Tích hợp lí thuyết giữa CIPO - SERVQUAL - HEdPERF nhằm phát triển chuỗi giá trị chất lượng dịch vụ giáo dục đại học.
Tóm tắt
In the transition from a public provision model to a knowledge-based service paradigm, higher education requires a systemic and dynamic approach to service quality management. Prior research has largely focused on measuring student satisfaction as a static outcome, offering limited insight into the mechanisms through which service quality is generated. Addressing this gap, this conceptual paper reconceptualizes higher education service quality as a value chain structured around causal linkages within the CIPO (Context - Input - Process - Outcome) model. The study theoretically integrates the SERVQUAL and HEdPERF measurement dimensions into the CIPO framework to develop an integrated value-chain model. This framework explicates how contextual conditions and institutional inputs are transformed through organizational processes into perceived value for students and stakeholders. By linking perceptual quality dimensions with managerial components across the value chain, the model shifts the focus from outcome measurement to cause-oriented quality governance. The primary contribution of this study lies in extending existing service quality models beyond static assessment tools toward a dynamic causal architecture. The proposed integrative framework provides a structured theoretical foundation for strategic quality management in increasingly autonomous and competitive higher education systems.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS. https://www.routledge.com/Structural-Equation-Modeling-With-AMOS-Basic-Concepts-Applications-and-Programming-Third-Edition/Byrne/p/book/
Đảng Cộng sản Việt Nam (2021). Nghị quyết Đại hội đại biểu toàn quốc lần thứ XIII. Thư viện Quốc gia Việt Nam.
Firdaus, A. (2005). HEdPERF versus SERVPERF: The quest for ideal measuring instrument of service quality in higher education sector. Quality Assurance in Education, 13(4), 305-328. https://doi.org/10.1108/
Harvey, L., & Green, D. (2006). Defining quality. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 9-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293930180102
Lee, M. C., & Hwan, I. S. (2005). Relationships among service quality, customer satisfaction and profitability in the Taiwanese banking industry. International Journal of Management, 22(4), 635-648.
Marginson, S. (2007). The public/private divide in higher education: A global revision. Higher Education, 53(3), 307-333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-8230-y
OECD (2019). Benchmarking higher education system performance: Conceptual framework and data. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2019/06/benchmarking-higher-education-system-performance_bf779568/be5514d7-en.pdf
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12-40.
Porter, M.E. (1998). Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. Free Press.
Scheerens, J. (2016). Educational Effectiveness and Ineffectiveness: A Critical Review of the Knowledge Base. Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7459-8
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2003). The CIPP model for evaluation. In Kellaghan, T., Stufflebeam, D. L. (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation (pp. 31-62). Springer. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-010-0309-4_4
Teas, R. K. (1993). Expectations, performance evaluation, and consumers’ perceptions of quality. Journal of Marketing, 57(4), 18-34. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252216
Tải xuống
Đã Xuất bản
Cách trích dẫn
Số
Chuyên mục
Giấy phép
Tác phẩm này được cấp phép theo Ghi nhận tác giả của Creative Commons Giấy phép quốc tế 4.0 .









