41 Table 4.7 shows how students learn about AIU. This section, respondents could choose more than one option. Most of respondents have learnt about AIU from their parents/relatives (55.8 percent, AIU Alumni (40.0 percent), AIU current students (25.6 percent), friend (24.4 percent), AIU website (24.4 percent), church pastors (21.2 percent), AIU Faculty of Staff (19.2 percent), brochure (12.2 percent), visiting (5.1 percent), and exhibition (5.8 percent). Table 4.8 Reason Most Affected Student Decisions to Study at AIU Ranking Reason that Most Affected Student Decisions Number 1 My sibling/relative studies here 47 2 Quality of Curriculum 46 3 Reputation of the University 18 4 Tuition fee is cheaper than others 12 5 Quality of Faculty 12 6 Located near to my hometown 10 7 My friends studies here 8 8 Recommended by Church Pastor 4 Table 4.8 shows the ranking number of reason that most affected student decisions to study at AIU. This section, respondents could rank the reason were the strongest factors most affecting the decision. The most respondents have ranking the reason of their sibling or relatives have studied at AIU as first rank (47 students). Second rank was the quality of curriculum (46 students). Third rank was reputation of the University (18 students). Forth rank was tuition fee is cheaper than others and quality of
42 faculty (12 students each). Last three ranks were located near to their hometown (10 students), their friends studies at AIU (8 students), and recommended by church pastor (4 students). 4.2.2 Overview of Service Marketing Mix Factors Affecting Decision Making Behavior Firstyear undergraduate students enrolling in the 2013/2014 academic year were asked which service marketing mix factors affected their decisions to enroll at AIU. When considering service marketing mix factors such as product referred to curriculum, pricing referred to tuition fees, place referred to location, promotion referred to advertising, people referred to faculty and staff, process referred to service, and physical evidence referred to facilities. The results were presented in terms of overall and individual factors as Tables 4.9 to 4.16. Table 4.9 Effect of Product (Curriculum) on Enrolment Decisions Product (Curriculum) x SD Significance 1 Opportunities to study abroad at graduate level 3.83 0.83 High 2 Ability to work overseas with the degree 3.79 0.84 High 3 Ability to transfer university courses 3.51 0.93 High 4 Period of study was considered 3.96 0.81 High 5 Knowledge gained can be adapted to work 4.08 0.81 High 6 Adequate quality assurance system 3.94 0.82 High 7 Courses meet personal requirements 3.90 0.83 High 8 International curriculum 3.88 0.86 High 9 Variety of extracurricular activities (field trips or practical in workplace) 3.70 1.01 High Total 3.84 0.63 High
43 Table 4.9 shows mean (x ) and standard deviation (SD) of product factor which referred to curriculum affecting on enrolment decisions. When considering by each question, all questions were high. The first five questions from most to least were knowledge gained can be adapted to work (x = 4.08 ), period of study was considered (x = 3.96 ), adequate quality assurance system (x = 3.94 ), courses meet personal requirements (x = 3.90 ), and international curriculum (x = 3.88 ). The overall affecting of product (curriculum) on enrolment decisions was high (x = 3.84 ). Table 4.10 Effect of Pricing (Tuition Fees) on Enrolment Decisions Pricing (Tuition fees) x SD Significance 10 Tuition and fees cheaper than at other universities 2.90 1.13 Medium 11 Variety of payment methods (cash, bank transfer, e-payment) 3.43 1.02 Medium 12 No charge for extra activities 2.65 1.12 Medium 13 Payment plan for students in need 3.71 0.89 High 14 Financial information provided beforehand 3.77 0.86 High 15 Cost of living is not too high 3.30 1.06 Medium 16 Government loans or scholarships 3.79 0.93 High 17 Work program available 3.68 0.96 High Total 3.40 0.68 Medium Table 4.10 shows mean (x ) and standard deviation (SD) of pricing factor which referred to tuition fees affecting on enrolment decisions. When considering by each question, four questions were high and other four questions were medium. The four questions with high level were government loans or scholarships (x = 3.79 ), financial information provided beforehand (x = 3.77 ), waiving of payment for students in need
44 (x = 3.71 ), and work program available (x = 3.68 ). The four questions with medium were Variety of payment methods such as cash, bank transfer, or e-payment (x = 3.43 ), cost of living is not too high (x = 3.30 ), tuition and fees is cheaper than at other universities (x = 2.90 ), and no charge for extra activities (x = 2.65 ). The overall affecting of pricing (tuition fees) on enrolment decisions was medium (x = 3.40 ). Table 4.11 Effect of Place (Location) on Enrolment Decisions Place (Location) x SD Significance 18 Located near my hometown 2.48 1.37 Medium 19 Travel convenience 2.61 1.20 Medium 20 The university is stable with a long history 3.38 1.02 Medium 21 Well-situated and beautiful environment 3.88 0.99 High 22 Conducive learning environment 3.74 0.97 High Total 3.22 0.78 Medium Table 4.11 shows mean (x ) and standard deviation (SD) of place factor which referred to location affecting on enrolment decisions. When considering by each question, two questions were high and other three questions were medium. The two questions with high were well-situated and beautiful environment (x = 3.88 ) and conducive learning environment (x = 3.74 ). The three questions with medium were the university is stable with a long history (x = 3.38 ), travel convenience (x = 2.61 ), and located near my hometown (x = 2.48 ). The overall affecting of place (location) on enrolment decisions was medium (x = 3.22 ).
45 Table 4.12 Effect of Promotion (Advertising) on Enrolment Decisions Promotion (Advertising) x SD Significance 23 Brochure provides clear information 3.38 0.90 Medium 24 Website provides useful information 3.49 0.97 Medium 25 Large university banner provides useful information 3.24 0.99 Medium 26 Variety of advertisements using different methods 3.17 1.01 Medium Total 3.32 0.85 Medium Table 4.12 shows mean (x ) and standard deviation (SD) of promotion factor which referred to advertising affecting on enrolment decisions. When considering by each question, all questions were medium. The most to least were website provides useful information (x = 3.49 ), brochure provides clear information (x = 3.38 ), large university banner provides useful information (x = 3.24 ), variety of advertisements using different methods (x = 3.17 ). The overall affecting of promotion (advertising) on enrolment decisions was medium (x = 3.32 ). Table 4.13 Effect of People (Faculty and Staff) on Enrolment Decisions People (Faculty and Staff) x SD Significance 27 Good reputation 3.61 0.87 High 28 Faculty members from a variety of nations 3.79 0.89 High 29 Recognized research 3.69 0.85 High 30 Adequate teaching experience 3.79 0.84 High 31 Faculty and staff understand student problems and are ready to give advice 3.80 0.95 High Total 3.74 0.74 High
46 Table 4.13 shows mean (x ) and standard deviation (SD) of people factor which referred to faculty and staff affecting on enrolment decisions. When considering by each question, all questions were high. The most to least were faculty and staff understand student problems and are ready to give advice (x = 3.80 ), Faculty members from a variety of nations (x = 3.79 ), adequate teaching experience (x = 3.79 ), recognized research (x = 3.69), and good reputation (x = 3.61 ). The overall affecting of people (faculty and staff) on enrolment decisions was high (x = 3.74 ). Table 4.14 Effect of Process (Service) on Enrolment Decisions Process (Service) x SD Significance 32 Admission is based on the student taking a university entrance exam 3.78 0.96 High 33 The entrance exam is accurate and fast 3.79 0.86 High 34 Ensures high quality of teaching 3.81 0.86 High 35 Provides the same standard of quality and service for every student 3.69 0.99 High 36 Convenient access to faculty and staff 3.69 0.87 High 37 Offer counseling throughout the time of study 3.79 0.89 High 38 Staff offers fast service 3.46 1.00 Medium 39 Staff offers courteous service 3.52 1.04 High 40 Staff offers service with a smile 3.40 1.09 Medium 41 Staff offers service with willingness 3.45 1.03 Medium Total 3.64 0.77 High Table 4.14 shows mean (x ) and standard deviation (SD) of process factor which referred to service affecting on enrolment decisions. When considering by each question, all questions were high except three questions with medium; staff offers fast service (x = 3.46 ), staff offers service with willingness (x = 3.45 ), and staff offers
47 service with a smile (x = 3.40 ). The most to least with high were ensures high quality of teaching (x = 3.81 ), the entrance exam is accurate and fast (x = 3.79 ), offer counseling throughout the time of study (x = 3.79 ), admission is based on the student taking a university entrance exam (x = 3.78 ), provides the same standard of quality and service for every student (x = 3.69 ), convenient access to faculty and staff (x = 3.69 ), and staff offers courteous service (x = 3.52 ). The overall affecting of process (service) on enrolment decisions was high (x = 3.64 ). Table 4.15 Effect of Physical Evidence (Facilities) on Enrolment Decisions Physical Evidence (Facilities) x SD Significance 42 Buildings are tidy and beautiful 3.69 0.94 High 43 Building decorated in modern design 3.64 0.96 High 44 Classrooms are designed and decorated in a modern style 3.63 0.94 High 45 Buildings are maintained in good condition 3.66 0.94 High 46 Adequate equipment to support study 3.58 0.98 High 47 Adequate library with up-to-date books and periodicals 3.67 0.97 High 48 Adequate facilities to carry out activities relating to education 3.57 1.00 High 49 Well-equipped laboratories (nursing, computer, science) 3.42 1.05 Medium 50 A high level of information technology in classroom 3.49 1.04 Medium 51 On-campus church 4.10 0.96 High 52 On-campus dormitories 4.09 1.02 High 53 Hygienic food in cafeteria 3.27 1.23 Medium 54 Adequate and clean bathrooms 3.71 1.10 High 55 Adequate football field and sport complex 3.29 1.22 Medium Total 3.63 0.77 High
48 Table 4.15 shows mean (x ) and standard deviation (SD) of process factor which referred to service affecting on enrolment decisions. When considering by each question, all questions were high except four questions with medium; a high level of information technology in classroom (x = 3.49 ), well-equipped laboratories such as nursing, computer, science (x = 3.42 ), adequate football field and sport complex (x = 3.29 ), and hygienic food in cafeteria (x = 3.27 ). The first five question with high from most to least were on-campus church (x = 4.10 ), on-campus dormitories (x = 4.09 ), adequate and clean bathrooms (x = 3.71 ), Buildings are tidy and beautiful (x = 3.69 ), Adequate library with up-to-date books and periodicals (x = 3.67 ). The overall affecting of physical evidence (facilities) on enrolment decisions was high (x = 3.63 ). Table 4.16 Effect of All Factors on Enrolment Decisions Factors x SD Significance Product (Curriculum) 3.84 0.63 High Pricing (Tuition Fees) 3.40 0.68 Medium Place (Location) 3.22 0.78 Medium Promotion (Advertising) 3.32 0.85 Medium People (Faculty and Staff) 3.74 0.74 High Process (Service) 3.64 0.77 High Physical Evidence (Facilities) 3.66 0.77 High Total 3.54 0.74 High
49 Table 4.16 shows mean (x ) and standard deviation (SD) of all factors affecting on enrolment decisions. When considering by each factor, four factors were high and three factors were medium. The factors with high were product which referred to curriculum (x = 3.84 ), people which referred to faculty and staff (x = 3.74 ), physical evidence which referred to facilities (x = 3.66 ), and process which referred to service (x = 3.64 ). The factors with medium were pricing which referred to tuition fees (x = 3.40), promotion which referred to advertising (x = 3.32 ), and place which referred to location (x = 3.22 ). The overall affecting of all factors on enrolment decisions was high (x = 3.54 ). 4.2.3 Overview of Decision Making Behavior First year undergraduate students enrolling in the 2013/2014 academic year were asked about the steps in the consumer buying decision process they followed. These steps include a search of alternatives, evaluation before making decision, making decision, and evaluation after making decision. The results were presented in term of overall and individual steps as Tables 4.17 to 4.21. Table 4.17 Search of Alternatives Step Search of Alternative x SD Significance 1 Find out information about the university from many sources 3.58 0.87 High 2 Compare the university’s information with other universities 3.50 0.95 High 3 Compare the tuition fees with other universities 3.57 0.96 High 4 Recommended by parents 3.67 0.91 High 5 Persuaded by friends 3.50 1.09 High Total 3.57 0.74 High
50 Table 4.17 shows significance of decision behavior for search for alternative step. When considering by each question, all questions were high. The most to least were recommended by parents (x = 3.67 ), find out information about the university from many sources (x = 3.58 ), compare the tuition fees with other universities (x = 3.57 ), compare the university’s information with other universities (x = 3.50 ), and persuaded by friends (x = 3.50 ). The use of a search of higher education alternatives as part of the decision making process was high (x = 3.57 ). Table 4.18 Evaluation before Decision Making Step Evaluation before Decision Making x SD Significance 6 Consider the buildings, equipment and facilities 3.63 0.85 High 7 Focus on the university’s reputation 3.60 0.94 High 8 Compare the advantages and disadvantages of the university 3.75 0.88 High 9 Consider the curriculum 3.89 0.76 High 10 Consider the faculty and quality of teaching 3.87 0.87 High Total 3.75 0.70 High Table 4.18 shows significance of decision behavior for evaluation before making decision step. When considering by each question, all questions were high. The most to least were consider the curriculum (x = 3.89 ), consider the faculty and quality of teaching (x = 3.87 ), compare the advantages and disadvantages of the university (x = 3.57 ), consider the buildings, equipment and facilities (x = 3.63 ), and focus on the university’s reputation (x = 3.60 ). The use of evaluation before making decision as part of the decision making process was high (x = 3.75 ).
51 Table 4.19 Decision Making Step Decision Making x SD Significance 11 Financial aid available (payment, work program, loan and scholarship) 3.93 0.86 High 12 Courses meet personal expectations 3.74 1.05 High 13 Help students who have low academic performance 3.78 0.97 High 14 Adequate and modern facilities (classrooms, dormitories and Internet) 3.65 1.06 High 15 Parents and family pressured student to make decision to attend 3.71 1.00 High Total 3.76 0.77 High Table 4.19 shows significance of decision behavior for decision making step. When considering by each question, all questions were high. The most to least were financial aid available such as payment, work program, loan and scholarship (x = 3.93 ), help students who have low academic performance (x = 3.78 ), courses meet personal expectations (x = 3. 74 ), parents and family pressured student to make decision to attend (x = 3.71 ), and adequate and modern facilities such as classrooms, dormitories and Internet (x = 3.65 ). The use of decision making as part of the decision making process was high (x = 3.76 ).
52 Table 4.20 Evaluation after Decision Making Step Evaluation after Decision Making x SD Significance 16 Satisfaction with the teaching at the university 3.73 0.88 High 17 The activities during the school year develop knowledge 3.62 0.95 High 18 The ability to develop knowledge, abilities and gain more experience 3.78 0.90 High 19 Will introduce and persuade people to study at university 3.63 0.98 High 20 Satisfaction with the teaching of the university 3.74 0.89 High Total 3.70 0.80 High Table 4.20 shows significance of decision behavior for evaluation after making decision step. When considering by each question, all questions were high. The most to least were the ability to develop knowledge, abilities and gain more experience (x = 3.78 ), satisfaction with the teaching of the university (x = 3. 74 ), satisfaction with the teaching at the university (x = 3.73 ), will introduce and persuade people to study at university (x = 3.63 ), and the activities during the school year develop knowledge (x = 3.62 ). The use of evaluation after making decision as part of the decision making process was high (x = 3.70 ).
53 Table 4.21 All Steps of Decision Making Steps x SD Significance Search for Alternative 3.57 0.74 High Evaluation before Making Decision 3.75 0.70 High Decision Making 3.76 0.77 High Evaluation after Making Decision 3.70 0.80 High Total 3.69 0.75 High Table 4.21 shows significance of decision behavior for all steps. When considering by each step, all steps were high. The most to least were decision making (x = 3.76 ), evaluation before making decision (x = 3. 75 ), evaluation after making decision (x = 3.70), and search of alternative (x = 3.57 ). The use of all steps of the decision making process was high (x = 3.69 ). 4.3 Results of Data Analysis 4.3.1 Differences between Personal Factors and Decision Making Behavior This section analyzed by using the t-test and f-test (ANOVA) to compare the differences between each personal factor and decision making behavior. The results are presented as Tables 4.22 to 4.26.
54 Table 4.22 Gender and Decision Making Behavior Decision Making Behavior Male x SD Female x SD t p Search of Alternative 3.538 0.889 3.575 0.696 2.255 0.135 Evaluation before Making Decision 3.688 0.673 3.763 0.713 0.448 0.504 Decision Making 3.622 0.819 3.006 0.746 0.033 0.855 Evaluation after Making Decision 3.544 0.950 3.750 0.749 1.811 0.178 Table 4.22 shows the comparison between gender and decision making behavior. The study found no statistically significant differences in decision making behavior between respondents of different gender. Table 4.23 Religion and Decision Behavior Factors SS df MS F Sig Search of Alternative Between Groups 0.157 2 0.079 0.141 0.868 Within Groups 85.189 153 0.557 Total 85.347 155 Evaluation before Making Decision Between Groups 0.621 2 0.311 0.625 0.537 Within Groups 76.047 153 0.497 Total 76.668 155 Decision Making Between Groups 0.624 2 0.312 0.529 0.590 Within Groups 90.215 153 0.590 Total 90.839 155 Evaluation after Making Decision Between Groups 0.605 2 0.302 0.467 0.628 Within Groups 99.034 153 0.647 Total 99.639 155
55 Table 4.23 shows the comparison between religion and decision making behavior. The study found no statistically significant differences in decision making behavior between respondents of different religion. Table 4.24 High School CGPA and Decision Making Behavior Factors SS df MS F Sig Search of Alternative Between Groups 1.710 3 0.570 1.036 0.378 Within Groups 83.637 152 0.550 Total 85.347 155 Evaluation before Making Decision Between Groups 3.056 3 1.019 2.104 0.102 Within Groups 73.611 152 0.484 Total 76.668 155 Decision Making Between Groups 1.007 3 0.336 0.568 0.637 Within Groups 89.832 152 0.591 Total 90.839 155 Evaluation after Making Decision Between Groups 2.177 3 0.726 1.132 0.338 Within Groups 97.462 152 0.641 Total 99.639 155 Table 4.24 shows the comparison between high school CGPA and decision making behavior. The study found no statistically significant differences in decision making behavior between respondents of different high school CGPA.
56 Table 4.25 Parental Monthly Incomes and Decision Making Behavior Factors SS df MS F Sig Search of Alternative Between Groups 0.550 4 0.138 0.245 0.912 Within Groups 84.796 151 0.562 Total 85.347 155 Evaluation before Making Decision Between Groups 0.953 4 0.238 0.475 0.754 Within Groups 75.715 151 0.501 Total 76.668 155 Decision Making Between Groups 2.786 4 0.697 1.195 0.316 Within Groups 88.053 151 0.583 Total 90.839 155 Evaluation after Making Decision Between Groups 0.427 4 0.107 0.163 0.957 Within Groups 99.212 151 0.657 Total 99.639 155 Table 4.25 shows the comparison between parental monthly incomes and decision making behavior. The study found no statistically significant differences in decision making behavior between respondents of different parental monthly incomes. Table 4.26 Field of Study and Decision Making Behavior Factors SS df MS F Sig Search of Alternative Between Groups 6.419 5 1.284 2.440* 0.037 Within Groups 78.928 150 0.526 Total 85.347 155 Evaluation before Making Decision Between Groups 5.371 5 1.074 2.260 0.051 Within Groups 71.297 150 0.475 Total 76.668 155 Decision Making Between Groups 11.748 5 2.350 4.456* 0.001 Within Groups 79.091 150 0.527 Total 90.839 155 Evaluation after Making Decision Between Groups 8.588 5 1.718 2.829* 0.018 Within Groups 91.051 150 0.607 Total 99.639 155 * Statistically significant level of 0.05
57 Table 4.26 shows the comparison between field of study and decision making behavior. The study found statistically significant level of 0.05 differences in decision making behavior between respondents of field of study. When analyzed the differences in the way of Scheffe’s method, the results found no statistically significant differences in search of alternative, decision making, and evaluation after decision making steps between respondents of different field of study because some data could not be utilized given the criteria of the statistical program. 4.3.2 Differences between Personal Factors and the Service Marketing Mix Factors This section analyzed by using the t-test and f-test (ANOVA) to compare the differences between each personal factor and the service marketing mix factors. The results are presented as Tables 4.27 to 4.31. Table 4.27 Gender and the Service Marketing Mix Factors Factors Male x SD Female x SD t p Product 3.657 0.628 3.900 0.623 0.625 0.430 Pricing 3.423 0.770 3.399 0.653 0.086 0.769 Place 3.338 0.886 3.183 0.741 3.744 0.055 Promotion 3.416 0.868 3.291 0.849 0.216 0.643 People 3.588 0.775 3.783 0.728 0.051 0.821 Process 3.597 0.791 3.654 0.762 0.148 0.701 Physical Evidence 3.531 0.793 3.661 0.765 0.003 0.957
58 Table 4.27 shows the comparison between gender and the service marketing mix factors. The study found no statistically significant differences in service marketing mix factors between respondents of different gender. Table 4.28 Religion and the Service Marketing Mix Factors Factors SS df MS F Sig Product Between Groups 2.466 2 1.233 3.128* 0.044 Within Groups 59.306 153 0.388 Total 61.772 155 Pricing Between Groups 1.278 2 0.639 1.391 0.252 Within Groups 70.288 153 0.459 Total 71.566 155 Place Between Groups 1.862 2 0.931 1.552 0.215 Within Groups 91.800 153 0.600 Total 93.662 155 Promotion Between Groups 1.343 2 0.672 0.923 0.400 Within Groups 111.381 153 0.728 Total 112.724 155 People Between Groups 0.378 2 0.189 0.341 0.711 Within Groups 84.791 153 0.554 Total 85.169 155 Process Between Groups 0.293 2 0.147 0.247 0.782 Within Groups 90.964 153 0.595 Total 91.257 155 Physical Between Groups 0.479 2 0.240 0.400 0.671 Evidence Within Groups 91.740 153 0.600 Total 92.219 155 * Statistically significant level of 0.05 Table 4.28 shows the comparison between religion and the service marketing mix factors. The study found statistically significant level of 0.05 differences in service
59 marketing mix factors between respondents of different religion. When analyzed the differences in the way of Scheffe’s method, the results found no statistically significant differences in product (curriculum) factor between respondents of different religion because some data could not be utilized given the criteria of the statistical program. Table 4.29 High School CGPA and the Service Marketing Mix Factors Factors SS df MS F Sig Product Between Groups 2.774 3 0.925 2.382 0.072 Within Groups 58.998 152 0.388 Total 61.772 155 Pricing Between Groups .525 3 0.175 0.375 0.771 Within Groups 71.041 152 0.467 Total 71.566 155 Place Between Groups 3.598 3 1.199 2.024 0.113 Within Groups 90.065 152 0.593 Total 93.662 155 Promotion Between Groups 2.432 3 0.811 1.117 0.344 Within Groups 110.293 152 0.726 Total 112.724 155 People Between Groups 2.998 3 0.999 1.849 0.141 Within Groups 82.171 152 0.541 Total 85.169 155 Process Between Groups 2.515 3 0.838 1.436 0.235 Within Groups 88.742 152 0.584 Total 91.257 155 Physical Between Groups 5.016 3 1.672 2.914* 0.036 Evidence Within Groups 87.204 152 0.574 Total 92.219 155 * Statistically significant level of 0.05
60 Table 4.29 shows the comparison between high school CGPA and the service marketing mix factors. The study found statistically significant level of 0.05 differences in service marketing mix factors between respondents of different high school CGPA. When analyzed the differences in the way of Scheffe’s method, the results found no statistically significant differences in physical evidence (facilities) factor between respondents of different high school CGPA because some data could not be utilized given the criteria of the statistical program. Table 4.30 Comparison between Parental Monthly Incomes and the Service Marketing Mix Factors Factors SS df MS F Sig Product Between Groups 2.730 4 0.682 1.745 0.143 Within Groups 59.042 151 0.391 Total 61.772 155 Pricing Between Groups 2.522 4 0.630 1.379 0.244 Within Groups 69.044 151 0.457 Total 71.566 155 Place Between Groups 1.891 4 0.473 0.778 0.541 Within Groups 91.771 151 0.608 Total 93.662 155 Promotion Between Groups 1.658 4 0.414 0.563 0.690 Within Groups 111.067 151 0.736 Total 112.724 155 People Between Groups 2.351 4 0.588 1.072 0.373 Within Groups 82.818 151 0.548 Total 85.169 155 Process Between Groups 1.936 4 0.484 0.818 0.515 Within Groups 89.321 151 0.592 Total 91.257 155 Physical Between Groups 1.602 4 0.401 0.667 0.616 Evidence Within Groups 90.617 151 0.600 Total 92.219 155
61 Table 4.30 shows the comparison between parental monthly incomes and the service marketing mix factors. The study found no statistically significant differences in service marketing mix factors between respondents of different parental monthly incomes. Table 4.31 Field of Study and the Service Marketing Mix Factors Factors SS df MS F Sig Product Between Groups 10.678 5 2.136 6.270* 0.000 Within Groups 51.094 150 0.341 Total 61.772 155 Pricing Between Groups 7.628 5 1.526 3.579* 0.004 Within Groups 63.938 150 0.426 Total 71.566 155 Place Between Groups 8.315 5 1.663 2.923* 0.015 Within Groups 85.348 150 0.569 Total 93.662 155 Promotion Between Groups 10.119 5 2.024 2.958* 0.014 Within Groups 102.606 150 0.684 Total 112.724 155 People Between Groups 9.245 5 1.849 3.653* 0.004 Within Groups 75.924 150 0.506 Total 85.169 155 Process Between Groups 9.049 5 1.810 3.302* 0.007 Within Groups 82.208 150 0.548 Total 91.257 155 Physical Between Groups 10.852 5 2.170 4.001* 0.002 Evidence Within Groups 81.367 150 0.542 Total 92.219 155 * Statistically significant level of 0.05
62 Table 4.31 shows the comparison between field of study and the service marketing mix factors. The study found statistically significant level of 0.05 differences in service marketing mix factors between respondents of different high school CGPA. When analyzed the differences in the way of Scheffe’s method, the results found no statistically significant differences in all factors factor between respondents of different field of study because some data could not be utilized given the criteria of the statistical program. 4.3.3 Relationship between the Service Marketing Mix Factors and Decision Making Behavior This section analyzed by using the multiple regressions analysis to find relationship between each service marketing mix factors and decision making behavior. The result is presented as Table 4.32. Table 4.32 the Service Marketing Mix Factors and Decision Making Behavior Model R R Square Adjust R Square b Std. Error of the Estimate t Sig 1 0.815 0.663 0.661 0.314 0.064 0.360 4.891* 0.000 2 0.855 0.731 0.727 0.250 0.052 0.235 4.812* 0.000 3 0.869 0.755 0.751 0.201 0.066 0.230 3.061* 0.003 4 0.876 0.767 0.761 0.121 0.056 0.122 2.164* 0.032 5 0.880 0.774 0.766 0.087 0.043 0.101 2.040* 0.043 a=0.173, S.E.est = 0.32464 * Statistically significant level of 0.05
63 Table 4.32 shows the relationship between each service marketing mix factors on the decision making behavior in five models as follows: - Model 1 was one factor of the service marketing mix, physical evidence which referred to facilities (X1). - Model 2 was two factors of the service marketing mix, physical evidence which referred to facilities (X1) and product which referred to curriculum (X2). - Model 3 was three factors of the service marketing mixphysical evidence which referred to facilities (X1), product which referred to curriculum (X2), and process which referred to services (X3). - Model 4 was four factors of the service marketing mixphysical evidence which referred to facilities (X1), product which referred to curriculum (X2), process which referred to services (X3), and pricing which referred to tuition fees (X4). - Model 5 was five factors of the service marketing mixphysical evidence which referred to facilities (X1), product which referred to curriculum (X2), process which referred to services (X3), pricing which referred to tuition fees (X4), and place which referred to location (X5). The results shows that the service marketing mix factors affecting the student decisions with statistically significant level of 0.05 were five factors; product, pricing, place, process, and physical evidence. In order to enter into the equation were physical
64 evidence referred to facilities (X1), product which referred to curriculum (X2), process which referred to services (X3), pricing which referred to tuition fees (X4), and place which referred to location (X5). The Multiple Correlation Coefficients (R) and Coefficients of Multiple Determination (R Square) has increased by adding factors into the equation. When added physical evidence factor into the equation, the Multiple Correlation Coefficients (R) equal to 0.815 and Coefficients of Multiple Determination (R Square) equal to 0.663, which could able to predict or explain the decision behavior 66.3 percent. When four factors (product, process, pricing, and place) added to the equation, the Multiple Correlation Coefficients (R) were 0.855, 0.869, 0876 and 0.880, respectively. And, able to predict or explain the decision behavior were 73.1 percent, 75.5 percent, 76.7 percent and 77.4 percent, respectively. Physical evidence referred to facilities (X1), product which referred to curriculum (X2), process which referred to services (X3), pricing which referred to tuition fees (X4), and place which referred to location (X5) have ability to predict the decision behavior which the coefficient of the predictor in the form of raw scores (b) were equal to 0.314, 0.250, 0.201, 0.121 and 0.087, respectively. The coefficient of the predictor in the form of standard scores () were equal to 0.360, 0.235, 0.230, 0.122 and 0.101, respectively with constants equal to 0.173. The parameters of five factors predicted decision behavior was 76.6 percent with 0.32464 of a standard error of estimate (S.E.est). The equations could predict decision of the first year undergraduate students for the 2013/2014 academic year in raw scores and standard scores below:
65 Equation in raw scores: Y = 0.173+0.314X1+0.250X2+0.201X3+0.121X4+0.087X5 OR Decision Behavior = 0.173 + 0.314(physical evidence) + 0.250(product) + 0.201(process) + 0.121(pricing) + 0.087(place) Equation in standard scores: Zr = 0.360Z1+.0235Z2+0.230Z3+0.122Z4+0.101Z5 OR Decision Behavior = 0.360(physical evidence) + 0.235(product) + 0.230(process) + 0.122(pricing) + 0.101(place)
66 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION The study ‘Factors Affecting Student Decisions to Study at Asia-Pacific International University’ is a quantitative research study. The purpose of this study was to explore the relationships between personal factors, service marketing mix factors, and decision making behavior The sample for this study was 178 first year undergraduate students who enrolled in the 2013/2014 academic year and were distributed among six Faculties by means of convenience sampling. The instrument used was a questionnaire to test factors affecting student’s decisions to study at AIU. This questionnaire was composed of three parts; personal information, factors affecting the decision to study at AIU, and decision making behavior. The questionnaire was given to three experts to check the consistency with an Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC), and all questions had IOC scores more than 0.50 which means that the questionnaire was considered suitable for collecting the data. A piloted test of the questionnaire was conducted with 30 secondyear undergraduate students for the 2013/2014 academic year. The questions reliability was analyzed by a Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient, and the confidence value was equal to 0.98.
67 The researcher attended the freshmen class meeting and collected data with the questionnaire. It was not specified whether or not questionnaires were kept away from anyone, or distributed to students by accident. This study utilized a computer software package to conduct the data analysis. The statistics used to analyze the data were t-test, f-test (ANOVA), and multiple regressions. 5.1 Summary of Results The data analysis may be summarized as follows: 1. A total of 168 questionnaires were returned, of which 156 were valid. 2. The personal information found that most of respondents were female (76.9 percent), Buddhist (49.4 percent), received high school CGPA of 3.00 or higher (55.8 percent), came from families with between 15,001 to 20,000 Baht of monthly income (30.1 percent), and enrolled in the Faculty of Arts and Humanities (44.9 percent). Most of them learnt about AIU from their parents/relatives (55.8 percent). The first three ranking reasons which most strongly affected their decisions to study at AIU were that their siblings or relatives have studied at AIU (47 students), quality of curriculum (46 students), and reputation of the University (18 students). 3. The overall affect of the service marketing mix factors on the decision to study at AIU was high (x = 3.54). When considered factor by factor, factors with a high level of influence were product (curriculum), people (faculty and staff), physical evidence (facilities), and process (service). The factors with a medium level of influence were pricing (tuition fees), promotion (advertising), and place (location).
68 4. The overall significance for all steps of decision making behavior was high (x = 3.69). When considered step by step, all steps had a high level of influence. 5. The comparison between the personal factors and decision making behavior found that gender, religion, high school CGPA, and parental monthly incomes did not have a statistically significant affect on the decisions to study at AIU at a level of 0.05. The field of study exhibited a statistically significant influence on decisions at a level of 0.05. When differences were analyzed using Scheffe’s method, however, no item was found to have a statistically significant level of 0.05 because some data could not be utilized given the criteria of the statistical program. The personal factors and the service marketing mix factors were compared. No statistically significant relationship was found between gender, parental monthly income and service marketing mix factors. Religion, high school CGPA, and field of study differently had a statistically significant affect at the 0.05 level. When analyzed using Scheffe’s method, the results were not statistically significant at the 0.05 level because some data could not be utilized given the criteria of the statistical program. 6. The relationship between the service marketing mix factors and decision making behavior of first year undergraduate students for the 2013/2014 academic year found that the service marketing mix factors affected decision making behavior at a statistically significant level of 0.05. In descending order, the service marketing mix factors that had the large affect were physical evidence (facilities), product (curriculum), process (service), pricing (tuition fees), and place (location). The factors explained 77.4
69 percent of the variability of the study. The regression equation predicting the decision of first year undergraduate students for the 2013/2014 academic year is as follows: Y = 0.173+0.314X1+0.250X2+0.201X3+0.121X4+0.087X5 Zr = 0.360Z1+.0235Z2+0.230Z3+0.122Z4+0.101Z5 5.2 Discussion of Results The results of the study are discussed below as follows: 1. The first year undergraduate students for the 2013/2014 academic year choose to study at AIU because of the curricular programs of study, faculty and staff, and facilities of the University. The results showed that students considered that the knowledge gained can be adapted to work, trust the quality assurance system, found that courses met their personal requirements, and valued the international curriculum. Also, students respect that the faculty and staff understand student problems and are ready to give advice, come from a variety of nations, have adequate teaching experience, produce recognized research, and have a good reputation. Furthermore, students are satisfied with the University’s facilities such as the on-campus church, on-campus dormitories, clean restrooms, tidy and beautiful buildings, library with up-to-date books, classrooms equipped with modern information technology, well-equipped laboratories, and adequate football field and sports complex. The study results were consistent with the related research results for the factors affecting student enrolment decisions. Suntaree Songmueang (2011) found that the highly important factors were price and people, but price had a medium level of affect
70 for this study. Kittipon Kitayanurak (2008) found that the factors which affected decisions at a high level were university image, curriculum, and lecturers. Janjira Boonlue (2007) found that factors affecting decision-making at a very high level were stability and progress in the career, institution reputation, and interest in the field of study. Phatchariyta Srisod (2005) found factors affected to have a high level of influence on motivation were personal reasons such as student desires to study near their hometowns, interesting programs of study, and tuition fees cheaper than other universities. Phitsamai Thongthaing (2006) found that the important factors affecting decisions was programs of study. 2. The results found that gender, religion, high school CGPA, and parental monthly incomes did not have a statistically significant of influence on enrolment decisions. Field of study, however, affected decision making behavior at a statistically significant level of 0.05. When the differences were analyzes using Scheffe’s method, however, no item was statistically significant at the 0.05 level because some data could not be utilized. The study results were consistent with those of Cholada Sittigonsommanat (2005), who found that university reputation, quality of faculty members, how easy it was to get a job after graduation, and have an opportunity to work with a reputation organization. Phatchariyta Srisod (2005) found that gender, location, field of study, achieve in high school, and parental occupation and incomes did not have a statistically significant affect on motivation, as did Somchai Lahnamwong (2009) found that factor
71 affecting enrolment decisions was career expectations because professional teachers can easily find work. 3. The service marketing mix factors which affected student decisions at a statistically significance level of 0.05 were five factors. From most to least significance factors were product (curriculum), pricing (tuition fees), place (location), process (service), and physical evidence (facilities). First year undergraduate students for the 2013/2014 academic year gave first priority to curriculum. The curricula help students adapt to work, the University has good quality assurance systems, courses in the curricula meet student requirements, and the curricula are international. The study results were consistent with the related research results for the factors affecting student decisions. The most significant factor for private universities was curriculum. Loren Agrey and Nalton Lampadan (2014) found that factors significantly influencing decision making were support systems both physical and non-physical, learning environment, job prospects, and good sport facilities. Chettana Suk-anake (2009) found that the first priority of the marketing mix influencing first year students to study at a private university was curriculum. 5.3 Suggestions 5.3.1 Suggestions for This Study 1. According to the reasons affecting student decisions, the most important factor was quality of curricula. Therefore, the University needs to consider revising the curricula to meet student needs.
72 2. The results found that the last three channels by which students learnt about the University were brochures, visits, and exhibitions. Therefore, the University should reduce the amount of time and resources dedicated to these three channels. The three most significant influences were parents, alumni, and current students. The University should find ways to motivate these groups to introduce the University to prospective students. 3. When considered by each of the service marketing mix factors, the results found that: - Curriculum: students focused on the knowledge gains that can be adapted to work, so the University should improve ways of teaching in the classroom. Faculty should help student master skills which are useful in the workplace and plan extra curricula activities such as field trips and practicum in the real workplace. The University should conduct a seminar or workshop for junior or senior students by inviting the people from workplaces or alumni who have been successful in their careers to share their knowledge and skills. Furthermore, the University should find ways to maintain the quality of its curricula. - Tuition fees: students considered that the University has government loans or scholarships to help them to solve their financial problems. So, the University should continue the government loans project and have fund raising projects. The University may establish funds through donations from donors or alumni. And, the University should provide financial information to students or parents beforehand.
73 - Location: students considered that the University is well-situated and has a beautiful environment. Therefore, the University should continue to keep the campus clean, beautiful environment, and promote the learning environment. - Advertising: students focused on the University’s website, so the Website should provide more useful information for students. Also, the University should focus on large banners to introduce the University to the public. - Faculty and staff: students considered that the University’s faculty and staff understood student problems and willing to advice them. The University should continue the advising or counseling system. In addition, students are satisfied that faculty members come from a variety of nations, which means that the University is recognized as international. Therefore, the University should find ways to maintain its good counseling system, and encourage faculty members to work with the University longer and longer. - Service: students ensured high quality of teaching which means the University has effective teaching methods and students will receive full knowledge. And, students respected that the entrance exam is accurate which means the university has a good admission system. So, the University should continue its admissions process to maintain its standards. - Facilities: students are satisfied that the University has an on-campus church and dormitories. AIU is a Christian University, so it is good that the University has an on-campus church. And, it is very convenient and safe for students who are not
74 located in this area. Thereby, the University should keep providing an on campus church and dormitories. 5.3.2 Suggestions for Next Study 1. The next study should explore relationships between student and the University after graduation so that they consider upgrading to the graduate level by taking the University’s programs. 2. The study should compare other universities which have the same qualification and abilities with the University. 3. The study should examine external environmental factors which may affects student decisions to study at the University such as political, economics, technology, and social-cultural. 4. The study should compare the factors affecting enrolment decisions between the undergraduate and graduate levels.
75 BIBLIOGRAPHY
76 Agrey, L. and Lampadan, N. (2014). Determinant Factors Contributing to Students Choice in Selecting a University. Abstracts: The 1st International Scholars Conference Improving School Performance on October 3-4, 2014 at Asia-Pacific International University, Thailand. Atcharee Pimpibun. (2007). Component of Motivation Affecting First Year of 2008 Academic Year Undergraduate Level to Study at Ubonratchathani Rajabhat University (Research). Asia-Pacific International University Academic Bulletin 2013-2015. (2014). Chettana Suk-anake. (2009). The Marketing Factors that Influence the First Year Students in Determining to Further Their Studies in Private Universities. Retrieved September 11, 2013 from http://www.stjohn.ac.th/sju/research/pdf/research52-4.pdf Cholada Sittigonsommanat. (2004). Motivation and Behavior in Choosing Further Study on Undergraduate Level at Chulalongkorn University. Master Project, M.B.A. (Management). Srinakharinwirot University. Decision making. Business Dictionary. http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/decision-making.html Decision making. (2009) QFINANCE Dictionary. http://www.qfinance.com/dictionary/decision-making Hanlon, A. (2013). How to use the 7Ps of the Marketing Mix? Retrieved on June 1, 2014 from Smart Insight website on http://www.smartinsights.com/digital-marketing-strategy/online-marketingmix/how-to-use-the-7ps-marketing-mix/ Harris, R. (2012). Introduction to Decision Making, Part 1-3. Retrieved on March 25, 2014 from Virtual Salt website at http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook5b.htm
77 Janjira Boonlue. (2007). Factors Affecting Students’ Decision to Study at Phetburi Rajabhat University (Research). Jittraporn Changthong. (2009). Factors Affecting the Decision Making to Study in the Undergraduate Level at Rajamangala University of Technology Thanyaburi (Master’s Thesis). Retrieved September 11, 2013 from http://www.research.rmutt.ac.th/archives/3578 Kar, A. (2011). 7 Ps of Services Marketing. Retrieved September 11, 2013 from http://business-fundas.com/2011/the-8-ps-of-services-marketing/ Kingkaew Jingrak. (2004). Motivate Factors Affecting Students’ Decision to Study at Chankasame Rajabhat University(Research). Kittipon Kitayanurak. (2008). Factors Affecting Students’ Decision to Study Public Administration at Uttaradit Rajabhat University(Research). Kotler, P., Hayes, T. and Bloom, P. (2011). Service Marketing Mix. Retrieved on May 25, 2014 from Marketing 91 website at http://www.marketing91.com/servicemarketing-mix/ Kotler, P., Armstrong, G., Cunningham, P.H. (2005). Principles of Marketing. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada. pp. 67-70. Mazzarol, T. (1998). Critical Success Factors for International Education Marketing. International Journal of Education Management, 12(4): 163-175. Narain Kaewyai. (2012). An Analysis of Factors Motivating Further Study by Undergraduates at Southeast Bangkok College (Master Thesis). Master of Education (Educational Research). Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University. Perreau, F. (2010). The 5 Stages of Consumer Buying Decision Process. Retrieved on May 5, 2014 from The Consumer Factor website at http://theconsumerfactor.com/en/5-stages-consumer-buying-decision-process/
78 Phatchariyta Srisod. (2005). A Factor of Motivation of Full-Time First Year Students in Selecting to Study at Phetchabun Rajabhat University. Master Thesis. M.Ed. (Educational Administration). Phitsamai Thongthaing. (2006). Factors Affecting the Decision to Further One’s Studies to the Bachelor’s Degree Level at Bangkok University (Thematic Paper). Ramkhamheang University. Ravikumar, A. (2011). Consumer Buying Decision Process. Retrieved on May 5, 2014 from The Marketing FAQ website at http://marketingfaq.net/marketing2/consumer-buying-decision-process/ Reighley, C. (2010). Six Stages of the Consumer Buying Decision Process. Retrieved on May 7, 2014 from Reighley Group website at http://www.reighleygroup.com/2010/05/17/six-stages-of-the-consumer-buyingdecision-process/ Shma. (2012). 5 Stages of Consumer Buying Decision Process. Retrieved September 12, 2013 from http://managementation.com/5-stages-of-consumer-buying-decisionprocess/ Somchai Lahnamwong. (2009). Factors Affecting Final Decisions on Five-year B.Ed. Program Admission at Faculty of Education, Chaingrai Rajabhat University. Master Thesis. M.B.A (Business Administration) Suntaree Songmueang. (2010). Service Marketing Factors in Selecting to Study at University of Student’s Faculty of Business Administration of Ratchaphruek College. Master Thesis. M.B.A (Business Administration) Tracy, B. (2004). The 7 Ps of Marketing. Retrieved on June 2, 2014 from Entrepreneur website at http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/70824
79 APPENDICIES
80 APPENDIC A Evaluation and Resulted to check the consistency with An Index Of Item Objective Congruence (IOC)
81 I. Evaluation and Resulted to check the consistency with an Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC) The study of ‘Factors Affecting Student Decisions to Study at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU)’ Explanation: 1. The following questions are separated into two parts: 1.1 Questions of service marketing mix factors that affecting student decisions to study at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU). There are seven aspects such as product (curriculum), pricing (tuition fees), place (location), promotion (advertising), people (faculty and staff), process (service), and physical evidence (facilities). 1.2 Questions of decision making behavior process to ask the significance of each process that affects student decisions to study at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU). There are four steps of decision making such as search of alternatives, evaluation before decision making, decision making, and evaluation after decision making. 2. Please read all questions to determine the scores for accuracy and consistency with the purpose of the study as followings: 2.1 If you agree that the question is accurate and consistent with the purpose of the study, please check () in the ‘+1’ column. 2.2 If you are not sure that the question is accurate and consistent with the purpose of the study, please check () in the ‘0’ column. 2.3 If you disagree that the question is accurate and consistent with the purpose of the study, please check () in the ‘-1’ column. 3. The purpose of this study is to investigate the factors affecting decision to study at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU) of first year undergraduate student for the 2013/2014 academic year.
82 Questions of factors affecting the decision to study at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU) No. Factors Accuracy and consistency with the purpose of study Remarks or Suggestions +1 0 -1 Product (Curriculum) 1 Opportunities to study abroad at graduate level 2 Ability to work overseas with the degree 3 Ability to transfer university courses 4 Period of study was considered 5 Knowledge gained can be adapted to work 6 Adequate quality assurance system 7 Courses meet personal requirements 8 International curriculum 9 Variety of extracurricular activities (field trips or practical in workplace) Pricing (Tuition fees) 10 Tuition and fees is cheaper than at other universities 11 Variety of payment methods (cash, bank transfer, e-payment) 12 No charge for extra activities 13 Payment plan for students in need 14 Financial information provided beforehand 15 Cost of living is not too high 16 Government loans or scholarships 17 Work program available Place (Location) 18 Located near my hometown 19 Travel convenience 20 The university is stable with a long history 21 Conducive learning environment 22 Located near my hometown Promotion (Advertising) 23 Brochure provides clear information 24 Website provides useful information 25 Large university banner provides useful information 26 Variety of advertisements using different methods
83 No. Factors Accuracy and consistency with the purpose of study Remarks or Suggestions +1 0 -1 People (Faculty and staff) 27 Good reputation 28 Faculty members from a variety of nations 29 Recognized research 30 Adequate teaching experience 31 Faculty and staff understand student problems and are ready to give advice Process (Service) 32 Admission is based on the student taking a university entrance exam 33 The entrance exam is accurate and fast 34 Ensures high quality of teaching 35 Provides the same standard of quality and service for every student 36 Convenient access to faculty and staff 37 Offer counseling throughout the time of study 38 Staff offers fast service 39 Staff offers courteous service 40 Staff offers service with a smile 41 Staff offers service with willingness Physical Evidence (Facilities) 42 Buildings are tidy and beautiful 43 Building decorated in modern design 44 Classrooms are designed and decorated in a modern style 45 Buildings are maintained in good condition 46 Adequate equipment to support study 47 Adequate library with up-to-date books and periodicals 48 Adequate facilities to carry out activities relating to education 49 Well-equipped laboratories (nursing, computer, science) 50 A high level of information technology in classroom 51 On-campus church 52 On-campus dormitories 53 Hygienic food in cafeteria 54 Adequate and clean bathrooms 55 Adequate football field and sport complex
84 Questions of decision making behavior No. Factors Accuracy and consistency with the purpose of study Remarks or Suggestions +1 0 -1 Search of Alternatives 1 Find out information about the university from many sources 2 Compare the university’s information with other universities 3 Compare the tuition fees with other universities 4 Recommended by parents 5 Persuaded by friends Evaluation before decision making 6 Consider the buildings, equipment and facilities 7 Focus on the university’s reputation 8 Compare the advantages and disadvantages of the university 9 Consider the curriculum 10 Consider the faculty and quality of teaching Decision Making 11 Financial aid available (payment, work program, loan and scholarship) 12 Courses meet personal expectations 13 Help students who have low academic performance 14 Adequate and modern facilities (classrooms, dormitories and Internet) 15 Parents and family pressured student to make decision to attend Evaluation after decision making 16 Satisfaction with the teaching at the university 17 The activities during the school year develop knowledge 18 The ability to develop knowledge, abilities and gain more experience 19 Will introduce and persuade people to study at university 20 Satisfaction with the teaching of the university
85 II. Results of Index of Item Objective Congruence (IOC) Question of factors affecting the decision to study at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU) No. Factors Exports Total IOC 1 2 3 Product (Curriculum) 1 Opportunities to study abroad at graduate level 0 1 1 2 0.67 2 Ability to work overseas with the degree 1 1 1 3 1.00 3 Ability to transfer university courses 1 1 1 3 1.00 4 Period of study was considered 0 1 1 2 0.67 5 Knowledge gained can be adapted to work 0 1 1 2 0.67 6 Adequate quality assurance system 0 1 1 2 0.67 7 Courses meet personal requirements 0 1 1 2 0.67 8 International curriculum 0 1 1 2 0.67 9 Variety of extracurricular activities (field trips or practical in workplace) 1 1 1 3 1.00 Pricing (Tuition fees) 10 Tuition and fees is cheaper than at other universities 1 1 1 3 1.00 11 Variety of payment methods (cash, bank transfer, e-payment) 1 1 1 3 1.00 12 No charge for extra activities 0 1 1 2 0.67 13 Payment plan for students in need 1 1 1 3 1.00 14 Financial information provided beforehand 1 0 1 2 0.67 15 Cost of living is not too high 1 0 1 2 0.67 16 Government loans or scholarships 1 1 1 3 1.00 17 Work program available 1 1 1 3 1.00 Place (Location) 18 Located near my hometown 1 1 1 3 1.00 19 Travel convenience 1 1 1 3 1.00 20 The university is stable with a long history 0 1 1 2 0.67 21 Conducive learning environment 1 1 1 3 1.00 22 Located near my hometown 1 1 1 3 1.00 Promotion (Advertising) 23 Brochure provides clear information 1 1 0 2 0.67 24 Website provides useful information 1 1 1 3 1.00 25 Large university banner provides useful information 0 1 1 2 0.67 26 Variety of advertisements using different methods 0 1 1 2 0.67
86 No. Factors Exports Total IOC 1 2 3 People (Faculty and staff) 27 Good reputation 1 1 1 3 1.00 28 Faculty members from a variety of nations 0 1 1 2 0.67 29 Recognized research 0 1 1 2 0.67 30 Adequate teaching experience 1 1 1 3 1.00 31 Faculty and staff understand student problems and are ready to give advice 0 1 1 2 0.67 Process (Service) 32 Admission is based on the student taking a university entrance exam 0 1 1 2 0.67 33 The entrance exam is accurate and fast 1 1 1 3 1.00 34 Ensures high quality of teaching 0 1 1 2 0.67 35 Provides the same standard of quality and service for every student 1 1 1 3 1.00 36 Convenient access to faculty and staff 0 1 1 2 0.67 37 Offer counseling throughout the time of study 1 1 1 3 1.00 38 Staff offers fast service 1 1 1 3 1.00 39 Staff offers courteous service 1 1 1 3 1.00 40 Staff offers service with a smile 1 1 1 3 1.00 41 Staff offers service with willingness 1 1 1 3 1.00 Physical Evidence (Facilities) 42 Buildings are tidy and beautiful 0 1 1 2 0.67 43 Building decorated in modern design 1 1 1 3 1.00 44 Classrooms are designed and decorated in a modern style 0 1 1 2 0.67 45 Buildings are maintained in good condition 1 1 1 3 1.00 46 Adequate equipment to support study 1 1 1 3 1.00 47 Adequate library with up-to-date books and periodicals 1 1 1 3 1.00 48 Adequate facilities to carry out activities relating to education 0 1 1 2 0.67 49 Well-equipped laboratories (nursing, computer, science) 1 0 1 2 0.67 50 A high level of information technology in classroom 0 1 1 2 0.67 51 On-campus church 1 1 1 3 1.00 52 On-campus dormitories 1 1 1 3 1.00 53 Hygienic food in cafeteria 0 1 1 2 0.67 54 Adequate and clean bathrooms 0 1 1 2 0.67 55 Adequate football field and sport complex 0 1 1 2 0.67
87 Questions of decision-making behavior No. Factors Exports Total IOC 1 2 3 Search of Alternatives 1 Find out information about the university from many sources 1 1 1 3 1.00 2 Compare the university’s information with other universities 1 1 1 3 1.00 3 Compare the tuition fees with other universities 1 1 1 3 1.00 4 Recommended by parents 1 1 1 3 1.00 5 Persuaded by friends 0 1 1 2 0.67 Evaluation before decision making 6 Consider the buildings, equipment and facilities 1 1 1 3 1.00 7 Focus on the university’s reputation 1 1 1 3 1.00 8 Compare the advantages and disadvantages of the university 1 1 1 3 1.00 9 Consider the curriculum 0 1 1 2 0.67 10 Consider the faculty and quality of teaching 1 0 1 2 0.67 Decision Making 11 Financial aid available (payment, work program, loan and scholarship) 1 1 1 3 1.00 12 Courses meet personal expectations 1 1 1 3 1.00 13 Help students who have low academic performance 1 1 1 3 1.00 14 Adequate and modern facilities (classrooms, dormitories and Internet) 1 0 1 2 0.67 15 Parents and family pressured student to make decision to attend 0 1 1 2 0.67 Evaluation after decision making 16 Satisfaction with the teaching at the university 1 1 1 3 1.00 17 The activities during the school year develop knowledge 1 1 1 3 1.00 18 The ability to develop knowledge, abilities and gain more experience 0 1 1 2 0.67 19 Will introduce and persuade people to study at university 1 1 1 3 1.00 20 Satisfaction with the teaching of the university 1 0 1 2 0.67
88 APPENDIC B The reliability analyzed with a Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient
89 The reliability analyzed with a Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient. Title Questions Cronbach’s Alpha Questions of factors affecting the decision to study at Asia-Pacific International University (AIU) (55 questions) Product (Curriculum) 9 0.91 Pricing (Tuition Fees) 8 0.92 Place (Location) 5 0.86 Promotion (Advertising) 4 0.85 People (Faculty and Staff) 5 0.93 Process (Service) 10 0.93 Physical Evidence (Facilities) 14 0.97 Questions of decision behavior (20 questions) Seek alternatives before making a decision 5 0.88 Evaluation before making a decision 5 0.87 Decision-making 5 0.84 Evaluation after making decision 5 0.85 Over all (75 questions) 75 0.98
90 APPENDIC C The Results Analyzed by a Computer Program