Service Quality in Higher Education—A Case Study of Universiti Brunei Darussalam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No one doubts the value and importance of quality education, and quality assurance is one major driving force to achieve this. Measuring the performance of service quality of education services of Universiti Brunei Darussalam (UBD), as part of the quality assessment, was assessed based on Parasuraman’s five Servqual dimensions. The assessment was obtained from the undergraduates’ perspectives across four faculties, and data was collected using e-questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 400 students via email, but only 268 responded. Faculty-wise and university-wise rankings of the means of individual item scores from the questionnaire revealed some consistency in students’ evaluation of quality at UBD. The analysis of variance findings rejected the hypothesis of equality of the mean scores across the four faculties of UBD. Post-hoc analysis and Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) reported significant differences between ‘science-based’ and ‘social sciences-based’ students’ needs and perception of quality. Overall, the results of the study showed that the quality of education services provided by UBD was only satisfactory among all students, rather than being exceptional. Teamwork, communication skills, creativity and innovation indicated by the students signaled the need of TQM implementation in UBD. The study also stressed the role of the university’s administration and management to vigorously improve the quality of services they provide to the students and continue to increase the overall organisational performance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".