A research on students' University and program preference criteria

Bu araştırma öğrencilerin üniversite ve program tercih ölçütlerini belirlemek ve öğrencilerin çalışma alanına, akademik birimine, eğitim türüne, diline, ve cinsiyetine göre tercih ölçütlerinin farklılık gösterip göstermediğini ortaya koymak amacıyla yapılmıştır. Çalışmada örnek olarak 2216 Marmara Üniversitesi öğrencisi kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar öğrencilerin beş üniversite tercih ölçütü; “Sosyal ve Sportif Etkinlikler”, “Uluslararası Tanınmışlık ve Araştırma Olanakları”, “Üniversitenin İtibarı”, “Aile ve Arkadaşlar”, “Devlet Üniversitesi ve Düşük Eğitim Maaliyeti” ve dört de program tercih ölçütü; “İlgi Alanı”, “Araştırma Olanakları”, “Puan, Aile ve Arkadaşlar”, “Bölümün İtibarı ve İş Olanakları” kullandığını ortaya koymuştur. Öğrencilerin en önem verdiği ölçütler “Devlet Üniversitesi ve Düşük Eğitim Maaliyeti” ve “İlgi Alanı” olarak bulunmuştur. Bulgular ayrıca tercih ölçütlerinin, öğrencinin çalışma alanına, akademik birimine, eğitim türüne ve diline göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılar gösterdiğine işaret etmektedir, ancak cinsiyete göre anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmamıştır.

Öğrencilerin Üniversite ve program tercih ölçütleri üzerine bir araştırma

This research was conducted to understand university and program preference criteria used by students and to find out differences in preference criteria with regard to students’ study areas, academic units, education type, language of instruction and gender. Sample of the study was consisted of 2216 students from Marmara University. Results revealed that students use five university preference criteria; “Social & Sports Activities,” “International Recognition & Research Opportunities,” “Reputation of the University,” “Family & Friends,” “State University & Low Tuition” and four program preference criteria; “Area of Interest,” “Research Opportunities,” “Score, Family & Friends,” “Reputation of the Department & Job Opportunities.” The most important criteria used by the students in university and program preference were “State University & Low Tuition” and “Area of Interest” respectively. Results also showed that there were statistical differences with regard to study areas, academic units, education type, and language of instruction as expected however, no differences were found among genders.

Kaynakça

[1]. Briggs, S. & Wilson, A. (2007). Which university? A study of the influence of cost and information factors on Scottish undergraduate choice, Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 57-72.

[2]. Daily, C. M., Farewell, S. & Kumar, G. (2010). FactorsInfluencing the University Selection of International Students, Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(3), 59-75.

[3]. Hagel, P. & Shaw, R. (2008). The Influence of Delivery Mode on Consumer Choice of University, European Advances in Consumer Research, 8, 531-536.

[4]. Vaughn, R., Pitlik J. & Hansotia, B. (1978). Understanding University Choice: A Multi-Attribute Approach, Advances in Consumer Research, 5(1), 26-31.

[5]. Abubakar, B., Shanka, T. & Muuka, G. N. (2010). Tertiary education: an investigation of location selection criteria and preferences by international students – The case of two Australian universities, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20(1), 49-68.

[6]. Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 21(5), 318–327.

[7]. Patton, H.L. (2000). How administrators can influence student university selection criteria. Higher Education in Europe, 15(3), 345-350.

[8]. Montgomery, M. (2002). A nested logit model of the choice of a graduate business school, Economics of Education Review, 21, 471-480.

[9]. Yugo, J .E. & Reeve, C. L. (2007). Understanding Students’ University Educational Image and Its Role in College Choice, Psi Chi Journal of Undergraduate Research, 12(1), 9-17.

[10]. OSYM Statistics (2001). Retrieved June 12, 2012 from http://www.osym.gov.tr/dosya/1-43008/h/1ogrencisayilari ozettablopdf.pdf

[11]. OSYM Statistics (2011). Retrieved June 12, 2012 from http://osym.gov.tr/belge/1-12654/2010-2011-ogretim-yili -yuksekogretim-istatistikleri.html.

[14]. Higher Education Council Student Selection and Placement Center (ÖSYM). (2006). Selection and placement of students in higher education institutions in Turkey. Retrieved Feb 11, 2011 from http://www.osym.gov.tr/ dosya/1-56877/h/aboutosym.pdf.

[15]. Ağaoğlu, M. & Yurtkoru, E.S. (2011). Öğrencilerin Üniversite Eğitiminden Beklentileri ve Tercih Ölçütlerine İlişkin Veri Madenciliği Uygulaması. Proceedings of International Higher Education Congress: New Trends and Issues, Istanbul, Turkey.

[16]. Yurtkoru, E.S. & Ağaoğlu, M. (2011). University Preference Criteria. Proceedings of New Developments in Theory and Applications of Statistics: An International Conference in Memory of Professor Moti Lal Tiku, Ankara, Turkey. 78-85.

[17]. Lattin, J., Carroll, J.D. & Green, E.P. (2003). Analyzing Multivariate Data, Pasific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Thomson Learning.

[18]. Hair Jr., F.J., Black, C.W., Babin, J.B. & Anderson, E.R. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis 7th Ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

[19]. Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis, New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

[20]. Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O. & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling Procedures: Issues and Applications, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

[21]. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory 2nd Ed., New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. cited in DeVellis, F.R. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

[22]. DeVellis, F.R. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

[23]. Hoyle, R.H. (1995). Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.

[24]. Bagozzi R.P. & Yi, Y. (1988) On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.

[25]. Fornell, C. & Larcker, F.D. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

[26]. Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.

[27]. hurriyetegitim.com (2011). Üniversite Memnuniyet Anketi. Retrieved June 12, 2012 from http://www.hurriyet egitim.com/ haberler/01.03.2011/universite-tercihinde-en-onemli-kriter-puan.aspx

[28]. Özgüven, N. (2011). Vakif üniversitesi tercihinin analitik hiyerarşi süreci ile belirlenmesi. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi. 30, 279-290.

Kaynak Göster