Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1. Introduction
The 1990's have been an exciting period for educational establishments
in Malaysia. The fast-changing educational services scene in this country has
been most breathtaking. Even the most casual observers would have noticed
the mushrooming of private tertiary institutions offering a myriad range of
courses. The already robust scene has been given quite ironically, a further
boost by the recent Asian financial crisis (in late 1997 and 1998), which grounded the dreams of many students planning to study abroad. These students
*
259
have turned toward local colleges and universities for further studies. Nevertheless, proprietors and managers of local institutions are still complaining
about stiff contention for students and faculty staff. The competition seems
certain to heat up with the government's liberalization move in allowing the
market entry of foreign universities to Malaysia.
The government of Malaysia, in particular the Ministry of Education
(MOE), has of late been trying to transform Malaysia into a center of excellence for education. Pursuant to this goal, certain policies with regards the educational systems were liberalized. These include the licensing of private institutions of higher learning to confer baccalaureate degrees and to conduct
courses in collaboration with foreign universities. A direct repercussion of
such liberalization has been the mushrooming of private higher educational
establishments throughout the country. The main benefactors seem to be big
corporations such as Tenaga Nasional Bhd, Telekom Malaysia and Petronas.
These corporations have jumped onto the education bandwagon as the educational services industry promises potentially lucrative returns. They also
have the necessary resources and funding to set up campuses and faculties
across the country.
Nevertheless, smaller colleges and establishments have also benefited
from the growing trend of private education. Many of these colleges have
been in existence for the past decade or even longer, although some have
been set up more recently to take advantage of the relaxation of government
policies.
1.1 Problem Statement
Tertiary education is arguably a high-involvement product [6]. For
many students and their parents, it represents a substantial investment in
monetary and temporal terms. Hence, we might safely deduce that prospective students and their sponsors would look carefully into the options
available in the market.
The present financial crisis and economic downturn in Malaysia had
ballooned the cost of studying overseas, hence preventing many students
from going abroad. As such, it is a blessing in disguise for private local
colleges and universities, which are swarmed by anxious students and their
parents. Nonetheless, the scenario is far from plain sailing for the colleges
because they also face immense competition amongst their own.
Educational marketers must therefore attempt to answer some fundam-
260
261
2. Literature Review
2.1 Decision-making Process
College/university choice has been viewed as a three-stage decision
process [3, 4]. During the first stage college aspiration formation - students
develop the predisposition or intention to continue their education beyond
secondary level. Sometime after college aspirations are formed, students enter the second stage - search and application. At this stage, students begin to
acquire information regarding the college attributes that are particularly important to them in deciding which college/university to consider attending.
This phase ends when students decided to apply to a particular set of institutions. After their application and the colleges' acceptance, students enter
the third-stage - actual selection and attendance. During this phase, students
compare and evaluate their preferred alternatives in terms of college attributes most important to them. This phase ends with the final attendance or
enrollment decision [8].
Student choice is a basic and integral part of theory and research on
higher education. For unlike elementary, primary and secondary schools (to
a large extent), post-secondary students have the freedom to choose [10].
They must decide whether to go to college, which college to enroll in, what
to major in, which courses to take, and so on.
2.2 College Selection Criteria
For service marketers, it is critical to understand which cues or attributes of the service offerings are valued most in the decision making process
of current and potential customers. Students were found to select those
colleges that match their selection criteria academically, socially, and
financially [2]. [9] reported that the choice of which college to enroll in
depends on five components: academic programs offered, leadership opportunities in college, perceived good job after graduation, financial aid, and
value for money (cost /benefit analysis). [11] did a survey using a 52-item
questionnaire, which resulted in the clustering of ten criteria for students
selecting a college, namely:
1. Academic programmes available
2. Academic reputation of institution
3. The marketability of the degree conferred
4. Faculty contact time
262
5. Accreditations
6. Campus employment
7. Financial aids
8. Placement reputation
9. Completion time
10. Library size
Seventeen college image components were identified in a study using
students at Ball State University [2]. These components were researched by
measuring the importance of each in predicting a student's selection of a college or university. Quality of education, recreational activites, educational
facilities and the faculty members are some of these components. In another
study by [1], twenty-nine college image components were identified in a study of university students at the University of North Alabama These components were investigated by measuring the importance of each in predicting a
student's selection of a college or university. Some of these factors were convenient and accessible location, types of academic programmes, community in which college is located, and overall quality of education.
In a study on service quality in higher education, [5]showed that six
factors that are important to students were:
1. Program issues
2. Academic reputation
3. Physical aspects
4. Career opportunities
5. Geographical location (of institution)
6. Time (i.e. duration of studies)
The program issues category comprises the availability of specialist
programmes, degree flexibility, availability of several course options, and flexible entry requirements. Academic reputation refers to the prestige of the
degree conferred, such as whether it is recognized nationality or internationally. Physical aspects include the quality of facilities for academic, accommodation, sports, and recreation.
263
3. Methodology
A survey was conducted using first year students at public and private
universities in Klang Valley as the respondents. Convenience sampling was
used as the sampling method. Enumerators were trained and hired to conduct
face-face interview with these students. Questionnaires were distributed to
90 public universities and 110 private institutions students. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The first section consisted of questions
pertaining to the demographic as well as background information. The second part of the questionnaire included the semantic differential (SD) Scale
on college selection criteria.
Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used in the
analysis of primary data. Some of the descriptive statistics used include
frequencies, means and percentages. Other statistical analyses used in this
study were Chi-square analysis and factor analysis.
4. Research Findings
4.1 Respondents' Personal Characteristics
Table 1 Respondent Profile: Gender
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Male
88
14.9
41.9
41.9
Female
122
58.1
58.1
100
Total
210
100.0
100.0
Source: Survey
Below 18
18 and 19
20 and 21
22 and 23
24 and above
Total
Source: Survey
264
tates, academic background, and institutions, appear in this section. Frequency and percentage measures are used in reporting figures.
As shown on the table above, female respondents outnumbered males
by 122 (or 58.1%) to 88 (41.9%)
The majority of the respondents were 20 or 21 years old, (41.4%).
31.0% were 18 and 19 years old, and 15.7% are between 22 and 23. 8.1%
were 24 to 28 years old. 76.2% of the sample population were 21 or younger.
Table 3 Respondent Profile: Ethnicity
Frequency Percent
Malay
Chinese
Indian
Total
60
126
24
210
28.8
60.0
11.4
100.0
Valid Cumulative
Percent
Percent
28.6
28.6
60.0
88.6
11.4
100.0
100.0
Source: Survey
Valid
F5/SPM/O-level
F6/STPM/A-level
Diploma
Bachelors degree
Others
Total
Frequency
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
76
69
42
13
10
210
36.2
32.9
20.0
6.2
4.8
100.0
36.2
32.9
20.0
6.2
4.8
100.0
36.2
69.0
89.0
95.2
100.0
Source: Survey
265
27
79
52
29
23
210
12.9
37.6
24.8
13.8
11.0
100.0
Valid Cumulative
Percent
Percent
12.9
12.9
37.6
50.5
24.8
75.2
13.8
89.0
11.0 100.0
100.0
Source: Survey
266
plomas or degrees from local colleges and institutions. Hence, 66.7% of the
sample population would in other words graduate with a local degree. 31%
of the respondents would have their degrees conferred by foreign universities.
Table 7 College Choice Decision Factors Profile:
Institution Conferring Diploma/Degree
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Local College/institution
27
12.9
12.9
12.9
Local university
113
53.8
53.8
66.7
Foreign college/university
65
31.0
31.0
97.6
Local branch of foreign institution
2
1.0
1.0
98.6
Others
3
1.4
1.4
100.0
Total
210
100.0 100.0
Source: Survey
67
37
Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
31.9
31.9
31.9
17.6
17.6
49.5
28
13.3
13.3
62.9
78
210
37.1
100.0
37.1
100.0
100.0
Source: Survey
The majority of respondents (37.1%) reportedly never visited their present institutions prior to enrollment. 31.9% visited their institutions only
once; 17.6% reported visiting twice, and only 13.3% visited their institutions
more than twice. One respondent cited visiting his college 10 times before
enrolling. Such extreme was, however, a misnomer. Almost all of those who
reported visiting their colleges more than twice only did so three or four
times.
An equal percentage of students (31% each) reported making up their
minds to enroll in an institution within a week and between one to two
weeks. 16.7% said they required two to four weeks to decide. A significant
pro- portion of those surveyed (21.4%) needed more than four weeks to
267
decide. This seems to support the contention (Kotler, 1996) that purchasing
education is a high-involvement decision.
Table 9 College Choice Decision Factors' Profile:
Length of Time to Make Decision
31.0
31.0
61.9
35
16.7
16.7
78.6
45
21.4
21.4
100.0
210
100.0
100.0
Source: Survey
268
The first factor component as shown in the Table above explains 15.567% of the variance. Similarly, the second, third, fourth, and fifth factor components explain 15.31%, 12.71%, 8.34%, and 8.265% of the total variance
respectively. Altogether, the five factor components explained 60.192% of
the variance. Each of the five factor components was given a name depending on the general characteristics of the factors that fall within it. Table 12
below shows the rotated component matrix using the extraction method of
Principal Component Analysis. Each of the factors having multiple values is
grouped under the iteration where it has the highest value.
269
Table 13 below presents the five factor components as derived from the
Varimax rotation method of factor analysis, each given an 'interpretative'
name. Only sum of squared loadings of more than .300 are considered. That,
however, qualifies all the variables (as their values have exceed .300).
The first college choice decision factor has been named "Personal
factors". The choice for this name stems from the fact that every student has
his or her own set of circumstances quite independent from the others, hence
the word 'personal'.
There are seven variables in this factor component namely, 'Job opportunities', 'Availability of course', 'Time required for completion', 'Tuition
fees', 'Entry requirements', 'Availability of part-time studies', and 'Marketability of degree'. Together, they account for 15.567% of the variance. The sec-
270
ond factor has been named "Academic quality and facilities to reflect variables such as 'Quality of teaching', 'Library collection', 'Institution's reputation', 'Program structure' and 'Facilities'. The second factor group explains
15.31% of the total variance. The third group, which represents 12.71% of
the variance, is named "Campus" as it contains variables such as 'Campus
size and layout', 'Campus attractiveness', and 'Number of students'. The
fourth factor Socialization -- refers to extra-curricular activities on campus as well as the opportunity to meet friends. It represents 8.34% of the
variance. The fifth factor includes variables such as 'Scholarship/financial
aid and 'Procedures and policies'. This refers to the availability (or not) of
financial support plus the ease of which to enroll in the college. This last
component explains 8.265% of the total variance.
271
Sources of influence
Mean value
Sources of influence
3.72
Friends & schoolmates
3.50
Parents & relatives
3.21
Newspapers
3.08
Education fairs
2.92
College promotional material
2.90
College counselors & representatives
2.88
School teachers
2.70
Magazines
2.57
Secondary school counselor
2.43
Television & radio
272
value of 2.58) was the availability of part-time studies. This supposedly did
not concern the respondents as they were all full-time.
Table 15 Ranking of Variables Influencing College Choice
Decision by Importance: Top Ten Factors
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
* Other lower-ranking (i.e. less influential) factors have been left out.
Source: Survey Data Analysis
Note: 5 Very important
1 Not important at all
273
84
25
59
84
21
53
10
126
63
63
126
39
73
14
8.479
0.035
7.636
0.047
Source: Survey
Source: Survey
Hypothesis 3
Student's college choice decision is affected by the highest pre-university academic qualification attained thus far. The higher the pre-university
qualification, the more likely the student would choose public institutions.
Table 18
Variables
Public Inst. Private Inst. Chi-square Significance
Qualification
84
126
2.395
0.122
SPM/O level
13
63
STPM/ level
54
15
Diploma
2
40
Bachelors
13
0
Others
2
8
Source: Survey
274
Chi-square
12.404
3.207
1.457
9.356
1.216
1.947
1.835
28.449
9.748
4.374
9.231
1.303
6.339
5.366
14.659
8.599
15.189
1.959
9.234
9.887
Significance
0.301
0.062
0.044
0.202
0.031
0.096
0.076
0.365
0.365
0.074
0.205
0.035
0.053
0.145
0.252
0.125
0.205
0.048
0.100
0.176
275
276
277
ential students. The frequency of such events that would provide the greatest
impact is hard to tell, but a conservatively suggestion of one nationwide tour
every year, and three education fairs would in our opinion be a good start.
This research has also indicated what students actually value in selecting a college to enroll in. In particular, the quality of teaching, institution's
image, and campus surroundings must all be considered by college operators
in attracting students. Preparing to give what students want is the first step in
applying marketing concepts to higher education.
5.3 Research limitations
The sample size of 210 is considered very small compared to an estimated 340,000 students currently enrolled in institutions of higher education.
Furthermore, samples were only drawn from university and college students
from the Klang Valley, which may not be representative of tertiary student
population in Malaysia as a whole. Data gathering used the convenience sampling method, whereby students were approached personally by the interviewers. This technique has been criticized by many researchers as not being
accurate and representative of the entire population. Although extreme care
has been taken not to cause business to the sampling process, a strong element of subjectivity is still present. The construct of influence on college
choice decision is one which is very difficult to define, much less to measure.
The way the questionnaire was worded may actually skew the answers of
the respondents. This study is mainly descriptive in nature, as intended. The
important aspects of college choice decision affecting post-purchase behaviour, academic achievements, and satisfaction levels were not examined.
5.4 Implications for Future research
This study has effected more questions than answers. It is an encouraging sign that more research into this area should be carried out in the near
future. In particular researchers can look into other aspects of the student
decision-making process, including personal factors, family background, academic achievements, and other considerations. The causal relationship between college choice and post-purchase behaviour, academic achievements,
and satisfaction levels, can also be examined. Similarly, more constructs can
be defined and measured in follow-up studies.
As this research is meant for exploratory purposes, we believe that a
wealth of other follow-up studies can and should be carried out. In particular,
more studies in this field need to be conducted before a clearer picture of the
education industry in Malaysia emerge.
278
5.5 Conclusion
As education strongly reflects and affects the soundness of the nation,
we should thus try to understand it better. The burgeoning industry that we
now witness today is the result of a greater awareness and need for higher
learning and achievement. That greater need and awareness is very much a
part of human striving to perfect oneself and to self-actualize.
As our nation progresses towards its coveted dream of developed statehood, education (and in particular tertiary education) plays a major role in
its actualization. Therefore, problems faced within the current system, such
as the questions of cost, quality, creativity, and morality, must be solved quickly yet effectively. Academicians and policy makers must be careful in their
planning and implementation of national education objectives so that we can
continue to produce generations after generations of useful, knowledgeable,
upright. and competent citizens.
On a smaller scale, universities and colleges, being the front-runners
and implementers of national educational objectives, must be made aware of
their significant roles and responsibilities in moulding the new generation of
professionals, leaders, planners, technocrats, operators, and more. Another
important task in assisting national development is to stem the outflow of
foreign exchange to support the thousands of Malaysian students abroad.
There is also strong possibility of attracting foreign students to our shores,
thus reversing the outflow of funds and reduce our service deficit. In doing
all these, university and college authorities must be aware of students' needs
and college selection criteria. Only then can their actual needs be catered for.
Through this study, students have shown that they are amiable to and satisfied with local tertiary education. Nevertheless, many of them expressed the
desire to see improvements in quality of teaching, social life, and facilities.
Besides, the ubiquitous factors of costs, duration of studies, and academic
quality are also important considerations for students and their families. Our
policy planners should take these omni-present factors into consideration in
providing a better deal for students in Malaysia. College and university authorities too should strive to ensure that students are given a holistic education and not just a paper qualification. Only then can we boast of a worldclass education system and achieve the spirit of Malaysia Boleh!"
In conclusion, this study is an early attempt to explore the wide fields of
Malaysian education scene, particularly from the viewpoint of immediate
customers, the students. It is hoped that follow-up studies would provide
more coverage relative to the findings of this research.
279
References
[1] Absher, K. G., G. Crawford, K. P. Gatlin. 1993. Identifying college selection factors among students of a regional university. Southwest Business Symposium Proceedings 419-430.
[2] Brown, J. D. 1991. Identifying benefit segments among college students.
The Journal of College Admission (Spring) 30-33.
[3] Hossler, D. R., K. S. Gallagher. 1987. Studying student college choice. A
three-phase model and the implications for policy-makers. College and
University 62 (3) 207-221.
[4] Jackson, T. J. 1985. Bolstering graduate school enrollments through
effective use of alumni. College and University 60 (3) 210-218.
[5] Joseph, M. B. , J. B. Ford. 1997. 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
[6] Kotler, P. 1976. Applying marketing theory to college admissions. In
College Entrance Examination Board (ed.). A Role for Marketing in College Admission 54-72. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
[7] Pate, W. S., Jr. 1993. Consumer satisfaction, determinants, and post-purchase actions in higher education: A model to guide academic managers.
College and University 100-107.
[8] Paulsen, M. B. 1990. College choice: Understanding student enrollment
behavior (ASHEERIC higher education report No. 6). Washington,
DC: The George Washington University. School of Education and
Human Development.
[9] Plank, R. E., L. Chiagouris. 1998. Perceptions of quality of higher education: An exploratory study of high school guidance counselors. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 7 (1) 17-32.
[10]St., E. P. John. 1990a. Price response in enrollment decisions: An analysis of the high school and beyond sophomore cohort. Research in Higher
Education 31(2) 161-176.
[11]Webb, M. S., R. L. Coccari, A. Lado, L. C. Allen, A. K. Reichert. 1998.
Selection criteria used by graduate students in considering doctoral business programs offered by private vs. public institutions. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education 8 (1) 69-90.
280