A Systematic Literature Review of Perceived Educational Quality as a Driver of Higher Education Intention
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58812/wsjee.v4i03.2914Keywords:
Perceived Educational Quality, Higher Education Intentions, Student Decision-Making, Institutional Reputation, Graduate Employability, Educational Service Quality, Systematic Literature ReviewAbstract
This study aims to synthesize the existing literature on the role of perceived educational quality in shaping higher education intentions. A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach based on the PRISMA framework was employed. A total of 155 articles were identified, and 78 articles published between 2020 and 2025 met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. The findings indicate that perceived educational quality is a multidimensional construct consisting of teaching quality, service quality, institutional reputation, academic environment, student–faculty interaction, and graduate employability, all of which contribute to students’ intentions to pursue higher education. The review further reveals that previous studies have produced inconsistent findings regarding the most influential dimensions of educational quality, resulting in fragmented theoretical understanding. This study addresses this gap by providing a comprehensive synthesis of the existing evidence and identifying key dimensions that consistently influence higher education intentions across different contexts. The findings contribute to the development of a more integrated conceptual framework and offer practical insights for higher education institutions in designing effective recruitment, marketing, and student retention strategies.
References
[1] E. Messer, “A qualitative study on the college choice process for first-generation students at a small, private, religious affiliated institution,” 2016.
[2] I. Ajzen, “The theory of planned behavior,” Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process., vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 179–211, 1991.
[3] A. Parasuraman, V. A. Zeithaml, and L. Berry, “SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality,” 1988, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 12–40, 1988.
[4] T. Kao, “UNIVERSITY STUDENT SATISFACTION : AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS,” 2007.
[5] F. Maringe, “University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing,” Int. J. Educ. Manag., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 466–479, Oct. 2006, doi: 10.1108/09513540610683711.
[6] P. Sultan, “Antecedents and Consequences of Service Quality in a Higher Education Context,” no. January, 2011.
[7] E. Epaminonda, L. Efthymiou, and E. Doukanari, “Linking Digital Transformation to Learning Strategies and Pedagogy,” in IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference, EDUCON, M. Jemni, I. Kallel, and A. Akkari, Eds., University of Nicosia, Department of Management, Nicosia, Cyprus: IEEE Computer Society, 2022, pp. 2088–2092. doi: 10.1109/EDUCON52537.2022.9766614.
[8] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and P. Group, “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses : the PRISMA statement,” vol. 2535, no. July, pp. 1–8, 2009, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535.
[9] D. M. Fraser and A. J. Hughes, “Perceptions of motherhood: The effect of experience and knowledge on midwifery students,” Midwifery, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 307–316, 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.midw.2007.07.007.
[10] C. Y. Lai, K. Y. Cheung, and C. S. Chan, “Exploring the role of intrinsic motivation in ChatGPT adoption to support active learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model,” Comput. Educ. Artif. Intell., vol. 5, p. 100178, 2023.
[11] M. A. Almaiah et al., “Factors Affecting the Adoption of Digital Information Technologies in Higher Education: An Empirical Study,” Electron., vol. 11, no. 21, 2022, doi: 10.3390/electronics11213572.
[12] A. S. Almogren, W. M. Al-Rahmi, and N. A. Dahri, “Exploring factors influencing the acceptance of ChatGPT in higher education: A smart education perspective,” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 11, 2024, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31887.
[13] M. A. Almaiah et al., “Determinants Influencing the Continuous Intention to Use Digital Technologies in Higher Education,” Electron., vol. 11, no. 18, 2022, doi: 10.3390/electronics11182827.
[14] A. F. Alkhwaldi, “Understanding learners’ intention toward Metaverse in higher education institutions from a developing country perspective: UTAUT and ISS integrated model,” Kybernetes, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 6008–6035, 2024, doi: 10.1108/K-03-2023-0459.
[15] Z. Gobniece and J. Titko, “STAFF COMPETENCIES FOR DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION: RESULTS OF BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS,” Virtual Econ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 25–46, 2024, doi: 10.34021/ve.2024.07.01(2).
[16] I. Kolupaieva, I. Sheiko, and T. Polozova, “Digital Transformation in the Context of Sustainable Development of European Countries,” Probl. Ekorozwoju, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 89–103, 2024, doi: 10.35784/preko.5413.
[17] S. Balaskas, V. Tsiantos, S. Chatzifotiou, L. Lourida, M. Rigou, and K. Komis, “Understanding Behavioral Intention to Use Moodle in Higher Education: The Role of Technology Acceptance, Cognitive Factors, and Motivation,” Systems, vol. 13, no. 6, 2025, doi: 10.3390/systems13060412.
[18] J. Prodanova, S. San-MartÃn, and E. J. Sánchez-Beato, “Quality Requirements for Continuous Use of E-learning Systems at Public vs. Private Universities in Spain,” Digit. Educ. Rev., no. 40, pp. 33–50, 2021, doi: 10.1344/der.2021.40.33-50.
[19] R. Leitch, “Outside the spoon drawer, naked and skinless in search of my professional esteem: The tale of an ‘Academic Pro,’” Qual. Inq., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 353–364, 2006, doi: 10.1177/1077800405284368.
[20] U.-D. Ehlers, “Digital Leadership in Higher Education,” J. High. Educ. Policy Leadersh. Stud., vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 6–14, 2020, doi: 10.29252/johepal.1.3.6.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Riski Baroroh, Elly Purwanti, Dwi Priyo Utomo, Widayat Widayat, Eny Mayasari, Darman Syah Pulungan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Facebook 
Instagram 
Twitter 
Youtube 
westscience.journals@gmail.com