f actors i nfluencing m alaysian s tudents ’ i ntention to s tudy at a h igher e ducational i...

FACTORS INFLUENCING MALAYSIAN STUDENTS’ INTENTION TO STUDY AT A HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

1Presented By:Presented By:Prof Dr Karl WagnerProf Dr Karl WagnerPooyan Yousefi FardPooyan Yousefi Fard

OUTLINE

2

Introduction1

Literature Review2

Research Methodology3

Data Analysis and Findings4

Discussion and Conclusion5

3

STPM GCE A-Level MatriculationUniversity

Foundation Year

Overseas Pre-U (CPU, SAM)

Pre-Secondary

Primary Education

Secondary Education (Five Years)

(Six Years)

(One Year)

Pre-school education

Tertiary Education

CompulsoryEducation The targeted

sample in study

IntroductionIntroduction

4

1. To understand the importance of the main factors such as cost of education, degree (content and structure), physical aspect and facilities, value of education, and institutional information that will affect students’ intention to study at a HEI.

2. To identify the significant importance and influence of family and friends towards Malaysian students’ intention to further study at a HEI.

The outcome of this research could be beneficial to both students (as the customers of educational institutions), and

institutions (as the providers of the services) to obtain better future planning and decision making

Research Objective

ImplicationsImplications of Research


NUMBER OF HIGHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN MALAYSIA

5


As at 31 Dec 2007, total education institutions registered with Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia is shown below:

Public Universities 20

Public Polytechnics 58

Private Institutions 543

In early 1990, there were 7 public universities in Malaysia, compared to 20 in 2007, an increase of 13 new public universities or 86% in nearly 2 decades.

Increase in number of higher education institutions in Malaysia has provided students more options in selecting higher education institutions for their tertiary study.

6

Reference Analysis AppliedKind

of Study

Top Five Factors Identified/ Main Finding

1. Chapman (1981)

Model of Student College Choice (combined model)

QT/QL

1. Significant persons and 2. Fixed college characteristics3. College efforts to communicate with student

2. Krampf andHeinlein (1981)

Multiple discriminant analysis QT Finding: Identifies the steps a prospective user would follow1. Attractiveness of the campus2. Recommendation from family3. Closeness to home4. Good programme in their major5. Friendliness of the campus atmosphere

Notes : QT = Quantitative, QL = Qualitative

David Chapman (1981) is one of the pioneer researchers that developed a Model of Student College Choice and he concluded that there are three external influences that affect student’s college choice; significant persons, fixed college characteristics and college efforts to communicate with student.

A Multi-attribute Model was employed to identify the important attributes and its impact level in influencing the potential students’ selection (Joseph and Joseph, 1998).

In fact, there are several studies have been done on this goal based on different models. The literatures of previous studies are summarized as below:

Previous StudiesLiterature Literature

ReviewReview

7

Joseph and Joseph (1998, 2000) have carried out two similar studies with the same designed multi-attribute model in two different countries, New Zealand and Indonesia.

New Zealand (1998) Indonesia (2000)

Note: general = course and career information = influences of family

Findings showed there were differences in the impact level of important attributes that affect students’ choice between two different cultural frameworks.

Proposed important attributes in this study

Literature Literature ReviewReview

8

According to the empirical finding in literature, a total of six factors are proposed as independent variables with one dependent variable.

Independent Variable (IV) Dependent Variable (DV)

Cost of education

Students’ Intention to study at a Higher Educational

Institution

Degree (Content and Structure)

Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources

Value of Education

Institutional Information

Family, Friends and Peer

Proposed important attributes in this study (cont’d)


THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

9


Intention to Study at a Higher Educational

Institution

Cost of Education


Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources

Value of Education

Institutional Information

Family, Friends and Peers

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6

Independent Variables, IVs

Dependent Variable, DV

SAMPLE

10

Research MethodologyResearch Methodology

Students who are currently attending the pre-university level programme

Sampling processes were curried out in selected tuition centres, matriculation centre and some private institutions

There are many interests for HEI marketers to understand about what factors that influencing the students’ intention to study at a HEI

The convenience method of sampling was employed

11


Instrument Design

The instrument to gain primary data is a self-administered questionnaire containing three sections:

I.The importance of factors influencing respondents’ intention to study at a HEI (six IVs) and

respondents’ intention to study one potential Dependent Variable). Responses to the items were

measured on a five-point Likert scale where 1 meant “Strongly Disagree” and 5 meant “Strongly

Agree”.

II.The ranking of most important attributes.

III.Demographics.

Completed by face to face interviews and self-administered questionnaire

survey.

RESULT OF SAMPLING (CONT’D)

12


Gender

Male, n=7143.8%

Female, n =9156.2%

0.6%9.9%

63%

13%5.6% 4.9% 3.1%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Number of Student

15 orbelow

16-17 18-19 20-21 22-23 24-25 above25

Year

Age Group

Ethnic Group

Malaysian Chinese

n= 83, 51.2%

Malayn=48, 29.6%

Othersn=7, 4.3%

Malaysian Indiann=24, 14.8%

Religion

Buddhismn=57, 35.2%

Christianityn=37, 22.8%

Islamn=50, 30.9%

Othersn=1, 0.6%

Hinduismn=17,10.5%

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS (CONT’D)

13

Data Analysis and Data Analysis and FindingsFindings

Factors that ranked as the one (most important) by respondents (N = 162)

CategoryNumber of

respondent, n Percentage, %

Cost of Education 48 29.63

Value of Education 43 26.54

Degree (Content and Structure) 40 24.69

Family, Friends and Peer 16 9.88

Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources 8 4.94

Institutional Information 7 4.32

The total score of the three first factors is about 80.86 %

Majority of respondents would consider the three factors are their primary concern in decision making process of their further study

INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS

14


Correlations between independent variables and dependent variable

Intention to study

Cost of education Pearson Correlation .39**

Sig. (2-tailed) .00

Degree (content and structure) Pearson Correlation .41**

Sig. (2-tailed) .00

Physical aspects, facilities and resources Pearson Correlation .55**

Sig. (2-tailed) .00

Value of education Pearson Correlation .46**

Sig. (2-tailed) .00

Institutional information Pearson Correlation .56**

Sig. (2-tailed) .00

Family, friends and peers Pearson Correlation .24**

Sig. (2-tailed) .00

There is a significant relationship between each IV and DV

DISCUSSION

15

Discussion and Discussion and ConclusionConclusion

Rank New Zealand (1998) Indonesia (2000) Malaysia (2008)

1 Value of Education Course and Career Information**

Cost of Education

2 Degree (Content and Structure)

Physical Aspect, Facilities and Resources

Value of Education

3 Cost of Education Cost of Education Degree (Content and Structure)

4 Physical Aspect, Facilities and Resources


Family, Friends and Peers

5 General* Value of Education Physical Aspect, Facilities and Resources

6 - - Institutional Information

Comparison of ranking order of importance for three distinct nations

CONCLUSION

16


Hypothesis Result

H1 There is a significant relationship between cost of education and students’ intention to study at a higher educational institution

Accepted

H2 There is a significant relationship between degree (content and structure) and students’ intention to study at a higher educational institution

Accepted

H3 There is a significant relationship between physical aspects, facilities and resources and students’ intention to study at a higher educational institution

Accepted

H4 There is a significant relationship between value of education and students’ intention to study at a higher educational institution

Accepted

H5 There is a significant relationship between relevant information provided by the institution and students’ intention to study at a higher educational institution

Accepted

H6 There is a significant relationship between family, friends and peer and students’ intention to study at a higher educational institution

Accepted

FURTHER RESEARCH

17


•A quantitative study as such may pave the way for a following qualitative study o explore the hows and circumstances of implementing the factors in the HEIs in Malaysia.

•Perhaps such following studies could be using a comparative method.

LIMITATION OF STUDY The sample size (N = 162) is insufficient to represent the whole

population. In addition, sample were only sampled from the area of Klang-Valley, it might not give a good picture of view that reflecting the whole population.

DEFINITION OF VARIABLES

19

Independent Variable

1. Cost of education (IV1)

Definition: Students’ financial consumptions during study

Measurable items- Reasonable cost- Accommodation at reasonable cost- Availability of financial aids

Sample itemAn excellent institution provides education at a reasonable cost

2. Degree (Content and Structure) (IV2)

Definition: The availability and suitability of the offered courses to students

Measurable items- Wide range of courses- Reasonable entry requirement- Specialist programmes

Sample itemAn excellent institution provides a wide range of courses for students to select from

DEFINITION OF VARIABLES (CONT’D)

20


3. Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources (IV3)

Definition: Institutes’ structures and properties

Measurable items- Ideal Location- Environment conducive to learning- Superb recreation and other facilities- Good social life on campus- Necessary resources available- Clean and safe environment- Good faculty

Sample itemAn excellent institution is situated in an ideal location

4. Value of Education (IV4)

Definition: The preserved importance and principles of quality education

Measurable items- Reputable degree programmes- Academic value- Recognition of degree programmes

Sample itemAn excellent institution will have a reputable degree programme



21


5. Institutional Information (IV5)

Definition: Information made available by institutions to students

Measurable items- Information given on career opportunities- Information provided to choose area of study- Information related to post-graduate or further study

Sample itemAn excellent institution provides its students with information regarding career opportunities

6. Family, Friends and Peer (IV6)

Definition: Influences of family members, friends and peer that affect students’ intention to study

Measurable items- Family members influences- Friends influences- Peer influences

Sample itemStudents rely on family members when it comes to choosing an excellent institution



22

Dependent Variable

1 Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution (DV)Definition: Students’ intention to further their study at a higher educational institution

Measurable items- Willingness to further study- recommend a higher educational institution to others- Say favorable thing regarding a higher educational institution- Willingness to spend for a a higher educational institution

Sample itemI would further my study at a higher educational institution


IMPLICATION

23


Our research has shown that HEI administrators, marketers and policy makers should focus on•Cost of education •Degree (content and structure).

Other factors •Influences from family members•Friends and peer,•Physical aspects and facilities of HEI •Institutional information

RESULT OF SAMPLING (CONT’D)

24


Currently Studying

STPM/Form Sixn=48, 29.6%

Othersn=12, 7.4%

Matriculationn=20, 12.3%GCE A-Level

n=35, 21.6%

University Foundation Programme

n=19, 11.7%

Oversea Pre-Un=28, 17.3%

43.8%

54.3%

2.5%

0102030405060708090

Number of Student

Small size (1-4persons)

Average size (5-8persons)

Large Size (above8 persons)

Household Number

13.6%

75.9%

10.5%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of Student

Low (RM 2000 orless)

Medium (RM 2001- RM 10000)

High (RM 10001and above)

Family Monthly Income

NORMALITY TESTS

25


The sum of cost of education5432

Freq

uenc

y

25

20

15

10

5

0

The sum of cost of education

Mean =3.73Std. Dev. =0.865

N =162

The sum of degree (content and structure)5432

Fre

qu

ency

40

30

20

10

0

The sum of degree (content and structure)

Mean =3.8Std. Dev. =0.78

N =162

The sum of physical aspects, facilities and resources65432

Fre

qu

en

cy

20

15

10

5

0

The sum of physical aspects, facilities and resources

Mean =3.84Std. Dev. =0.679

N =162

The sum of value of education654321

Freq

uenc

y

40

30

20

10

0

The sum of value of education

Mean =3.95Std. Dev. =0.836

N =162

The sum of institutional information5432

Fre

qu

ency

40

30

20

10

0

Histogram

Mean =3.92Std. Dev. =0.735

N =162

The sum of family, friends and peers654321

Fre

qu

en

cy

40

30

20

10

0

The sum of family, friends and peers

Mean =3.26Std. Dev. =0.749

N =162

The sum of intention to study6.005.004.003.002.00

Fre

qu

ency

25

20

15

10

5

0

The sum of intention to study

Mean =3.79Std. Dev. =0.648

N =162

Dependent Variable, DV

Independent Variables, IVsHistogram

((NN = 162) = 162)

f actors i nfluencing m alaysian s tudents ’ i ntention to s tudy at a h igher e ducational i...

Documents