Divergent voices: A comparative voice of the customer analysis for redesigning information science curriculum

Abstract

This study investigates lifecycle-segmented student voices (voice of the customer; VoC) to inform the redesign and governance of an Information Science curriculum. Using a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, we analyzed survey data from prospective (n = 988), current (n = 187), and alumni (n = 121) cohorts and integrated semi-structured interviews via a joint-display logic. Confirmatory factor analyses supported a three-factor satisfaction structure (Structure, Support, Brand) for current students and alumni, with weaker convergent evidence for alumni Support. A single-factor expectations model fit prospective/current cohorts but not alumni, indicating greater heterogeneity among graduates. Findings reveal a clear lifecycle-segmented divergence: prospective and current students prioritize employability-oriented features—authentic assessment, portfolio-building, and work-integrated learning (WIL)—while alumni elevate enduring analytical foundations coupled with agile integration of fast-evolving tools. Work-integrated learning emerges as a cross-segment anchor and high-impact practice. We translate these insights into a VoC Alignment Framework and Playbook that (i) fortifies the analytical core, (ii) innovates at the edge through modular, industry-linked offerings, and (iii) cultivates the learning ecosystem by expanding mentoring, WIL capacity, and frictionless support. Cross-segment contrasts are interpreted at the pattern level because multi-group invariance was not established and the alumni expectations model showed poor global fit. The study positions VoC as a governed information asset for decision intelligence in higher education and offers a replicable pathway for curriculum governance in iSchool/Information Science contexts.

Keywords

Curriculum governance information science learning paradigm measurement models mixed methods voice of the customer work-integrated learning (WIL)

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ASEAN University Network (2020) The guide to AUN-QA assessment at programme level (Version 4.0). Available at: https://www.aunsec.org/application/files/2816/7290/3752/Guide_to_AUN-QA_Assessment_at_Programme_Level_Version_4.0_4.pdf.

Baldrige Performance Excellence Program (2021) Baldrige Excellence Framework (Education). National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce. Available at: https://www.nist.gov/baldrige/publications/baldrige-excellence-framework/education.

Biggs

Tang

(2011) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education.

Billett

(2009) Realising the educational worth of integrating work experiences in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 34(7): 827–843.

Bird

Chu

Oguz

(2015) Internship in LIS education. IFLA Journal 41(4): 298–307.

Bonnici

Burnett

(2013) Rhizomes in the iField: What does it mean to be an iSchool? Knowledge Organization 40(6): 408–413.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Brooman

Darwent

Pimor

(2015) The student voice in higher education curriculum design: Is there value in listening? Innovations in Education and Teaching International 52(6): 663–674.

Burns

(2019) Reflective journaling: Innovative dialogue in LIS education. In: IFLA WLIC 2019 – Libraries: Dialogue for Change, Athens. Available at: https://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/2531.

10.

Calma

Dickson-Deane

(2020) The student as customer and quality in higher education. International Journal of Educational Management 34(8): 1221–1235.

11.

Carter

Yeo

ACM

(2016) Students-as-customers’ satisfaction, predictive retention with marketing implications. International Journal of Educational Management 30(5): 635–652.

12.

CAST (2024) Universal design for learning guidelines 3.0. Available at: https://udlguidelines.cast.org/.

13.

Creswell

Plano Clark

(2017) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Degtjarjova

Lapiņa

Freidenfelds

(2018) Student as stakeholder: ‘Voice of customer’ in higher education quality development. Marketing and Management of Innovations 2018(2–3): 388–398.

15.

Department of Provincial Administration, Ministry of Interior (2023) Population statistics based on household registration data. [In Thai.] Available at: https://stat.bora.dopa.go.th/stat/statnew/statMONTH/statmonth/#/mainpage.

16.

Ferns

Zegwaard

Pretti

, et al. (2025) Defining and designing work-integrated learning curriculum. Higher Education Research & Development 44(2): 371–385.

17.

Freeman

Eddy

McDonough

, et al. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(23): 8410–8415.

18.

Garrison

Vaughan

(2008) Blended Learning in Higher Education: Framework, Principles, and Guidelines. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

19.

Gaskin

Griffin

Hauser

, et al. (2010) Voice of the customer. Journal of Clinical Engineering 35(3): 116–117.

20.

Griffin

Hauser

(1993) The voice of the customer. Marketing Science 12(1): 1–27.

21.

Guilbault

(2018) Students as customers in higher education: The (controversial) debate needs to end. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 40: 295–298.

22.

Harden

(2007) Outcome-based education: The future is today. Medical Teacher 29(7): 625–629.

23.

iSchools Organization (2024) Members directory: Khon Kaen University, Department of Information Science. Available at: https://www.ischools.org/ischools-members/khon-kaen-universit.

24.

Jackson

(2014) Employability skill development in work-integrated learning: Barriers and best practice. Studies in Higher Education 40(2): 350–367.

25.

Jackson

Cook

(2025) Work-integrated learning in the humanities, arts and social sciences: Where to from here? Studies in Higher Education 50(9): 2048–2067.

26.

Karaman

(2021) The effect of formative assessment practices on student learning: A meta-analysis study. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education 8(4): 801–817.

27.

Khon Kaen University, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences (2024) Bachelor of Information Science Program Specification (Revised 2024). Khon Kaen: Khon Kaen University.

28.

Klaassen

(2024) Inter- and transdisciplinary learning. In: Darbellay

(eds) Elgar Encyclopedia of Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 284–289. doi:10.4337/9781035317967.ch63.

29.

Kolb

(2015) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

30.

Laurillard

(2012) Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology. London: Routledge.

31.

Lorenz

(2014) The i-School phenomenon: History and present situation. Revue of Librarianship 25(Suppl. 2): 58–82. Available at: https://oldknihovna.nkp.cz/pdf/1402sup/142058.pdf.

32.

Macnamara

(2020) Corporate listening: Unlocking insights from VOC, VOE and VOS for mutual benefits. Corporate Communications: An International Journal 25(3): 377–393.

33.

Mehra

Olson

Ahmad

(2011) Integrating diversity across the LIS curriculum: An exploratory study of instructors’ perceptions and practices online. IFLA Journal 37(1): 39–51.

34.

Mukul

Büyüközkan

(2023) Digital transformation in education: A systematic review of Education 4.0. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 194: 122664.

35.

National Research Council (2000) How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School: Expanded Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/9853.

36.

National Statistical Office (2023) The labor force survey, whole kingdom. [In Thai.] Available at: https://www.nso.go.th/nsoweb/nso/survey_detail/9u.

37.

Nicol

Macfarlane-Dick

(2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31(2): 199–218.

38.

Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (OPS-MHESI) (2021) Education criteria for performance excellence – EdPEx. [In Thai.] Available at: http://www.edpex.org/p/download-edpex.html.

39.

Office of the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation (OPS-MHESI) (2023) Higher education statistics. Available at: https://info.mhesi.go.th/index.php.

40.

Prince

(2004) Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education 93(3): 223–231.

41.

Rao

(2020) Beyond access: Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and digital tools for meaningful inclusion. The Blue Dot: 44–48.

42.

Saulnier

Landry

Longenecker

, et al. (2008) From teaching to learning: Learner-centered teaching and assessment in information systems education. Journal of Information Systems Education 19(2): 169–174. Available at: http://jise.org/Volume19/n2/JISEv19n2p169.pdf.

43.

Schreiber

Stage

King

, et al. (2006) Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research 99(6): 323–338.

44.

Shah

Anderson

Hagen

, et al. (2021) An iSchool approach to data science: Human-centered, socially responsible, and context-driven. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 72(6): 793–796.

45.

Shu

Mongeon

(2016) The evolution of iSchool movement (1988–2013): A bibliometric view. Education for Information 32(4): 359–373.

46.

Shute

(2008) Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research 78(1): 153–189.

47.

Spady

(1994) Outcome-based Education: Critical Issues and Answers. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.

48.

Sunra

Aeni

Sally

FHSS

(2024) A comprehensive exploration of outcome-based education principles and practices. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies 50(1): –9.

49.

Vlachopoulos

Makri

(2024) A systematic literature review on authentic assessment in higher education: Best practices for the development of 21st century skills, and policy considerations. Studies in Educational Evaluation 83: 101425.

50.

Wei

Mostafavi

Savage

, et al. (2023) Exploring the evolution and characteristics of the iSchool movement in China. College & Research Libraries 84(5): 693–709.