Content uploaded by Chrishankar Janathanan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Chrishankar Janathanan on Apr 02, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Corresponding Author: C. Janathanan, Senior Lecturer, Horizon Campus, Colombo, Sri Lanka,
Email: chrishankar@horizoncampus.edu.lk
Asian Journal of Marketing Management (AJMM)
2023, Vol (I1I), Issue (1), 134-150
Copyright© University of Sri Jayewardenepura
ISSN: 2820-2031 (Printed)
ISSN: 2820-2082 (Online)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31357/ajmm.v3i01.7307
Reprints and Permission: ajmm@sjp.ac.lk
Factors Leading to Student Dissatisfaction in The Education Sector; A Study
of Google Reviews from The Higher Education Industry in Sri Lanka
C. Janathanan
Horizon Campus
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The research is focused on the higher education institutes, and non-state sector in Sri
Lanka. The study aims to understand perspectives presented by the positive and negative reviews on
sixty-four (64) higher education institutions.
Design/methodology/approach: A total of Two Thousand Five Hundred (2500) reviews have
been studied. The research study aims to recognize, define, and determine the factors in the non-
state higher education institution space leading to student dissatisfaction.
Findings: The literature review covers (1) Word of Mouth (WOM) & Electronic Word of Mouth
(eWOM) (2) Digital media marketing (3) Review sites (4) the Sri Lankan higher education system
and players (5) Student Dissatisfaction and its determinants. The methodology will involve a positivist
research philosophy, the deductive approach, and the survey-based research study that is focused
upon with cross cross-sectional timeline. From the results, it is identifiable that only 29.6% of the
teams had a responsive Google Business page. These are institutions that respond to reviews. The
top concerns noted by the students/public were (1) Lack of student support (2) Delay in certificates
(3) Poor management practices (4) Lack of academic quality.
Originality: This research outlines the perspectives from Sri Lankan, non-state Higher Education
Institutions (HEI). A newer area of research and perspective in digital media.
Implications: This research adds to the existing literature and specifically focuses on aspects of
Google Reviews. Google reviews are relatively new to Sri Lanka, where the masses may rely on word
of mouth. Managing the reviews allows for HEIs to show confidence and capability in handling media.
Keywords: Digital Marketing, Google Reviews, Higher Education Institution, Student satisfaction,
Word of Mouth
C. JANATHANAN
135
INTRODUCTION
The research is focused on understanding the non-state sector, private sector
higher education institutions in Sri Lanka. An understanding of the positive and
negative Google reviews that are presented by the public, students (consumers) or
parents (customers). Any organisation that is in the public space, servicing the B2B
and B2C marketplace has to be aware of the market and businesses have to fulfil the
needs of the marketplace. The market is being influenced by both positive and
negative factors leading to and shaping the way the market operates. In the new digital
world, consumer behaviour has been fuelled with more transparency compared to a
decade before. (Kemp et al, 2021) There are more conversations online, transactions
online have increased with Tesla cars (2023) being bought online, more access to
international purchases and understanding of global brands increasing. The global
marketplace has increased the transparency associated with product quality (Sinha,
2021). Organisation’s service standards are often influenced by the ability of the
organisation to fulfil the customer requirements, and several theoretical models like
SERVQUAL, SERVPERF, RATER model, and GAP model provide for clarification
to understand the gaps in service standards. The amount of theory that exists and the
approaches taken by the non-state higher education institution space have been
understood.
Research Problem
There are a number of reviews that are generated daily which includes both
positive and negative reviews. However, it will be important for an organisation in
the private higher education space, to understand the different “expectations” built by
the customer and their respective attitudes and attributes gathered. These
expectations are brought in by the advertising, word of mouth and key opinion leader
comments (Chen & Yuan, 2020; Doveston & Keenaghan, 2006).
Secondly, there is a gap in the digital marketing literature addressing the current
perspectives of reviews gathered. (Deeley et al, 2019; Douglas et al, 2022; Ferri et al,
2020). The approach taken to reviews, the responses gathered and the understanding
that it leaves with the firm. The existing literature does not state methodology or a
frame of reference to tackle reviews. Instead, have often been generic in identifying
customer/consumer reviews are important for the aspects of digital marketing.
Research Aim
The aim of the research study is to recognize, define and determine the factors
in the non-state higher education institution space leading to student dissatisfaction.
Significance
The research illustrates the influence of student’s feedback, in gaining
insights for the marketing team. To understand the digital marketing and pro-
FACTORS LEADING TO STUDENT DISSATISFACTION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR; A STUDY
OF GOOGLE REVIEWS FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA
136
activeness of the marketing team in dealing with concerns arising from the online
space. To recognise the benefits and approaches undertaken by Google reviews,
allowing for better strategies to drive more positive feedback than negative feedback
on the online space. Finally, this research helps both the academia and the
practitioners in understanding the role of digital marketing in managing
dissatisfaction.
Objectives of the Study
General Objectives
The following general objectives are set to understand the pathway of the study.
1. To establish determinants of the student dissatisfaction and the primary
reasons for dissatisfaction.
2. To recognise the usage of Google review site and their resulting response
mechanisms from marketers
3. To enable suitable strategies to counter negative dissatisfaction that are set
out.
Specific Objectives
The following specific objectives are set to understand the pathway of the study
1. To establish the different determinants of dissatisfaction and to recognise the
key areas of problems identified in the industry
2. To pin point exact issues that are identified on the front end (website, social
media pages) with digital media
3. To identify suitable pages and tools used by the users, customers, consumers
on concerns
4. To evaluate the effectiveness and pin point specific strategies adopted by
organizations in handling concerns.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review section of this report is divided into five (5) sections.
First section sets out on the WOM and e-WOM. The focal area of the research is on
word of mouth (WOM). Secondly, digital media marketing is being provided. Third
area covered is on review sites. Fourth area is on the Sri Lankan higher education
system and players. Finally, student dissatisfaction and its determinants are studied
WOM & eWOM
Word of mouth marketing is defined as the Why, How and When of creating
social influence for your brand (Berger, 2013). Baer and Lemin (2018) identify word
of mouth as the informal communication between individuals about products,
services, or companies that is sparked by a unique, unexpected, or remarkable
C. JANATHANAN
137
customer experience. The aggregate of all person-to-person communication about a
particular product, service, or company at any point in time (Rosen, 2010). Most of
the definitions have conformity, to identify specific practices and enablers in the
organisation. The necessary evolution has been the transformation from traditional
physical communication to the online space. The recent authors and books on word
of mouth have all addressed this content of Electronic Word of Mouth (eWOM)
(Chen & Yuan, 2020; Allard et al, 2020; Verma & Yadav, 2021). Word of mouth to
be created needs to have (1) an Unexpected and surprising outcome that is positive
or negative (2) Memorable to communicate (3) Sharable customer experience, that is
in person or online (4) Repeatable experience (Baer & Lemin, 2018).
Digital Media Marketing
Increased internet coverage in Sri Lanka at 52.58% (TRCSL, 2023). Covid
lockdowns and the necessity to bring in safe purchases have influenced the rapid
adoption of technology (Habib & Hamdenah, 2021). Digital media marketing has
peaked with the available online tools and platforms. Digital media marketing has
become a more vital channel for organisations and institutions to facilitate purchases,
customer opinion, generate attention and keep post-purchase momentum positively
attributed to organisations (Homberg & Wieglos, 2019). The role of digital marketing
has become quite significant that the search term “digital marketing agency” and
“digital marketing courses” draws in close to 100,000 keywords daily (Google
Keyword Planner, 2023). The smartphone adaptation and cheaper internet have been
a true motivator for the adaptation of digital media (Sharmin et al, 2021). This has
led to increased participation in social media, online consumption and remote work
opportunities (Ferri et al, 2020).
Online review platforms
Online review portals have been present since the early days of the internet.
However, the evolution has been rapid with WEB 2.0 and the increased affiliation of
social media. Social media has influenced increased in User Generated Content
(Haigh & Wigley, 2015). Review platforms have facilitated users to share ratings,
comments, share pictures, and provide reviews of facilities/services available. Yelp
which was launched in 2004 and Trip Advisor in 2000 has immensely facilitated the
role of review sites. Google Reviews has been operational since 2009. This was
included into the “Google Local Business Centre” feature. However, the brand has
immensely facilitated the growth of reviews, and necessity for brands to focus on the
relevant challenges.
The below table 01 indicates that close to 81% of the customers read reviews from
Google prior to visiting the outlet. Google reviews have a higher penetration due to
the product being packaged with search, maps and connectivity for a business.
(Google Business, 2023) The different statistics provide for the available resources
for the enablement of key attributes.
FACTORS LEADING TO STUDENT DISSATISFACTION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR; A STUDY
OF GOOGLE REVIEWS FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA
138
Table 01: Online Review Platform Statistics
Review platform
% of
Customers
read
reviews
% of Customers
make buying
decision
% Response to
negative review
Google
81
93
24
Yelp
53
86
NA
TripAdvisor
45
85
30
Source: Review Trackers (2022)
Sri Lankan higher education system and players
Sri Lankan higher education system is driven by both the public sector
investments from the government and the non-state sector (private sector) investing
in initiatives such as the setting up of universities, and offering of professional
qualifications. There are seventeen (17) public universities and eleven (11) non-state
HEIs offering academic degree programmes. Tertiary and Vocational Education
Commission (TVEC) (2023) offers standardisation and quality assurance services to
ensure compliance of the non-state institutions involved in developing locally built
curriculum with certificates, advanced certificates, diplomas and higher diplomas.
There are over 1,549 registered institutes in Sri Lanka. (TVEC, 2023) The increased
competition and the penetration being higher, it will become important for the higher
education institution (HEI) to focus on the Sri Lankan market space much better.
Student satisfaction and quality orientation are most important to gauge the quality
of output and different considerations that are to be made.
Student dissatisfaction and its determinants
Student dissatisfaction is the negative attitudes carried by a student with
reference to the educational experience (Douglas et al, 2015). The role of the student
in the education system. The Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulation
(Ofqual) regulations have prescribed calling a student a “learner” since 2019 (Ofqual,
2023). Gradually it's observable that some centres often include the learners as
partners in the progress of learning, calling the learners as learning partners.
Nevertheless, in an educational set-up, there is a quasi-relationship where the
consumer (Student), customer (Parent or company sponsoring the programme) is
provided with the right set of updates and satisfaction from the programmes that are
being derived. In analysing the above content, it could be identified that a number of
factors lead to student dissatisfaction.
From the outset, it could be identified from the literature the following range of
factors (Table 02) will influence student dissatisfaction.
C. JANATHANAN
139
Table 02: Student dissatisfaction drivers
Driver
Authors
Quality of e-resources
Ranaweera (2021)
Motivation inspired by
university professionals
Dougles et al (2015)
Praise/reward
Dougles et al (2015)
Social inclusion
Dougles et al (2015)
Usefulness of the course
Dougles et al (2015)
Value of money
Dougles et al (2015)
Fellow student behaviour
Dougles et al (2015)
Assessments and feedback
Deely et al (2019)
Professor’s characteristics
Gruber et al (2012)
Social inclusion covers the aspect of meeting new people with the faculty and
departments (Doveston & Keenaghan, 2006). The social inclusion provides for the
different aspects. The usefulness of the course that is prescribed with the value that is
driven by the course. The value derived from the course. Fellow student behaviour
does provide for the overall productivity and consideration leading to the results.
Deeley et al (2019) outline the role of assessment communication and feedback as
another pointed area which drives student dissatisfaction to be identified. Gruber et
al (2012) do provide that the professor’s approach will influence the way students are
motivated and uses the KANO model as a reference point. KANO model is quite
prescriptive on the aspects of: Must haves, Satisfiers, Delighters, Indifferent
Attributes, and Dissatisfiers. The KANO model provides a holistic view of the service
industry – to understand the expectations of the consumers and make sufficient
changes in the product development stages. The Kano model since its inception in
1980s by Dr Noriaki Kano has further evolved to adopt "Kano+1" approach. “Must
not have” or “Unwanted attributes” that a product/service should not offer.
Nevertheless, the theoretical perspective is of course with criticism, that the
“attractive” become “must-have” features over time, due to competitors catching
phase.
Similarly, SERVQUAL and SERVPERF models have attempted to identify customer
satisfaction and dissatisfaction perspectives. Zeithaml (2002) have outlined gaps that
could arise during service delivery, service expectation development (customer
perception), Communication and execution itself. It could be observed from the
literature, that there are generic models and theories available that can influence the
approaches taken in managing student satisfaction. Nevertheless, the research work
of authors such as Gruber et al (2012) have been very prescriptive pinpointing on
professor’s ability to (1) communication skills (2) enthusiasm (3) rapport (4) use of
real-life examples of in class; can lead to better satisfaction for students. The research
methodology will account for the aspect of probing each of the negative reviews
submitted by the learners and gauge the aspects set about.
FACTORS LEADING TO STUDENT DISSATISFACTION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR; A STUDY
OF GOOGLE REVIEWS FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA
140
METHODOLOGY
The research philosophy adopted by the researcher focused on Positivism.
The positivist aspect focuses on the objective reality. The theory does provide to
enable for specific insights that are gathered allowing for conformity and the
scientific process of conforming facts that are gathered with secondary research. The
validity of the research is focused on certainty and reliability indicating the results
that are reproduced. The research approach is focused on the deductive approach. The
deductive approach is based on the well-grounded literature review variables which
indicates the conclusions that are to be made. The research is focused on survey-based
research strategy. This research is carried out with a cross sectional timeline has been
used. Data collection method involved a total of 64 HEIs and the study of 2,500
reviews posted by the students. The entire population of institutions were studied and
institutions that have more than five (5) Google reviews were taken up to research.
The population of non-state higher education institutions are available on Tertiary
and Vocational Education Commission (2024), University Grants Commission
(2024) websites. Judgemental sampling methodology which falls under the non-
probability sampling strategy has been used in this research. The research will involve
only Google reviews and restricted to the feedback that is shared. Sample selection
of reviews have been conducted by reading all the reviews that were existing on each
of the HEI’s Google Business Page (2024). The research was carried out with a
manual process. Thematic analysis was carried out with the information collected and
coded.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
In the first part of this section descriptive statistics is used as a primary tool
of analysing results. While the detailed statistical analysis will facilitate the
hypothesis testing set out. The below table is ordered from highest to lowest volume
of ratings.
Table 03: Centre wise review
Centre name
Overall
Rating
Number of
reviews
Number of 1-
star reviews
Responded
to review
SLIIT
4.6
1669
72
No
NSBM
4.6
974
47
No
AAT
4.4
607
16
Yes
CINEC
4.4
612
58
No
ICBT
4.2
557
59
No
Cambridge College
4.9
563
4
YES
KDU
4.6
550
46
No
NIBM
4.5
405
28
No
Aquinas
4.5
395
26
No
CA Sri Lanka
4.3
382
36
No
C. JANATHANAN
141
CIPM
4.2
308
42
No
Centre name
Overall
Rating
Number
of reviews
Number of
1-star
reviews
Responded
to review
ESOFT
4.2
301
39
Yes
ACBT
4.0
294
43
No
SLTC
4.4
269
25
No
ANC
3.7
234
57
Yes
Achievers
4.4
220
14
No
BMS
4.5
218
19
No
KIU
3.6
215
54
No
IIHS
4.0
190
38
No
PIM**
4.6
188
6
No
APIIT
4.4
186
15
No
Metropolitan College
4.0
175
42
No
AMDT
4.3
167
24
No
Saegis
4.6
159
7
No
Horizon
4.5
144
10
No
Nawaloka College
4.2
142
22
Yes
Oxford College of
Business
4.5
136
12
No
AOD
4.2
116
13
No
APIDM
4.9
110
0
Yes
SIBA campus
4.6
102
4
Yes
IIHE
3.9
97
33
No
SLIM
3.8
96
22
No
Centre name
Overall
Rating
Number
of reviews
Number of
1-star
reviews
Responded
to review
WinSys networks
4.3
96
12
Yes
IDM Nations
4.2
96
16
No
AOG campus
4.3
88
11
No
York Graduate
Campus
4.6
88
5
No
American College
4.2
70
6
Yes
Next Campus
4.8
66
2
Yes
UTS college SL
4.6
65
5
No
Louis Preston
4.8
64
2
No
CMA
4.0
63
13
No
UCL
4.2
62
9
No
FACTORS LEADING TO STUDENT DISSATISFACTION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR; A STUDY
OF GOOGLE REVIEWS FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA
142
SLIATE**
4.3
57
2
Yes
IDM Colombo
4.2
56
10
No
AIC
4.3
55
8
No
AIBS
4.9
52
1
Yes
AIB
4.8
45
1
Yes
BSC Colombo
4.0
43
8
No
ENC
4.3
38
7
No
Aspire College
4.6
34
3
Yes
SANASA
4.4
31
2
Yes
BCAS
3.2
31
12
Yes*
IIT
4.5
30
4
No
Centre name
Overall
Rating
Number
of reviews
Number of
1-star
reviews
Responded
to review
Lanka Institute of
Fashion
Technology
4.4
26
3
Yes
CSBM
4.6
26
1
Yes
Study World Lanka
Campus
4.7
23
0
No
Lyceum
4.7
22
1
Yes
Imperial College
4.3
18
3
No
BIMT Campus
4.9
17
0
No
Gateway GS (HEI)
4.4
17
2
No
AIBT
4.8
13
0
No
Singer Fashion
Academy
5.0
9
0
No
Transmind Campus
4.9
7
0
No
Winfield
4.2
5
1
Yes
*BCAS is having two locations where the reviews are picked up. One account has
administrator involvement, the other does not. Similarly, Singer Fashion Academy is
having several branches with mini-branch based operational model. **PIM and
SLIATE are government institutions. However, their approach to qualifications is
equivalent to non-state sector. Therefore, taken for analysis. Response for reviews
was accounted for only twelve-month period of activity. It could be seen that some
of the centres such as ICBT have had different strategies to approach the Google
Business Profile page (2023). Three (3) years before the response from the “owner”
(administrator) received, currently is inactive.
C. JANATHANAN
143
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
Out of the centres studied only 29.6% of the centres were responding to the
learner/public feedback that was stated on the Google reviews.
Table 04: An analysis of Negative reviews and frequency
Concerns noted in
1*reviews
Frequency
Concerns noted in
1*reviews
Frequenc
y
Unprofessional conduct
48
Delayed certificate
239
Poor student support
348
Infrastructure,
Facilities concerns
84
Cross-departmental
politics
1
Discipline
8
Exam questions being
out of syllabus
12
3rd Party linked with
the centre
1
Canteen Food quality
11
Refund policy
138
Employee concerns
92
Poor management
272
Excessive fees
31
Academic issues
224
Value for money
129
Poor administration
257
Unannounced fees
81
Call centre and call
issues - unreachable
181
Lack of extra-curricular
activities
11
The concerns of administration involve the way the system is organised to facilitate
students. Students in their 1-star reviews have confirmed the poor time tabling, class
cancellation, affiliation with poor tailor standards – for centres associated with
military.
Facilities oriented concerns often involved poor parking facilities, poor hostels (by
those centres providing services). Often parking facilities were cited as necessity.
Premium schools that charged over LKR 1.4 million/programme, often cited parking
issues. While, infrastructure complaints from students through loan scheme or
military academy – often highlighted concerns with reference to hostels.
Academic issues pointed out on the reviews highlight poor standard of lecturers,
lecturing, Favouritism, Assignments without deadline, improper approvals for
programmes, marking/exam results delay, unclear explanation of subjects & working
(Accounting subjects).
Learners often pointed out management; for concerns of fees, appropriate managers
in place to talk to, when a concern persists. Often the concept of “management
doesn’t care” was propping up. This is reflective of the student’s expecting the
FACTORS LEADING TO STUDENT DISSATISFACTION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR; A STUDY
OF GOOGLE REVIEWS FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA
144
management to give an ear. “Money oriented” is another complaint, where students
often referred to having to pay hidden fees.
Call centre and call related issues highlights not answering calls.
Learner often complained of unannounced fees charged by institutions for attestation,
steep graduation fees.
Poor administration issues covered issues with certificates, poor set up for students
to follow up on concerns, not uploading lecture material on time, letters and support
systems are lacking, the improper registration of students to right programmes.
Student support is synonymous with customer service in the corporate industry. A
HEI has to cater to the requirements of industry, learner aspirations and also fulfil the
requirements of the job market, regulatory.
Unprofessional staff standards refer to poor response by staff members, decretory
statements made, untruthful information provided to students upon enrolment.
Table 05: An analysis of B** reviews
Concerns noted in
1*reviews
Frequency
Positives noted in 5* review
Frequency
Unprofessional conduct
1
Admissions in Northumbria
University UK & Study abroad
8
Poor student support
1
Student support
24
Cross-departmental
politics
1
Academic quality
18
Exam questions being
out of syllabus
1
Canteen Food quality
1
Employee concerns
1
Excessive fees
1
No comments
12
A total of 50 positive reviews were studied out of 168 reviews available. Only 19
reviews were in one star for BMS. Google reviews which allow to display reviews
without comments there were a total of 9.
It could be identified that any centre has three (3) key negatives and three (3) key
positives that are available to transform and facilitate the reviews that are generated
Future Research Areas
Future research could understand the different perceptions, emotions of trust,
reliability associated by prospects due to seeing a review. Student decision choice of
C. JANATHANAN
145
a HEI due to reviews could be further exploredIn terms of managerial contribution,
this pilot study persuades FinTech marketers to give the centre of attention on
engaging/thinking more as regards current pre-experience delivery on MarTech in
order to reduce the gap between customers’ MarTech usage intention and behaviour
in the FinTech industry. Further, this study put forward a new triggering concept, but
it’s not yet tested. In the logic of practical scenarios, it gives valuable implications
and interesting ideas for FinTech marketers. In the case of ‘current pre-experience,
when the customers’ usage behaviour differs from their usage intention, FinTech
marketers must put more effort to offer superior current pre-experience to their
customers (Bueno et al., 2019) (e.g., by increasing the organization’s reputation,
visualizing something similar to social media timeline, offering alternative,
competitive and comparable services (Chahal & Dutta, 2015) and facilitating support
chat and personal assistance). Furthermore, FinTech marketers can trigger the
customers’ usage intention as actual usage behaviour through positional experience
and reputational experience as their experiential marketing strategy (e.g., create loyal
customers through greater service experiences by personal banker, giving compatible
positional experience, increase the banks’ recognition through reputation).
CONCLUSION & CONTRIBUTIONS
The findings from the research could be listed out as below.
• Finding 1: Extreme satisfaction or dissatisfaction noted with detailed
comments
Those whom were extremely satisfied or dissatisfied often posted concerns in a very
detailed manner. Often the number of words on average exceeded 23 words. The
displeasure or the positive experience was experience.
• Finding 2: Digital orientation of marketers within the HEI
Marketing strategy when warranted focus on Google reviews, there has been a
consistent focus on Google reviews. It is visible that the involvement of digital
agencies and digital roles within the organisation, has led to participation and
involvement of the management. The ratio of positive reviews over negative reviews,
led to a positive “halo effect”.
• Finding 3: Management engagement in reviews increases positive reviews
When the learners identify that the management is concerned about the reviews, there
is an overall attitude to show gratitude, and also thank the subject lecturers. Often
learners mentioned specific names of the student support staff, lecturers to thank for
their services. Often recommendations were made to future students, showcasing
their competency.
FACTORS LEADING TO STUDENT DISSATISFACTION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR; A STUDY
OF GOOGLE REVIEWS FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA
146
• Finding 4: Google reviews and their review quality may differ
Google never screens the review for quality of review. A person who has not been a
student, can also comment on the place. When a new prospect looks at it, it could
deviate the choices being made.
• Finding 5: Google local guides in education category are less than 1% of
reviews
“Google local guide” is a name label given by Google to identify and promote
reviews. Google Maps become sharper with the participation of Google Local Guides
(2023).
• Finding 6: If Google reviews are not managed, the platform becomes biased
with only negative reviews
It is observable that rarely management, involved to show positive affirmation. This
could be because of a lack of digital orientation. There is a higher possibility for
negative reviews and poor rating when management or the marketing team is not
involved.
• Finding 7: Students become brand advocates
In Google, it was visible that students were advocating for the HEIs. Often
showcasing their gratitude, student activities and participation. This was a clear
difference between management/marketing motivated Google reviews and those
which were focused by the students. In some instances, it was observable that the
Google Business Page was managed by a student than the campus. Example SLIIT –
where one of the negative reviews were responded by a student perspective.
• Finding 8: HEIs with branches did not have a specific strategy to centralise
review feedback
ESOFT has had several operations such as that in the Marine drive, Computer study
centres and Metro branches which have been focused on a “franchising” model.
However, the different reviews both positive and negative have not been centralised
to harbour benefit. The research composes of Metro branch block E to signify the
recent building where new reviews are placed.
• Finding 9: Specific centre issues needs to be addressed
It was identifiable that students from AOD felt value for money was not met. This
was the highest response. Students from AOG campus felt that the management did
not have enough structure and standard of work. Highlighting specific concerns
around it. Student support services were extremely lacking and phone calls were not
answered as per reviews from Aquinas. Chairman who was in the lecture panel was
harming the learning experience of Achievers Lanka. This leads to specific
understanding.
C. JANATHANAN
147
• Finding 10: Responding to only negative reviews and not having a system in
place to capture positive reviews
It was noticeable that some centres such as UCL and NCHS had a habit of responding
only to negative complaints. Therefore, it was visible that most learners took their
complaints to the Google Business Page to vent their concerns. Probably a speedy
solution could be encouraged when taken online. This harms the internal processors,
and shows lack of quality-oriented practices within the centre.
Recommendations
The following range of recommendations could be set out.
Table 06: Strategies for handling NR
Strategies for handling NR
Recommendations
Have a well-studied response
Provide the public/students with appropriate responses with
exact response. Be polite, but firm in the approach taken, if
the student is misinformed.
If any errors on the HEIs
ensure appropriate corrections
Errors on the HEIs, ensure appropriate corrections, which is
able to meet the proper discussions.
Engage with negative review
Provide your side of the story. It allows for a user/prospect to
look at the situation objectively, beyond Negative review
Be active with social media
and digital media
Often HEIs focused on ad placement. However, it was
identifiable that centres that focused on ads, lacked the focus
on managing the reviews.
Contribution
This research adds to the existing literature and specifically focuses onto
aspects of Google Reviews. Google reviews are relatively new to Sri Lanka, where
the masses may rely on word of mouth. Managing the reviews, allows for HEIs to
show confidence and capability, handling media. This research also provides for
specific strategies that could be implemented by the digital marketing/marketing
teams in an HEI.
Limitations
Firstly, this research is undertaken with secondary source of references, with the
researcher using Google reviews as the main source of information. Secondly, the
research does involve the feedback gained from the reviews. Some of the reviews can
be biased, placed by competition or by individuals whom do not know how to place
an accurate review. This explains that over 82% of the reviews placed for 1 star do
not explain, why a one-star review is placed. Some institutions do have branches such
as ESOFT and BCAS. Therefore, only the reviews from the main campus or metro
branch are taken for analysis. Another significant area of concern in this research, is
the validity of the complaints. Only a limited number of institutions were responding
FACTORS LEADING TO STUDENT DISSATISFACTION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR; A STUDY
OF GOOGLE REVIEWS FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA
148
to complaints. Of those who responded, WINSYS (2023) had an effective approach
in countering the concerns that were raised. A one-star review, only proves
student/public dissatisfaction. However, does not show the real situation & ground
realities may differ.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Dedicated to my Family! Colleagues! Peers! All the good people whom have made
my study & livelihood possible!
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
REFERENCES
Allard, T., Dunn, L. H., & White, K. (2020). Negative reviews, positive impact:
Consumer empathetic responding to unfair word of mouth. Journal of
Marketing, 84(4), 86-108.
Baer, J., & Lemin, D. (2018). Talk triggers: The complete guide to creating customers
with word of mouth. Penguin.
Berger, J. (2013). Contagious: How to build word of mouth in the digital age. Simon
and Schuster
Chen, Z., & Yuan, M. (2020). Psychology of word of mouth marketing. Current
opinion in psychology, 31, 7-10.
Deeley, S. J., Fischbacher-Smith, M., Karadzhov, D., & Koristashevskaya, E. (2019).
Exploring the ‘wicked’problem of student dissatisfaction with assessment and
feedback in higher education. Higher Education Pedagogies, 4(1), 385-405.
Douglas, J. A., Douglas, A., McClelland, R. J., & Davies, J. (2015). Understanding
student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: an interpretive study in the UK higher
education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 329-349.
Doveston, M., & Keenaghan, M. (2006). Improving classroom dynamics to support
students' learning and social inclusion: A collaborative approach. Support for
Learning, 21(1), 5-11.
Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., & Guzzo, T. (2020). Online learning and emergency remote
teaching: Opportunities and challenges in emergency
situations. Societies, 10(4), 86.
Google Business (2023) Home. Google.
Google Business Profile (2023) Manage now (online) Accessed:
https://www.google.com/intl/en_lk/business/
C. JANATHANAN
149
Google Keyword Planner (2023) Keyword analysis. Google.
Google Local Guide (2023) General Conditions of Recognition (online) Accessed:
https://maps.google.com/localguides/
Gruber, T., Lowrie, A., Brodowsky, G. H., Reppel, A. E., Voss, R., & Chowdhury, I.
N. (2012). Investigating the influence of professor characteristics on student
satisfaction and dissatisfaction: A comparative study. Journal of Marketing
Education, 34(2), 165-178.
Habib, S., & Hamadneh, N. N. (2021). Impact of perceived risk on consumers
technology acceptance in online grocery adoption amid covid-19
pandemic. Sustainability, 13(18), 10221.
Haigh, M. M., & Wigley, S. (2015). Examining the impact of negative, user-generated
content on stakeholders. Corporate Communications: An International
Journal, 20(1), 63-75.
Homburg, C., & Wielgos, D. M. (2022). The value relevance of digital marketing
capabilities to firm performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 50(4), 666-688.
Kemp, E., Porter III, M., Albert, C., & Min, K. S. (2021). Information transparency:
examining physicians’ perspectives toward online consumer reviews in the
United States. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 14(4), 1050-
1056.
OFQUAL (2023) General Conditions of Recognition (online) Accessed:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ofqual-handbook/section-g-setting-and-
delivering-the-assessment
Ranaweera, H. M. B. P. (2021) Students’satisfaction towards the use of e-resources
available in selected Sri Lankan universities during covid-19
pandemic. Journal of Business, 8(2), 2021-51.
Review Trackers (2022) Review sites. Review Tracker.
https://www.reviewtrackers.com/reports/
Rosen, E. (2010). Buzz: real-life lessons in word-of-mouth marketing. Profile Books.
Sharmin, F., Sultan, M. T., Badulescu, D., Badulescu, A., Borma, A., & Li, B. (2021).
Sustainable destination marketing ecosystem through smartphone-based social
media: The consumers’ acceptance perspective. Sustainability, 13(4), 2308.
Sinha, I. (2000). Cost transparency: The net's real threat to prices and brands. Harvard
Business Review, 78(2), 43-43.
Slanshei (2023) Non State Higher Education providers (online) Accessed:
https://slanshei.lk/
TRCSL (1 July, 2023) Statistics. TRCSL.
FACTORS LEADING TO STUDENT DISSATISFACTION IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR; A STUDY
OF GOOGLE REVIEWS FROM THE HIGHER EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN SRI LANKA
150
TVEC (2023) Home. TVEC. https://www.tvec.gov.lk/
Verma, S., & Yadav, N. (2021). Past, present, and future of electronic word of mouth
(EWOM). Journal of Interactive Marketing, 53, 111-128.
Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Malhotra, A. (2002). Service quality delivery
through web sites: a critical review of extant knowledge. Journal of the academy
of marketing science, 30(4), 362-375.
