Content uploaded by Thorsten Gruber
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Thorsten Gruber
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Investigating the Influence of Professor Characteristics on
Student Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: A Comparative Study
Thorsten Gruber*
Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Marketing and Service Management
The University of Manchester, Manchester Business School
Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK
Phone: +44-(0)161-275 6479, Email: thorsten.gruber@mbs.ac.uk
Anthony Lowrie
Professor of Marketing
Minnesota State University
204F Center for Business, 1104 Seventh Avenue South
Moorhead, Minnesota 56563, USA
Phone: 218.477.4068, Email: a.lowrie.02@cantab.net
Glen Brodowsky
Professor of Marketing
California State University
333 S. Twin Oaks Valley Road
San Marcos, California 92096-0001, USA
Phone: (760) 750-4261, Email: glenbrod@csusm.edu
Alexander Reppel
Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Marketing
Royal Holloway, University of London, School of Management
Egham Hill, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK
Phone: +44 01784 276117, Email: alexander.reppel@rhul.ac.uk
Roediger Voss
Professor of Marketing
HWZ University of Applied Sciences of Zurich, Center for Strategic Management
Lagerstrasse 5, Zurich, Switzerland
Phone: (+41) (0)43 477 99 42, Email: roediger.voss@fhhwz.ch
Ilma Nur Chowdhury
Doctoral Researcher
The University of Manchester, Manchester Business School,
Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK
Tel.: +44-(0)161-275 6479, Email: ilma.chowdhury@postgrad.mbs.ac.uk
KEYWORDS: student satisfaction and dissatisfaction, professor characteristics, Kano, higher
education
* Corresponding Author
2
Investigating the Influence of Professor Characteristics on Student Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction: A Comparative Study
Abstract
This research uses the Kano model of satisfaction to investigate professor characteristics that
create student satisfaction as well as those attributes that can cause their dissatisfaction. Kano
questionnaires were handed out to 104 undergraduate students at a university in the Southwest
and to 147 undergraduate students at a university in the Midwest of the USA. The two resulting
Kano maps show the same delighting attributes while other satisfaction attributes are also similar.
The findings reveal the importance of the personality of professors and the characteristics of
professors which: a) are desired by students, b) are not desired by students, c) impact student
satisfaction the most, d) impact satisfaction the least. The results also demonstrate how professors
and universities can focus attention on those attributes most likely to influence satisfaction. No
attributes of professors are classified as basic or taken for granted factors by students, while three
attributes are excitement factors that have the potential to delight students. The findings illustrate
that there is a set of multiple attributes that professors need to possess for satisfying student-
professor classroom service encounters. Student populations appear to show strong similarities in
their preferences for characteristics of professors that lead to satisfaction and dissatisfaction
outcomes.
3
Investigating the Influence of Professor Characteristics on Student Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction: A Comparative Study
Increasingly, higher education is being regarded as a service industry and universities are
beginning to focus more on meeting or even exceeding the needs of their students (Davis &
Swanson 2001; DeShields, Kara, & Kaynak, 2005). As a consequence, the evaluation of students’
satisfaction becomes all the more important to institutions that want to retain current and recruit
new students (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). Research indicates that the recruitment of students is
several times more expensive than their retention (Joseph, Yakhou, & Stone, 2005) and so
student retention becomes an important management task for universities which gives rise to
increasing emphasis on student satisfaction with the learning experience (Lala and Priluck,
2011).. In this regard, Arambewela, Hall, and Zuhair (2006) regard student satisfaction as a key
strategic variable in maintaining a competitive position, with long-term benefits arising from
student loyalty, positive word-of-mouth and image of the higher education institution.
Consequently, increasing levels of student satisfaction and decreasing sources of dissatisfaction
would be beneficial to universities (Douglas, McClelland, & Davies, 2008). Finally, Appleton-
Knapp and Krentler (2006) suggest that students’ satisfaction with their educational experiences
should be a desired outcome in addition to learning and knowing.
Although higher education institutions are beginning to see themselves as part of the service
industry, there is a debate on whether students are customers (Desai, Damewood, & Richard
Jones, 2001; Hill, 1995), partial employees (Mills & Morris, 1986), co-producers (Hennig-
Thurau, Langer, & Hansen, 2001), partners (Clayson & Haley, 2005) or even products of the
educational system (Yeo, 2008). However, regardless of whether students are treated as
customers, co-producers or products, it is imperative for educational institutions to actively
4
monitor the quality of service they offer to students in order to recruit and retain students in the
face of strong competition for students and the revenue they generate (Dorweiler & Yakhou,
1994; Hwarng & Teo, 2001; Shank, Walker, & Hayes, 1996).
This paper regards students as partners (Clayson & Haley, 2005), who have to be willing to
take responsibility for their own education and who cannot merely consume the service offered
(Svensson & Wood, 2007). Students also have to show motivation and intellectual skills to attain
their goals (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001). Nevertheless, as “partners”, students can expect to
receive a valuable learning experience in general and good teaching quality in particular. We
therefore agree with Desai et al. (2001) who posit that professors can be more service oriented
“without giving the store away” (p. 143) and we especially believe that it is pedagogically
valuable and professionally prudent to help professors develop the skills needed for successful
student-professor interactions.
In particular, given the need for more research on classroom encounters (Swanson & Frankel,
2002), this study investigates which attributes of professors have the strongest impact on student
satisfaction and dissatisfaction. Knowing what students regard as satisfying and dissatisfying
attributes helps professors improve the classroom experience either by developing or improving
interpersonal skills or by just having a better understanding of the student’s perspective (Davis &
Swanson, 2001).
As the attributes of professors that are desired by students are key drivers in improving the
overall education experience (Faranda & Clarke, 2004), it would be particularly valuable to know
with more precision which attributes of professors are: a) desired by students, b) not desired by
students, c) which attributes impact student satisfaction most, d) which attributes impact
satisfaction the least with a view to helping professors and universities manage resources and
focus attention on those attributes which make a difference to satisfaction.
5
Higher Education – A Service Industry
According to authors such as Curran and Rosen (2006) and Desai et al. (2001), higher education
can be regarded as a service. Frankel and Swanson (2002) point to the similarities between
education and services in their delivery and evaluation processes. Further, Eagle and Brennan
(2007) describe higher education as a complex service and for Hennig-Thurau et al. (2001),
educational services “fall into the field of services marketing” (p. 332).
This paper focuses on the encounters between students and professors in class. The
interaction between students and professors is similar to a service encounter as a form of human
behavior that is limited in scope, and that has clear roles for the participating actors who pursue a
purpose (Czepiel, Solomon, Surprenant, & Gutman, 1986). Moreover, Iyer and Muncy (2008)
have recently used concepts from services marketing research to investigate service failures
within a classroom setting. Thus, findings from the services literature should be applicable to the
context of higher education in general (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2001; Shank et al., 1996) and to the
student-professor encounter in particular. Indeed, the adoption of marketing techniques in higher
education (HE) institutions is not a new phenomenon. Kotler and Levy (1969) were the first to
argue the relevance of the marketing concept to higher education institutions and since then much
research has been carried out in this area. The literature has focused on the application of
marketing principles to higher education in areas such as student recruitment and decision-
making (Cubillo, Sanchez, & Cervino, 2006; Maringe, 2005), the marketing mix in HE
(Bingham, 1987; Stewart, 1991), student retention and relationship management (Armstrong,
2003; Klayton, 1993), international education marketing (Cubillo et al., 2006; Mazzarol, Soutar,
& Seng, 2003) and student services quality and satisfaction (Abdullah, 2006; Athiyaman, 1997;
Ivy, 2001).
6
Following Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka (2006), we believe that there is a demand for more
research that explores the application of services marketing concepts to the context of higher
education and our research study aims at making such a contribution.
The Concept of Student Satisfaction
Students, like everyone else, are service literate. It is unreasonable to expect that they will come
into college and class leaving service expectations, which they have learned in every other
sphere, outside the classroom door. While a contentious proposition, given the context of the
service literate student, professors who are purveyors of knowledge may find it beneficial to be
aware of student satisfaction in the delivery of knowledge. It may serve professors well to be
familiar with student satisfaction and marketing professors, by virtue of their discipline, could be
expected to be more receptive to the notion of student satisfaction and to convey appropriate
service-based behavior toward their students.
Several satisfaction definitions exist in the services marketing literatures. Following Oliver
(1999), satisfaction can be defined as pleasurable fulfillment, which means that individuals
perceive that “consumption fulfills some need, desire, goal, or so forth and that this fulfillment is
pleasurable. Thus, satisfaction is the consumer's sense that consumption provides outcomes
against a standard of pleasure versus displeasure,” (Oliver, 1999, p. 34). Recently, the satisfaction
concept has also been extended to the higher education context and several authors such as
Marzo-Navarro, Pedraja-Iglesias, and Rivera-Torres (2005ab) and Richardson (2005) suggest that
student satisfaction is a complex construct, consisting of several dimensions. By referring to
Oliver and DeSarbo’s (1989) definition of satisfaction, Elliott and Shin, (2002), describe student
satisfaction as “the favorability of a student’s subjective evaluation of the various outcomes and
experiences associated with education. Student satisfaction is being shaped continually by
7
repeated experiences in campus life” (p. 198). As with other industries in the service sector,
current research findings reveal that satisfied students may attract new students by engaging in
positive word-of-mouth communication as well as returning to the university to take further
courses (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). In this regard, satisfied alumni are important because
evidence shows that through word-of-mouth they help attract new students which in turn
increases financial assistance to the university (Helgesen & Nesset, 2007; Martin, Milne-Home,
Barrett, Spalding, & Jones, 2000; Marzo-Navarro et al., 2005b). Alumni perceptions have also
been found to increase accountability of the university (Mangan, 1992) and alumni who are
satisfied with their institution are more likely to consider further study in that institution and
recommend it to others (Morgan & Shim, 1990). Another important consideration is that previous
research shows that student satisfaction is also linked to student motivation (Elliott & Shin, 2002)
and positive learning outcomes (Ramsden, 1991; Richardson, 2005).
As partners in higher education, students can expect to have a satisfying service experience in
the classroom (i.e., good quality teaching) with a valuable learning experience. The concept of
student satisfaction should therefore always be seen as a “means to an end” with the end being
the creation of more knowledgeable and capable individuals. Professors should therefore provide
students with a valuable learning experience (“end”) via satisfying student-professor interactions
(“means”). For this purpose, it is beneficial for professors to understand what attributes students
want them to have in order to be in a better position to manage valuable classroom service
encounters.
8
The Important Role of Professors during Classroom Service Encounters
Service encounters are fundamentally social in nature and involve interaction between the service
provider and beneficiary (Czepiel, 1990; Price, Arnould, & Tierney, 1995). The service literature
provides strong evidence that the quality of interpersonal interaction between service provider
and beneficiary significantly influences the latter’s evaluation of the service performance of the
former (Bitner, Booms, & Mohr, 1994; Iacobucci, Ostrom, & Grayson, 1995).
In the higher education industry, Sohail and Shaikh (2004) found that the most important
determinant of students’ evaluation of service quality is “contact personnel” (p. 63). Similarly,
previous research studies by authors such as Harnash-Glezer and Meyer (1991) and Hill, Lomas,
and MacGregor (2003) stressed the importance of teaching staff and reported that the quality of
the professor belongs among the most important factors in the provision of high quality
education. Thus, the characteristics of professors are likely to be primary determinants of student
satisfaction in higher education.
Further, Browne, Kaldenberg, Browne, and Brown (1998) suggest that the likelihood of a
student recommending the university to friends/relatives is particularly influenced by interactions
between the students and university personnel, such as faculty. Hill et al. (2003) also found that
aspects concerning the professor are among the most influential factors in student perceptions of
service quality. Voss (2009) stressed the importance of teaching staff and concluded that the
quality of the professor is vital in the provision of high quality education. Finally, Frankel,
Swanson, and Sagan (2006) and Iyer and Muncy (2008) found that the professor’s response to
service failures is the key factor in determining student satisfaction. It is thus clear that the role of
the professor is crucial during classroom service encounters.
Professors are in a more advantageous position than service employees in other service
industries as they have greater discretion in carrying out the tasks they perceive as appropriate to
9
meet student expectations (Swanson & Davis, 2000). However, to better understand and satisfy
students, professors need to be aware of how students expect them to behave in such encounters
(Swanson & Davis, 2000). Knowledge of student experiences thus holds important implications,
not only for education institutions, but also for professors because satisfied students are likely to
attend another lecture delivered by the same lecturer or opt for another course taught by her/him
and recommend it to other students (Banwet & Datta, 2003).
Professors are the “contact personnel” associated with the core service and for universities the
core service is still the lecture (Douglas & Douglas, 2006; Sohail & Shaikh, 2004). Therefore, in
this study, emphasis will be placed on face-to-face classroom service encounters with professors,
these inevitably occurring the most frequently in the higher education context due to the
interactive nature of the service.
The Role of Perceived Personality of Professors
Several authors (e.g., Desai et al., 2001; Lincoln, 2008; Smart, Kelley, & Conant, 2003;
Sweeney, Morrison, Jarratt, & Heffernan, 2009) have recently investigated the main
characteristics of effective professors. Typical attributes mentioned frequently are
communication skills, enthusiasm, empathy, rapport, and use of real-life examples in class. Table
1 gives an overview of some previous findings.
---------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
--------------------------------------
Within the context of SET (Student Evaluation of Teaching) and the scales used by SET to
measure teaching effectiveness, generally accepted by deans of AACSB schools (Clayson, 2005),
10
several studies point to the importance of the personality of the instructor (e.g., Clayson, 1999;
Curran & Rosen, 2006). As early as 1990, Clayson and Haley found that the personality of the
professor is the strongest determinant of the final evaluation of the professor’s teaching
effectiveness. The personality of the professor is not something s/he possesses but rather an
interpretation of the professor’s behavior by the student. Clayson and Haley suggested calling the
investigated evaluation measurement a “likeability scale.” Using structural equation modeling,
Marks (2000) revealed a similar strong impact of liking/concern on the evaluation of the
instructor.
More recently, Clayson and Sheffet (2006) also found a positive and consistent relationship,
when considering SET results, between personality measures and course and instructor
evaluations. Their results indicate that students associate instructional effectiveness with
perceived personality and SET are therefore “largely a measure of student-perceived personality”
(Clayson & Sheffet, 2006, p. 158). Further research findings suggest that for students, excellent
teaching seems to have more to do with who professors are than what they do or know or what
efforts students themselves show (Delucchi, 2000; Moore & Kuol, 2007). The fact that the
professor’s personality explains between 50 and 80% of the total variance in SET evaluations
could also be why several studies have shown that experienced professors do not show
improvements in teaching effectiveness as personality changes only minimally over time
(Clayson, 1999). This could suggest in some future recruitment and evaluation scenario a) the
psychological profiling in the selection of professorial faculty with a focus on a teaching role and
/ or b) the provision of strategies and tactics to connect with the attributes considered more
important by the students in the classroom encounter. This paper focuses on the latter by
investigating which characteristics are more important for students in face-to-face student-
11
professor classroom service encounters. For this purpose, the Kano model of satisfaction will be
used.
Methodology – The Kano Model of Satisfaction
Recent research in the services and customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction literature suggests that
attributes of products, services and individuals can be classified into several categories, which all
affect customer (dis)satisfaction differently (Löfgren & Witell, 2008). Cadotte and Turgeon
(1988) and Johnston and Heineke (1998) revealed that while some characteristics of services will
predominantly lead to satisfaction, others are likely to cause dissatisfaction. Cadotte and Turgeon,
for example, found in a hotel context that the factors linked with dissatisfaction (i.e., when
customers complained to the hotel) differed from the attributes that created satisfaction (i.e.,
when customers made compliments). Similarly, in a higher education context, Moore and Kuol
(2007) suggest that the factors that create student satisfaction with teaching (“teaching satisfiers”)
may be qualitatively different from the factors that create dissatisfaction with teaching.
Accordingly, this research uses a model developed by Kano (1984) that reveals the attributes that
create satisfaction as well as the attributes that create dissatisfaction.
The Kano model of satisfaction (1984) helps categorize consumer needs and allows researchers
to gain an understanding of consumer preferences. Over the last twenty years, the Kano (1984)
model has increasingly gained acceptance and interest from both academics and practitioners
(Löfgren & Witell, 2008). Early work was conducted in the area of engineering (Kano, 1984).
More recently, the Kano model has been applied successfully to diverse domains such as eco-
design (Sakao, 2009), quality of life (Lepage, 2009), six sigma (Setijono, 2008), e-services
(Nilsson-Witell & Fundin, 2005; Witell & Löfgren, 2007), employee satisfaction (Matzler,
12
Bailom, Hinterhuber, Renzl, & Pichler, 2004), bank services (Bhattacharyya & Rahman, 2004),
and Internet community bonding (Szmigin & Reppel, 2004).
The Kano model posits that satisfaction is a multidimensional construct consisting of the
following categories of quality elements (Kano, 2006; cf. Lilja & Wiklund, 2006): Must-be
quality elements, or basic factors (Matzler et al., 2004) are features that customers take for
granted. While the fulfillment of these requirements does not increase customer satisfaction,
these elements must be designed into the product and / or service if dissatisfaction is to be
avoided. If the product or service does not meet these basic quality expectations, then customers
will be very dissatisfied. One-dimensional quality elements, or performance factors, are attributes
for which the relationship between attribute performance and (dis)satisfaction is linear. The more
(less) an attribute fulfils the requirements, the more (less) customers are satisfied. Attractive
quality elements, or excitement factors are attributes that make customers very satisfied or even
delighted (Matzler, Hinterhuber, Bailom, & Sauerwein, 1996) if the product or service achieves
these factors fully. Customers are, however, not dissatisfied if products or services do not meet
these requirements. Beside the three main categories, elements may also be classified as either
indifferent quality elements that do not have an impact on customers’ satisfaction levels, or
reverse quality elements that lead to satisfaction when not fulfilled and to dissatisfaction when
fulfilled (Kano, 2006; cf. Lilja & Wiklund, 2006).
The Kano model also shows which attributes have the strongest impact on customer
(dis)satisfaction. This characteristic of the model is highly valuable for organizations as it reveals
which attributes add value by increasing satisfaction and which attributes only meet minimum
requirements (Matzler & Sauerwein, 2002). Organizations can then decide which qualities and
behaviors of contact employees they should design effective training programs for in order to
improve employee performance. Similarly they can decide which qualities prospective job
13
candidates should possess. As teaching faculty may be deemed contact employees, selection and
training considerations both apply.
Data Collection
In study 1, questionnaires were handed out in two marketing courses to 104 undergraduates aged
between 19 and 47 (X=24.2, SD=4.39). Of these students, 56.7% were male and 43.3% were
female at a university in the Southwest of the USA. The students were marketing majors taking a
Global Marketing Course. All were college juniors and seniors. Two sections were sampled: one,
a morning section, the other, an evening section. More than 80% of the students sampled worked
at least 20 hours a week and more than half worked full time.
The questionnaire contained nineteen attributes derived from previous research studies on
service quality in higher education (e.g., Voss, Gruber, & Szmigin, 2007) and focus groups with
students. For each professor attribute in the questionnaire, respondents had to answer a question
consisting of two parts: ‘How do you feel if the feature is present?’ and ‘how do you feel if the
feature is not present?’ Respondents were, for example, asked “If a professor possesses good
communication skills (e.g., can tailor the messages to best suit students’ language abilities and
preferences), how do you feel?” (functional form of the question) and “If a professor does not
possess good communication skills (e.g., cannot tailor the messages to best suit students’
language abilities and preferences), how do you feel?” (dysfunctional form of the question). For
each question, respondents could then answer in five different ways: 1.) I like it that way. 2.) It
must be that way. 3.) I am neutral. 4.) I can live with it that way. 5.) I dislike it that way. Table 2
shows an example taken from the questionnaire used in this study.
------------------------------
Insert Table 2 about here
14
------------------------------
Using an evaluation table originally developed by Kano (1984), the attributes were then
classified as recommended in Berger et al. (1993) and Matzler et al. (1996). In the evaluation
table, the functional and dysfunctional forms of the question were combined, leading to different
categories of requirements.
An example of an evaluation table is illustrated in Table 3. The combination of the functional
and dysfunctional forms of the question in the evaluation table led to different categories of
requirements. For instance, if a student answered “I like it that way,” to the functional form of a
question – and answered “I am neutral,” or “I can live with it that way,” to the dysfunctional form
of the question, then the combination of these questions in the evaluation table produced category
A, indicating that the attribute is an attractive or excitement factor to the student.
Beside the three categories relevant for our analysis (basic, performance, and excitement
factors), the evaluation table also allows for the classification of requirements as indifferent,
reverse or questionable (Witell & Löfgren, 2007). Reverse features are those that are not only
unwanted by the customer but also lead to actual dissatisfaction if present (Burchill & Shen,
1993). Questionable results identify a contradiction in the customer's answer to the question
(Berger et al., 1993) and commonly signify a question that was either misunderstood by the
interviewee or phrased incorrectly (Matzler et al., 1996; Szmigin & Reppel, 2004). Questionable
results therefore act as a form of quality control for the Kano questionnaire. An example of a
questionable result would be if a respondent answers to both “If a professor possesses good
communication skills, how do you feel?” (functional form of the question) and “If a professor
does not possess good communication skills, how do you feel?” (dysfunctional form of the
question) with “I like it that way”.
15
In this study, no requirement led to any questionable results according to the evaluation table.
The results of the classification process resulted in a customer satisfaction (CS) coefficient
(Matzler et al., 1996), indicating the extent of satisfaction and dissatisfaction that was then
visualized in a matrix chart. This diagram illustrates which professorial attributes are must be,
performance, and excitement factors for students. The areas for basic and excitement factors are
separated from the area of performance factors as proposed by Bailom, Tschemernjak, Matzler,
and Hinterhuber (1998) and Bailom, Casagranda, and Matzler (1999).
---------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
--------------------------------------
Results and Discussion
The Kano map in Figure 1 depicts the results of the classification process described above and
illustrates which attributes of professors are basic factors that students take for granted (no
attributes of professors are classified as basic or taken for granted factors), performance factors
for which the relationship between attribute performance and (dis)satisfaction is linear, and
excitement factors that delight students.
Three attributes are excitement factors (“Expertise in other subject areas,” “Variety of
teaching methods,” and “Fostering of team work”) that have the potential to delight students.
These attributes suggest that students are both demanding of their professors and have a
preference for being challenged by a variety of intellectual and teaching stimuli. The importance
of these attributes supports previous findings which show that students value a “mixing up” of
knowledge content and delivery that brings life to in-class interaction that also allows them to
16
interact with their peers as well as their professor while discussing topics beyond course-related
material (Faranda & Clarke, 2004).
---------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------------
The Kano results also corroborate previous findings that reveal the importance of personality
(e.g., Clayson & Sheffet, 2006) in general and support studies that stress the importance of
professors creating rapport with their students (e.g., Delucchi, 2000; Faranda & Clark, 2004) in
particular. In this context, Faranda and Clarke (2004) define rapport as “the ability to maintain
harmonious relationships based on affinity for others” (p. 274). By creating rapport, professors
can enhance learning, encourage students to work harder, help students challenge themselves,
support the educational process and increase student engagement (Granitz, Koernig, & Harich,
2009). Attributes such as empathy, enthusiasm, openness, and humor show the highest impact on
student satisfaction. In particular, “Humor” verges on being an excitement factor that can delight
students, which supports findings by Lantos (1997) who suggests that instructors should use
humor as a tool to motivate students and Clayson (2005) who found that students’ would give a
higher rating to an average instructor because they his or her sense of humor. It may well be that
it is not so much about professors telling jokes but rather de-stressing the learning situation and
reducing anxiety.
Professors who exhibit these personality attributes may not only satisfy students but also
achieve high teaching evaluation scores (Delucchi, 2000). A recent study by Faranda and Clarke
(2004) also stressed the importance of personality factors such as approachability, friendliness,
being receptive to student suggestions, sense of humor, and enthusiasm. Professors should also
17
cover “real-world” content, provide prompt feedback and act on student suggestions, all these
being attributes that have a strong impact on satisfaction levels.
By contrast, attributes such as “Communication Skills,” “Teaching Skills,” “Expertise,”
”Reliability,” and “Respect” are all mapped more towards the area of must-be factors in the Kano
map. In direct comparison to the personality factors mentioned before, students will be more
dissatisfied if professors do not exhibit them (higher impact on dissatisfaction) but these
attributes will impact satisfaction less by their inclusion (lower impact on satisfaction). This
suggests that professors must be able to demonstrate these attributes. It should be noted that the
negation of the aforementioned attributes, for example, unreliability and disrespect, may be
considered among the least desired attributes. New and inexperienced faculty should concentrate
on designing these positive and negative attributes in/out of their learning content and delivery as
a base to build upon, as their classroom confidence and skills increase. In particular, the attribute
“Respect” has the potential to dissatisfy students strongly if professors do not show respect to
them. This finding corroborates previous research by authors such as Voss et al. (2007) who
showed that students want to be taken seriously and treated with respect. However, it is important
to note that even if professors respect students, they will still be less satisfied with them in
comparison to, for example, humorous or empathetic professors because those two traits have a
higher impact on satisfaction. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to see how a professor would be
empathetic and disrespectful at the same time.
Even though the attributes mentioned above are closer to the area of basic attributes than the
personality factors, the Kano map shows that students do not take any of the professor attributes
for granted (no attributes fall into the area of basic factors).
18
Replication Study
Study 2 was a replication study to test whether findings similar to Study 1 would result with a
subject group from a different region of the country. Data were collected from 148 undergraduate
students (53.0% were female and 47.0% were male) aged between 18 and 42 (X=21.6, SD=3.26)
at a university in the Midwest of the USA. The data were collected from business school
undergraduates taking the following courses: Marketing Research (28), Consumer Behavior (7),
Marketing Management (10), Finance (67) and Financial Institutions and Markets (36).
The map shows the same delighting attributes and also the other attributes are in similar
positions. No attribute has moved considerably from the area of excitement factors to the area of
basic factors or vice versa. For students at the Midwestern university, “Humor” is a delighting
attribute and has, like in the map for the Southwestern university, the strongest impact on student
satisfaction. The map also shows the strong impact attributes such as “Approachability” and
“Enthusiasm” have on student satisfaction levels. In this connection, Kelly and Stanley (1999)
found that enthusiasm was the most frequently chosen attribute by faculty to describe themselves
and how they thought students would describe them. The fact that both maps are very similar and
reveal the same delighting factors is a very strong indicator of the reliability of our findings.
---------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
--------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Insert Figure 3 about here
--------------------------------------
19
---------------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
--------------------------------------
Figures 1, 2 and 3 are based on the data set out in Table 4, which shows that the absolute values
for satisfaction and dissatisfaction provide the coordinates for each item shown in the Kano maps
for SW (Figure 1) and MW (Figure 2). The difference between satisfaction and dissatisfaction
values is used to calculate the length between the position of an item on the Kano map for SW
and the corresponding position on the map for MW (Figure 3). The results show that the average
length between corresponding SW & MW items is only .083. Therefore, despite the distinct
regional difference of the groups, it appears quite evident from the figures that these populations
of students are very similar.
In order to test the hypothesis that the groups are in fact the same across the variables, SPSS
was used to compare the two populations by applying a 2-sample t-test for independent samples
with a normal distribution and equal variance. The p-value for dissatisfaction = .606 > 0.05 and
the p-value for satisfaction = .859 > 0.05. At 5% level of significance, the data do not provide
sufficient evidence that the means of dissatisfaction and satisfaction at the universities are
different. There is no significant difference between these groups of students across the 19
variables set out in Table 1 on the dimensions of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
Summary of Findings and Implications
The findings provide a valuable insight into the nature of the phenomenon under investigation –
the (dis)satisfaction of students with the attributes of professors. The Kano results especially
stress the importance of personal interactions between students and professors during classroom
20
service encounters. The revealed importance of personality factors underscores the strong need
for marketing educators to maintain rapport with students, build strong relationships and treat
students with respect. Students prefer professors who sustain the human interface within the
learning environment (Faranda & Clarke, 2004) and who get along well with them (Foote,
Harmon, & Mayo, 2003). While the role of rapport has been receiving increased attention in
marketing education (e.g., Faranda & Clarke, 2004; Granitz, Koernig, & Harich, 2009) and
(services) marketing literature (e.g., Gremler & Gwinner, 2008) more recently, this study
illustrates: 1) that there is a set of multiple attributes that professors need to possess for satisfying
student-professor classroom encounters, 2) which attributes delight students, 3) which attributes
are linear and 4) which attributes are fundamental for professors to include in the learning process
if student satisfaction is to be achieved. The Kano model of satisfaction is therefore a useful tool
in examining the issue of student satisfaction with the attributes of professors in student-
professor encounters.
While many academics are, perhaps rightly, concerned with the heavy emphasis on student
satisfaction, the fact remains that faculty member retention, tenure, and promotion decisions are
at least partially affected by student evaluations of their teaching. Instructors’ ability to establish
rapport with their students, as a driver of student and teacher success, has received growing
attention in the marketing education literature. Perhaps enthusiasm, humor, and the ability to mix
things up in terms of classroom delivery – those perceived personality traits of professors
identified as delight elements in this study– are critical elements for building student-professor
rapport that lead to better learning outcomes and educational experiences for both.
Students are not in the best position to judge whether a professor is knowledgeable in his or
her particular field. The faculty hiring committees are. Clearly, marketing professors judge one
another’s qualifications – degree granting institution, research, and professional experience – and
21
act as gatekeepers in decisions concerning which faculty actually get to teach in the classroom.
The results of the present study seem to affirm that students see these qualifications as absolutely
essential pre-requisites for those who purport to be the experts who teach them. Thus, little needs
to be sacrificed – in terms of experience or rigor – as these are the minimum requirements for
being hired and students are in no position to hire faculty. The present study indicates that
students have left it to the professors to be in control of course content.
However, this study suggests that, while knowledge and mastery of subject matter are
necessary qualifications for classroom success, they are not sufficient to guarantee a truly
excellent classroom experience for students or optimal results on teaching evaluations for
professors. Students also expect their professors to be the human interface that translates abstract,
complex concepts into digestible lessons. At least for this generation of students, this can be
accomplished by engaging them through effective use of real world examples accompanied by
appropriate doses of humor and tempered with empathy.
For some professors, the ability to establish rapport and translate difficult material into
accessible lesson plans come naturally. For others, these skills develop more gradually over time.
The goal should not be to hire a particular personality type, nor should it be to change or form
instructors’ personalities. Rather, faculty development efforts should focus on assisting
professors – throughout their careers – develop the skills and techniques to help them forge and
maintain rapport with their partners in the education endeavor – the students.
While many bristle at the thought of student satisfaction as an intrusion into the domain of the
professoriate, there is yet an even greater threat: moving to a completely on-line, impersonal
model of self-study/instruction. Many professors argue that such an approach removes the
personal interaction between professors and students that is so critical to learning. This study
22
provides strong evidence that maintaining that personal connection matters very much to students
and makes a significant, positive difference in their educational experiences.
Limitations and Directions for Further Research
Further research studies should improve knowledge of this topic. While this study was conducted
with undergraduate students, what is now needed is similar research with different sample
populations from different regions in the USA and different countries. Results from these studies
could then be compared and differences and similarities revealed. Initial results from a study
currently being conducted by the authors in the UK are similar. Students mentioned four
delighting factors that were the same as in the USA (“Fostering of Team Work,” “Expertise in
Other Subject Areas,” “Variety of Teaching Methods,” “Humor”) and in addition “Friendliness,”
which was close to the area of excitement factors in the US maps. Further, the same attributes
were closer to the area of basic factors and “Respect” also had the strongest impact on student
dissatisfaction. These results can be seen as yet another indicator of the reliability of the current
findings.
Researchers interested in the measurement of service quality and satisfaction in higher
education should also take the perspectives of other stakeholders (e.g., families, the government,
and faculty) into consideration as well. Thus, fellow researchers could investigate whether
student perceptions differ greatly from what other stakeholders believe students want. In this
context, first results already indicate that a perception gap exists (Swanson & Frankel, 2002).
Fellow researchers could conduct research using Kano questionnaires to both students and their
professors. Researchers could then compare the results to highlight different views. Insights
gained should help make professors aware of differing perceptions and serve as a basis for
continuing development and improvement. .
23
Johnson, Herrmann, and Huber (2006) and Thompson, Hamilton, and Rust (2005) found that
customers experience quality attributes differently over time. Similarly, Kano (2001; 2006)
showed that attributes are dynamic and not static. In particular, he found that for some products
such as the TV remote control, product attributes have a life cycle with excitement factors
deteriorating to performance factors and then basic factors over time. Attributes may start as
indifferent factors and then, over time, develop to be excitement factors before they deteriorate to
performance and then finally basic factors.
In a service context a similar life cycle exists. Attributes of newly-introduced services can
delight customers at the beginning of the life cycle but become expected over time. For example,
Nilsson-Witell and Fundin (2005) found that after using an e-service (online ordering of cinema
tickets) five or more times customers perceived the service as a performance or even basic factor.
According to Löfgren and Witell (2008), the life cycle of quality attributes concept “is one of
the most interesting and fruitful developments of the theory of attractive quality”( p. 72). Thus,
fellow researchers could investigate if characteristics of professors also follow this lifecycle and
what may delight students at the beginning of the life cycle but become expected over time. By
gaining insight into what students perceive as satisfying attributes and how these may change
over time, professors will be in a better position to have more satisfying student-professor
classroom service encounters and may help avoid negative Student Evaluation of Teaching
outcomes.
Concluding Statement
The present study revealed the attributes of professors desired by students during student-
professor classroom service encounters. However, the importance of knowing what students
desire in the service encounter is not the same as acquiescing to all student desires. Rather, more
24
importantly, clearly articulating expectations and communicating and delivering course content
could help professors provide excellent service outcomes and help students learn that would then
benefit all stakeholders whilst also avoiding negative Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET)
outcomes that continue to have a significant impact on retention, tenure and promotion decisions.
However, students need to be made aware that as partners they also have to take
responsibility for their learning experience. For this purpose, universities have to inform students
about their roles and what is expected of them. In this regard, Askehave (2007) who analyzed
university prospectuses, pointed out that education institutions are competing to offer innovative
service offerings to ‘demanding clients on the look-out for the best possible university
experience’ (Askehave, 2007: p.739), She, however, also criticized that fact that universities are
not communicating that they are also expecting something in return from students. It is therefore
of importance to tell students early on that they cannot only take (or consume) but also have to
give (e.g., actively get involved and contribute in the classroom, learn independently, etc.).
Following the emerging marketing and management framework of service-dominant logic (S-D
logic, Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2011), students have to realize that
service providers (e.g., professors) can only make value propositions and thus can only create the
prerequisites for value. Value is also always co-created and experienced in a certain (social)
context (Edvardsson, Tronvoll, & Gruber, 2011). We hope that fellow researchers build on our
findings and develop further studies to investigate the influence of professor characteristics on
student satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
25
References
Abdullah, F. (2006). Measuring service quality in higher education: Hedperf versus Servperf.
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 24(1), 31-47.
Andreson, L. W. (2000). Teaching development in higher education as scholarly practice: A reply
to Rowland et al. Turning academics into teachers. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(1), 23-31.
Appleton-Knapp, S. L., & Krentler, K. A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and their
effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations. Journal of
Marketing Education, 28(3), 254-264.
Arambewela, R., Hall, J., & Zuhair, S. (2006). Postgraduate international students from Asia:
Factors influencing satisfaction. Journal of Marketing For Higher Education, 15(2), 105 -
127.
Armstrong, M. (2003). Students as clients: A professional services model for business education.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2(4), 371-374.
Askehave, I. (2007). The impact of marketization on higher education genres: The international
student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 723-742.
Athiyaman, A. (1997). Linking student satisfaction and service quality perceptions: The case of
university education. European Journal of Marketing, 31(7), 528-540.
Banwet, D. K. & Datta, B. (2003). A study of the effect of perceived lecture quality on post-
lecture intentions. Work Study, 52(4/5), 234-243.
Bailom, F., Casagranda, M., & Matzler, K. (1999). Wertsteigernde Akquisitionsstrategien durch
die Benefit-Profitabilitäts-Analyse. Thexis, 2, 15-19.
26
Bailom, F., Tschemernjak, D., Matzler, K., & Hinterhuber, H. H. (1998). Durch strikte
Kundennähe die Abnehmer begeistern. Harvard Business Manager, 20(1), 47-56.
Berger, C., Blauth, R., Boger, D., Bolster, C., Burchill, G., DuMouchel, W., Pouliot, F., Richter,
R., Rubinoff, A., Shen, D., Timko, M., & Walden, D. (1993). Kano’s methods for
understanding customer-defined quality. The Centre for Quality Management Journal, 2(4), 3-
36.
Bhattacharyya, S. K., & Rahman, Z. (2004). Capturing the customer's voice, the centerpiece of
strategy making: A case study in banking. European Business Review, 16(2), 128-138.
Bingham, F. B. (1987). Distribution and its relevance to educational marketing efforts. Journal of
Professional Services Marketing, 2(4), 137-142.
Bitner, M. J., Booms, B. H., & Mohr, L. A. (1994). Critical service encounters: The employee's
viewpoint. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 95-106.
Brown, N. (2004). What makes a good educator? The relevance of meta programmes. Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 515-33.
Browne, B., Kaldenberg, D., Browne, W., & Brown, D. (1998). Student as customer: Factors
affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal of Marketing For
Higher Education, 8(3), 1-14.
Burchill, G. & Shen, D.(1993). Administering a Kano survey. Center for Quality of Management
Journal, 2(4), 7-11.
Cadotte, E. R. & Turgeon, N. (1988). Key factors in guest satisfaction. Cornell Hotel &
Restaurant Quarterly, 28(4), 44-51.
27
Clayson, D. E. (1999). Students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness: Some implications of
stability. Journal of Marketing Education. 21(1), 68-75.
Clayson, D. E. (2005). Within-class variability in student-teacher evaluations: Examples and
problems. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 3(2), 109-124.
Clayson, D. E. & Haley, D. A. (1990). Student evaluations in marketing: What is actually being
measured? Journal of Marketing Education, 12(3), 9-17.
Clayson, D. E. & Haley, D. A. (2005). Marketing models in education: Students as customers,
products, or partners. Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 1-10.
Clayson, D. E. & Sheffet, M. J. (2006). Personality and the student evaluation of teaching.
Journal of Marketing Education, 28(2), 149-160.
Cubillo, J., Sanchez, J., & Cervino, J. (2006). International students' decision-making process.
International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 101-115.
Curran, J. M. & Rosen, D. E. (2006). Student attitudes toward college courses: An examination
of influences and intentions. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(2), 135-148.
Czepiel, J. A. (1990). Service encounter and service relationships: Implications for research.
Journal of Business Research, 20(1), 13-21.
Czepiel, J. A., Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C. F., & Gutman, E. G. (1986). The service
encounter: An overview. In John A. Czepiel, Michael R. Solomon, & Carol F. Surprenant,
(Eds.), The Service Encounter: Managing Employee/Customer Interaction in Service Business,
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books (3-16).
Davis, J. C. & Swanson, S. T. (2001). Navigating satisfactory and dissatisfactory classroom
incidents. Journal of Education for Business, 76(5), 245-250.
28
Delucchi, M. (2000, July). Don’t worry, be happy: Instructor likability, student perceptions of
learning, and teacher ratings in upper-level sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 28, 220-
231.
Desai, S., Damewood, E., & Jones, R. (2001). Be a good teacher and be seen as a good teacher.
Journal of Marketing Education, 23(2), 136-143.
DeShields, O., Kara, A. & Kaynak, E. (2005). Determinants of business student satisfaction and
retention in higher education: Applying Herzberg’s two-factor theory. International Journal of
Educational Management, 19(2), 128-139.
Dorweiler, V. & Yakhou, M. (1994), Changes in professional degree programs in the USA: An
environmental analysis of professional education requirements. Higher Education Research
and Development, 13(2), 231-252.
Douglas, J. & Douglas, A. (2006). Evaluating teaching quality. Quality in Higher Education,
12(1), 3-13.
Douglas, J., McClelland, R, & Davies, J. (2008). The development of a conceptual model of
student satisfaction with their experience in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education,
16(1), 19-35.
Eagle, L. & Brennan, R. (2007). Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives.
Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1), 44-60.
Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange
and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 39(2), 327-339.
29
Elliott, K. M. & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this
important concept. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 24(2), 197-209.
Faranda, W. T. & Clarke, I. (2004). Student observations of outstanding teaching: implications
for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(3), 271-281.
Foote, D. A., Harmon, S. K., & Mayo, D. T. (2003). The impacts of instructional style and
gender role attitude on students’ evaluation of faculty. Marketing Education Review, 13(2), 9-
19.
Frankel, R. & Swanson, S. R. (2002). The impact of faculty-student interactions on teaching
behavior: an investigation of perceived student encounter orientation, interactive confidence,
and interactive practice. Journal of Education for Business, 78(2), 85-91.
Frankel, R., Swanson, S. R. & Sagan, M. (2006). The role of individualism/collectivism in
critical classroom encounters: A four country study. Journal of Teaching in International
Business, 17(1), 33 - 59.
Granitz, N. A., Koernig, S. K. & Harich, K. R. (2009). Now it’s personal – Antecedents and
outcomes of rapport between business faculty and their students. Journal of Marketing
Education, 31(1), 52-65.
Gremler, D. D. & Gwinner, K. P. (2008). Rapport-building behaviors used by retail employees.
Journal of Retailing, 84(3), 308-324.
Harnash-Glezer, M. & Meyer, J. (1991). Dimensions of satisfaction with collegiate education.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 16(2), 95-107.
Helgesen, Ø. & Nesset, E. (2007). What accounts for students’ loyalty? Some field study
evidence. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(2), 126-143.
30
Hemsley-Brown, J. & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace:
Systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty:
An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4),
331-44.
Hill, F. (1995). Managing service quality in higher education: The role of the student as primary
consumer. Quality Assurance in Education, 3(3), 10-21.
Hill, Y., Lomas, L. L., & MacGregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher
education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15-20.
Husbands, C. T. (1998). Implications for the assessment of the teaching competence of staff in
higher education of some correlates of students` evaluations of different teaching styles.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 23(2), 117-39.
Hwarng, H. & Teo, C. (2001). Translating customers’ voices into operations requirements: A
QFD application in higher education. International Journal of Quality and Reliability
Management, 18(2-3), 195-227.
Iacobucci, D., Ostrom, A. & Grayson, K. (1995). Distinguishing Service quality and customer
satisfaction: The voice of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(33), 277-303.
Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis approach.
International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 276-282.
Iyer, R. & Muncy, J. A. (2008). Service recovery in marketing education: It’s what we do that
counts. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(1), 21-32.
31
Johnson, M. D., Herrmann, A. & Huber, F. (2006, April). The evolution of loyalty intentions.
Journal of Marketing, 70, 122-132.
Johnston, R. & Heineke, J. (1998). Exploring the relationship between perception and
performance: Priorities for action. The Service Industries Journal, 18(1), 53-71.
Joseph, M., Yakhou, M., & Stone, G. (2005). An educational institution’s quest for service
quality: Customers’ perspective. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 66-82.
Kano, N. (1984). Attractive quality and must be quality. Hinshitsu (Quality), 14 (2), 147-156 (in
Japanese).
Kano, N. (2001). Life cycle and creation of attractive quality. Paper presented at the 4th
International QMOD Conference on Quality Management and Organizational Development,
University of Linkoeping, Linkoeping, Sweden.
Kano, N. (2006). Attractive quality theory – Kano model. Paper presented at the Healthy Cities
Leaders Roundtable and International Healthy Cities Conference, Taipei, Taiwan.
Kelly, K. J. & Stanley, L. R. (1999). Faculty perceptions and experiences of student behavior:
Does gender matter? Journal of Marketing Education, 21(3), 194-205.
Klayton, M. A. (1993). Using marketing research to improve university programs. Journal of
Professional Services Marketing, 9(1), 105-114.
Kotler, P. & Levy, S. (1969). Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 33(1),
10-15.
Lala, V. & Priluck, R. (2011). When students complain: An antecedent model of students’
intention to complain. Journal of Marketing Education, forthcoming (online first).
32
Lammers, W. & Murphy, J. J. (2002). A profile of teaching techniques used in the university
classroom. Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 54-67.
Lantos, G. P. (1997). Motivating students: The attitude of the professor. Marketing Education
Review, 7(2), 27-38.
Lepage, A. (2009). The quality of life as attribute of sustainability. The TQM Journal, 21(2), 105-
115.
Lilja, J. & Wiklund, H. (2006). Obstacles to the creation of attractive quality. The TQM
Magazine, 18(1), 55-66.
Lincoln, D. J. (2008). Drama in the classroom: How and why marketing educators can use
nonverbal communications and enthusiasm to build student rapport. Marketing Education
Review, 18 (3), 53-65.
Löfgren, M. & Witell, L. (2008). Two decades of using kano’s theory of attractive quality: A
literature review. The Quality Management Journal, 15(1), 59-75.
Mangan, K. (1992). Colleges embrace the concept of total quality management. Chronicle of
Higher Education, 38(49), A25-A26.
Maringe, F. (2005). Interrogating the crisis in higher education marketing: The cord model.
International Journal of Educational Management, 19(7), pp. 564-578.
Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and
course value. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 108-119.
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. & Rivera-Torres, M. P. (2005a). Measuring customer
satisfaction in summer courses. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(1), 53-65.
33
Marzo-Navarro, M., Pedraja-Iglesias, M. & Rivera-Torres, M. P. (2005b). A new management
element for universities: Satisfaction with the courses offered. International Journal of
Educational Management, 19(6), 505-526.
Martin, A., Milne-Home, J., Barrett, J., Spalding, E. & Jones, G. (2000). Graduate satisfaction
with university and perceived employment preparation. Journal of Education and Work, 13(2),
199-213.
Matzler, K. & Sauerwein, E. (2002). The factor structure of customer satisfaction: An empirical
test of the importance grid and the penalty-reward-contrast analysis. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 13(4), 314-332.
Matzler, K., Bailom, F., Hinterhuber, H. H., Renzl, B., & Pichler, E. (2004). The asymmetric
relationship between attribute-level performance and overall customer satisfaction: A
reconsideration of the importance-performance analysis. Industrial Marketing Management,
33, 271-277.
Matzler, K., Hinterhuber, H. H., Bailom, F. & Sauerwein, E. (1996). How to delight your
customers. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 5(2), 6-18.
Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G. & Seng, M. (2003). The third wave: Future trends in international
education. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 90-99.
McElwee, G. & Redman, T. (1993). Upward appraisal in practice. Education+Training, 35(2),
27-31.
Mills, P. & Morris, J. (1986). Clients as “partial” employees of service organizations: Role
development in client participation. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 726-735.
34
Moore, S. & Kuol, N. (2007). Retrospective insights on teaching: Exploring teaching excellence
through the eyes of alumni. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(2), 133-143.
Morgan, G. & Shim, S. (1990). University student satisfaction: Implications for departmental
planning. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 19(1), 47.
Nilsson-Witell, L. & Fundin, A. (2005). Dynamics of service attributes: A test of Kano’s theory
of attractive quality. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 16(2), 152-168.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 33-44.
Oliver, R. L. & DeSarbo, W. S. (1989). Processing of the satisfaction response in consumption: A
suggested framework and research proposition. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction,
Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 2, 1-16.
Price, L., Arnould, E. & Tierney, P. (1995). Going to extremes: Managing service encounters and
assessing provider performance. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 83-97.
Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course
experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129-50.
Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the
literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 30(4), 387-415.
Sakao, T. (2009). Quality engineering for early stage of environmentally conscious design. The
TQM Journal, 21(2), 182-193.
Setijono, D. (2008). DisPMO and DePMO as six sigma-based forward-looking quality
performance measures. The TQM Journal, 20(6), 588-598.
35
Shank, M. D., Walker, M. & Hayes, T. (1996). Understanding professional service expectations:
Do we know what our students expect in a quality education? Journal of Professional Services
Marketing, 13(1), 71 - 89.
Smart, D. T., Kelley, C.A., & Conant, J. S. (2003). Mastering the art of teaching: Pursuing
excellence in a new millennium. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(1), 71-78.
Sohail, M. & Shaikh, N. (2004). Quest for excellence in business education: A study of student
impressions of service quality. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(1), 58-
65.
Stewart, K. L. (1991). Applying a marketing orientation to a higher education setting. Journal of
Professional Services Marketing, 7(2), 117-124.
Svensson, G. & Wood, G. (2007). Are university students really customers? When illusion may
lead to delusion for all! International Journal of Educational Management, 21(1), 17-28.
Swanson, S. & Davis, J. (2000). A view from the aisle: classroom successes, failures and
recovery strategies. Marketing Education Review, 10(2), 17-26.
Swanson, S. R. & Frankel, R. (2002). A view from the podium: Classroom successes, failures,
and recovery strategies. Marketing Education Review, 12(2), 25-35.
Swanson, S. R., Frankel, R., & Sagan, M. (2005). Exploring the impact of cultural differences.
Marketing Education Review, 15(3), 37-48.
Sweeney, A. D. P., Morrison, M. D., Jarratt, D., & Heffernan, T. (2009). Modeling the constructs
contributing to the effectiveness of marketing lecturers. Journal of Marketing Education,
31(3), 190-202.
36
Szmigin, I. & Reppel, A. E. (2004). Internet community bonding: The case of Macnews.de.
European Journal of Marketing, 38(5/6), 626-40.
Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W. & Rust, R. T. (2005, November). Feature fatigue: When
product capabilities become too much of a good thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42,
431-442.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 68 (1), 1-17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2006). Service-dominant logic: What it is, what it is not, what it
might be. In The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions, R. F.
Lusch, & S. L. Vargo (Eds.). New York, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008a). From goods to service(s): Divergences and convergences of
logics. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 254-259.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008b). Why service? Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 36(1), 25-38.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008c). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution. Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1-10.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2011). It’s all B2B…and beyond: Toward a systems perspective of
the market. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 181-187.
Voss, R. (2009). Studying critical classroom encounters: The experiences of students in German
college education. Quality Assurance in Education, 17(2), 156-173.
Voss, R., Gruber, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher education: The role of
student expectations. Journal of Business Research, 60(9), 949-959.
37
Witell, L. & Löfgren, M. (2007). Classification of quality attributes. Managing Service Quality,
17(1), 54-73.
Yeo, R. K. (2008). Servicing service quality in higher education: Quest for excellence. On The
Horizon, 16(3), 152-161.
38
Figure 1
Influence of attributes of professors on satisfaction and dissatisfaction of students
(Southwest)
39
Figure 2
Influence of attributes of professors on satisfaction and dissatisfaction of students
(Midwest)
Figure 3
40
Comparison of Southwest (dark circles) and Midwest maps (light circles)
41
Table 1
Characteristics of Effective Professors
Authors Characteristics of Effective Professors
Sweeney,
Morrison, Jarratt,
& Heffernan,
(2009)
Clear communication, assessment fairness, dynamic delivery, real-world
knowledge, rapport
Lincoln (2008) Nonverbal communication, enthusiasm and rapport
Voss, Gruber, &
Szmigin (2007);
Brown (2004)
Competent, approachable, willing to answer questions, show flexibility
and willing to explain things in different ways, treat their students as
individuals.
Swanson, Frankel,
& Sagan (2005)
Knowledgeable, empathetic, friendly, helpful, reliable, responsive, and
expressive
Hill, Lomas, &
MacGregor (2003)
Knowledgeable, well-organized, encouraging, helpful, sympathetic, and
caring to students’ individual needs
Lammers &
Murphy (2002)
Knowledgeable, enthusiastic about their subject, inspiring, and helpful
Andreson (2000) Enthusiastic, caring, and interested in the students’ progress
Husbands (1998);
Ramsden (1991)
Expertise
McElwee &
Redman (1993)
Reliable: turn up to classes on time and keep records of student
performance
42
Table 2
Extract from Questionnaire
15a.
If a lecturer is courteous to students, how
do you feel?
1.
I like it that way
2.
It must be that way
3.
I am neutral
4.
I can live with it that
5.
I dislike it that way
15b.
If a lecturer is not courteous to students,
how do you feel?
1.
I like it that way
2.
It must be that way
3.
I am neutral
4.
I can live with it that
5.
I dislike it that way
43
Table 3
Example of an Evaluation Table
Negative / dysfunctional question
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
Positive / functional question
1. Questionable Attractive Attractive Attractive One-
dimensional
2. Reverse Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Must be
3. Reverse Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Must be
4. Reverse Indifferent Indifferent Indifferent Must be
5. Reverse Reverse Reverse Reverse Questionable
Numbers represent answer options as shown in Table 2: 1. = “I like it that way”, 2. = “It
must be that way”, 3. = “I am neutral”, 4. = “I can live with it that way”, 5. = “I dislike
it that way” (Table adapted from Matzler et al. 1996, p. 10).
44
Table 4
Comparison of Professor Characteristics leading to
Satisfaction (Sat) and Dissatisfaction (Diss) – Southwest (SW) and Midwest (MW)
Labels SW
Diss
SW
Sat
MW
Diss
MW
Sat
DIFF
Diss
DIFF
Sat
Length
Expertise (own
subject area) 0.721
0.587
0.639
0.531
0.082
0.056
0.099
Expertise (other
subject areas) 0.048
0.610
0.049
0.528
0.001
0.082
0.082
Reliability 0.752
0.543
0.831
0.541
0.079
0.002
0.079
Friendliness 0.350
0.728
0.465
0.743
0.116
0.015
0.117
Empathy 0.600
0.810
0.676
0.768
0.076
0.042
0.087
Logical
structure of
lecture 0.648
0.590
0.676
0.507
0.028
0.084
0.088
Approachability
0.429
0.752
0.582
0.795
0.154
0.042
0.159
Enthusiasm 0.571
0.771
0.510
0.772
0.061
0.001
0.061
Receptive to
suggestions 0.467
0.781
0.527
0.726
0.061
0.055
0.082
Helpfulness 0.740
0.625
0.842
0.568
0.102
0.057
0.117
Fairness 0.558
0.452
0.635
0.480
0.077
0.028
0.082
Use of humor 0.356
0.827
0.303
0.828
0.052
0.001
0.052
45
Variety of
teaching
methods 0.135
0.654
0.151
0.603
0.016
0.051
0.054
Fostering of
team work 0.034
0.402
0.108
0.462
0.073
0.059
0.094
Courtesy 0.752
0.619
0.816
0.653
0.064
0.034
0.072
Good
communication
skills 0.695
0.581
0.726
0.651
0.031
0.070
0.076
Respect 0.867
0.543
0.850
0.592
0.016
0.049
0.052
Prompt
feedback 0.490
0.750
0.534
0.760
0.044
0.010
0.045
Coverage of
work-related
topics 0.381
0.781
0.459
0.764
0.079
0.017
0.080
Average:
0.083
Max: 0.159
Min: 0.045
