Factors Influencing Malaysian Students’ Intention to Study at A Higher Educational Institution

1. Factors Influencing Malaysian Students’ Intention to Study at A Higher Educational Institution Presented By: Prof Dr Karl Wagner PooyanYousefiFard

2. Introduction 1 Literature Review 2 Research Methodology Discussion and Conclusion 3 5 Data Analysis and Findings 4 Outline

3. Introduction The targeted sample in study

4. Introduction Research Objective • 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. • To identify the significant importance and influence of family and friends towards Malaysian students’ intention to further study at a HEI. Implications of Research 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

5. Introduction Number of higher educational institutions in Malaysia As at 31 Dec 2007, total education institutions registered with Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia is shown below: • 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. Literature Review Previous Studies • 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: Notes : QT = Quantitative, QL = Qualitative

7. Literature Review Proposed important attributes in this study • 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.

8. Literature Review Proposed important attributes in this study (cont’d) • According to the empirical finding in literature, a total of six factors are proposed as independent variables with one dependent variable.

9. Literature Review Theoretical Framework Independent Variables, IVs Cost of Education H1 Degree (Content and Structure) H2 Dependent Variable, DV Physical Aspects, Facilities and Resources Intention to Study at a Higher Educational Institution H3 H4 Value of Education H5 Institutional Information H6 Family, Friends and Peers

10. Research Methodology Sample • 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. Research Methodology Instrument Design The instrument to gain primary data is a self-administered questionnaire containing three sections: 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”. The ranking of most important attributes. Demographics. Completed by face to face interviews and self-administered questionnaire survey.

12. Research Methodology Result of Sampling (cont’d)

13. Data Analysis and Findings Descriptive Analysis (cont’d) Factors that ranked as the one (most important) by respondents (N = 162) • 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

14. Data Analysis and Findings Inferential Analysis Correlations between independent variables and dependent variable • There is a significant relationship between each IV and DV

15. Discussion and Conclusion Discussion Comparison of ranking order of importance for three distinct nations

16. Discussion and Conclusion Conclusion

17. Discussion and Conclusion Further Research 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. • 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.

18. Thank You !

19. Definition of Variables

20. Literature Review Definition of Variables (cont’d)

21. Literature Review Definition of Variables (cont’d)

22. Literature Review Definition of Variables (cont’d)

23. Discussion and Conclusion Implication • 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

24. Research Methodology Result of Sampling (cont’d)

25. Data Analysis and Findings Histogram Normality Tests Independent Variables, IVs Dependent Variable, DV (N = 162)