FACTORS INFLUENCING LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL … volume tijoss/3.pdf · Bibi Noraini Mohd Yusuf, M....

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES 15

th February 2017. Vol.48. No.1

© 2012-2017 TIJOSS & ARF. All rights reserved

ISSN 2305-4557 www.Tijoss.com

29

FACTORS INFLUENCING LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

DECISION IN CHOOSING PUBLIC HIGHER LEARNING INSTITUTIONS IN

NORTHERN REGION OF MALAYSIA

Bibi Noraini Mohd Yusuf, M. Qabbir M. Ghazali, Muhammad Fazlee Sham Abdullah

School of Business Innovation and Technopreneurship Universiti Malaysia Perlis

Email: [email protected], [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Higher learning institutions have emerged increasingly in numbers in every part of the world and

Malaysia too has enticed students, both from local and international students, with wide choices of

good and reputable Universities. Presently, there is a significant increase in the number of local

students choosing public universities in Malaysia, as compared to enrolment in private universities,

to resume their advanced studies. Statistics have also shown an increased in the enrolment by foreign

students in Malaysian universities. Various factors have surfaced when describing factors in

choosing public universities over private ones and the driving forces behind such selections. The aim

of this study is to investigate the factors that have influenced students choosing public higher

institutions over private institutions in Malaysia. This study adopted the quantitative method in the

investigations, wherein 200 questionnaires were distributed randomly to students of a chosen local

university, the University Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), to gauge their feedbacks on the factors that

have influenced them in choosing public universities in Malaysia. International students were also

included as respondents in this study. There were seven (7) independent variables studied in

UniMAP, ranging from the reputation of the university, programs offered, facilities provided, overall

costs, availability of financial aids / scholarships, influence from peers, families and friends and

lastly to locations. Findings revealed that four (4) of the hypotheses were accepted, whilst another

three (3) hypotheses were rejected. The results of this study could greatly help to assist other public

institutions of higher learning to have better understanding of the factors that influence students’

decision to pursue their advanced studies in public universities in Malaysia, thereby enabling a

plethora of appropriate enrolment strategies be undertaken to create a more conducive and attractive

education environment.

Keywords: student decision, reputation of university, programs offered, facilities, cost, availability

of financial aids/scholarships, influence from peers, families and friends and locations.

INTRODUCTION

The number of higher education institutions formed

have been increasing in every part of the world,

whether in Northern America, Europe, Asia and

Far East or in other continents. According to

Chandra (2011), a country’s education function is a

very important tool for human capital development.

Institutions of higher learning are also one of the

most vital factors contributing to both nation

building and to people well-being. Examples of

prominent and reputable public institutions of

higher learning in Malaysia are University of

Malaya (UM), University Science Malaysia (USM)

and University Putra Malaysia (UPM). Over the

last 10 years, the higher education landscape in

Malaysia has experienced very drastic upward

changes owing to rapid growth and demand in

suitable human capital expertise in meeting

economic challenges. Being one of the main needs

and wants of a human being in education, the

penultimate decision making process in choosing

the best higher learning institution is very crucial.

By nature, human beings in general share similar

needs, although their behaviors, through which

individuals choose to satisfy those needs, may

greatly vary (Glasser, 1998). Arising from varied

experience faced by different people, Glasser

(1998) suggested that humans will pick up different

ideas and learn differently on how to satisfy their

needs. Even from infancy stage, each one has its

own distinctive encounters in life which could be

either pleasant or distressing. According to

Kahneman & Tversky (1979) and Tversky &

Kahneman (1981), in its most basic form, it

http://tijoss.com/index.html

mailto:[email protected]





30

describes the decision making behaviour whereby

individuals outweigh outcomes that are certain

relative to those that are probable and place a

higher relative value on losses than they do on

equivalent gains.

The Malaysian Education Industry Landscape

Over the past umpteen years, the Malaysian

government has been pushing rigorously numerous

educational initiatives and strategic plans towards

providing excellence in the education industry.

Institutions of higher education in Malaysia, both

public and private, have made various efforts to

improve and upgrade their positions as centres of

educational excellence, locally and abroad. In

Malaysia, public universities are categorized by (3)

three distinct setups, namely as research

universities, comprehensive universities or focused

universities. Centres of excellence in each

university will continue to be strengthened in order

to reach the desired academic levels of each type of

setup. Presently, there are already 20 public

universities established, consisting of 4 research

universities, 4 comprehensive universities and 12

being focused universities The full list of public

universities and their enrolment figures in Malaysia

are tabulated below (Table 1) :-

Table 1: Number, Name and Enrolment of Public Universities in Malaysia

No Name Enrolment

1 Universiti Malaya (UM) 27,091

2 Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) 29,065

3 Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) 30,041

4 Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) 32,092

5 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) 33,361

6 Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) 30,837

7 Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIAM) 32,086

8 Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS) 17,198

9 Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS) 25,207

10 Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI) 27,659

11 Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) 189,551

12 Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin (UniSZA) 7,977

13 Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT) 8,715

14 Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM) 13,022

15 Universiti Tun Hussin Onn Malaysia (UTHM) 15,319

16 Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) 12,593

17 Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP) 8,904

18 Universiti Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP) 10,415

19 Universiti Malaysia Kelantan (UMK) 6,443

20 Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (UPNM) 2,783

JUMLAH 560,359

Source: Planning, Research and Policy Coordination Division, Higher Education Sector, MOE, 2014

There are several educational disciplines that are

being offered to international students to study in

Malaysia, starting from different echelons,

commencing from certificates and ending to

doctorate levels. These have indirectly helped in

the annual increase in the number of students’

enrolment. The diversity of courses offered and

levels of entries are tabulated in Table 2 and 3

below respectively.

Table 2: Entrants, Enrolment and Graduates at Public Universities in Malaysia

(Fields of Study and Gender)

Fields of Study Entrants Enrolment Graduates

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Education 2,930 6,916 14,946 35,462 3,027 9,594






31

Arts and Humanities 5,913 9,874 18,382 30,932 3,807 6,684

Social Sciences, Business and Law 21,440 43,768 64,070 130,775 13,211 31,503

Science, Mathematics and Computer 10,183 18,769 29,422 49,755 5,600 10,294

Engineering, Manufacturing and

Construction

20,409 16,634 69,047 52,415 15,170 12,162

Agriculture and Veterinary 2,131 2,787 5,692 7,392 1,342 1,884

Health and Welfare 2,333 6,662 9,499 23,869 1,899 5,142

Services 2,908 4,083 7,200 11,001 1,830 2,833

General Programs 228 450 167 333 23 12

TOTAL 68,475 109,943 218,425 341,934 45,909 80,108


Table 3: Number of Higher Education Students Studying in Malaysia (Entry Levels)

Finally, the following statistical data (Table 4)

shows the number of both local and foreign

students at Malaysian public universities in 2014,

where a total of 28,837 students or 5.15% were

foreigners.

Table 4: Enrolment and Percentage of Local and International Students at Public Higher Education Institutions

in Malaysia

Number of Students

2000 2005 2010

Levels of

Study

Public Private Total Public Private Total Public Private Total

Certificate 23,816 81,754 105,570 37,931 94,949 132,880 141,290 143,480 284,770

Diploma 91,398 117,056 208,454 98,953 131,428 230,381 285,690 188,680 474,3470

First

Degree

170,794 59,932 230,726 212,326 110,591 322,917 293,650 134,550 428,200

Masters 24,007 2,174 26,181 34,436 4,202 38,638 111,550 5,770 117,320

PhD 3,359 131 3,490 6,742 140 6,882 21,410 270 21,680

Total 313,374 261,047 574,421 390,388 341,310 731,698 853,590 472,750 1,326,340

Source: 9th Malaysia Plan (http://www.epu.jpm.my/rm9/bahasa/Bab11.pdf)






32

Local

Students

% International

Students

% Total

531,522 94.85 28,837 5.15 560,359


Basically, institutions of higher learning can

provide the student with the necessary skills and

knowledge needed for them to apply in the near

future after graduation. The appropriate avenue to

use the knowledge and skills acquired in the

university would be when working on their first

job. Based on earlier mentioned tables, it can be

concluded that many international students

continue their studies in public institutions of

higher learning in Malaysia until 2014, thereby

putting pressures on private institutions to increase

their enrolment index. It now becomes very

competitive and challenging to meet increasing

demands for places in Malaysian public universities

due to space limitations and it has also become

more challenging for the private universities

because of increased costs. The competition has

now intensified as many private colleges are

offering multiple kinds of institutional linkages

with known foreign universities, offering different

types of degree programs with professional

qualifications. With this influx, certainly there are

factors that drive students, both locally and abroad,

to choose public universities rather than private

ones, in Malaysia. .

This research is done for the sole purpose

of identifying what are the main factors that drive,

influence or affect the student’s decisions in

choosing public institutions of higher learning in

Malaysia, instead of private ones. Furthermore, for

the foreign students, they would have experienced

myriad of issues especially cultural differences and

hence this research study shall also dwell on how

students had overcome these cultural differences

and how they managed to attain cultural

competencies throughout their studies. Through

this study, researchers could fully understand the

processes that these students had undergone

through before adapting to the cultural

competencies in a totally new place and how long

did it take them to assimilate into the new culture

paradigm.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Reputation is something built based on a

performance and it also means the belief or opinion

that is generally held regarding certain things. In a

study by Lay & Maguire (1981), they have

concluded that the most influential factor that

students will consider in selecting their study

location is by looking at the reputation of the

universities or colleges concerned. Another

research by Keling (2007), affirmed that students

will evaluate the reputation of the institution before

selecting their college of choice. Other researches

by Ancheh (et al, 2007), O’brien (et al, 2007) and

Sia (2010) concluded too the importance of

institutional reputation as the main driving factor

for students in choosing the relevant place to study.

They all agreed that a university’s reputation was a

powerful factor in affecting student’s choice.

Each university offers a different kind of

academic programs for students to choose from.

Larger universities usually can offer varied

programs to choose compared to smaller ones.

Yusof et al. (2008), who conducted a study in

Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, Malaysia, found that

the availability of required programs as the major

attribute for first year or new students to choose a

certain higher education institution. Furthermore, in

his research study, Ismail (2007), argued that

students select college of choice based on the

academic recognition of the said college. Other

studies have concurred that availability of suitable

programs could be considered as an important

factor to the choice of college (Yusof et al., 2008;

Ivy, 2010; Sia, 2010).

A university’s facility can be defined as a

set of permanent or temporary, commercial or

industrial properties, structures, physical evidence,

or tangible components of the service offering.

Features in the form of buildings, plants or

structures, built and establishment are some

examples of a facility. A good facility can be

measured when the education environment features

have good classrooms, laboratories and libraries

setups (Absher & Crawford, 1996). Their study

showed that educational facilities are significant

factors influencing choice of college. Meanwhile,

Ivy (2008) stated that varieties of tangible aspects

are figured out by university’s target markets. The

tangible aspects include facilities such as teaching

materials, the buildings and lecture facilities at the

university. In supporting this variable, Hsieh (2010)

also said that having international and comfortable






33

living environment, coupled with having

convenient parking areas, availability of sports

complex and hostels, are also becoming significant

factors in the selection process. Another research

that discussed and affirmed the significant role of

learning facilities on student choice of university

was by Price (et al, 2003).

Cost can be referred to as an amount that

has to be paid or given up by a person in order to

get something that he/she desired. It will usually

affect the choice of a college by a person. Each

student who applies for their desired University or

college needs to pay some fees before entering the

University or college. Ancheh (et al 2007) and

Fernandez (2010) mentioned that students are cost-

conscious in which they prefer to apply in

institutions of higher education that offer them

quality courses at affordable low costs. Research

studies by Joseph & Joseph (2000), concluded that

cost-related issues seem to have more importance

as years go by. According to Wagner and Fard

(2009), administrators, marketers and policy

makers should focus on the education costs to

entice and promote their academic programs. If the

institution of higher education focuses on reducing

the cost of fee in the university, then it can attract

more students to apply. Padlee (et al. 2010) also

supported the above views by adding “cost of

education” items to include expenses such as

tuition fees, accommodation fees, foreign exchange

rates etc, as financial consideration. Xiaoping

(2002) raised a concern regarding the rise of tuition

fees charged by most colleges and universities in

and within the City of Beijing, China. This might

affect an increase or a decrease in the number of

foreign or international students applying for higher

education opportunities in other countries as well

such as in Malaysia. On one hand, parents are

worried that increasing education costs will prevent

selection of higher education places for their

children, while on the other hand, academicians

strongly support the increase in tuition fees because

they often benefited from these increase indirectly

through higher salaries and other perks.

A financial aid is some form of monetary

assistance, given partly or fully, from government

bodies, schools or universities to help students and

their families meet universities/college fees. The

financial aid also covers other external educational

expenses such as rooms and boarding, books,

supplies and transportation. According to Peterson

and Limbu (2009), a scholarship is an award of

financial aid for a student to further continue his or

her education. A study done by Yusof (2008)

discovered that financial assistance offered by

university as being one of the four (4) very

important attributes expected from a particular

education institution. Besides that, Ismail (2007), in

his study said that mediating effect of information

on college indicated that students are happy and

satisfied to choose a college that offers financial

aids with affordable tuition fees. Thus, they will

choose the college that provide them with a

financial aid package. Another researcher, Nurlida

(2009), who reviewed on mediating effects of

information on choice of college, indicated that

students are satisfied with choice of college based

on their satisfaction with respect to availability of

financial factors (external influences), including

financial aids and affordable fees.

Influence can be defined as the capacity to

have an effect on the character, development, or

behaviour of someone or something or the effect

itself. A student interacting with other students on

the choice of college plans, the more likely he or

she will consider going to the said college (Falsey

and Haynes, 1984; Joseph and Joseph, 2000;

Shanka, Quintal and Taylor, 2005). Meanwhile in a

research made in the year 2000, opinions of friends

and former students, weigh heavily on the minds of

college applicants when choosing colleges

(Hayden, 2000). Apart from that, other studies also

showed that student will consult their friends and

neighbours on the decision in choosing the place to

study (Maringe, 2006; Hemsley Brown and

Oplatka 2006). This is because through their

research, formal sources of interpersonal

information are very difficult to obtain from

reliable sources such as agents, experts, university

staff and counsellors.

Location does play a major part in

everything that has to do with decision making

process. In choosing the best place to further their

study, a student needs to consider place as the

prime factor. Some students may be looking for

universities that are closer to their hometown or

place of work, for convenience and accessibility

(Absher & Crawford, 1996; Servier, 1994). Other

researchers that agreed and shared the same

reasoning are Keskinen (2008) and Padlee (et

al.2010), Malaysia. In a nutshell, strategic location

can be the main factor to influencing the decision

of students in choosing institutions of higher

education in Malaysia.

METHODOLGY

This research uses the questionnaires type of

technique to collect data from both local and

international students pursuing their higher

education in Malaysia. Since the research targeted a

small state of Perlis, the respondents were chosen

from the state’s sole university, the Universiti






34

Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP). This research was

conducted using the quantitative research approach

method in order to get the data collection. Closed-

ended questions were used in the questionnaires

due to their ease to administer, in computing scores

and input of codes (Burns and Burns, 2009). By

using this route method, it helped to reduce the

costs incurred and time spent on data collections

(Burns and Burns, 2009). All the data collected

were analysed using factor analysis, reliability and

regression methods and computed in the Statistical

Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 17. A

total of seven (7) research hypotheses were

developed to investigate the relationships of these

independent variables affecting the student’s

decision in choosing the institutional of higher

education or not. These were as follows:-

Table 5: Development of Research Hypotheses

H1 There is a significant relationship between reputations of Universities/College and student’s decision in

choosing institutions of higher education in Malaysia.

H2 There is a significant relationship between academic programs offered and student’s decision in

choosing institutions of higher education in Malaysia.

H3 There is a significant relationship between facilities and student’s decision in choosing institutions of

higher education in Malaysia.

H4 There is a significant relationship between cost and student’s decision in choosing institutions of higher


H5 There is a significant relationship between availability of financial aids/scholarships and student’s

decision in choosing institutions of higher education in Malaysia.

H6 There is a significant relationship between influence from peers, families and friends and student’s


H7 There is a significant relationship between location and student’s decision in choosing institutions of

higher education in Malaysia.

In order to carry out the research, the population and sampling methods were conducted, comprising both local

and foreign students pursuing studies in Unimap. A total of 200 students, comprising 100 each from the local

and foreign students, was taken as the population of this research. Past research studies found that in most cases,

a minimum sample size of 150 students population suffice to obtain an accurate solution in exploratory factor

analysis, provided that item inter correlations are reasonably strong (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1988).

FINDINGS

Table 6 below shows the sample profile matrix of questionnaires in survey. The total number of questionnaires

distributed was 200, and the distributions were made by using the ‘snowball’ concept, whereby questionnaires

were also simultaneously distributed through close friends of each respondent.

Table 6: Sample Profile

Number of Questionnaires Distributed 200

Number of Questionnaires Collected Back 200

Response Rate (%) 100

Number of Questionnaires used for Analysis 200

A total number of 200 questionnaires were collected back, indicating a perfect response rate of 100%.

Table 7: Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

Variables Categories Frequency Percentage

(%)

Gender Male

Female

75

125

37.5

62.5

Age Groups 19-24 years old

25 years old and above

183

17

91.5

8.5

Nationality Malaysians

Malay

158

65

79.0

32.5






35

Chinese

Indian

Others

Non-Malaysians

Somalia

Uzbekistan

Yemen

Saudi Arabia

Indonesia

Nigeria

Thailand

China

Iraq

Burkina Faso

51

31

11

42

15

12

5

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

25.5

15.5

5.5

21.0

7.5

6.0

2.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

Degree Programs Business

Engineering

Engineering Technology

Communication

73

77

26

24

36.5

38.5

13.0

12.0

Years of Study Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

37

64

84

15

18.5

32.0

42.0

7.5

Marital Status Married

Single

Divorcee

Widower

6

187

7

0

3.0

93.5

3.5

0.0

Table 7 above summarizes the seven (7)

demographic characteristics or variables of each

respondent that answered the questionnaires

distributed. The demographic characteristics are :-

1. Gender (75 or 37.5% being Male

respondents; 125 or 62.5% being Female

respondents)

2. Age Groups (91.5% respondents in the

range of 19 – 24 years old; 8.5%

respondents exceeding 25 years old ),

3. Nationality (Malaysians comprised 79%

and Non-Malaysians 21%),

4. Degree Programs (Business: 36.5%,

Engineering: 38.5%, Engineering

Technology; 13% and Communication:

12%),

5. Year of Study (Year 1: 18.5%, Year 2:

32%, Year 3: 42% and Year 4: 7.5%)

6. Marital Status (Married: 6%, Single:

93.5% and Divorcee: 3.5%).

Reliability Analysis

Table 8: Results of Reliability Analysis

Variables Number

of Items

Cronbach’s

Alpha

N

Reputation of College/ Universities 4 0.789 200

Programs Offered 5 0.758 200

Facilities 5 0.847 200

Costs 5 0.840 200

Availability of Financial Aids / Scholarships 4 0.820 200

Influence from Peers, Families, Friends 5 0.841 200

Locations 5 0.899 200

Student’s Own Decision 6 0.760 200






36

According to Tavakol & Dennick (2011),

Cronbach’s Alpha was developed in 1951 by Lee

Cronbach in order to provide a measure of the

internal consistency of certain reliability, test or

scale; it is expressed as a number between 0 and

1.000. In this research, in order to test the

reliability, the Cronbach’s Alpha was measured

using the SPSS software.

Cronbach’s Alpha reliability coefficient was

obtained for all dependent and independent

variables, using a Likert Scale designed

questionnaires. Reliabilities of less than 0.600 are

considered to be “Poor” and those over 0.800 are

“Good” (Sekaran, 2003). Any reliability value

closer to 1.000 indicates both Good and High

Reliability,

From Table 8 above, the highest Cronbach’s Alpha

value was 0.899 (Locations), whilst the lowest

value was 0.758 (Programs offered). Nevertheless,

in conclusion, all of the variables could be

considered as being Good, as three other (3)

variables, these being Reputation, Programs

Offered and Student’s Own Decision, were

marginally closed to 0.800.

Descriptive Analysis

Table 9: Descriptive Analysis

Factors Mean Standard

Deviation

Reputation of College / Universities 3.9775 0.62566

Programs Offered 4.2020 0.52858

Facilities 4.0890 0.66308

Costs 4.0870 0.59801

Availability of Financial Aids/ Scholarships 3.8863 0.74086

Influence from Peers, Families, Friends 4.0110 0.72824

Locations 3.9380 0.85828

Student’s Own Decisions 4.0000 0.61163

Table 9 above shows the descriptive analysis of all

variables used in this research. The Mean values

ranged from 3.9380 (lowest) to 4.2020 (highest).

The highest Mean value, 4.2020, came from the

“Programs Offered”, with a standard deviation of

0.52858, whilst the lowest Mean value for the

variable was “Location” (3.9380), with a standard

deviation of 0.85828. As for other variables, the

Mean and the standard deviations values were

“Reputation of College / Universities (3.9775 :

0.62566); Facilities (4.0890 : 0.66308); Cost

(4.0870 : 0.59801); Availability of Financial Aid /

Scholarship (3.8863 : 0.74086); “Influence from

Peers, Families and Friends (4.0110 : 0.72824); and

lastly Student’s Own Decision (4.0000 : 0.61163).

Regression Analysis

Table 10: Regression Analysis on Factors Affecting Student’s Decision in Choosing the Institutions of Higher

Education

Variables Beta t-Ratio Sig. t






37

Reputation of College/ Universities

Programs Offered

Facilities

Costs

Availability of Financial Aids / Scholarships

Influence from Peers, Families and Friends

Locations

-0.045

-0.049

0.184

0.256

-0.061

0.229

0.185

-0.785

-0.623

2.453

3.627

-1.004

4.235

3.551

0.434

0.534

0.015

0.000

0.317

0.000

0.000

R Square = 0.495

Durbin- Watson = 1.978

Sig. F = 0.000a

F= 26.854

According to Sykes (1993), Regression Analysis is

a statistical tool applied for the investigation of

relationships between variables in any research

study. Table 10 above shows the regression

analysis on factors affecting student’s decision in

choosing the appropriate institutions of higher

education. Any values of sig-t exceeding the

threshold level of 0.05 would be rejected. The first

variable, “Reputation of College/ Universities” did

not indicate any significant effect (sig. t = 0.434

and β = -0.045) and thus negatively related to

student’s decision in choosing higher education.

Thus, Hypothesis-1 was rejected. The second

variable, “Programs Offered” also did not show a

significant effect (sig. t = 0.534; β = -0.049) were

found to be not significant and negatively related.

Thus, Hypothesis-2 was rejected because the level

of P value was more than 0.05. However, for the

third variable, “Facilities” showed a significant

effect (sig. t = 0.015; β = 0.184) and positively

related to student’s decision in choosing higher

education. Thus, Hypothesis-3 was accepted due

the value of P level being less than 0.05. In respect

of the fourth variable, “Costs”, also showed a

significant effect (sig. t = 0.000; β = 0.256) and

positively related to student’s decision in choosing

higher education. Therefore Hypothesis- 4 was

accepted.

Nevertheless, for the fifth variable,

“Availability of Financial Aids/ Scholarships”, did

not indicate any significant effect, as evidenced by

the value of sig. t = 0.317 (β = -0.061) and

negatively related to student’s decision in choosing

higher education. Thus, Hypothesis-5 failed the test

and was rejected. However, in the sixth hypothesis

variable, “Influence from Peers, Families and

Friends”, showed a significant effect (sig. t =

0.000; β = 0.229) and positively related, concluding acceptance of Hypothesis-6 in this research study.

Lastly, for the seventh variable, “Location”, showed a significant effect (sig. t = 0.000; β 0.185) and positively

related. Thus this final Hypothesis-7 was accepted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Table 11: Results of Hypotheses Testing

Hypothesis No Statement of Hypothesis Remarks

1 There is a significant relationship between Reputations of

Universities/Colleges and student’s decision in choosing institutions

of higher education in Malaysia.

Rejected

2 There is a significant relationship between academic Programs

Offered and student’s decision in choosing institutions of higher


Rejected

3 There is a significant relationship between Facilities and student’s


Accepted

4 There is a significant relationship between Costs and student’s


Accepted

5 There is no significant relationship between Availability of

Financial Aids/Scholarships and student’s decision in choosing

institutions of higher education in Malaysia.

Rejected






38

6 There is a significant relationship between Influence from Peers,

Families and Friends and student’s decision in choosing institutions

of higher education in Malaysia.

Accepted

7 There is a significant relationship between Location and student’s


Accepted

Table 11 above shows that Hypotheses 1, 2 and 5

were rejected for this research while the remaining

Hypotheses 3, 4, 6 and 7 were all proven to have

significant impact on selection criteria.

In summary, the factors that have

influenced students to choose their institutions of

higher education are facilities, cost, influence from

peers, families and friend, and lastly location. Other

factors studied such as reputation of college/

universities, programs offered and availability of

financial aids/ scholarship are found to be

insignificant to them.

Seven (7) hypotheses have been tested

successfully. It is widely assumed that the

reputation of universities and college do play some

parts in choosing places of higher education, but

our research indicated that reputation alone did not

prove to be a major factor for student to choose

their universities or college of choice. This claim

can be supported by past researchers who

subscribed to parallel assumption. Smith &

Mathews (1990), through their research, discovered

that reputation of the college is considered only as

minor factor for student in choosing a place for

higher education, however on the contrary, Jager

and Soontiens (2009), stated that the reputation of a

University do play a huge part in student’s decision

in choosing the higher education platform.

Our research indicated that programs

offered by the universities are not recognized as the

main factor for student in choosing a place for

higher education in this research, in contrast to

researches conducted by past researchers. Paulsen

(1990), Montgomery (2002), Avery & Hoxby

(2004), and Hsieh (2010) through their studies,

examined that programs offered is really the

strongest factor influencing students to enrol in any

university. Another researcher such as Ford et al

(1999), also through his research, found that

program issues such as range of programs of study

will influence student’s choice of higher education.

Facilities are considered as the main

important component in a university. Many

respondents agreed that facilities are the main

reason for them to choose a certain university. This

is because good facilities will make it easier for

them to study. Other researchers also concluded

that facilities are supported in their research

hypothesis. Dahari & Abduh (2011), through their

research found that facilities provided by the

university are really important factor dimension.

The Cost factor really comes into serious

consideration by certain people. When it comes to

choosing the university, this factor also becomes a

serious consideration. Tuition cost remains on top

of the list of the international student’s

consideration before enrolling into a university

(Dahari & Abduh, 2011). Past literatures have also

proven that the cost factor is capable of influencing

the students’ choice of higher education (Cubillo et

al., 2006; Ancheh et al., 2007; O’brien et al., 2007;

Wagner and Fard, 2009; Padlee et al., 2010 and

Wei-Loon Koe & Siti Norasiah, n.d).

The availability of financial

aids/scholarships does not affect the student’s

decision in choosing higher education. Several past

studies agreed that financial aids/scholarships and

the student’s decision in choosing higher education

have a positive relationship. A study by Yusof

(2008), Jackson (1978), and Manski & Wise (1983)

also found that financial assistance by university

being one of the many crucial attributes expected to

influence the student’s decision.

The influence from peers, families and

friends is really strong and will affect the student’s

decision in choosing the higher education, probably

because peers, families and friends are considered

the closest group of people to the students. Koe &

Saring (2012), proved that there is a negative

relationship between family/peers influence and

intention to study at graduate schools through their

research. However, some other researchers have

different conclusion in this hypothesis where,

O’brien (2007), Ivy (2010) and Johnston (2010) in

their researches stated otherwise, that there is a

positive relationship between family/peers

influence and intention to study at graduate

schools.

Many respondents do think that the

location of the university is really important. A

strategic location does affect student’s decision in

choosing the higher education. For instance, if the

location of the chosen university is in a rural area,

then the percentage of students choosing the

location might be low. For this last hypothesis,

other researches also claimed to have concurred

with this findings, in which studies by Koe &

Saring (2012), have proven that location is also

important in determining the students decision in






39

choosing the higher education. Besides that, Sevier

(1986) through his research also stated that college

or university location can be a major factor for

potential student’s decision to apply and enrol.

Going forward, we would suggest further

future research studies be done on same subject

matter but extended to a larger pool of respondents

from other universities as well so as to obtain more

accurate findings, instead of a having a smaller

pool and confined to only one university, UniMAP.

References

1. 9th Malaysia Plan [n.d]. Retrieved on July

26, 2015 from

http://www.epu.jpm.my/rm9/bahasa/Bab1

1.pdf

2. Absher, K. & Crawford, G. (1996).

Marketing the community college starts

with understanding students’ perspectives.

Community College Review, 23(4), 59-67.

3. Ancheh, K.S.B., Krishnan, A. and

Nurtjahja, O. (2007). Evaluative Criteria

for Selection of Private Universities and

Colleges in Malaysia. Journal of

International Management Studies. 2(1),

1-11.

4. Avery C, Hoxby C (2004). Do and should

financial aid packages affect students’

college choices? In Hoxby, C. (Eds.)

(2004). College choices: The economics

of where to go, when to go, and how to

pay for it. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press, pp. 239-299.

5. Burns, R., & Burns, R. (2009). Business

Research Methods and Statistics Using

SPSS. SAGE Publications Ltd.

6. Chandra, A. (2011). Factors Influencing

Indian Individual Investor Behaviour:

Survey Evidence. Social Science Research

Network.

7. Cubillo, J.M., Sánchez, J. and Cerviòo, J.

(2006). International Students’ Decision-

Making Process. International Journal of

Educational Management. 20(2): 101-115.

8. Dahari, & Abduh. (2011). Factors

influencing international students’ choice.

African Journal of Business Management.

9. Education. 3(2): 101-121.

10. Falsey, B. & Haynes, B. (1984). “The

College Channel: Private and Public

Schools Reconsidered,” Sociology of

Higher Education, 57, 111-122.

11. Fernandez, J.L. (2010). An Exploratory

Study of Factors Influencing the Decision

of Students to Study at Universiti Sains

Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia. 28(2): 107-

136

12. Ford, J. B, Joseph, M. & Joseph, B.

(1999). Importance-performance analysis

as a strategic tool for service

marketers: The case of service quality

perceptions of business students in New

Zealand and the USA. The Journal of

Services Marketing, 13(2), 171-186.

13. Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new

psychology of personal freedom. New

York.

14. Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. (1988).

Relation of Sample Size to the Stability of

Component Patterns. Psychological

Bulletin.

15. Hayden, M. (2000). Factors That

Influence the College Choice Process for

African American Students.

16. Hsieh YJ (2010). The decision-making

process of international students in

Taiwan: A case study.

17. Ismail, N., Leow, Y.M., Chen, C.H., Lim,

C.T.M., Ng, F.L. (2007). Choice Criteria

for Private Tertiary Programs at a Private

Higher Education Institution. Asian

Journal of University

18. Ivy J (2008). A new higher education

marketing mix: the 7Ps for MBA

marketing. Int. J. Educ. Manage., 22(4):

288-299.

19. Ivy, J. (2010). Choosing Futures:

Influence of Ethnic Origin in University

Choice. International Journal of

Educational Management. 24(5): 391-403.

20. Jackson, G. A. (1978). Financial aid and

student enrolment. Journal of Higher

Education. 49(6), 548-574.

21. Jager, J.W.D and Soontiens, W. (2009).

The Image and Academic Expectations of

South African and Malaysian

University Students. International Journal

of Business Excellence. 2(34):285-300.

22. Johnston, T.C. (2010). Who and What

Influences Choice of University? Student

and University Perceptions. American

Journal of Business Education. 3(10): 15-

23.

23. Joseph, M. & Joseph B. (2000).

Indonesian students’ perceptions of choice

criteria in the selection of a tertiary

institution: Strategic implications.






40

International Journal of Educational

Management, 14(1), 40-44.

24. Keling, S. B. A. (2007). Institutional

factors attracting students to Malaysian

institutions of higher learning.

International Review of Business Research

Papers, 2(1), 46-64.

25. Craig H. Kennedy. (2005). Single Case

Designs for Educational Research 2005.

26. Keskinen, E., Tiuraniemi, J. and Liimola,

A. (2008). University Selection in Finland:

How the Decision is Made.

International Journal of Educational

Management. 22(7): 638-650.

27. Koe, W. L. & Saring (2012). Factors

Influencing the Foreign Undergraduates’

Intention to Study at Jurnal

Kemanusiaan

28. Mansky C, Wise D (1983). College choice

in America. Harvard University Press,

Cambridge.

29. Maringe, F. (2006). “University and

Course Choice: Implications for

Positioning, Recruitment and Marketing.

The International Journal of Educational

Management, 20(6). 466-479.

30. Montgomery M (2002). A nested logit

model of the choice of a graduate business

school. Econ. Educ. Rev., 21(5): 471-480.

31. Nurlida, I . (2009). The Relationship of

Class Attendance Characteristics and

Academic Performance. Proceedings of

International Conference of Teaching &

Learning 2009. 16-18 Nov. Kuching,

Sarawak.

32. O’brien, A., Webb, P., Page, S. and

Proctor, T. (2007) A Study into the

Factors Influencing the Choice-Making

Process of Indian Students When

Selecting an International University for

Graduate Study Using Grounded Theory.

Retrieved on June 10, 2015 from

at:http://chesterrep.openrepository.com/cd

r/bitstream/10034/37772/8/o'brien,%20we

bb,%20page%20%26%20proctor%20-

%20conference%20paper%20july%20200

7.pdf

33. Padlee, S.F., Kamaruddin, A.R. and

Baharun, R. (2010). International

Students’ Choice Behavior for

Higher Education at Malaysian Private

Universities. International Journal of

Marketing Studies. 2(2): 202-211.

34. Paper presented in The Fifth APAIE 2010

Conference, Griffith University, Australia,

April 14-16, 2010.

35. Paulsen, M. B. (1990). College choice:

Understanding student enrolment

behaviour (Report No. EDO-HE-90-60).

Washington, D.C.:ERIC Clearinghouse on

Higher Education.

36. Peterson, R.T. & Limbu, Y.2009.The

convergence of mirroring and empathy:

Communications training in business-to-

business personal selling persuasion

efforts. Journal of Business-to Business

Marketing, 16(3):193-219

37. Planning, Research and Policy

Coordination Division, Higher Education

Sector, MOE, 2014. Retrieved on July 25,

2015 from

https://emisportal.moe.gov.my/emis/emis2

/emisportal2/doc/fckeditor/File/Quickfacts

_2014/Buku%20Quick%20Facts%202014

.pdf

38. Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L and

Agahi, H. (2003). The Impact of Facilities

on Student Choice of University.

Facilities. 21(10): 212-222.

39. Sekaran, U., 2003. Research Methods for

Business. New York: Wiley

40. Servier, R. A. (1986). Freshmen at

competitive liberal arts college: A survey

of factors influencing institutional choice.

Unpublished dissertation, Ohio State

University, Columbus, Ohio.

41. Sia, J.K.M. (2010). Institutional Factors

Influencing Students’ College Choice

Decision in Malaysia: A Conceptual

Framework. International Journal of

Business and Social Science. 1(3):

53-58.

42. Smith, S., & Matthews, T. (1990). How do

students choose a particular college? A

survey of admitted students: 1990. College

Student Journal, 25(4), 482-488

43. Sykes, A. O. (1993). An Introduction to

Regression Analysis. The Inaugural Coase

Lecture.

44. Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011)

Making Sense of Chronbach’s Alpha.

International Journal of Medical

Education, 2, 53-55.

45. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The

framing of decisions and the psychology

of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.

46. Wagner, K. and Fard, P.Y. (2009). Factors

Influencing Malaysian Students’ Intention

to Study at a Higher Educational

Institution. E-Leader Kuala Lumpur.

47. Wei-Loon Koe & Siti Norasiah

Saring.(n.d). Factors Influencing the






41

Foreign Undergraduates’ Intention to

Study at Graduate School of a Public

University. Jurnal Kemanusian, Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia, ISSN:1675 – 1930

(9), pp. 57-68. Retrieved on July 25, 2015

from

http://www.management.utm.my/downloa

d/jurnal-kemanusiaan/bil-19-jun-

2012/496-factors-influencing-the-foreign-

undergraduates-intention-to-study-at-

graduate-school-of-a-public-

university/file.html

48. Xiaoping, H. (2002). Soaring fees at

institutions of higher learning. Chinese

Education and Society, 35(1), 21–27.

49. Yusof, M., Ahmad, S. N. B., Tajudin, M.

& Ravindran, R. (2008). A study of

factors influencing the selection of

a higher education institution. UNITAR e-

journal, 4(2), 27-40.


FACTORS INFLUENCING LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL … volume tijoss/3.pdf · Bibi Noraini Mohd Yusuf, M....

Documents

Transcript of FACTORS INFLUENCING LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL … volume tijoss/3.pdf · Bibi Noraini Mohd Yusuf, M....