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
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
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
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
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
Source: Planning, Research and Policy Coordination Division, Higher Education Sector, MOE, 2014
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)
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
32
Local
Students
% International
Students
% Total
531,522 94.85 28,837 5.15 560,359
Source: Planning, Research and Policy Coordination Division, Higher Education Sector, MOE, 2014
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
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
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
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
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
education in Malaysia.
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
decision in choosing institutions of higher education in Malaysia.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
education in Malaysia.
Rejected
3 There is a significant relationship between Facilities and student’s
decision in choosing institutions of higher education in Malaysia.
Accepted
4 There is a significant relationship between Costs and student’s
decision in choosing institutions of higher education in Malaysia.
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
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
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
decision in choosing institutions of higher education in Malaysia.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Top Related