-point scale. Customer's perception of educational services quality is evaluated in the second column of the questionnaire and represents the extent, to which the universities meet the students' expectations. The importance of all items is listed in the third column of the questionnaire.
The sample of the study consists of 724 students in the age group of 19 - 42. The first group consists of 509 MSMU students of the 1, 2, 3, 4 years, who are enrolled in both extramural and fulltime modes of study in the following areas of study: "Medical care", "Paediatrics", "Welfare management", "Nursing care". The second group is represented by 215 students of the 1, 2, 3, 4 year of the Russian State University of Tourism and Service, all of which are pursuing a degree either in "Management", "Tourism", "Hotel business", or "Customer service".
Quantitative analysis of the data, collected by the questionnaire, has been conducted using the program Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version 19. The scale reliability has been measured using Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient (Cronbach, 1951). The overall scale reliability of the research is higher than 0.9, which indicates intergroup cohesion of the items included in the scale.
To check the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, factor analysis with varimax rotation has been applied. The quality perception part of the
Оценка воспринимаемого качества и удовлетворенности образовательными услугами студентов профильных российских вузов.
questionnaire has factor structure, which cumulative rate of explained variance is higher than 0.6. KaiserMeyer-Olkin (KMO) Test for Sampling Adequacy =0.9>=0.5, Bartlett test for sphericity of the sample is
0.000 (p < 0,05). As a result of factor analysis, the factors have been determined, which confirm that the statements match the analysed topic of the questionnaire.
Table 1. Questionnaire for the assessment of educational quality perception
Individual claims Expected level Perception of quality Importance weight
Organization's physical facilities
Condition of the university's physical facilities is good
University has specialised modern library fund and students have access to bibliographic databases
University provides students with real internships
University provides students with dormitories which meet sanitary standards
Academic load is balanced and curriculum forms necessary professional skills
Reliability
University gives me sufficient knowledge and education
University chosen can be recommended to relatives or friends
Skills and competences, acquired by students, are relevant for the profession
University chosen has a good reputation
Responsiveness
Professors are distinguished by their willingness to help students
Professors provide students with sufficient web resources, documents, questions and examples during classes
Professors carry out classes on time
Academic administration and professors share information with students and are enthusiastic about helping students
Assurance
Professors are sufficiently competent in their area of studies
Professors constantly develop their professional competencies
University approaches every student individually
Empathy
Academic administration, personnel, professors and students seem like a family
Russian profile universities students' educational services quality perception and satisfaction assessment.
Results
Coefficients of students' satisfaction with the educational services have been calculated based on the questionnaire presented in Figure 1 and 2.
To get a clearer picture, the results of the research may be presented as figures (Fig. 1, 2). The figures represent the result as a two-dimensional model with two axes: "item importance weight" -average value of the measured item performance; and "students' satisfaction coefficient", which has been calculated as a difference between the average value for the variables "expectation" and "perception".
Minimum and maximum of the items "importance" and "students' satisfaction coefficient" have been calculated based on the survey conducted. Then 20 points corresponding to 20 variables have been plotted on the figure.
0 -0,2
G -0,4
< i-
< ^
-0,6
)
-0,8
z <_J
LU
Q -1 3
k -1,2 -1,4
ITEM IMPORTANCE WEIGHT
4
♦ ♦
v.
V ♦ ♦
Fig. 1. Index of MSMU students' satisfaction with higher education services
Fig. 2. Index of RSUTS students' satisfaction with higher education services
Graphical interpretation of the results shows that the criteria chosen are important for the students as all criteria fall within the range from 3.5 to 4.7.
All factors indicate that the difference between the average value of "expected level" and "perception of quality" variables is less than 1 (with the exception of the claim "University provides students with real internships"). Therefore, the results indicate that students' expectations correspond with the real situation at the universities.
RSUTS students are more satisfied with the educational quality than MSMU students. Therefore, the first hypothesis ("Students studying at higher education institutions, which rank higher in Russia and internationally, are more satisfied with offered educational services") has not been confirmed.
However, the second hypothesis has been partly confirmed. Applicants, who choose a more prestigious higher education institution, form an image of the educational process, which is based on the information from Russian and international academic rankings, media publications, public opinion, i.e. the information is acquired from external sources. The expectations of such applicants are higher than those, studying at less prestigious universities, providing a significantly smaller amount of information.
MSMU students are less satisfied with the physical facilities of the university, acquired skills and knowledge, administration's responsiveness etc. However, the level of students' satisfaction with professors' competence and understanding between students and professors is quite high.
RSUTS students are less satisfied with the condition of the dormitories, provision of real internships, acquired skills and knowledge etc. In addition, the quality of extracurricular activities and student life has exceeded students' expectations (students' satisfaction coefficient is 0.03), and professors' competence almost meets students' expectations (students' satisfaction coefficient is 0.03).
Regression and correlation analysis of variables has been conducted, where "University can be recommended to relatives or friends" has been chosen as a dependent variable and other variables analysed have been chosen as independent variables. The correlation coefficients are shown in the Table 2.
0
1
2
3
5
SERVICE plus
SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL
Оценка воспринимаемого качества и удовлетворенности образовательными услугами студентов профильных российских вузов.
Table 2. Correlation coefficients between the dependent variable "University can be recommended to relatives or friends" and independent variables
Variables Correlation coefficients
RSUTS MSMU
University chosen has a good reputation 1,00 1,00
Condition of the university's physical facilities is good 0,53 0,51
University has specialised modern library fund and students have access to bibliographic databases 0,34 0,46
University provides students with real internships 0,43 0,45
University provides students with dormitories which meet sanitary standards 0,40 0,33
Academic load is balanced and the curriculum forms necessary professional skills 0,55 0,44
University provides me with sufficient knowledge and education 0,65 0,60
Skills and competences acquired by students are relevant for the profession 0,67 0,58
University chosen has a good reputation 0,66 0,54
Professors are distinguished by their willingness to help students 0,30 0,44
Professors provide students with sufficient web resources, documents, questions and examples during classes 0,46 0,49
Professors carry out classes on time 0,26 0,39
Academic administration and professors share information with students and are enthusiastic about helping students 0,55 0,47
Professors are sufficiently competent in their area of studies 0,42 0,49
Professors constantly develop their professional competencies 0,39 0,48
University approaches every student individually 0,57 0,43
Academic administration, personnel, professors and students seem like a family 0,49 0,42
There is a climate of trust among students and professors 0,33 0,32
There is an active extracurricular student life at university 0,15 0,45
Tuition fees are affordable 0,19 0,27
Multiple linear regression model on the basis of the data, collected by the questionnaire completed, showed that there is multicollinearity, therefore some variables have been excluded from the analysis. The results of multiple linear regression is as follows: Y=-0,11 9+0,072xVAR4+0,092XVAR7+0,206XVAR8+ 0,205*VAR9+0,258xVAR10+0,119xVAR14+0,124xVARi7 - 0,109* VAR18, (1)
Where Y denotes a dependent variable "University chosen can be recommended to relatives or friends";
VAR4 - is a variable "University provides students with real internships";
VAR7 - is a variable "Academic load is balanced and the curriculum forms necessary professional skills";
VAR8 - is a variable "University gives me sufficient knowledge and education;
VAR9 - is a variable "Skills and competences acquired by students for the profession";
VAR10 - is a variable "University chosen has a good reputation";
VAR14 - is a variable "Academic administration and professors share information with students and are enthusiastic about helping students";
VAR17 - is a variable "Professors constantly develop their professional competencies";
Russian profile universities students' educational services quality perception and satisfaction assessment.
VAR18 - is a variable "University approaches every student individually".
Multiple linear regression model validation includes calculations of a set of indicators (presented in the Table 3).
Table 3. Summary of the multiple linear regression model for the MSMU results
R2 Adjusted R2 F variance Sig.
0,527 0,502 55,763 0,000
R Square amounts to 0.527, which indicates that predictor variables can explain about 53% of frequency variations of university recommendations to other potential applicants.
The model is used to predict a statistically significant result (p<0,05). Low VIF value indicates absence of multicollinearity. Apart from that, a scatterplot of regression standardized residual demonstrates a concentration of scores in the center (along the 0 point). All points in the normal probability plot line up along the straight diagonal line at the bottom from left to right. Therefore, the multiple linear regression model is significant and may be taken into consideration.
Correlation coefficients, calculated based on the data from the MSMU students' questionnaire, indicates that there is a moderate correlation between the variable "University can be recommended to relatives or friends" and a set of items (Table 2).
Consequently, the results of the correlation and regression analysis show that the main factors influencing the MSMU students' satisfaction with educational services and their willingness to recommend the university to others are as follows: reputation of the university; sufficiency of knowledge acquired by students and its relevance for professional requirements. The factors' statistical significance is supported by correlation and regression coefficients.
The results of multiple linear regression based on the data provided by RSUTS students during the survey have also shown multicollinearity, therefore some variables have been excluded from the analysis.
The results obtained are presented as follows: Y=0,452+0,185*VAR7+0,198*VAR8+0,426*VAR9+0,46*V AR10-0,19*VAR13+0,217*VAR14+0,46*VAR16-0,206*VAR21, (2) Where Y denotes a dependent variable "University chosen can be recommended to relatives or friends";
VAR7 - is a variable "Academic load is balanced and the curriculum forms necessary professional skills";
VAR8 -- is a variable "University gives me sufficient knowledge and education";
VAR9 - is a variable "Skills and competences acquired by students are relevant for the professional requirements";
VAR10 - is a variable "University chosen has a good reputation";
VAR13 - is a variable "Professors carry out classes on time";
VAR14 - is a variable "Academic administration and professors share information with students and are enthusiastic about helping students";
VAR16 - is a variable "Professors are sufficiently competent in their area of studies";
VAR21 - is a variable "There is an active extracurricular student life at the university".
Multiple linear regression model validation includes calculations of a set of indicators (presented in the Table 4).
Table 4. Summary of the multiple linear
R2 Adjusted R2 Std. error F variance Sig.
0,733 0,72 0,61669 57,410 0,000
R Square accounts to 0.73, which indicates that the predictor variables can explain about 73% of frequency variations of university recommendations to other potential applicants.
Low VIF value indicates absence of multicollinearity. Apart from that, a scatterplot of regression standardized residual demonstrates a concentration of scores in the center (along the 0 point). All points in the normal probability plot line up along the straight diagonal line at the bottom from left to right. Therefore, the multiple linear regression model is significant and may be taken into consideration.
A moderate correlation has been determined between the dependent variable "University chosen can be recommended to relatives or friends" and a set of independent variables (Table 2).
Therefore, the results of the correlation and regression analysis show that the main factors influencing the MSMU students' satisfaction with educational services and their willingness to recommend the university to others are the following:
Оценка воспринимаемого качества и удовлетворенности образовательными услугами студентов профильных российских вузов.
reputation of the university; sufficiency of knowledge acquired by students and its relevance for professional requirements; balanced academic load and adequate curriculum; academic administration's and professors' responsiveness and openness. The factors' statistical significance is supported by correlation and regression coefficients.
As a result, the third hypothesis has not been confirmed by the results of the survey conducted. It has revealed identical factors, which have an impact on RSUTS and MSMU students' willingness to recommend the university to relatives or friends. These factors have either a significant correlation coefficient or have been included in the regression model (Table 5).
Table 5. Statistically significant factors influencing students' willingness to recommend the university to relatives or friends
Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University _(MSMU)_
Russian State University of Tourism and Service _(RSUTS)_
Condition of the university's physical facilities is good
University provides me with sufficient knowledge and education
_Academic load is balanced and the curriculum forms necessary professional skills_
_Skills and competences, acquired by students, are relevant for the profession_
Academic administration and professors share information with students and are enthusiastic about helping
_students_
_University chosen has a good reputation_
_University approaches every student individually_
University provides students with real internships
Professors are sufficiently competent in their area of studies
There is an active extracurricular student life at the _university_
Discussion
Drawing on the results of research conducted abroad, it may be claimed that in different countries and universities students' service quality perception in higher education and their satisfaction with educational services depend on various factors. For example, the Malaysian researchers S. Farahmandian, H. Minavand, M. Afshardost have found that service quality perception in higher education is positively impacted by curriculum quality, but not instruction quality (Farahmandian&all, 2013). Romanian researchers C. Munteanu, C. Ceobanu, C. Bobálcá, O. Anton point out problems posed by personal professors' behaviour (Munteanu &all, 2010), whereas Australian researchers R. Brown, T. Mazzarol state that service quality perception in higher education is mostly affected by institutional image of the university with people, infrastructure and physical facilities playing the least important role (Brown, 2009). The major factors for British universities are considered to be the quality of
instruction and learning process, the least important is university's physical infrastructure (Douglas&all, 2006). Therefore, it may be concluded that in different countries and universities various specific factors influence the students' service quality perception in higher education and satisfaction with educational services.
Russian researchers make general assessments of students' satisfaction with educational services (Babanov, Batova 2012; Katanaev etc.; Lukov, 2019; Obraztsov, 2017), however, factors influencing quality perception and students' satisfaction with educational services are not examined thoroughly enough. Almost every publication by the Russian researchers point out high levels of students' satisfaction with learning process.
Conclusion
Educational service is a complex product, consumers of which are not only students, directly receiving the service, but also parents, who pay tuition fees and influence their final decision on
Russian profile universities students' educational services quality perception and satisfaction assessment.
university, as well as employers and state. Taking that into account, the specifics of how the above-mentioned groups perceive educational quality arouses interest.
As a result of the comparative analysis of students' satisfaction with educational services, provided by the universities, which have different positions on Russian rankings, it may be claimed that the students of the above mentioned universities have different perceptions of educational services quality: the average score for all indicators is higher than 3.7, and the satisfaction coefficient ranges from -1.18 to 0.03.
The results are confirmed in the publications by the Russian researchers, where students' satisfaction with educational services at Russian universities has also been shown.
Nevertheless, the results have not confirmed the hypothesis that students studying at the universities, which rank higher in Russia and internationally, are more satisfied with offered educational services. The students of RSUTS university, which ranks lower than MSMU, have
turned out to be more satisfied with the educational services. It confirms the hypothesis that students, who initially had higher expectations due to their choice of an institution acknowledged by experts and public, are more demanding.
The results revealed that for every university there may be variables, which to a greater extent influence students' satisfaction and perception of the educational services quality.
In general, the students of MSMU and RSUTS assess the educational services quality building on the same factors.
This finding does not coincide with the results obtained by the foreign researchers: the factors, which influence the perception of the educational services quality the most, vary in different universities abroad.
The results of the research performed are practically significant as they allow the universities to adjust their operation to increase students' satisfaction with the educational quality and as a consequence - their loyalty.
References
1. O'Neill, M., Palmer, A. (2003) An exploratory study of the effects of experience on consumer perceptions of the service quality construct II Managing Service Quality: An International Journal. 2003. Vol. 13, No. 3. Рp. 187-196. DOI.:10.1108/09604520310476454
2. Oliver, R.L. (1997) Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer. New York.: The Mc Graw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1997
3. Gallarza, M., Saura, I. (2006) Value Dimensions, Perceived Value, Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation of University Students' Travel Behaviour II Tourism Management. 2006. Issue 27. Рp. 437-452. DOI:10.1016/j.tourman.2004.12.002.
4. Sultan, P., Wong, Y. H. (2012) Service quality in a higher education context: an integrated model // Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. 2012. Vol. 24, No. 5. Pp. 755-784. DOI:10.1108/13555851211278196
5. Farahmandian, S., Minavand, H., Afshardost, M. (2013) Perceived Service Quality and Student Satisfaction in Higher Education // OSR Journal of Business and Management. 2013. Vol. 12, Issue 4. Pp. 65-74. DOI.: 10.9790/487X-1246574
6. Calvo-Porral, C., Mangin, J.-P., Novo-Corti, I. (2013) Perceived Quality in Higher Education: An Empirical Study // Marketing Intelligence & Planning. 2013. Vol. 31, No. 6. Pp. 601-619. DOI:10.1108/MIP-11-2012-0136
7. Allam, Z. (2018) Students' perception of quality in higher education: An empirical investigation II Management Science Letters. 2018. Issue 8(5). Pp. 437-444. DOI: 10.5267 / j.msl.2018.4.002
8. Duque, Lola C. (2014) A framework for analysing higher education performance: students' satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions // Total Quality Management & Business Excellence. 2014. Vol. 25, Issue 1-2. Pp.1-21. DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2013.807677
9. Cardoso, S., Rosa, M., Stensaker, B. (2016) Why is quality in higher education not achieved? The view of academics // Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol 41, Issue 6, p. 950-965, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1052775
Оценка воспринимаемого качества и удовлетворенности образовательными услугами студентов профильных российских вузов.
10. Seyfried, M., Pohlenz, P. (2018) Assessing quality assurance in higher education: quality managers' perceptions of effectiveness // European Journal of Higher Education. 2018. Vol. 8, No. 3. Pp. 258-271. DOI: 10.1080/21568235.2018.1474777
11. Maksüdünov, A, Çavuç, § , Eleren, A. (2016) YÜKSEK ÓGRETiMDE ÓGRENCiLERiN HiZMET KALÍTESÍNE YONELiK ALGILAMALARI // MANAS Sosyal Araçtirmalar Dergisi 5 (2016 ): 65-76 <https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mjss/issue/40507/485472>
12. Borisova, S.G. (2012) Research of higher educational establishment consumers' loyalty // Practical marketing. 2012. № 2. pp. 34-40.
13. Kostromina, E.A. (2016) Enhancing loyalty of educational services consumers is a basis to win in competition // Direktor po marketingu i sbytu. 2016. № 3. pp. 47-52.
14. Velichko, N.Y. (2016) Satisfaction and loyalty of consumers of educational services in the conditions of competitive fight // Path of Science. 2016. vol. 2. pp. 82-88.
15. Salmi, D., Froumin, I.D. (2013) How states achieve international competitiveness of the universities // Educational Studies Moscow. 2013. № 1. pp. 025-068.
16. Arefiev, A.L. (2014) Global academic rankings as a new phenomenon in the Russian higher education // Sociological Science and Social Practices. 2014. № 3 (07). pp. 5-24. 2.
17. Stukalova, I.B. (2019) The competitive capacity of russian universities and academic rankings // Modern Education. 2019. № 2. pp. 1 - 7. DOI: 10.25136/2409-8736.2019.2.29724 URL: https://nbpublish.com/library_read_article.php?id=29724
18. Donetskaya, S.S. (2014) The analysis of the competitiveness of Russian universities in world rankings // Higher Education in Russia. 2014. № 1. pp. 20-31.
19. Stukalova A.A. (2014) Universities Attractiveness Assessment Based On Rankings // International Trade and Trade Policy . 2014. № 7-8 (87). pp. 89-96.
20. Stukalova, I.B., Stukalova, A.A. (2016) The ratio of the educational services price and the ranks of higher educational institutions // Russian Journal of Entrepreneurship. 2016. vol. 17. № 18. pp. 2395-2414. doi: 10.18334/rp.17.18.36570
21. Hamzah, Z., Lee, S., Moghavvemi, S. (2017) Elucidating perceived overall service quality in retail banking // International Journal of Bank Marketing. 2017 Vol. 35 No. 5. Pp. 781-804. DOI: /10.1108/IJBM-12-2015-0204
22. Cigdem, B., Amitava, M. (2015) A cross cultural investigation of airlines service quality through integration of Servqual and the Kano model // Journal of Air Transport Management. 2015. Vol. 42, Pp. 239-248. DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.11.005
23. Ladhari, R. (2009) A Review of twenty years of SERVQUAL research // International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences. 2009. Vol. 1, No. 2. Pp. 172-198. DOI: /10.1108/17566690910971445
24. Hasan, H., Ilias, A., Rahman, R., Razak, M. (2009) Service Quality and Student Satisfaction: A Case Study at Private Higher Education Institutions // International Business Research. 2009. Vol. 1. No 3. Pp. 163-175. DOI: 10.5539 / ibr.v1n3p163
25. Cronbach, L. (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests // Psychometrika. 1951. Vol. 16, No. 3. Pp. 297 -334.
26. Munteanu, C., Ceobanu, C., Bob?lc?, C., Anton, O. (2010) An analysis of customer satisfaction in a higher education context // International Journal of Public Sector Management. 2010. Vol. 23, No. 2. Pp. 124-140. DOI.: 10.1108/09513551011022483
27. Brown, R., Mazzarol, T. (2009) The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education // Higher Education. 2009. Vol.58. No.1. Pp. 81-95. DOI: 10.1007/s10734-008-9183-8
28. Douglas, J., Douglas, A., Barnes, B. (2006) Measuring student satisfaction at a UK university // Quality Assurance in Education. 2006. Vol. 14, Issue 3. Pp. 251-267. DOI: 10.1108/09684880610678568
29. Babanov, N. Y., Batova, N. S. (2012) Satisfaction of students educational services on the example of engineering of GBOU VPO NGIEI / Bulletin NGIEI .2012. No. 12, pp. 3-12
30. Katanaev, I. I., Liga, M. B., Schetkina, I. A. (2010) The Students' Satisfaction By the Educational Service Quality Provided By Transbaikal State University Named After N. G. Chernishevsky (according to sociological investigation) / Scholarly Notes of Transbaikal State University. Series: Sociological Sciences. 2010. No. 4, pp. 71-79
31. Lukov, S.V. (2019) Organisation Of Educational Process At The University: Students; Satisfaction And Expectations / Knowledge. Understanding. Skill. 2019. No. 3, pp. 118-147
32. Obraztsov, I.V. Polovnev, A.V. (2017) Students' Satisfaction With Quality Of High School Education: Sociological Analysis Based On MSLU / MSLU Bulletin. Social Sciences. 2017, vol. 2 (786) pp. 221-241
