Thông tin tài liệu
A STUDY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENT’S CHOICE
OF FPT UNIVERSITY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
In Marketing
By
Mr. Nguyen Thanh Duoc
ID: MBA04008
International University - Vietnam National University HCMC
August 2013
A STUDY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENT’S CHOICE
OF FPT UNIVERSITY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of
MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
In Marketing
by
Mr. Nguyen Thanh Duoc
ID: MBA04008
International University - Vietnam National University HCMC
August 2013
Under the guidance and approval of the committee, and approved by all its members, this thesis
has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree.
Approved:
---------------------------------------------Chairperson
--------------------------------------------Advisor
---------------------------------------------Committee member
--------------------------------------------Committee member
---------------------------------------------Committee member
--------------------------------------------Committee member
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not be completed without the help and support of the people I have
benefited from during the preparation and completion of this study.
First and foremost, I would like to express my whole-hearted gratefulness to my
advisor, Dr. Nguyen Quynh Mai. It was her invaluable advice, encouragement and
inspiration that motivated me from the very beginning to the end of this study.
I also thank to the academic staff of School of Business, International University
HCMC for their help with the data collection.
I really appreciate the support of my colleagues at FPT University HCMC so that I
could pursue this study.
I also would like to thank my classmates of IU-MBA04 for their motivation and
sharing when I faced some challenges and problems.
I am especially thankful to the students who voluntarily took part in the interviews
and taking the survey. Without their help I would not have completed this study.
Last but not least, I owe my wife and little daughter a debt of gratitude. They always
silently support and sacrifice the quality time we should have had together for my
study.
Nguyen Thanh Duoc – August 2013
i
Plagiarism Statements
I would like to declare that, apart from the acknowledged references, this
thesis either does not use language, ideas, or other original material from anyone; or
has not been previously submitted to any other educational and research programs or
institutions. I fully understand that any writings in this thesis contradicted to the
above statement will automatically lead to the rejection from the MBA program at
the International University – Vietnam National University Hochiminh City.
ii
Copyright Statement
This copy of the thesis has been supplied on condition that anyone who
consults it is understood to recognize that its copyright rests with its author and that
no quotation from the thesis and no information derived from it may be published
without the author’s prior consent.
© Nguyen Thanh Duoc/ MBA-04008/2013
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
List of Tables .................................................................................................................... vi
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ viii
Abbreviation..................................................................................................................... ix
Abstract ..............................................................................................................................x
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................1
1.1.
Background of the study ......................................................................................1
1.2.
Statement of problem ...........................................................................................3
1.3.
Study objectives ...................................................................................................5
1.4.
Research Questions .............................................................................................5
1.5.
Significance of the study ......................................................................................6
1.6.
Scope and Limitation of the study ........................................................................6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................8
2.1 College choice theories............................................................................................8
2.1.1 Economic models ............................................................................................9
2.1.2 Sociological models ...................................................................................... 10
2.1.3 Combined models ......................................................................................... 11
2.2 Influencing Factors of College Choice ................................................................... 14
2.2.1 Student characteristics ................................................................................... 14
2.2.2 Significant people ......................................................................................... 14
2.2.3 University characteristics .............................................................................. 15
2.2.4 University communication to prospective students......................................... 19
2.3 Study on College Choice Undertaken in Vietnam ................................................... 20
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................. 23
3.1 Conceptual Framework ......................................................................................... 23
3.1.1 Student Characteristics .................................................................................. 24
3.1.2 Significant people ......................................................................................... 25
3.1.3 University characteristics .............................................................................. 25
3.1.4 University communication efforts with prospective students .......................... 26
3.2 Research method ................................................................................................... 27
3.3 Measurement ......................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Questionnaire Design ............................................................................................ 28
iv
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
Qualitative Study........................................................................................... 28
First draft questionnaire - Pilot Test ............................................................... 31
Final draft Questionnaire ............................................................................... 32
3.5 Population and sampling ....................................................................................... 32
3.5.1 Target population .......................................................................................... 32
3.5.2 Sampling ....................................................................................................... 33
3.6 Data collection ...................................................................................................... 33
3.7 Data analysis technique ......................................................................................... 34
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS....................................................... 35
4.1 Descriptive Statistics ............................................................................................. 35
4.1.1 Survey Response Rate ................................................................................... 35
4.1.2 Demographic profile ..................................................................................... 36
4.2 Reliability Analysis ................................................................................................ 42
4.3 Indentifying most influential factors ....................................................................... 42
4.4 Analyzing most influential factors .......................................................................... 44
4.4.1 Difference of influential factors among students by GPA ............................... 45
4.4.2 Difference of influential factors among students by living areas..................... 48
4.4.3 Difference of influential factors among students by household income .......... 51
4.4.4 Difference of influential factors among students by university ....................... 57
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... 62
5.1 Main Findings ....................................................................................................... 62
5.1.1 Most influential factors on student’s choice of university ............................... 62
5.1.2 Difference of most influential factors among students by such characteristics as
grade 12 GPA, living areas and household income ..................................................... 65
5.1.3 Difference of most influential factors between FPT University students and
students from other universities .................................................................................. 67
5.2 Implications........................................................................................................... 67
5.2.1 What to communicate.................................................................................... 68
5.2.2 Who to communicate..................................................................................... 68
5.2.3 How to communicate .................................................................................... 69
5.2.4 How to stay competitive ................................................................................ 69
5.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ......................................... 70
REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 71
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 78
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Higher Education Institutions in Vietnam, 2000 – 2012
1
Table 2: Students of Higher Education in Vietnam, 2000 - 2012
2
Table 3: Factors of Significant People
25
Table 4: Factors of University Characteristics
26
Table 5: Factors of University Communication efforts
27
Table 6: Reliability statistics of pilot data
32
Table 7: Response rate
36
Table 8: Frequency and percentage of respondents by gender
36
Table 9: Grade 12 GPA
37
Table 10: University Entrance Examination Scores
38
Table 11: Living area distribution
39
Table 12: Parents' level of education
40
Table 13: Household income
41
Table 14: Reliability Test
42
Table 15: Means of all factors
43
Table 16: Results of mean comparison with test value = 3.5
44
Table 17: Mean difference of university reputation among students by grade12 GPA
46
Table 18: Difference of influential factors among students by grade 12 GPA
47
Table 19: Mean difference of lecturers’ qualification among students by living areas
49
Table 20: Mean difference of university reputation among students by living areas 50
Table 21: Difference of influential factors among students by living area
51
vi
Table 22: Mean difference of employment opportunity among students by household
income
53
Table 23: Mean difference of educational facility among students by household
income
54
Table 24: Mean difference of English instruction language among students by
household income
56
Table 25: Difference of influential factors among students by household income
57
Table 26: Mean difference of educational facility among students by university
58
Table 27: Mean difference of English instruction language among students by
university
59
Table 28: Mean difference of university reputation among students by university 60
Table 29: Difference of influential factors among students by university
61
vii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Chapman’s (1981) Model of Influences on Student College Choice
12
Figure 2: Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) three-phase model of college choice
13
Figure 3: Conceptual framework of factor influencing student choice of university 23
viii
Abbreviation
HCMC: Ho Chi Minh City
HEI: higher education institute
IT: Information Technology
IU: International University
MOET: Ministry of Education and Training
SPSS: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
ix
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the factors influencing student’s
choice of university. This study also compared the most influencing factors among
students by grade 12 GPA, living area and household income. Finally it compared
the influence of these factors between first-year students of FPT University and two
other universities to see if there were any significant differences among different
groups of students. The main research method applied in this study was quantitative
study. Through One-sample T-Test and analysis of variance, the results showed that
the most influencing factors are employment opportunity, educational facility,
English instruction language, lecturers’ qualification, university reputation, cost, and
admission opportunity. Results also indicated that there were more similarities than
differences of most influencing factors among students by grade 12 GPA, living area,
household income and university.
Key words: factors, choice of university, FPT University
x
This page is intentionally left blank
xi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
This chapter will describe with background of the study which provides some facts
and figures of higher education in Vietnam. Next it will discuss the problems FPT
University is facing. Then it will mention the study objects, research questions, and
significance of the study. Finally it ends with the scope and limitation of the study.
1.1. Background of the study
With the Government’s policy of socialization of education, higher education
is no longer the domain of public institutions. Since Thang Long Private University
received her official decision of establishment in 1994, there have been a number of
private colleges and universities founded (Lam Quang Thiep, 2009). The 2000s
period saw a booming growth of new higher education institutions (HEIs).
Table 1: Higher Education Institutions in Vietnam, 2000 – 2012
Year
2000 - 2001
2005 - 2006
2011 - 2012
Institution
178
279
419
3-year college
104
154
215
Public
99
142
187
Private
5
9
28
University
74
125
204
Public
57
100
150
Private
17
25
54
Source: MOET (2012)
Table 1 shows that in the 1999 – 2000 academic years, there were only 178
public and private HEIs of which 156 were public institutions and 22 were private
1
ones. Ten years later the total number of HEIs increased to 419 of which 337 were
public institutions and 82 were private in the academic year of 2011-2012 (MOET,
2012).
The socialization and expansion of higher education has increased the
number of both public and private HEIs and the participation of foreign universities
in Vietnam by setting up campuses in Vietnam or offering twining programs with a
local university in Vietnam. This phenomenon has provided more chances for
students to pursue their higher education. The Table 2 illustrates the number of
students of higher education over the period 2000 and 2012. In the academic session
2000 -2001 there were 918,228 students at all institutions of higher education. After
five years, this number was 1,387,107 and after ten years, this number was 2,204,313
students, 2.4 times as many as of that in 2000 – 2001.
Table 2: Students of Higher Education in Vietnam, 2000 - 2012
Year
2000 - 2001
2005 - 2006
2011 - 2012
Institution
918,228
1,387,107
2,204,313
3-year college
186,723
299,294
Public
171,922
277,176
613,933
Private
14,801
22,118
142,359
University
731,505
1,087,813
1,448,021
Public
642,041
949,511
1,258,785
Private
89,464
138,302
189,236
756,292
Source: MOET (2012)
2
The entrance to higher education in Vietnam is determined through a
National Entrance Examination like in some other countries such as China, Japan,
Greece, Iran and Turkey (Tatar & Oktay, 2006). Universities in Vietnam recruit
students according to their scores of this examination but not less than floor scores
set by MOET.
Besides the advantages of increasing number of HEIs, the growth of HEIs has
increased the competitive nature of higher education industry for undergraduate
students in Viet Nam. According to Tran and Cao (2009) the number of students
graduating from high school remains at 1.1 million in recent years. After recruiting
new students for the 2012 – 2013 academic session, many public universities and
private universities could not recruit enough students to run their training programs
(Lam, 2012).
1.2. Statement of problem
As a matter of facts the higher education industry in Vietnam is experiencing
aggressive competitiveness among higher education institutions. While public
universities offer new academic programs to attract more students, private
universities promise to offer financial aid packages, such as scholarships up to 100
percent tuition waiver for qualified students (Phan, 2012). The strategies deployed by
many institutions are considered short-term or temporary. Although HEIs invest a
huge amount of money on recruiting strategies, many of the institution are not
confident to what extent their strategies are successful or what they will be like next
year.
Every year graduating high school students have to make two critical
decisions in their lives. According to Johnson and Chapman (cited in Beswick, 1989)
first they have to decide whether or not to continue with higher education, second
3
they have to choose which HEI to attend. Based on some statistics by MOET, around
one million graduating high school students take annual National Entrance
Examination to University. However, the field of college choice and factors
associated with college choice has not been studied much in the context of Vietnam.
Identifying the most influencing factors that recent graduating high school students
have considered is the ultimate goal of this study.
FPT University (Hereafter called the University), established in 2006 by FPT
corporation, is a young private university. Its mission is to train high quality labor
force in information technology and related industries for FPT Corporation and other
businesses in Vietnam and worldwide. The University provides training courses in
three campuses in Ha Noi, in Da Nang and in Ho Chi Minh City. The University
offers undergraduate degrees in Software Engineering, Computer Science, Electronic
and communication, Graphic Design, Information Security and Safety, Information
System, Hotel Management, Business Administration and Finance.
To be accepted to the University, students must fulfill two academic
requirements. First students must obtain score at least equal to MOET floor score in
the national entrance examination to universities. Second students must pass the
University’s own entrance examination.
Competitive pressure has forced the University to spend hundreds of millions
of Vietnam dong on marketing programs all year round to attract students all over
Vietnam. However, in an interview with an FPT University recruiting representative,
he stated that for the last two years the University could recruit only between seventy
and eighty percent of expected number of new students.
In other words at the moment the University is facing strong competition
from other HEIs to attract and recruit prospective students.
4
1.3. Study objectives
The purpose of this study is
-
To explore factors that are most influential to students’ choice of
university;
-
To compare and contrast the most influential factors among students by
characteristics
-
To compare and contrast the most influential factors influencing
student’s choice of FPT University and other universities;
-
To provide suggestions on recruitment strategies to FPT administrators.
The main purpose of this study is to explore factors that are most influential to
students’ choice of university. Next focusing on the most influential factors the
researcher compares and contrasts to see if there are any differences of these factors
among students by such characteristics as grade 12 GPA, living areas and household
income. Then the researcher continues to compare and contrast whether or not there
are any differences of these factors between FPT University students and students
from other universities. Finally, the findings from above analysis help formulate
suggestions for FPT administrators on recruiting strategies.
1.4. Research Questions
The following questions are addressed in this study:
1. What factors most influence student’s choice of university?
2. Are there any differences of most influential factors among students by such
characteristics as grade 12 GPA, living areas and household income?
3. Are there any differences of most influential factors between FPT University
students and students from other universities?
5
1.5. Significance of the study
In terms of academic benefits the study has potential to contribute to the field
of college choice research. The findings may increase knowledge about factors
that are considered influential in Vietnam.
In terms of practical significance findings of this study will provide
meaningful insights about factors affecting student’s choice of university to
HEIs, high schools and those who are involved in recruiting and consulting.
Particularly, the results would help FPT University plan more effective marketing
programs in attracting new students. The survival of a college or university
depends on the number of students who are recruited every year and number of
students who successfully complete the programs. Therefore, institutions should
attempt to recruit students who will succeed in their higher education (Beswick,
1989). Hossler & Palmer (2008) also emphasized the importance of
understanding factors to college choice:
… “It is critical for admission professionals to understand factors that shape
the college decision-making process and the stages students move through as
they make decisions.”..
Knowing and understanding factors that students consider influential are very
important to high schools and counselors. This knowledge would enable
counselors to help students make appropriate choice (Beswick, 1989).
1.6. Scope and Limitation of the study
The participants in this study was limited to freshmen students of FPT University
in Ho Chi Minh City, International University, a one of the top public universities
and Hoa Sen University, one of the top private universities in Ho Chi Minh City.
6
These three universities emphasize on innovation and the use of English as a medium
in higher education.
First year students were chosen as the subject of this study because it is assumed
that first-year undergraduate students will still remember the process they underwent
in deciding to continue to university. Much research on student college choice has
been conducted on high school age students in Vietnam and other countries.
However, researchers have recently revealed that evaluation of student’s choice
process after they enter the university is more appropriate than previously suspected.
For example, Brennan (cited in Kusumawati, 2013) suggested that students were
surveyed during the early weeks of their first semester in order to limit the potential
for cognitive dissonance influencing the type of information the student had access to
and to attempt to limit the types of issues they felt were important in their decision.
The data was collected through a survey at one point in time (cross-sectional
study). Therefore, the findings were valid only to students of three chosen
universities in Ho Chi Minh City. It could not be generalized to other students in
other locations nor in other HEIs.
7
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter discusses some college choice theories and popular models in the
world. Then it presents some typical influential factors from previous studies. Finally
this chapter provides results from other research on college choice undertaken in
Vietnam recently.
2.1 College choice theories
College choice – also known as university choice – is referred to as a process that
involves three decisions that students finishing high school education must make:
whether to attend college after high school; selecting a particular institution; and
applying (Hossler et al., 1989, as cited in Schwartz, 2011). For Hossler and
Gallagher (1987, cited in Schwartz, 2011) college choice is a rank order decision, a
process by which students choose a particular institution to attend from a set of
institutions to which they have been admitted.
The importance and value of higher education is unquestionable as increased
education leads to higher salaries, longer working lives, more career mobility, and a
higher quality of life. Students are now more careful when considering the important
choice of which higher education institution to attend and which program to follow
(Leslie and Brinkman, 1988 and Pascarella and Terenzini, 1991; as cited in Vrontis
et al., 2007).
Vrontis et al. (2007) express that looking at higher education as a process, it is
apparent that given the above parameters, the customer in this process is the student.
On the other hand, the providers, the educational institutions, just like any other
industry with customers, have as a primary purpose to satisfy their customers.
Relying on fundamental marketing concepts, it becomes apparent that once
institutions identify the needs and wants of the customer, the task of satisfying these
8
needs and wants becomes more feasible (Eagle and Brennan, 2005, cited in Vrontis
et al., 2007).
Punj and Staelin (1978) state that ‘little is known about the underlying student
buying behavior and how they select a college’. A number of researchers try to
understand and explain this student behavior. Chapman (1981) was the first to
develop
a model intended “to assist college administrators responsible for
recruitment policy to identify the pressures and influences they need to consider in
developing institutional recruiting policy, and to aid continued research in the area of
student college choice” (Vrontis et al., 2007).
Over the years several theoretical models attempt to describe the factors that
influence a student’s choice of a specific institution of higher education. The college
choice models include the following: (1) economic models; (2) sociological models;
and (3) combined models (Fernandez, 2010).
2.1.1 Economic models
According to Hossler and Palmer (2008) college choice models that use
economics as a lens approach college decision making as a rational process. These
researchers explain economic studies view going to college as an investment decision
and assume students seek to gain the maximum return on their investment.
Similarly, Fernandez (2010) expresses that students choose a college based on
the level of value that each institution offers by comparing costs with perceived
benefits. She indicates that the underlying assumption of the economic models is that
students will select a particular institution if the benefits of attending the institution
are greater than the perceived benefits of enrolling in other institutions.
The economic models look at the influence of tuition costs and financial aid on
college choice. For example, there are noteworthy differences in the way students
9
from low-income families and those from higher-income families respond to college
costs (Paulsen and St. John, cited in Hossler and Palmer, 2008)
2.1.2 Sociological models
College choice models that draw on sociological approaches tend to focus on
individual actions of students in the college choice process. These models often
examine the influence of others, campus climate, cost, and academic programs on
student choices. Many of these studies are longitudinal, focusing on the stages
students go through when deciding on a college. These models also provide insight
into the timing of various aspects of the decision-making process (Hossler and
Palmer, 2008).
Jackson (1982) expresses that the sociological models specify a variety of
social and individual factors leading occupational and educational aspiration.
Different from economic models, sociological models describe a process that
considers decision determinant developed through a student’s life. Sociological
approaches to college choice typically emphasize the ways in which socio-economic
characteristics influence students’ decisions (Fernandez, 2010).
In Manski and Wise (1983)’s view, sociological approaches do not offer a
framework for examining how individuals ultimately decide whether to aspire to
tertiary education, apply for admission to a set of colleges, or enroll in a particular
college or university (cited in Fernandez, 2010).
However, Hossler and Palmer (2008) reason that in a lot of college choice
studies economic and sociological approaches are not mutually exclusive. Rather,
they have a great deal in common and are combined to help explain college choice.
Economic models (reflecting the influence of cost on students’ decision-making) and
sociological models (demonstrating the influence of interrelated factors influencing
10
college aspirations) were combined in later studies to reflect a more comprehensive
view of students’ college choice (Kinzie et al. (2004).
2.1.3 Combined models
Two popular combined models of college choice are Chapman Model and
Hossler and Gallagher Model.
2.1.3.1 Chapman’s model
Chapman’s (1981) model (figure 1) proposes that a student’s general
expectation of college life forms when various student characteristics, such as socioeconomic status and scholastic aptitude, interact with external influences from
significant others or college characteristics. Chapman separates the choice as being a
model of two stages—that of the pre-search and search stage. In the first stage,
factors like family income have a direct effect on which colleges are considered. In
addition, students appear to favor colleges that enroll students with academic ability
similar to their own. During the second stage, the search stage, students gather
information about specific institutions. He concluded that there are three external
influences that affect a student’s college choice.
These are:
(1) Significant persons: friends, parents, and high school personnel.
(2) Fixed college characteristics: cost, location, availability of program.
(3) College efforts to communicate with students: written information,
campus visits and admission /recruitment activities.
11
Figure 1: Chapman’s (1981) Model of Influences on Student College Choice
2.1.3.2 Hossler and Gallagher’s model
Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) three-stage model (figure 2) emphasizes
aspiration, search, and choice. In the first phase, Predisposition, students decide
whether to go to college or to pursue another alternative. In the first stage, familial,
societal and economic factors encourage students to attend a college. In the second
stage, Search, students proactively explore and gather information about the various
higher educational institutions and then decide to apply to certain institutions. They
evaluate their academic and financial capabilities in relation to these potential
choices. In the last stage, Choice, students choose one institution to attend based on a
ranking and rating of each institution available (cited in Chia, 2011).
12
Wagner and Fard (2009) view that the major differences between the models
are the descriptions of the intervening variables or characteristics and the ways they
define institution activities to encourage student enrollment.
Figure 2: Hossler and Gallagher’s (1987) three-phase model of college choice
Another line of research on college choice emphasizes how institutional
characteristics, such as cost, size, distance, the quality of academic programs, and the
availability of financial aid influence college decision-making (Avery and Hoxby,
2004; Lipman Hearne Inc., 2006; Manski and Wise, 1983; Montgomery, 2002; Long,
2003, 2004; Niu, Tienda & Cortes, 2006, cited in Niu, 2006).
The literature concerning the choice of whether or not to pursue postsecondary education is numerous, but of little relevance to this study since this study
aimed to examine factors influencing choices between institutions being made by
individuals who have already enrolled at a university. Therefore the rest of the
literature review will focus on findings of influencing factors related to External
Chapman’s (1981) model and in Hossler and Gallagher’s model, and other related
studies in Vietnamese context.
13
2.2 Influencing Factors of College Choice
2.2.1 Student characteristics
Previous research on college choice proves that academic ability affects
student’s application decisions. Researchers like Hossler et al., and Paulsen (cited in
Desjardins et al., 1999) found that as students’ academic ability and household
income increase, students are more likely to choose highly selective and high cost
universities.
2.2.2 Significant people
Research by Hossler et al. in 1999 (cited in Burns, 2006) on significant
persons to a student college choice showed that 43% of respondents reported that
they spoke with friends, teachers, counselors, or parents about college. The results
revealed that teachers and counselors played an important role in assisting students
learn about specific institutions.
Johnston (2010) examined data from undergraduate students who rated the
influence of various sources of information on their decision to enroll at a university.
This researcher also considered data from a survey of university employees who
predicted the responses of the students. Results showed that high school teachers,
counselors, friends in high school, friends at university, relatives, siblings and
parents were rated from important to very important source of influence. Particularly
Furukawa (2011) cited that the parental educational background plays the most
significant role in shaping the decision of students in the college choice process.
According to Hayden (cited in Burns, 2006), opinions of friends and former
students weigh heavily on the minds of African American college applicants when
deciding between colleges.
14
In the context of Asia, parents play an important role in student’s choice of a
university. Research by Tan (2009) showed that parents were the most influential
people in helping students select in the Philippines. Kusumawati (2013) conducted a
qualitative study of the factors influencing student choice of an Indonesian public
university. Preliminary results indicated that students considered 25 criteria for
selecting an Indonesian public university. One of the five most important factors was
parents. In the case of Malaysia, Sidin et al. (2003) explored the factors influencing
the college choice decision with the participation of 210 first year undergraduate
students from four public universities and four private ones. The findings showed
that friends and schoolmates have the greatest influence over students in making a
college choice. Parents and relatives also seem to be very influential over the
decision.
2.2.3 University characteristics
Location
According Servier (1986, cited in Sia, 2010) research has consistently shown
that college or university location can be a major factor for potential student’s
decision to apply and enroll. Location of the institution has a significant influence on
the college choice of high school students according to Wajeed and Micceri (1997).
Their research at the University of South Florida (USF) suggested that geographic
locations (proximity) is a primary motivating factor for students choosing to attend
USF.
Other researchers (Absher & Crawford, 1996; Servier, 1994) also stated that some
students may be looking for a school close to their hometown or place of work for
convenience and accessibility (cited in Sia, 2010).
15
Cost issues
Cost-related issues seem to have more importance as years go Joseph &
Joseph (2000, cited in Sia, 2010). For instance, in 1979 Houston (cited in Sia, 2010)
found they were at the bottom of the scale, while later in 1993 and in 1998 Webb and
Joseph & Joseph ( cited Sia, 2010) respectively found that they were one of the most
important elements. Jackson (1986, cited in Sia, 2010) concluded that price is a
negative influence on college choice.
Other researchers (Holsworth and Nind, 2005; Maringe , 2006; and Soutar
and Turner ,2002, cited in Sierra, 2012) also concluded in various empirical studies
that cost is one of the most important factors that students take into account when
choosing a university.
In another research by Kusumawati (2013) cost is also rated as one of the
most important factors to students of an Indonesian public university.
In the case of Thailand, Kitsawad (2013) found that living expenses factor
was regarded rather important by most respondents in his study on factors affecting
student's choice of university in Thailand.
Financial Aids/ Scholarships
Leslie and Brinkman (1988, cited in Heller, 2001) examined the role of
financial aid in three decisions that students make: 1) the decision whether to enroll
in college or not (access); 2) what institution to attend (choice); and 3) whether to
continue their enrollment from one year to the next (persistence). Their key
conclusions were that financial aid, and in particular grants, had a positive effect on
both access and persistence, and encouraged students to enroll in more expensive
institutions. They also found that financial aid had the largest influence on the
decisions of low-income students.
16
As a matter of fact, Yusof’s study (2008, cited in Sia, 2010) found that
financial assistance offered by university as one of the four very important attributes
expected from a particular higher education institution of choice. Thus, students who
receive financial aid awards are more likely to enter college (Jackson, 1988; Litten,
1982; Manski & Wise, 1983, cited in Sia, 2010). For example, in a study on how
institutional grant aid impacts college choice, Hurwitz (2012) concluded that students
from lower-income families tend to be substantially more sensitive to financial aid in
the college choice process.
Academic Issues and Reputation
Previous studies show that academic issues and reputation have great influence
on university choice. For instance, in the USA researchers like Holsworth and Nind
(2005) and Maringe (2006) find in various empirical studies that the most important
factors that students take into account when choosing a university: the reputation of
the university, faculty, the qualification of teaching staff (Sierra, 2012). According to
Soutar & Turner (2002, cited in Kitsawad 2013) reputation and academic quality
were two of the outstanding predictors of university choice in Western Australia.
Keling (2007, cited in Sia 2010) also stated that the most influential factor that
students will evaluate in selecting their choice of institution was reputation of the
institution. Peterson (1990, cited in Kitsawad, 2013) noted that the brighter students
considered faculty and staff as more significant in the decision-making process.
Sierra (2012) studied the factors influencing a student's decision to pursue a
communications degree in Spain. Three hundred and forty four students of various
private and public universities offering communication science degrees participated
in the survey. Findings showed that the leading criteria for Spanish students
17
interested in pursuing studies in communication sciences were a university’s
reputation and excellence and the quality of its educational programs.
Type of university
Type of university, in terms of public private university is an influencing
factor on student’s choice of university. In 2010 Fernandez conducted a study to
investigate factors influencing the decision of students to study at Universiti Sains
Malaysia, a public university. In this study Fernandez (2010) examined the reasons
students pursue higher education; the sources of information used by students to help
choose a tertiary institution, the factors that influence students’ choice of public
versus private institutions, and the factors that influence students’ decision to study at
Universiti Sans Malaysia. The results revealed that a student's preference for a public
institution is influenced primarily by considerations of quality of education and
pecuniary factors.
In another quantitative study in Thailand Kirsawad (2013) investigated
factors affecting Thai high school student’s choice of university. Respondents were
asked about their opinions and perceptions on type of university that would influence
their choice. Results of this study suggested that a public university was considered
as more important for their choice of university by the low, the average, and the high
GPA respondents. A private university was considered to be a less important factor
for university choice for the average and high level of GPA respondents but those
with low GPA seemed to prefer a private university. The respondent with average
and high GPA, on the other hand, preferred the public university.
Educational facilities
The importance of facilities on students' choice of institution has been noted
in previous researchers’ papers. Absher and Crawford (1996, cited in Sia, 2010)
18
stated that educational facilities such as classrooms, laboratories and libraries are
important in a student’s selection of a college or university. Price et al. (2003)
stressed facilities were perceived as having an important influence on students’
choice of institutions. In a similar research on the influence of campus facilities on
university choice for students in Hong Kong, Lau (2005) found that among the top
16 influencing factors on choice of university, seven factors were facilities-related
factors. These factors are the quality of library facilities, quality of university ground,
the availability of quiet areas, and quality of lecture halls, IT facilities, health
services and areas for self-study.
Yamamoto’s (2006) findings also show that physical factors and facilities are
two of the important criteria for university selection for Turkish students.
Employment opportunities
The prospect of future employment is one of the reasons that motivate
students in both developing and developed countries to pursue higher education.
Joseph and Joseph (1998) noted that career opportunities greatly influenced potential
students when choosing a university in New Zealand. Along with other factors,
employment opportunities are perceived very important by high school students in
the Philippines (Tan, 2009). Job prospect was also rated as one of the top important
factors influencing student choice of a university in Indonesia (Kusumawati, 2013).
In various empirical studies in the USA show that career opportunities are the most
important factors that students consider when selecting a university (Sierra, 2010).
2.2.4 University communication to prospective students
In a study by Yamchuti (2002, cited in Kitsawad, 2013) on factors
influencing college choice on the newly opened private colleges in Thailand, this
researcher stated that college marketing efforts impact student's decisions to enroll at
19
newly opened private colleges in Thailand. This does not mean that all
communication channels create the same effect on students. For instance, in the
Malaysian context, Sidin et al. (2003) explored the degree of influence by external
sources on students' choice of university from 210 respondents of four public
universities and four private establishments. These researchers found that
newspapers, college promotional material are more influential than college
counselors and representatives, magazines and Television and radio. College
promotional material and representatives have a moderate influence over students.
Television and radio seem to have the least influence among the ten sources on
students' college choice decision.
One of the methods that higher education institutions employ is inviting
potential students to visit their campuses. The importance of campus visit was noted
in Sia’s (2011) paper as follows:
“…A campus visit provides value to both the student and the institution. A campus
visit ensures a good match between the student and the college. Students come to
campus with certain expectations such as meeting current students who are like them
or instructors who show an interest in them. The personal attention received by the
student during a campus visit is a major motivator for college choice decision. In
this study, the campus visit is rated by a large number of students as the most
important source of information in their college search and choice process.”
The influence of campus visit was found in previous studies (Hosslers et al,
1990; Lay and Maguire, 1981, cited in Sia, 2011).
2.3 Study on College Choice Undertaken in Vietnam
Research on college choice has been carried out in many countries over the
years. However; there is a lack of research done in this field of study in Vietnam.
20
In 2009 Tran and Cao conducted a quantitative study on college choice of
senior high school students in Quang Ngai province. There were 227 respondents in
this research, and the finds showed that five groups of factors affecting high school
students’ choice of college. These factor groups are ranked from strongest to
weakest: job opportunities, available information of the college, personal
characteristics, significant influencing people, and college characteristics.
In 2011 Nguyen carried out another similar quantitative research on college
choice of senior high school students in Tien Giang Province as part of master thesis.
This researcher suggested a model with 8 groups of factors to explore students’
college choice: (1) university attributes, (2) availability of various academic
programs, (3) employment opportunities, (4) university efforts to communicate with
students, (5) university reputation, (6) acceptance opportunities, (7) significant
persons and (8) personal characteristics. The results indicated that the most important
factor is the availability and attraction of training programs; the less important
factors are college characteristics, ability to meet expectation, college’ effort to
communicate with students, and college reputation. This study also concluded that
high school students chose HEIs with more considerations. In other words, most of
them chose universities or colleges that offer majors matching their ability and
interests.
In short, previous studies on college choice identify a number of factors that are
related to students’ choice of HEIs. First in terms of student characteristics, academic
ability and household income control student’s choice of universities or colleges.
Second, in terms of significant people, parents, siblings, relatives, high school
teachers, counselors and friends play an important role in student choice. Third
university characteristics, especially location, cost, financial aids/ scholarships,
21
academic issues/ reputation, university type, educational facilities and employment
opportunities, are criteria that students use to evaluate an HEI. Finally
communication efforts of institutions also impact students’ application decision.
22
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter will describe the conceptual framework of this study. Then it
presents the research method. Finally the measurement, questionnaire design,
population and sampling, data collection and analysis techniques are discussed.
3.1 Conceptual Framework
Following the discussion in the literature review, the research proposed the
conceptual framework of factors influencing students’ choice of university as shown
in figure 3. In this framework student characteristics are controlling variables, while
significant people, university characteristics and university communication efforts
are independent variables.
Figure 3: Conceptual framework of factor influencing student choice of
university
23
Literature review shows that there are two ways to study the influence of
factors to choice of university. The first way is that researchers (Joseph and Joseph
(1998); Nguyen, 2011; Tran and Cao, 2009; Wagner and Fard, 2009) propose a
research model and hypotheses, and next ask respondents indirectly to measure the
influence. Then by analysis such as regression the hypotheses and models are tested.
This method is often applied when the research subjects are high school students who
have not made the final decision of preferred university. The second way is to ask the
respondents directly to measure the influence of factors. Then by descriptive
statistics such as frequency, percentage and/ or mean comparison researchers are able
to find the results. This method is more appropriate in case the respondents have
made the final decision on what university to enroll. Previous researchers succeeding
in using this method are Burns (2006), Heren et al. (2011) and Sierra (2012), just a
few to name.
After considering the two methods above the researcher decided to apply the
second method in his research for two reasons. First, the subjects of this research are
first-year students who did make a final decision of the preferred university. Second,
in the case of Vietnam student’s final choice of university may be different from
their initial decision because of the nature of national entrance examination to higher
education. This examination is held after students apply to universities, so in case
they do not have chances with their first choice, they will switch to second or third
choice of university.
3.1.1 Student Characteristics
Previous studies noted student characteristics together with external
influences play an important role on student choice of university (Chapman, 1981;
Hossler and Gallagpher, 1987; and Schoenherr, 2009). Three student characteristics,
24
grade 12 GPA, living area and house hold income, which were explored in this study
played the role of controlling variables in student’ choice of university.
3.1.2 Significant people
During the selection of a university students received comments and advice from
family members, friends, teachers, counselors (Chapman, 1981). These people
influence students at different levels. Six items as shown in table 3 are adapted from
previous studies.
Table 3: Factors of Significant People
Significant people
Adapted from…
1. Parents
Beswick (1989)
2. Siblings
Chapman (1981)
3. Relatives
Kusumawati (2013)
4. High school teachers
Schoenherr (2009)
5. Counselors
Sidin et al. (2003)
6. Friends
Tan (2009)
3.1.3 University characteristics
There are a number of university characteristics that students may have
considered when decide to choose a university to apply for admission. Ten university
characteristics as shown in table 4 are adapted from findings of previous studies.
25
Table 4: Factors of University Characteristics
University characteristics
Adapted from
1. Location
Beswick (1989)
2. Cost
Chia (2011)
3. Scholarships
Fernandez (2010)
4. University reputation
Kusumawati (2013)
5. Public university
Joseph and Joseph (1998)
6. Lecturers’ qualification
Nguyen (2011)
7. Extra curriculum activities
Schoenherr (2009)
8. Course variety
Sia (2010)
9. Educational facility
Sierra (2012)
10. Employment opportunity
Tan (2009)
Tran and Cao (2009)
Yamamoto (2006)
3.1.4 University communication efforts with prospective students
In order to attract new students every HEI has to communicate with prospective
students. HEIs send their representatives to high schools to promote their institutions.
HEIs may advertise their programs on media and they give away printed recruiting
materials such as, flyers, brochures, leaflets. Another way to communicate with
prospective students is that HEIs invite prospective students visit campuses. These
efforts and activities, at some extent, affect students’ choice of a university. Five
items as shown in table 5 are adapted from previous studies.
26
Table 5: Factors of University Communication efforts
University communication efforts with students
Adapted from…
1. Recommendation of university representatives
Beswick (1989)
2. University websites
Chapman (1981)
3. Advertisements on TV, radio, newspapers,
Fernandez (2010)
Internet
4. Printed recruiting materials (flyers, brochures,
leaflets)
Sia (2010)
Tran and Cao (2009)
Nguyen (2011)
5. Campus visits
3.2 Research method
The main research method that applied in this study is quantitative research.
According to McDonough (1997, cited in Sia, 2011), traditionally, educational
researchers prefer the quantitative approach for the field of university choice.
Actually, a high number of previous researchers like Joseph and Joseph (1998), Price
et al. (2003), and Sia (2011), just a few to name, have successfully applied
quantitative method to study university choice.
First qualitative method was used to explore any new factors affecting students’
choice of university. The questions for interview consisted of several open-ended
questions mainly asking who and what influenced students during the selection of a
university. The findings from qualitative research would add to the input of
questionnaire design in the quantitative research. Then the first draft of the
questionnaire was designed and went through a pilot test to check the
comprehensibility and wording of the questions.
27
Next the quantitative research was conducted with the final version of the
questionnaire. The quantitative method is used to collect data to answer research
questions.
3.3 Measurement
In this research the researcher aims to identify the most influential factors so the
researcher asks respondents directly about the influence of factors. Three groups are
significant people, university characteristics and university efforts to communicate
with prospective students. The levels of influence is measured on a five-point Likert
scale from 1 to 5, in which 1 is not influential and 5 is strongly influential. Therefore,
influential factors are ones whose mean is equal to or greater than 3.5.
Besides, student characteristics are also explored to find the difference of
influencing factors among students categorized by grade 12 GPA, living areas and
household income.
3.4 Questionnaire Design
Previous studies have identified a number of variables related to student’s choice
of university. However, it was essential to explore if there were any new factors
influencing student’ choice of university through qualitative study before conducting
a survey in this research
3.4.1 Qualitative Study
In the qualitative study, nine freshmen students of FPT University were
interviewed face to face. Following is the report of their answers in the interviews.
1. How many colleges/ universities did you apply to? What were they?
28
Out of nine students eight students applied to at least two universities and
colleges, and only one student applied to one university – FPT University as he was a
student at a military college at the time he applied.
2. What did you know about these institutions before you applied to?
Before applying to their preferred institutions the interviewees knew about entry
requirements of previous years, location, academic programs, costs, graduation
requirements, job opportunities, type of college, scholarship, language of instruction,
high rate of recruited students annually, and facilities.
One of the interviewee mentioned, “I knew Ton Duc Thang University and
Finance and Marketing University offer good academic programs. These universities
are also equipped with good facilities.”
Another interviewee stated, “Bach Khoa University is very famous, especially
with Information Technology training. This university offers various academic
programs. FPT University is a private Vietnamese university but offers international
standard programs.
“I know FPT University uses textbooks in English; the tuition fee is very high;
but this university offers scholarships of one hundred percent tuition waiver”, said
another student.
3. Who influenced you to apply to these institutions?
The people that influenced the interviewees’ choice of college were family
members, friends, older students from the same high school and high school teachers.
One of the interviewee said that he applied to Ho Chi Minh University of Medicine
and Pharmacy to fulfill his parents’ dream. They would like him to become a doctor.
However, one interviewee responded that nobody affected his choice of college. His
parents let him make his own decision based on the list of colleges suggested by high
29
school teachers. In another interview, one student said that his high school teachers
did not encourage him to apply to FPT University because it was too new and young.
Only one interviewee stated that he applied to FPT University because of his mother
advice.
4. What influenced you to apply to these institutions?
Other factors that affected these interviewees’ choice of college are institution’s
reputation, student population size, job opportunities after graduation, academic
quality, admission opportunity based on previous years’ accepted scores, facilities,
location, cost, student services and scholarships. One of the interviewee said that she
like the student service staff when she paid a visit to the FPT University campus.
Beside those factors, one interviewee said that she was impressed with confident and
professional students FPT University in game show Rung Chuong Vang – a game
show for college students. This also affected her choice of FPT University.
It seemed most students mentioned job opportunities as one of the reason why they
applied to their preferred institution.
5. How many institutions did you get offer from?
Besides FPT University these interviewees were also accepted to other
institutions.
6. What specific factors made you choose to study at this institution (FPT
University)?
The specific factors that made these interviewees choose to study at FPT
University were high percentage of employed graduates, English instruction
language, better facilities, extra curriculum activities, reputation in Information
Technology training, job opportunities, academic programs with international
30
standards, scholarships and location. Some interviewees appreciated the fact that
FPT University students learn two foreign languages.
One interviewee said that she was going to study aboard for a master degree and
she wanted to be familiar with international standard programs so she chose to study
at FPT University to get some experience. Another interviewee said that, “I chose
FPT University Ho Chi Minh because I was offered scholarship.”
Besides mentioning factors which are identified from literature review, the
responses from the interviews provided some more factors that influence students’
choice of university. These factors include student services, English instruction
language, admission opportunity, preparation for graduate study and news about
events of the university. These factors were included under university characteristics.
3.4.2 First draft questionnaire - Pilot Test
The first draft of the questionnaire (see appendix) was created based on literature
review and findings from the qualitative study. The questionnaire was divided into
two sections as follows.
Section 1 focused on respondents’ background and family. This section explored
the background information of respondents in terms of gender, high school academic
ability, living areas, parents’ level of education, and family income.
Section 2 aimed to measure factors of influence to student choice during the
selection process of a higher institution. Three groups of influencing factors were
measured. These were influencing people, university characteristics and university
efforts to communicate with prospective students.
The pilot test was carried out to check the wording, as well as the
comprehensibility of the questionnaire. Totally thirty FPT University students were
invited to answer the questionnaire.
31
The researcher observed and asked respondents if they had any problems in
understanding the questionnaire. They all reported that they did not find any
difficulties in understanding the questions and their options.
The reliability analysis of pilot data is shown in the table below
Table 6: Reliability statistics of pilot data
Factors
Number of items
Cronbach's Alpha
Significant people
7
0.845
University characteristics
15
0.772
University communication
6
0.796
As shown in the table above Cronbach’s Alpha of three groups of factors is
greater than 0.7. This result suggests that the items within each group of factors have
relatively high internal consistency (DeVellis, 2003). Therefore the measurement is
reliable and can be used to carry out in a larger scale.
3.4.3 Final draft Questionnaire
The final draft of the questionnaire (see Appendix, p. 77) is not different from the
first draft because first, the comprehensibility requirement was met. Second, the
reliability analysis of pilot test proved that the measurement of the questionnaire
meets the requirement of the reliability.
3.5 Population and sampling
3.5.1 Target population
The population of this study was first-year students at FPT University HCM and
International University and Hoa Sen University in Ho Chi Minh City. As mentioned
in the scope and limitation of the study, first-year students were chosen because they
32
just went through the selection of university so it is assumed that they better recalled
what factors influenced them.
The reasons for choosing International University and Hoa Sen University are
they have some similarities with FPT Universities. First, in terms of instruction
language these three universities emphasize the use of English in their training
programs. Second, in terms of history of education, IU and FPT University were
established in the same period of time, in 2003 and 2006 respectively; while Hoa Sen
University received the university status in 2006. Third, these three universities
attract students in similar training programs such as Business and Engineering.
Finally these three universities offer attractive scholarships to prospective students.
3.5.2 Sampling
The population of first-year students of these three universities is just under 4000,
of which about 350 students are from FPT University, about 1500 students from
International University and about 2000 students from Hoa Sen University.
According to Bartlett et al. (2001) with continuous data, alpha = 0.01, t-value = 2.58
and margin of error = .03, the required sample size for a population size of about
4000 in this study was at least 198.
The type of sampling design employed in this study was non-probability because
of three reasons: cost, feasibility and time (Cooper and Schindler, 2008).
Specifically, and Convenience and Snowball were used in sampling methods. One
hundred questionnaires were distributed to each chosen university.
3.6 Data collection
The instrument for data collection was a self-administrated questionnaire (see
Appendix, p. 77). The questionnaire was designed to ascertain:
-
The demographic profile of the students.
33
-
The factors influence students’ choice of university.
To get the information, the researcher visited three universities and invited firstyear students to answer the survey questionnaire. Besides, the researcher also asked
students to introduce other first-year students who could take the survey in a
voluntary manner.
The actual number of respondents in this research is 220 which include 71
respondents from International University, 60 respondents from Hoa Sen University
and 87 respondents from FPT University.
3.7 Data analysis technique
Data would be collected by the researcher and be analyzed by SPSS. Before
being analyzed, data would be screened to delete outliners to secure reliability.
Descriptive statistics was applied to analyze demographic data. Next reliability test
would be used to check reliability of measure. One-sample T-Test was run to identify
most influential factors to students’ choice of university. Finally ANOVA test was
used to analyze the difference of most influential factors among different groups of
students categorized by grade 12 GPA, living areas, household income and
universities.
34
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
This chapter focuses on the analysis quantitative research. First, through
descriptive statistics the response rate and the demographic information of the
respondent are described. Next, the reliability of the measurement is presented by
Cronbach’s alpha. Then most influential factors are shown. Finally, the most
influencing factors to students’ choice of university are analyzed and presented.
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
4.1.1 Survey Response Rate
Table 7 gives an overview of the survey response rate. There were 300
questionnaires distributed of which 100 questionnaires were sent to students of each
university. Out of 300 distributed questionnaires 257 ones were returned with the
response rate as high as 85.7 percent. The response rate of FPT University students
was the highest with 97 percent, followed by International University students with
86 percent and Hoa Sen University with 74 percent. The total valid response rate is
just above 85 percent. Once again the valid response rate of FPT University students
is the highest, followed by International University and Hoa Sen University students
with 89.7 percent, 84.8 percent and 81 percent respectively.
The incomplete responses are responses in which some questions are left without
answer and invalid responses are responses in which mostly or all questions are
answered with the same options. For examples, all factors receive the same point of
scale.
35
Table 7: Response rate
International
University
Hoa Sen
University
FPT
University
Total
Number of
100
questionnaires
100
100
300
Number of
response
86
74
97
257
Response rate
86%
74%
97%
85.7%
Number of
73
valid response
60
87
220
Valid
response rate
81%
89.7%
85.6%
84.8%
4.1.2 Demographic profile
4.1.2.1 Gender
Table 8 below shows the frequency and percentage of respondents by gender. As
be shown there are 111 male respondents accounted for 50.5 percent of the
respondents and 109 respondents are female equivalent to 49.5 percent of the
respondents.
Table 8: Frequency and percentage of respondents by gender
Gender
Frequency
Percentage
Male
111
50.5
Female
109
49.5
Total
220
100
36
4.1.2.2 Grade 12 GPA
As can be seen in Table 9, the largest group of respondents is the group with
grade 12 GPA from 7.0 to 7.9 on the scale of 10 points. This group accounts for
nearly 46 percent of the respondents. The second large group is the respondents with
grade 12 GPA equal to or higher than 8.0 with 45 percent. Finally the percentage of
respondents who had grade 12 GPA less than 7.0 is only 9.5 percent.
In general, more International University respondents had better grade 12 GPA
than those of other two universities. Particularly almost nearly 60 percent of
International University respondents had grade 12 GPA from at least 8.0. FPT
University has nearly 40 percent of respondents with grade GPA from at least 8.0
and Hoa Sen University with only about 37 percent. In other words, about 50 percent
of students who chose Hoa Sen and FPT University are fairly good; nearly 60
percent of students who chose IU are good students.
Table 9: Grade 12 GPA
Grade 12 GPA
University
Total
< 7.0
7.0 – 7.9
≥ 8.0
Frequency
5
25
43
73
Percentage
6.8%
34.2%
58.9%
100.0%
Hoa
Frequency
8
30
22
60
Sen
Percentage
13.3%
50.0%
36.7%
100.0%
Frequency
8
45
34
87
Percentage
9.2%
51.7%
39.1%
100.0%
Frequency
21
100
99
220
Percentage
9.5%
45.5%
45.0%
100.0%
IU
FPT
Total
37
4.1.2.3 University Entrance Exam Score
Table 10 illustrates the University Entrance Examination Scores of all
respondents. Over 60 percent of respondents had scores from 15 to less than 20
points. About 24 percent of respondents had scores from 20 to 25 points.
Approximately 10 percent of respondents had scores less than 15 points. Finally only
1.7 percent had scores of 25 points and above.
Table 10: University Entrance Examination Scores
University Entrance Examination Scores
University
Total
< 15
15 - < 20
20 - < 25
25 – 30
Frequency
2
34
35
2
73
Percentage
2.7%
46.7%
49.9%
2.7%
100%
Hoa
Frequency
7
44
8
1
60
Sen
Percentage
11.7%
73.3%
13.3%
1.7%
100%
Frequency
15
61
11
0
87
Percentage
17.2%
70.1%
12.7%
0.0%
100%
Frequency
24
139
54
3
220
Percentage
10.9%
63.2%
24.5%
1.7%
100%
IU
FPT
Total
The distribution of FPT University respondents by University Entrance
Examination Scores is quite similar to that of Hoa Sen University respondents.
However, the percentage of FPT respondents with high scores is lower than that of
International University respondents. For instance, over 50 percent of International
University respondents had scores from 20 points and above while just about 13
percent of FPT University had those scores.
38
This result also supports the idea that students of IU are better than Hoa Sen and
FPT University.
4.1.2.4 Living areas
When distributed by living areas as shown in table 11, the largest proportion
is respondents who come from in central cities. The second largest group is
respondents from provincial cities. The third and the fourth are from towns and rural
areas.
Table 11: Living area distribution
University
Living areas
Total
IU
Hoa Sen
FPT
Frequency
3
4
6
13
Percentage
4.1%
6.7%
6.9%
5.9%
Frequency
9
8
19
36
Percentage
12.3%
13.3%
21.8%
16.4%
Provincial
Frequency
32
20
26
78
city
Percentage
43.8%
33.3%
29.9%
35.5%
Frequency
29
28
36
93
Percentage
39.7%
46.7%
41.4%
42.3%
Frequency
73
60
87
220
Percentage
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Rural area
Town
Central city
Total
Respondents of FPT University and Hoa Sen University have similar patterns
to respondents of three universities. Meanwhile, the largest group of International
University respondents comes from provincial cities with about 43 percent. The
39
second biggest group is from central cities. The third and the fourth are towns and
rural areas respectively.
4.1.2.5 Parents’ level of education
Table 12 shows information about parents’ level of education of the
researched students. In general more fathers have higher level of education than
mothers. For example, the group of fathers with a bachelor degree is the largest
groups with about 37 percent while the group of mothers with high school is the
largest with 35 percent. Another example is that more fathers have postgraduate
degrees than mothers who have a postgraduate degree with 13.6 percent and 6.8
percent respectively.
Table 12: Parents' level of education
Frequency
Percentage
Father
Mother
Father
Mother
Less than high school
34
38
15.5%
17.3%
High school
55
77
25.0%
35.0%
Diploma
19
19
8.6%
8.6%
Bachelor
82
71
37.3%
32.3%
Postgraduate
30
15
13.6%
6.8%
Total
220
220
100%
100%
Education level
4.1.2.6 Household income
Table 13 provides information about household income of respondents from
the three universities. More parents earns at least 15 million Vietnam Dong a month
40
than parents who earn less than 15 million Vietnam Dong a month, around 60
percent versus 40 percent.
Table 13: Household income
University
Household income
Total
IU
Hoa Sen
FPT
Frequency
11
5
17
33
Percentage
15.1%
8.3%
19.5%
15.0%
Frequency
19
13
27
59
Percentage
26.0%
21.7%
31.0%
26.8%
Frequency
11
20
18
49
Percentage
15.1%
33.3%
20.7%
22.3%
Frequency
8
8
11
27
Percentage
11.0%
13.3%
12.6%
12.3%
Frequency
24
14
14
52
Percentage
32.9%
23.3%
16.1%
23.6%
Frequency
73
60
87
220
Percentage
100%
100%
100.0%
100%
[...]... 2012) also concluded in various empirical studies that cost is one of the most important factors that students take into account when choosing a university In another research by Kusumawati (2013) cost is also rated as one of the most important factors to students of an Indonesian public university In the case of Thailand, Kitsawad (2013) found that living expenses factor was regarded rather important... were that financial aid, and in particular grants, had a positive effect on both access and persistence, and encouraged students to enroll in more expensive institutions They also found that financial aid had the largest influence on the decisions of low-income students 16 As a matter of fact, Yusof’s study (2008, cited in Sia, 2010) found that financial assistance offered by university as one of the... certain institutions They evaluate their academic and financial capabilities in relation to these potential choices In the last stage, Choice, students choose one institution to attend based on a ranking and rating of each institution available (cited in Chia, 2011) 12 Wagner and Fard (2009) view that the major differences between the models are the descriptions of the intervening variables or characteristics... influence students decision to study at Universiti Sans Malaysia The results revealed that a student's preference for a public institution is influenced primarily by considerations of quality of education and pecuniary factors In another quantitative study in Thailand Kirsawad (2013) investigated factors affecting Thai high school student’s choice of university Respondents were asked about their opinions and... These factors are the quality of library facilities, quality of university ground, the availability of quiet areas, and quality of lecture halls, IT facilities, health services and areas for self -study Yamamoto’s (2006) findings also show that physical factors and facilities are two of the important criteria for university selection for Turkish students Employment opportunities The prospect of future employment... influential to students choice of university Next focusing on the most influential factors the researcher compares and contrasts to see if there are any differences of these factors among students by such characteristics as grade 12 GPA, living areas and household income Then the researcher continues to compare and contrast whether or not there are any differences of these factors between FPT University students. .. prefer a private university The respondent with average and high GPA, on the other hand, preferred the public university Educational facilities The importance of facilities on students' choice of institution has been noted in previous researchers’ papers Absher and Crawford (1996, cited in Sia, 2010) 18 stated that educational facilities such as classrooms, laboratories and libraries are important in a. .. helping students select in the Philippines Kusumawati (2013) conducted a qualitative study of the factors influencing student choice of an Indonesian public university Preliminary results indicated that students considered 25 criteria for selecting an Indonesian public university One of the five most important factors was parents In the case of Malaysia, Sidin et al (2003) explored the factors influencing. .. the university, faculty, the qualification of teaching staff (Sierra, 2012) According to Soutar & Turner (2002, cited in Kitsawad 2013) reputation and academic quality were two of the outstanding predictors of university choice in Western Australia Keling (2007, cited in Sia 2010) also stated that the most influential factor that students will evaluate in selecting their choice of institution was reputation... conducted a study to investigate factors influencing the decision of students to study at Universiti Sains Malaysia, a public university In this study Fernandez (2010) examined the reasons students pursue higher education; the sources of information used by students to help choose a tertiary institution, the factors that influence students choice of public versus private institutions, and the factors that ... top 16 influencing factors on choice of university, seven factors were facilities-related factors These factors are the quality of library facilities, quality of university ground, the availability... primarily by considerations of quality of education and pecuniary factors In another quantitative study in Thailand Kirsawad (2013) investigated factors affecting Thai high school student’s choice. .. significant others or college characteristics Chapman separates the choice as being a model of two stages—that of the pre-search and search stage In the first stage, factors like family income have a
Ngày đăng: 23/10/2015, 15:38
Xem thêm: A study of factors influencing students choice of FPT university, A study of factors influencing students choice of FPT university