student's choice of fpt university - international university - hoa sen university

MBA THESISA Study of Factors Influencing

Student’s Choice of FPT University

Student: Nguyen Thanh Duoc

Advisor: Nguyen Quynh Mai, Ph. D.

September 2013

CONTENT

1

•Background of Research

2

•Literature Review & Conceptual Framework

3

•Research Methodology

4

•Data analysis & Findings

5

•Conclusions & Implications

THE GROWTH OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN VIETNAM

Year

2000 - 2001

2005 - 2006

2011 - 2012

Institutions 178 279 419

3-year colleges

104 154 215

Universities 74 125 204Source: MOET (2012)

Booming growth in number of higher education institutions in recent years.

OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

More opportunities for students to pursue higher education

More challenges for higher education institutions to attract and recruit new students (Lam,

2012)

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Competitive pressure

Recruiting strategies – high cost

Not as many new students as expected

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

1

•To explore factors that are most influential to students’ choice of university

2

•To compare and contrast the most influential factors among students by characteristics

3

• To compare and contrast the most influential factors influencing student’s choice of FPT University and other universities

4

• To provide suggestions to FPT University on recruiting strategies

SCOPE

Researched students: first-year students of International University, Hoa Sen University and FPT University HCMC

CONTENT

1


2


3


4


5


LITERATURE REVIEW

College choice theory

Economic models

Sociological models

Combined models

Economic models: reflecting the influence of cost on students’ decision-making Sociological models: demonstrating the influence of interrelated factors influencing college aspirations Combined models: a combination of Economic models and Sociological models in later studies to reflect a more comprehensive view of students’ college choice

Kinzie et al. (2004)

LITERATURE REVIEW

Factors influencing student’s choice of university

Student characteristics

Significant people

University characteristics

University communication efforts

Chapman (1981), Hossler and Gallapher (1987)

TWO COMMON WAYS TO STUDY COLLEGE CHOICE

1. Indirect: - Research models and hypotheses are proposed and

tested- Respondents are asked indirectly to study their

intention of choosing a university.2. Direct: - More applicable when researched students are

current college students.- Respondents are asked directly about factors

influencing their choice.- Descriptive analysis and mean comparison are

applied to find results.

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

CONTENT

1


2


3


4


5


RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research method: Quantitative with self-administrated questionnaire (5 – point scale: 1 – not influential; 5 strongly influential)

Data collection:Population: freshmen students (IU, Hoa Sen, FPT) Sample size: at least 198 subjectsSampling method: Quota and ConvenienceQuestionnaire were delivered and collected at the three universities campuses.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Data Analysis: Descriptive StatisticsOne-sample T – TestANOVA

CONTENT

1


2


3


4


5


SURVEY RESPONSE RATE

International University

Hoa Sen University

FPT University

Total

Number of questionnaires 100 100 100 300Number of response 86 74 97 257Response rate

86% 74% 97% 85.7%Number of valid response 73 60 87 220Valid response rate 84.8% 81% 89.7% 85.6%

RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHICS

Respondents: 220Male: 111Female: 109

IUHoa Sen

FPT

45.2

36.7

64.454.8 63.3

35.6

Percentage of respondents by university

Male Female

PARENTS’ EDUCATION LEVEL

Father’s education level is higher than mother’s

Father Mother0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Parents’ education level

Less than high schoolHigh schoolDiplomaBachelorPostgraduate

ACADEMIC ABILITY

IU students are better than students of Hoa Sen and FPT.

< 7.0 7.0 - 7.9 ≥ 8.00%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Respondents by grade 12 GPA

IU Hoa Sen FPT

< 15 15 - < 20

20 - < 25

25 - 300%

20%40%60%80%

Respondents by Uni-versity Entrance Exam

Score

IU Hoa Sen FPT

LIVING AREAS

Rural

are

a

Town

Prov

incial

city

Centra

l city

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Respondents by living areas

IUHoa SenFPT

More students are from cities than students from other areas.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME

Household income of IU students is higher than Hoa Sen and FPT students’

<10 10 - < 15 15 - < 20 20 - < 25 ≥ 25

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Respondents by household income (mil. Dong/ month

IUHoa SenFPT

RELIABILITY ANALYSIS

Cronbach’s alpha > 0.7 Relatively high internal consistency (DeVellis,

2003)

Factors Number of items

Cronbach’s alpha

Significant people 7 0.78

University characteristics

15 0.81

University communication

6 0.86

MEANS OF ALL FACTORS

Parents are the most influential of all significant people

Rank Significant People

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1 Father 220 3.05 1.310 .088

2 Mother 220 3.00 1.340 .090

3 Friends 220 2.33 1.176 .079

4 Siblings 220 2.00 1.242 .084

5 Teachers 220 2.12 1.114 .075

6 Counselors 220 1.85 1.038 .070

7 Relatives 220 1.74 .957 .065

Rank University CharacteristicsN Mean Std.

DeviationStd. Error Mean

1 Employment opportunities 220 4.46 .807 .054

2 Educational facilities 220 4.01 .951 .064

3 English instruction language 220 4.00 1.051 .071

4 Lecturers’ qualification 220 3.99 .958 .0655 University reputation 220 3.80 1.024 .069

6 Cost 220 3.75 1.204 .0817 Admission opportunities 220 3.74 1.139 .077

8 Preparation for graduate study 220 3.59 1.259 .085

9 Student services 220 3.47 1.176 .079

10 Extra curriculum activities 220 2.99 1.307 .088

11 Location 220 2.81 1.270 .08612 Course variety 220 2.84 1.260 .08513 Public institution 220 2.82 1.427 .096

14 Scholarships 220 2.70 1.368 .09215

Size of student population 220 2.62 1.178 .079

Formal university communication efforts seem not effective to student’s choice of university.

Rank University Communication

Efforts

N Mean Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

1 News / events about university on media

220 2.89 1.151 .078

2 Information on university website

220 2.87 1.111 .075

3 Campus visit 220 2.71 1.330 .0904 Recruiting ads 219 2.67 1.131 .0765 Recruiting materials 220 2.67 1.160 .0786 Recommendation of

university reps.220 2.55 1.123 .076

MOST INFLUENTIAL FACTORS

7 most influential belongs to university characteristics.

Employment opportunity

Educational facility

English instruction language

Lecturers’ qualification

University reputation

Cost

Admission opportunity

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

4.46

4.01

4

3.99

3.8

3.75

3.74

Most influential factors, test value = 3.5

Difference of influential factors among students by GPA

More similarities than differences

FactorsGrade 12 GPA

< 7.0 7.0 – 7.9 ≥ 8.0Employment opportunity

No significant difference

Educational facility No significant differenceEnglish instruction language


Lecturers’ qualification No significant differenceUniversity reputation Significant

differenceSignificant difference

Cost No significant differenceAdmission opportunity No significant difference

Difference of influential factors among students by living area


FactorsLiving areas

Rural area Town Provincial city

Central city

Employment opportunity No significant differenceEducational facility No significant differenceEnglish instruction language


Lecturers’ qualification Significant difference

Significant difference


University reputation Significant difference



Cost No significant differenceAdmission opportunity No significant difference

Difference of influential factors among students by household income


FactorsHousehold income (in Dong per month)

< 10 million 10 - < 15 million

15 - < 20 million

20 - < 25 million

≥ 25 million

Employment opportunity



Educational facility





Lecturers’ qualification


University reputation


Cost No significant differenceAdmission opportunity


Difference of influential factors among students by university


FactorsUniversity

IU Hoa Sen FPT

Employment opportunity No significant difference

Educational facility No significant difference





Lecturers’ qualification No significant difference

University reputation Significant difference



Cost No significant difference

Admission opportunity No significant difference

CONTENT

1


2


3


4


5


CONCLUSIONS

Most influential factors: 1. Employment opportunity2. Educational facility3. English instruction language4. Lecturers’ qualification5. University reputation6. Cost7. Admission opportunity

More similarities than differences of most influential factors among students by grade 12 GPA, living area, household income and by university.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FPT UNIVERSITY RECRUITING STRATEGIES

Who to communicate

Prospective students

Parents

What to communica

te

Employment opportunities

continue to ensure student’s employment are secured

Facilities more details/ images such as virtual tour on its website


continue to highlight the use of English in training

Teaching staffmore information about qualified lecturers


What to communica

te

University reputationcontinue to stress on the awards and recognition the university has achieved: Excellence in IT training / Good Business School / QS 3 stars

Costunchanged for four yearsincluding all textbookslaptop allowance


How to communica

te

News/ events more publicity about university on media

University websitemore information

about career prospects and

facilities

Campus visit More occasions for potential students and parents to visit

the campuses

Advertisements on popular

newspapers or news sites for students

and parents.


Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

Limitations Respondent’s memory Valid for FPT University HCMC

Recommendations for future research

Further research in a larger scale with respondents of three FPT University campuses

Further research to re-test the influential factors with respondents who are current high school students.

REFERENCE Chapman, D. W. (1981). A model of student University Choice. The

Journal of Higher Education, 52 (5): 490 -505. DeVellis R. F. (2003). Scale Development: Theory and Applications

2nd edition. California, CA: Sage. Hossler, D. and Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying student college

choice: A three-phase model and the implications for policy makers. College and University, 62(3): 207-221.

Lam N. (2012). Ket thuc tuyen sinh ĐH-CĐ nam 2012 - Xem lai chi tieu, nganh dao tao? (End of recruiting new students in 2012 –Re-consider quotas and majors. Saigon Giai Phong Newspaper. Available at http://www.sggp.org.vn/giaoduc/tuyensinhdhoccdang/2012/11/305512/

Kinzie, J., Palmer, M., Hayek, J., Hossler, D., Jacob, S.A., and Cummings, H. (2004). Fifty years of University Choice: Social, Political and Institutional Influences on the Decision-making Process. Lumina Foundation for Education. New Agenda Series, 5(3).

MOET (2012). Educational statistics in 2012. Available at http://www.moet.gov.vn/?page=11.10&view=4446

http://www.sggp.org.vn/giaoduc/tuyensinhdhoccdang/2012/11/305512/

http://www.sggp.org.vn/giaoduc/tuyensinhdhoccdang/2012/11/305512/

http://www.moet.gov.vn/?page=11.10&view=4446

student's choice of fpt university - international university - hoa sen university

Marketing