Thông tin tài liệu
THE STATE BANK OF VIET NAM MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING BANKING UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY _ _ PHUNG NGOC VAN ANH FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS’ DECISION MAKING IN CHOOSING INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: CASE STUDY OF BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY IN HO CHI MINH CITY BACHELOR THESIS MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION CODE: 7340101 ADVISOR by NGUYEN VAN THUY, PhD HO CHI MINH CITY - 2020 THE STATE BANK OF VIET NAM MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING BANKING UNIVERSITY OF HO CHI MINH CITY _ _ PHUNG NGOC VAN ANH FACTORS INFLUENCING STUDENTS’ DECISION MAKING IN CHOOSING INTERNATIONAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: CASE STUDY OF BIRMINGHAM CITY UNIVERSITY IN HO CHI MINH CITY BACHELOR THESIS MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION CODE: 7340101 ADVISOR by NGUYEN VAN THUY, PhD HO CHI MINH CITY - 2020 i ABSTRACT In the current competitive environment, each institution must investigate into the consideration of potential students when making the decision to choose a particular program The theoretical background has provided some practical models regarding the consequential stages that prospective students would adopt through the decision making in choosing the international partnership program of Birmingham City University in Ho Chi Minh City Within their consideration set, students who participate in this decision making process will compare between a number of alternatives and choose the institution with the greatest value and various benefits The research attempts to figure out the relationship as well as the impact levels of five main factors on students’ decision making to promote the efficiency of school admission policy and lead to the better performance of international partnership programs in the education system The survey was conducted with the participation of 350 students from BCU program The findings show that all of the factors have a positive correlation with students’ decision making, which means that focusing on a number of components that can bring up the best outcomes can give BCU itself an overwhelming advantage compared to other rivals in the market After analysis, the levels of impact factors in descending orders are: institutional characteristics - reference groups - communication effort - personal attributes - contextual factors The results of T-test and ANOVA show no difference between different genders or age groups in terms of students’ decision making In particular, BCU program should focus on updating the latest majors that suit students’ interests and aspirations as well as improving the teaching quality BCU program should also consider providing financial support or scholarships for prospective students, which may give it a great advantage compared to other programs Online and offline marketing are also potential aspects that BCU program can invest in to attract students’ attention as well as their parents – who have shown a strong impact on the students’ final decisions ii DECLARATION The thesis entitled “Factors influencing students’ decision making in choosing international partnership program: Case study of Birmingham City University in Ho Chi Minh City” is conducted by me under the supervision of Nguyen Van Thuy, Ph.D in the Department of Business Administration I declare that the information reported in this graduate thesis is the result of my work, except where due to reference is made It is not written or published anywhere else The thesis has not been accepted for any degree and is not submitted to any candidature for any other degree or diploma Ho Chi Minh City, …./…./ 2020 Signature Phùng Ngọc Vân Anh iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I could not have completed my thesis successfully without the greatest support of my beloved ones I would like to express my deepest gratitude towards: Banking University and my lecturers – for providing me with the best conditions as well as valuable knowledge during my academic years, which help me a lot during the implementation of this research Mr Nguyen Van Thuy – who is my advisor for always being by my side, devoting your precious time to help me out with my thesis Thanks to your precise instruction and detailed comments on my work, I have completed my graduate thesis with the best effort My family and friends – who always show your wholehearted support for me throughout my time doing this research, which makes it memorable and grateful for me through thick and thin iv TABLE OF CONTENT ABSTRACT i DECLARATION ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii TABLE OF CONTENT iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research problem statement 1.2 Research objectives 1.3 Research questions 1.4 Research subject and scope 1.5 Research methodology 1.6 Research contribution 1.7 Thesis structure SUMMARY OF CHAPTER CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Definition 2.1.1 Decision making 2.1.1.1 Definition of decision making 2.1.1.2 Characteristics of decision making 2.1.2 Partnership program 2.1.2.1 Definition of partnership program 2.1.2.2 Characteristics of partnership program 2.1.2.3 Forms of partnership program v 2.1.2.4 Key elements of partnership program 2.2 Literature review 10 2.2.1 Theoretical background 10 2.2.1.1 The garbage can model (Cohen, March, and Olsen, 1972) 10 2.2.1.2 Theory of planned behavior (Ajzen and Fishbein ,1975) 11 2.2.1.3 The rational model (Simon, 1977) 13 2.2.1.4 The model of bounded rationality (Simon, 1979) 14 2.2.1.5 Customer buying decision process (Kotler, 1997) 15 2.2.1.6 The recognition‑primed decision model (Klein, 1998) 17 2.3 Previous researches 19 2.4 Conceptual model and hypotheses 33 2.4.1 Variable selection 33 2.4.2 Research hypotheses 34 2.4.3 Research conceptual model 41 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 41 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 43 3.1 Research process 43 3.2 Scale development process 44 3.3 Developing scale 45 3.3.1 Personal attributes 45 3.3.2 Institutional characteristics 46 3.3.3 Communication effort 47 3.3.4 Reference groups 48 3.3.5 Contextual factors 49 3.3.6 Students’ decision making 50 vi 3.4 Sample size 51 3.5 Questionnaire design 51 3.6 Data analysis methods 52 3.6.1 Descriptive statistics 52 3.6.2 Cronbach’s Alpha 52 3.6.3 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 53 3.6.4 Linear regression 55 3.6.5 Independent samples T-test and One-way ANOVA 56 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 57 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 58 4.1 Overview of BCU international partnership program 58 4.2 Descriptive statistics 58 4.3 Results of data analysis 61 4.3.1 Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient 61 4.3.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) 64 4.3.3 Pearson’s correlation coefficient 66 4.3.4 Result of multiple regression analysis 66 4.3.5 Result of hypothesis testing 69 4.3.6 T-Test 70 4.3.7 One - way ANOVA test 70 4.4 Summary of results 70 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 72 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 73 5.1 Conclusion 73 5.2 Implications 74 vii 5.2.1 Implications of “Personal attributes” 74 5.2.2 Implications of “Institutional characteristics” 76 5.2.3 Implications of “Communication effort” 77 5.2.4 Implications of “Reference groups” 78 5.2.5 Implications of “Contextual factors” 79 5.3 Limitations and recommendations 80 SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 81 REFERENCES 82 APPENDIX FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (ENGLISH VERSION) 87 APPENDIX 2: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION (VIETNAMESE VERSION) 91 APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) 95 APPENDIX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE (VIETNAMESE VERSION) 100 APPENDIX 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 105 APPENDIX 6: CRONBACH’S ALPHA COEFFICIENT 106 APPENDIX 7: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) 109 APPENDIX 8: PEARSON’S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 111 APPENDIX 9: MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS 112 APPENDIX 10: T-TEST 113 APPENDIX 11: ONE - WAY ANOVA TEST 114 APPENDIX 12: MEAN TEST 115 APPENDIX 13: DETECTING VIOLATIONS OF ASSUMPTIONS 117 viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Definition AB Attitude toward behavior ANOVA Analysis of variance BCU Birmingham City University CE Communication effort CF Contextual factors EFA Exploratory factor analysis GCM Garbage can model GDP Gross domestic product IC Institutional characteristics KMO Kaiser – Meyer – Olkin PA Personal attributes PBC Perceived behavioral control RG Reference groups RPD Recognition – primed decision model SDM Students’ decision making SN Subjective norm SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences UAE United Arab Emirates ULAB University of Liberal Arts VND Vietnamese Dong VU Varendra University 104 Tôi nghĩ giỏi việc định giáo dục 5 5 5 Quyết định chọn chương trình liên kết BCU xem phù hợp cho q trình phát triển thân tơi Quyết định chọn chương trình liên kết BCU xem phù hợp cho trình học tập tơi Quyết định chọn chương trình liên kết BCU đắn Sau đưa định chọn chương trình liên kết BCU, tơi có xu hướng đánh giá thấp lựa chọn thay khác Nếu có hội lựa chọn lại, chương trình liên kết BCU lựa chọn tơi Cảm ơn bạn dành thời gian hồn thành khảo sát này! 105 APPENDIX 5: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS Results of descriptive statistics Gender Age Count Column N % Male 196 57.1% Female 147 42.9% Total 343 100.0% Below 18 50 14.6% From 18 to 20 168 49.0% Above 20 125 36.4% Total 343 100.0% 114 33.2% International Business Administration International Financial Management 90 26.2% Computer Networks and Security 86 25.1% Computer Science Dear 53 15.5% Total 343 100.0% Public high school 126 36.7% Where did you study at before Private high school 153 44.6% attending this progra Vocational school 64 18.7% Total 343 100.0% At the end of high school 106 30.9% 104 30.3% 75 21.9% 58 16.9% 343 100.0% 70 20.4% 123 35.9% Above 20 million VND per month 150 43.7% Total 343 100.0% Which program are you attending Before taking the university entrance exam When did you consider which After taking the national university university program to attend entrance exam After knowing the result of the national university entrance exam Total Between and 10 million VND per month Between 10 and 20 million VND per Family income level month Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 106 APPENDIX 6: CRONBACH’S ALPHA COEFFICIENT - Students’ Decision Making Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 883 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Corrected Item Deleted Cronbach's Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted Correlation Deleted SDM1 23.1108 37.760 642 869 SDM2 22.9825 38.894 608 873 SDM3 22.9096 38.270 693 864 SDM4 22.9271 37.933 682 865 SDM5 22.9038 38.918 601 873 SDM6 22.9767 38.532 643 869 SDM7 22.7755 38.923 674 866 SDM8 22.7405 38.438 661 867 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 - Personal Attributes Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 846 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 - Institutional Characteristics + Round 1: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's Alpha N of Items 762 107 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Corrected Item Deleted Cronbach's Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted Correlation Deleted IC1 26.5160 19.677 564 716 IC2 26.0000 19.988 588 711 IC3 26.3469 20.034 555 717 IC4 26.0729 20.541 618 708 IC5 25.8309 20.796 563 717 IC6 26.3907 20.402 560 717 IC7 26.1050 26.422 072 787 IC8 25.7580 26.909 030 788 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 + Round 2: Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 821 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Corrected Item Deleted Cronbach's Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted Correlation Deleted IC1 18.6589 18.050 569 797 IC2 18.1429 18.193 612 787 IC3 18.4898 18.385 561 798 IC4 18.2157 18.942 617 787 IC5 17.9738 18.856 601 790 IC6 18.5335 18.712 570 796 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 108 - Communication Effort Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 882 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item Correlation Deleted CE1 14.6851 7.678 756 850 CE2 14.6501 7.906 663 869 CE3 14.6647 8.194 677 868 CE4 14.8950 6.702 818 832 CE5 14.9708 6.730 717 863 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 - Reference Groups Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 858 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Corrected Item Deleted Cronbach's Variance if Item-Total Alpha if Item Item Deleted Correlation Deleted RG1 12.2741 4.609 717 824 RG2 12.6122 3.607 779 786 RG3 12.9417 3.751 722 813 RG4 12.8309 4.299 632 847 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 109 - Contextual Factors Reliability Statistics Cronbach's N of Items Alpha 790 Item-Total Statistics Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected ItemItem Deleted if Item Deleted Cronbach's Total Alpha if Item Correlation Deleted CF1 11.7755 2.520 574 750 CF2 11.8367 2.435 576 750 CF3 11.8805 2.480 602 736 CF4 11.8688 2.389 642 716 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 APPENDIX 7: EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (EFA) Independent variables - KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling 788 Adequacy Approx Chi-Square Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 3789.168 df 276 Sig .000 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Total % of Extraction Sums of Squared Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Loadings Cumulative % Total Variance % of Cumulative % Total Variance % of Cumulative % Variance 3.936 16.402 16.402 3.936 16.402 16.402 3.467 14.448 14.448 3.441 14.336 30.738 3.441 14.336 30.738 3.215 13.397 27.844 2.911 12.129 42.867 2.911 12.129 42.867 3.133 13.055 40.899 110 2.473 10.305 53.172 2.473 10.305 53.172 2.883 12.014 52.913 2.418 10.075 63.247 2.418 10.075 63.247 2.480 10.334 63.247 Rotated Component Matrixa Component CE4 864 CE1 860 CE3 809 CE5 800 CE2 796 IC4 753 IC5 748 IC2 745 IC3 707 IC6 701 IC1 701 PA4 821 PA2 818 PA5 814 PA1 756 PA3 709 RG2 891 RG3 839 RG1 834 RG4 772 CF4 817 CF3 781 CF1 765 CF2 762 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 111 Dependent variable - KMO and Bartlett's Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling 857 Adequacy Approx Chi-Square Bartlett's Test of Sphericity 1297.660 df 28 Sig .000 Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Total Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings % of Variance Cumulative % 4.415 55.182 55.182 Total % of Variance Cumulative % 4.415 55.182 55.182 Component Matrixa Component SDM3 778 SDM4 767 SDM7 766 SDM8 753 SDM6 738 SDM1 733 SDM2 707 SDM5 696 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 APPENDIX 8: PEARSON’S CORRELATION COEFFICIENT Correlations Pearson Correlation PA PA IC CE RG CF SDM -.080 049 -.079 002 205** 138 370 144 978 000 343 343 343 343 343 Sig (2-tailed) N 343 112 Pearson Correlation -.080 Sig (2-tailed) 138 N 343 IC 343 047 102 067 476** 390 059 215 000 343 343 343 343 031 430** 001 567 000 ** Pearson Correlation 049 047 Sig (2-tailed) 370 390 N 343 343 343 343 343 343 Pearson Correlation -.079 102 174** 040 429** Sig (2-tailed) 144 059 001 466 000 N 343 343 343 343 343 343 Pearson Correlation 002 067 031 040 289** Sig (2-tailed) 978 215 567 466 N 343 343 343 343 343 343 Pearson Correlation 205** 476** 430** 429** 289** Sig (2-tailed) 000 000 000 000 000 N 343 343 343 343 343 CE RG CF SDM 174 000 343 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 APPENDIX 9: MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS Model Summaryb Model R R Square 782a 612 Adjusted R Std Error of Durbin- Square the Estimate Watson 606 55137 1.511 a Predictors: (Constant) CF PA CE IC RG b Dependent Variable: SDM ANOVAa Model Sum of df Mean Square F Sig 106.286 000b Squares Regression 161.560 32.312 Residual 102.451 337 304 113 Total 264.011 342 a Dependent Variable: SDM b Predictors: (Constant) CF PA CE IC RG Coefficientsa Unstandardized Standardized Model Coefficients t Sig Collinearity Coefficients B Std Error (Constant) -5.378 432 PA 465 064 IC 447 CE Statistics Beta Tolerance VIF -12.455 000 250 7.316 000 984 1.016 036 431 12.559 000 979 1.021 433 045 331 9.592 000 964 1.037 RG 452 046 338 9.715 000 954 1.049 CF 411 059 236 6.933 000 994 1.006 a Dependent Variable: SDM Residuals Statisticsa Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation N Predicted Value 9144 5.5887 3.2737 68731 343 Residual -4.33869 2.08508 00000 54732 343 -3.433 3.368 000 1.000 343 -7.869 3.782 000 993 343 Std Predicted Value Std Residual a Dependent Variable: SDM Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 APPENDIX 10: T-TEST Group Statistics Std Deviation Std Error Mean Gender N Mean Male 196 3.3520 85257 06090 Female 147 3.1692 90456 07461 SDM 114 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F t-test for Equality of Means Sig t df 95% Confidence Sig Mean Std Error Interval of the (2Difference Difference Difference tailed) Lower Upper Equal variances 234 629 1.915 341 056 18282 09549 -.00501 37065 1.898 304.240 059 18282 09631 -.00669 37233 assumed SDM Equal variances not assumed Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 APPENDIX 11: ONE - WAY ANOVA TEST Descriptives SDM N Below 18 Mean Std Std 95% Confidence Deviation Error Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound Minimum Maximum 50 3.0825 89021 12590 2.8295 3.3355 1.00 4.88 168 3.3259 87217 06729 3.1930 3.4587 1.00 4.88 Above 20 125 3.2800 87922 07864 3.1243 3.4357 1.00 4.88 87861 04744 3.1804 3.3670 1.00 4.88 From 18 to 20 Total 343 3.2737 115 Test of Homogeneity of Variances SDM Levene df1 df2 Sig 340 932 Statistic 071 ANOVA SDM Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig Between Groups 2.290 1.145 1.488 227 Within Groups 261.720 340 770 Total 264.011 342 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 APPENDIX 12: MEAN TEST - Personal attributes Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation PA1 343 2.00 5.00 4.0758 57742 PA2 343 3.00 5.00 4.0321 57899 PA3 343 1.00 5.00 4.0233 62082 PA4 343 2.00 5.00 4.0612 61586 PA5 343 2.00 5.00 4.0466 60999 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 - Institutional characteristics Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation IC1 343 1.00 5.00 3.3440 1.26283 IC2 343 1.00 5.00 3.8601 1.18134 IC3 343 1.00 5.00 3.5131 1.22079 IC4 343 1.00 5.00 3.7872 1.05889 IC5 343 1.00 5.00 4.0292 1.09185 IC6 343 1.00 5.00 3.4694 1.15651 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 116 - Communication effort Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation CE1 343 2.00 5.00 3.7813 73469 CE2 343 2.00 5.00 3.8163 75593 CE3 343 1.00 5.00 3.8017 68081 CE4 343 1.00 5.00 3.5714 89508 CE5 343 1.00 5.00 3.4956 97294 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 - Reference groups Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation RG1 343 3.00 5.00 4.6122 61991 RG2 343 2.00 5.00 4.2741 86220 RG3 343 2.00 5.00 3.9446 86171 RG4 343 2.00 5.00 4.0554 76843 Valid N (listwise) 343 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 - Contextual factors Descriptive Statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean Std Deviation CF1 343 2.00 5.00 4.0117 63512 CF2 343 2.00 5.00 3.9504 66701 CF3 343 2.00 5.00 3.9067 63295 CF4 343 2.00 5.00 3.9184 64372 Valid N (listwise) 343 Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 117 APPENDIX 13: DETECTING VIOLATIONS OF ASSUMPTIONS Graph Scatterplot Graph Histogram 118 P-P lot Source: Processing data by SPSS 22.0 ... iii TABLE OF CONTENT iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS viii LIST OF TABLES ix LIST OF FIGURES x CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research problem... researches, (ii) is to measure and evaluate the influence of these factors on students’ decision making to choose BCU international partnership program, (iii) is to discuss and provide managerial... drawn from the study, the programs can evaluate the impact of each factor group and take the necessary steps for future development 1.7 Thesis structure Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter introduces
Ngày đăng: 17/08/2021, 22:29
Xem thêm:
