Full Report UITM vs UMK

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter includes the study background, problem

statement, research objective, research question,

theoretical framework, research hypothesis, significance of

study, and scope and limitation.

1.1. Study Background

Education is a continuing effort to help an individual to

develop his potential as a whole in order to be a balanced

individual in terms of intellectually, spiritually,

emotionally and physically. In Malaysia education is

overseen by two government ministries, The Ministry of

Education (Kementerian Pelajaran) and the Ministry of

Higher Education (Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi). The

Ministry of Education (Kementerian Pelajaran) handles

matters pertaining to pre-school, primary school, secondary

school and post-secondary school where as the Ministry of1

Higher Education (Kementerian Pengajian Tinggi) handles

matters regarding tertiary education. Although education is

the responsibility of the federal government,

each state has an Education Department to coordinate

educational matters in its territory.

Education is a top priority for the country’s achievement

of developed nation status, as laid out in Vision 2020, and

in the National Mission as a new implementation framework

to propel Malaysia towards the second phase of achieving

Vision 2020.The two key thrusts under the National Mission

directly related to education are first is to raise the

capacity for knowledge and innovation, and nurture “first

class mentality” and second trust is to address persistent

socio-economic inequalities constructively and

productively. Education enables society to obtain

knowledge, develop skills and nurture values necessary in a

highly competitive and globalised world impacted by rapid

development in science, technology and information.2

Education develops the country’s human resource, which is a

major thrust in ensuring sustainable socio-economic growth.

In Malaysia, efforts to develop human capital adopt a

holistic approach, emphasizing the mastery of knowledge,

intellectual capital and developing technological and

entrepreneurial skills.

In line with the second thrust of the National Mission,

Malaysia needs to produce human capital with a first class

mind set in order to face developmental challenges in

knowledge and innovation based economy. The desired human

capital should be knowledgeable, skilful and possess a

superior personality. In relation to these needs, the

National Higher Education Strategic Plan (NHESP) was

formulated with the vision to transform higher education

within the context of establishing Malaysia as an

international hub of excellence for higher education. This

transformation is the foundation towards attaining merit

and sustainability for the higher education system beyond3

2020.To achieve the National Mission, education at tertiary

level plays an important role to generate quality human

capital. Tertiary Education in the context of the Malaysian

education system is education after secondary education up

to the tertiary level. As we know, university is the most

important institution to provide tertiary education to

student after finishing secondary education.

The expansion of universities is one marked feature of the

social life in the present age, (Alfred North Whitehead,

1927). All countries have shared in this movement including

Malaysia. Currently, Malaysia has 20 public institutions of

higher learning (IPTA), which provides a variety of

opportunities for students to continue their studies to a

higher level. Universities was the Universiti Malaya (UM),

Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Universiti Kebangsaan

Malaysia (UKM), Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM), Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM),

Universiti Islam Antarabangsa Malaysia (UIAM),Universiti4

Malaysia Sarawak (UNIMAS),Universiti Malaysia Sabah (UMS),

Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris (UPSI),Universiti

Teknologi MARA(UiTM), Universiti Darul Iman Malaysia (UDM),

Universiti Malaysia Terengganu (UMT), Universiti Sains

Islam Malaysia (USIM), Universiti Teknologi Tun Hussein Onn

Malaysia (UTHM), Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka

(UTeM), Universiti Malaysia Pahang (UMP), Universiti

Malaysia Perlis (UniMAP), Universiti Malaysia Kelantan

(UMK) Universiti Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia (UPNM).

The process in making decision in selecting the right

university is very difficult to student. It is because; it

will determine the successful of student in the future.

1.2. Problem Statement

According to the Falsafah Pendidikan Kebangsaan, "Education

in Malaysia is an ongoing effort towards further developing

the potential of individuals in a holistic and integrated5

approach to create stable and harmonious intellectually,

spiritually, emotionally and physically. Effort is designed

to produce Malaysian citizens who are knowledgeable,

honorable, responsible, competent and capable of achieving

well-being and contribute to the betterment of family,

community and country. "To achieve these goals,

institutions of higher education plays a very important

role.

Challenges of today, the public universities in Malaysia

are not only compete with each other to attract more

students to choose their university but they also compete

with private universities. Even so, the total enrollment at

the public university is always more than the private

university. Statistic in year 2011 show that the total

student enrolled at public university is 508256 compared to

private university which is 419752.

6

The problem is, student’s especially graduating high school

students are faced with the problem of having to decide on

future career paths. The decision whether or not to

continue with post secondary education and the choice of an

institution to attend are two critical decisions that

students make at this time in their lives (Johnson &

Chapman, 1979).Students always confusing in selecting the

best university that meet with their eligibility and

interest. Student’s result from the high school is one of

the factors that influence student in selecting a

university.

Besides that factor, there are many another factors that

influence students in selecting university. Usually,

parents, relatives, teachers, friends and community

influence student decision about education and the future

of them. Because of these influences, student may be choose

a wrong university and not meet their interest.

Consequently, they will not perform well in that university7

and after graduate they will not get a good job because of

not meet the requirement.

Students also influenced by another factors such as

‘Karnival Jom Masuk U’, schools, and advertisements in

newspaper in choose a university. But, information received

sometimes not relevant and if students make a mistake in

selection, students may face problems if the university is

not able to provide the best service.

Selecting the best university is the critical decision

because it will determine our future after graduate. The

purpose of this study is to determine the factors that

influence student’s preference of choosing IPTA. The

purpose of this study is to determine the main factors that

influence student’s preference of choosing the institution

of higher education (IPTA).

8

1.3. Research Objective

The objectives of this study are:

1) To determine whether there is significance difference

in factor financing between UiTM and UMK.


in factor of academic performance between UiTM and

UMK.


in factor of academic performance between groups of

gender.

4) To identify whether there is significance difference

in CGPA between UiTM and UMK.


in factor of promotion between groups of gender.

9


between student’s expectation level and actual level

of satisfaction towards facilities or educational

resources.

7) To investigate whether there is significance

difference in financing factors when respondents are

classified according to their parents income.


in factor of influencer people when respondents are

classified according highest academic qualification of

father.

1.4. Research Question

The research questions for this study are:

1) Does the factor of financing between UiTM and UMK have

significance difference?

2) Does the factor of academic performance between UiTM

and UMK have significance difference?

10

3) Does the factor of academic performance between groups

of gender have significance difference?

4) Does the CGPA between UiTM and UMK have significance

difference?

5) Does the factor of promotion between groups of gender

have significance difference?

6) Does the student’s expectation level and actual level


resources have significance difference?

7) Does there is significance difference in financing

factors when respondents are classified according to

their parents income?

8) Does there is significance difference in influencer

people factors when respondents are classified

according to their highest academic qualification of

father?

11

1.5. Research Hypothesis

The research hypotheses for this study are:

1) H0: There is no significant difference in financing

factors between UiTM and UMK.

H1: There is significant difference in financing

factors between UiTM and UMK.

2) H0: There is no significance difference in factor of

academic performance between UiTM and UMK.

H1: There is significance difference in factor of

academic performance between UiTM and UMK

3) H0: There is significant difference in academic

performance between groups of gender.

H1: There is no significant difference in academic

performance between groups of gender.

4) H0: There is no significant difference in CGPA between

UiTM and UMK.

12

H1: There is a significant difference in CGPA between

UiTM and UMK.


promotion between groups of gender.

H1: There is significance difference in factor of promotion between groups of gender.

6) H0: There is no significant difference between the

student’s expectation level and actual level of

satisfaction towards facilities or educational

resources.

H1: There is a significant difference between the



resources.

7) H0 :There is no significant difference in financing


their parents income

13



their parent’s income


influencer people when respondents are classified

according highest academic qualification of father.




1.6. Significance of Study

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the

variable involved have fully significance influence to

student’s preference of choosing IPTA. This study helps the

institution of higher education to clearly understand about

student’s preference in choosing university. Therefore,

they can improve the effectiveness of their institutions to

full fill the student’s needs and requirement. 14

1.7. Scope and Limitation

The limitation of this study is focused on student’s UiTM

Kota Bharu and UMK who are already have experiences in

making decision in choosing university. We have selected 50

students of UiTM and 50 students of UMK as our respondents.

15

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

To compute preferences in order to describe the influence

students by choosing IPTA, it based on four factors such as

financing, academic performances, influencer people,

background of institution and facilities, and promotion.

These five factors will be count with preferences in order

to find the factors that influence students choosing IPTA.

Therefore, to get a specific factor of influence students

is actually required of these five independent variables.

From many previous research studies about the selection of

institutions is the suitability of the course. They find

that the suitability of the course is the most

16

important factor in determining the choice of a

university (Muhammad Zaki Mustafa et al. 2012).

According to (Avery & Hoxby, 2004) some of the scholarships

and aid are meant purely to relieve liquidity constraints

that might prevent needy students from attending the

college they most prefer. These factors are helps student

to support their financial cost while studying at the

university they most prefer. The household income is an

important indicator of the socio-economic background.

Interaction between factor income with the cost of study

and financial aid directly affect the results of the

election.

According to (Avery & Hoxby, 2004) although they found

that students from di erent backgrounds do exhibit somewhatff

di erent college choice behavior, the di erences are notff ff

dramatic and much college choice behavior is shared by the

entire array of high-aptitude students. The main exceptions

17

to this rule are students whose parents have high incomes

or who themselves graduated from very selective colleges.

Such students exhibit less sensitivity to variables that

a ect college costs. This being said, the students in ourff

sample exhibit some hard-to-justify responses to aid that

they are o ered. They are excessively attracted by loansff

and work study, given the value of these types of aid

compared to grants. They are attracted by super cialfi

aspects of a grant, like its being called a scholarship

(with a name) and its being front-loaded. They are far more

sensitive to a grant’s share of the college’s comprehensive

costs than they are to the amount of the grant. All these

behaviors are deviations from the expected behavior of a

rational investor in human capital. We should note that

these peculiar behaviors are generally not shared by the

students whose parents have high incomes or who themselves

attended very selective colleges.

18

From (Holdswoth & Nind 2008) the study found that the

students’ choice preferences for particular universities

are largely determined by the quality and flexibility of

the degree or course combinations, the extent to which the

university has good accommodation options available,

whether or not employers are likely to recruit from that

university, whether the overall cost of the university is

similar or higher in comparison to other universities and

the spatial proximity of the university to their home.

“Academic Program Choice”, “Quality of Teaching and

Academics”, “Employment Prospect” and “University Choice”

were the important factors students considered in deciding

on UNIMAS for their further studies. In terms of

differences in factors influencing decision to select

UNIMAS, female respondents generally perceived these

factors to be more influential than did male respondents.

Rural respondents on the other hand tended to view these

19

factors as having more influence in making them chose

UNIMAS compared to urban respondents (Songan et el. 2010).

According to Sharifah Nurulhikmah, Noor Maizura and Mustafa

(2009) the most considered university are the university

that provide the financial support and helps to the

students, could guarantee the job opportunities and the

availability of the course. In the other hand, the least

considered criteria are the proximity or the nearness of

the university location, in town university location and

the academic fees. Second section of the findings shows

that students might choose a university based on the

influencer thought. The influencer includes parents,

teachers, friends and siblings. Nevertheless, self-opinion

is the most dominant influencer among the students.

According to Ahmad Zamri bin Khairani ,Nordin bin Abd.

Razak (2013) from the finding it can be shown that the

participants endorse items related to university’s image is

20

the easiest to agree with. This, in turn, can be

interpreted that university’s image is most important

factors that influence prospective students to choose

public universities. The findings imply that local public

unversities should potray themselves as HEIs that provide

comprehensive learning environment. The universities should

equip themselves not only in teaching and learning area but

also other aspects associated with it such as facilities,

environment, etc.

From the research by Jacqueline Liza Fernandez (2010) the

three main factors rated as extremely important reasons for

pursuing tertiary education in a public institution were

the quality of the education; lower costs; and access to

financial assistance. About 64% of the students considered

the high quality of education in public universities as an

extremely important reason for their choice, whereas 50%

rate pecuniary factors (e.g., lower costs of education and

readily available financial assistance in public 21

institutions) as extremely important considerations that

underlie their choice. More than 60% of students indicated

that the high quality of education provided by public

universities is the most important reason for choosing a

public institution.

From the previous research by Andriani Kusumawati, Venkata

K. Yanamandram and Nelson Perera (2010) the respondents in

this study exhibited many similar responses when choosing a

university as other countries. These included cost,

reputation, and proximity which were key drivers when

selecting an institute of higher education. The other

common antecedents are job prospect, parents and quality.

These results suggest that the antecedents to studying at a

public university for potential undergraduates are vary and

complex. The implication is that universities may addresses

those important attributes more effectively so that can

influence the choice process among potential students. This

study has revealed several important factors considered by 22

Indonesian students when selecting a university that both

support and contradict previous research; these factors

have different level of importance as these criteria may be

unique to Indonesia. In addition to determining what is

important to Indonesian students when they choose

universities, it will help universities to promote their

institutions and to have a greater knowledge about the

underlying motivations of students for furthering study in

higher education.

According (Raposo & Alves 2007) after having tested the

proposed model of choice process, the results show that the

model only explains 10% of data variance in what concerns

the choice of university, showing that other factors should

be used to explain the university choice process. All the

proposed effects in the choice process are significant to a

level of significance of 0.05 although they are not very

strong. Personal factors show the greatest positive

influence (0.223), whilst influence of others shows the23

greatest negative impact in the decision taken by the

student. Educational offer has a strong influence in

university reputation, since it explains 49% of variance in

reputation for Medical students it is important when

planning communications to promote individual factors, such

as proximity to home, costs and staying near the family,

but also to promote the university to teachers of secondary

education and professional counselors. It is also important

to raise current student satisfaction in order to generate

positive word of mouth. For students of Social Sciences and

Economics students, individual factors are the most

important For these students it is also important to

arrange visits to the campus, since this group shows that

previous knowledge about the institution is important in

their choice of university. As a final remark we assume

that this study helps universities to have a deeper

knowledge about the student choice process, helping

universities to improve their knowledge on how to deal with

24

the influences that can form student expectations and also

in recruitment development strategies.

From (Samsinar Md. Sidin et al. 2003) five factors,

explaining 61% of the total variance were identified. These

factors were named ‘Personal’, ‘Academic Quality and

Facilities’, ‘Factors’, ‘Campus’, ‘Socialization’, and

‘Financial aid and procedures. A ranking of means revealed

that friends and schoolmates, parents and relatives were

some of the sources of influence on students’ college

choice decision making. Newspapers were found to be more

influential relative to television and radio. Respondents

from the lower family income group are less likely to

enroll in private institutions. There is a significant bias

in students from higher income families enrolling in

private establishments. 84.3% of the students gather

college information on their own. Large proportions also

rely on friends and family members for information. As

newspapers are proven to be very influential source of25

information, college operators should utilize this media to

the fullest possible. Television and radio are proven to be

less influential in students' college choice decision. It

may well be as students usually pour through written

material in getting information on higher education.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

In this chapter, the research plan was describe clearly

such as the plan of work and the necessary activities taken

to complete the research.

3.1. Target Population

This study was done around area of University Technology

Mara (UiTM) Campus Kota Bharu, Kelantan and University

Malaysia Kelantan. The target population for this study is

26

the undergraduate student that studying at the University

Technology Mara (UiTM) Campus Kota Bharu and University

Malaysia Kelantan only. The questionnaire was given to 100

students as the respondent.

3.2. Research Design

This study was performed to determine the factor that

influences student preferences of choosing publics

universities. A quantitative approach by using field survey

method was used in this study. This study used the single

cross-sectional design since the data were collected only

once from the respondents. The students of public

university which is University Technology Mara (UiTM)

Kelantan and University Malaysia Kelantan were chosen to be

the respondent to collect the data.

27

3.3. Data in the Research

This study used primary data because information from the

respondents was collected by using questionnaire. The

questionnaire was divided into six main sections, Section A

is demographic profile, Section B is financing, Section C

is academic performance, Section D is influencer people,

Section E is promotion and Section F is background and

facilities.

There are two types of data included in the questionnaire.

First is quantitative data, it can be measured numerically

such as the level of how disagree and agree of respondents

towards financing, academic performance, influence of

people and facilities as interval and cgpa as a ratio.

Second is qualitative data. It cannot be measured

numerically but can be divided into categorical data like

gender and age.

3.4. Research Instrument/Questionnaire

28

The decision to use a questionnaire was based on the

following advantages. First compared to other methods of

data collecting, it is relatively inexpensive. Secondly

questionnaires are suitable for large samples. Thirdly

questionnaires are relatively easy for volunteers to

complete. Lastly questionnaires take less time to complete

than other data gathering methods such as personal

interviews. The questionnaire was divided into six main

sections. The questionnaire used in this section was

adapted from instruments used in studies by Roslyn Louise

Kelly Beswick (1973). Researchers surveyed students and

others involved to determine factors of influence. Most of

the studies have focused on the United States where the

population of students, variety of institutions, and

financial environments differ greatly from the Canadian

situation.

Section A was focusing on the demographic profile of the

respondents. The respondent was ask about their gender,29

age, CGPA, financial support, parent’s education and

parent’s occupation.

In the Section B, the question about the financing in the

questionnaire is start by question 1 until 6. The score for

each item is provided on the right where the respondents

circle the answer from 0 to 10 depending on how much the

degree of importance of each item provide which is in

interval.

In the Section C, the question about the academic

performance in the questionnaire is start by question 1

until 14. The score for each item is provided on the right

where the respondents circle the answer from 0 to 10

depending on how much the degree of importance of each item

provide which is in interval.

In the Section D, the question about the list of influencer

people in the questionnaire is start by question 1 until 7.

The score for each item is provided on the right where the

30

respondents circle the answer from 0 to 10 depending on how

much the degree of importance of each item provide which is

in interval.

In the Section E, the question about the promotion of the

Public Higher Learning, the questionnaire is start by

question 1 until 6. The score for each item is provided on

the right where the respondents circle the answer from 0 to

10 depending on how much the degree of importance of each

item provide which is in interval.

In the Section F, the question is about the satisfaction

towards facilities or educational resources of the Public

Higher Learning. There is expectation and actual score. The

score for expectation is provided on the right and the

score for actual is provided on the left where the

respondents circle the answer from 0 to 10 depending on how

much the degree of importance of each item provide which is

in interval.

31

Table 3.1: Summary Table for the Research Instrument

Section Measurement scale Number of Question

Section A:

Demographic

Profile

Nominal, Ratio 11

Section B:

Financial

Interval 6

Section C:

Academic

Performance

Interval 14

Section D:

Influencer people

Interval 7

Section E:

Promotion

Interval 6

Section F:

Satisfaction

towards facilities

or educational

resources

Interval 39

32

3.5. Sampling Design

This study was used the Conveniences sampling method.

Conveniences sampling method is non-probability sampling

procedure where the selected sample represent the captive

audience. The 60 questionnaire were distributed to the

student at the University Technology Mara (UiTM) Campus

Kota Bharu, Kelantan and 60 questionnaires were distributed

at the University Malaysia Kelantan.

3.6. Sample Size Determination

The sample size for this study can be considered in

relation to factor analysis that we will utilize in the

analysis of data. We expect that there will be 5 factors

that influence students’ choice of university. The sample

size that suitable for this study is 100 respondents that

were selected from the student UiTM Kota Bharu and

University Malaysia Kelantan.

3.7. Method of Data Collection

33

The method of data collection is self-administered

questionnaire method. The permission to collect data is

obtained from the Academic Affairs (HEA) at the University

Technology Mara (UiTM) Kelantan, Campus Kota Bharu. The

questionnaire was given to the respondents and respondents

need to fill the questionnaire. The questionnaires were

designed to be as simple and clear as possible, with

targeted sections and questions. The researchers are given

the explanation about the questionnaire before respondents

answer the questionnaires.

3.8. Method of Data Analysis

Firstly is Descriptive Analysis. It is to calculate the

frequencies, study the mean scores, and also the ranking

results. In this section, descriptive analysis was conduct

on the primary data which is the questionnaires collected

by the respondents to give a brief overview. The analyses

include gender, age, current CGPA, financial aid, Parent’s

34

education and Parent’s Occupation. Bar charts and pie

charts are used to have a better and clearer understanding

to the analysis.

Secondly is checking the normality. Before applying

statistical methods that assume normality, it is necessary

to perform a normality test on the data. If the data is

normal, the analysis used the test like t-test and analysis

of variance (ANOVA). If the data is not normal, the

analysis used test like median test and kruskall-wallis.

Thirdly is checking the reliability. A reliability analysis

is to check the dimension of success factors generate

through factor analysis. It is a measurement that shows the

extent of the research and data is without bias. The

purpose to conduct reliability analysis is to ensure the

variables measure the exact value and error free.The

Cronbach’s alpha values should meet the minimum requirement

value that is 0.70. The benchmark or the acceptance of the

35

Cronbach’s alpha value should exceed 0.70. If the

reliability test on all the variables are reliable and

enable to continue further analysis.

The objectives and its statistical analysis of this study

are:


in factor financing between UiTM and UMK. The data is

not normally distributed, so it used non-parametric

test Mann Whitney.


in factor of academic performance between UiTM and

UMK. The data is not normally distributed, so it used

non-parametric test Mann Whitney.


in factor of academic performance between groups of

36

gender. The data is not normally distributed, so it

used non-parametric test Mann Whitney.

4) To identify whether there is significance difference

in CGPA between UiTM and UMK. The data is normally

distributed, so it used parametric test Independent t-

test.


in factor of promotion between groups of gender. The

data is normally distributed, so it used parametric

test Independent t-test


between student’s expectation level and actual level


resources. So it used Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed

Ranks Test.

7) To investigate whether there is significance


classified according to their parents income. The data

37

is not normally distributed, so it used non-parametric

test kruskal wallis.


in factor of influencer people when respondents are


father, The data is not normally distributed, so it

used non-parametric test kruskal wallis.

Table 3.2: Summary Table for the Method of Data Analysis

Objectives Question Scale ofMeasurement

Method

Parametric Non-Parametric

1. To determinewhether there is significancedifference in factor financing between UiTM and UMK

Section A(Question

5)

Section B(Question

1-6)

Nominal

Interval

Independentt-test SONCORRELATIN

2. To determinewhether there

Section A(Question

Nominal Independentt-test

38

is significancedifference in factor of academic performance between UiTM.

5)

Section C(Question

1-7)

Interval

3. To determinewhether there is significancedifference in factor of academic performance between groups of gender.

Section A(Question

1)

Section C(Question

1-7)

Nominal

Interval

Independentt-test

4. To identify whether there is significancedifference in CGPA between UiTM and UMK.

Section A(Question3 and

Question5)

Nominal

Ratio

Independentt-test

5. To determinewhether there is significancedifference in factor of promotion between groups of gender.

Section A(Question

1)

Section E(Question

1-6)

Nominal

Interval

Independent t-test

6. To determinewhether there is significancedifference

Section F(Question1-37)

Interval

Interval

Wilcoxon Matched Pairs Signed

39

between student’s expectation level and actual level ofsatisfaction towards facilities or educational resources.

Ranks

7. To investigate whether there is significancedifference in financing factors when respondents areclassified according to their parents income.

Section A(Question

7)

Section B(Question

1-7)

Interval

Interval

Independentt-test

8. To determinewhether there is significancedifference in factor of influencer people when respondents areclassified according highest academic

Section A(Question

8)

Section C(Question

1-7)

Nominal

Interval

Independentt-test

40

qualification of father.

3.9. Time Schedule of Research

Table 3.3: The Time Schedule of Research

ACTIVITY W

1

W

2

W

3

W

4

W

5

W

6

W

7

W

8

W

9

W

10

W

11

W

12

W

13

W

14

Problem

Statement

MID SEM BREAK

Research

Process

Sampling

Design

Questionnaire

Design

Fieldwork

Data Analysis

Writing Research Report

41

Presentation

Submit Report

CHAPTER 4

ANALYSIS AND FINDING

This chapter provides result of data analysis and findings

of the study. This chapter divided into descriptive

analysis, reliability analysis, normality assessment and

statistical analysis based on the objectives.

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

Descriptive analysis provides simple summaries about the

sample and about the observation that have been made.

The summaries that used in this study are about the

42

nominal and ordinal data to get the initial description

of the data.

4.1.1. Gender

Table 4.1.1: Respondent's Gender

Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulativePercent

Valid Male 33 33.0 33.0 33.0

Female 67 67.0 67.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Figure 4.1.1: Frequency of Respondent’s Gender

43

Based on the table above, it shows that most of our respondents is

come from 67 of female respondets. Meanwhile,the balance is 33 of

male respondents.

4.1.2. Age

Table 4.1.2: Respondent's Age


Valid under 21 years 10 10.0 10.0 10.0

22-23 years 56 56.0 56.0 66.0

24-25 years 32 32.0 32.0 98.0

26 years and above 2 2.0 2.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

From the table above, majority of our respondent s age are in’between 22-23 years.The second is come from 24-25 years and third is

under 21 years.Only 2% of them come from 26 years and above.44

Name of University

Table 4.1.3: Name of University


Valid UiTM 50 50.0 50.0 50.0

UMK 50 50.0 50.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Table above shows that,our respondents are come from 50 student of

UiTM and 50 student UMK.

45

4.1.4. Financial Support

46

Figure 4.1.2: Frequency of Financial Support

Based on the graph bar above, it shows that, most our

respondents are supported by PTPTN loan which and only

minor of them supported by MARA.

47

4.1.5. Parent’s Monthly Income

Table 4.1.4: Parent’s Monthly Income


Valid Less than RM1000 39 39.0 39.0 39.0

RM 1001-RM 3000 34 34.0 34.0 73.0

RM 3001-RM 5000 17 17.0 17.0 90.0

RM 5000 and above 10 10.0 10.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

Based on the graph above, it shows that, most of parent’s

monthly incomes of our respondents are less than RM1000

followed by RM1001-RM3000, RM3001-RM5000 and RM5000 and

above.

48

4.2. Reliability Analysis

Table 4.2: Reliability Analysis

Section No. of Items Cronbach’ sAlpha

Consistency

Section B: Financial

6 0.855 High levelof internal

Section C: Academic Performance


Section D: Influencer People


Section E: Promotion


Section F: Satisfaction Toward Facilities /Educational Background (Expectation)


49



4.3. Normality Assessment

Hypothesis:

1: The data is normally distributed.

: The data is not normally distributed.

Test Statistic:

Skewness value: -1 < value < 1

Decision Rule: Reject the null hypothesis, if value is

smaller than -1 or larger 1

Table 4.3 Normality Table50

Section SkewnessValue

Conclusion

Section A: Respondent’s CGPA

-0.014 Normal

Section B: Financial -0.086 Normal


-0.339 Normal


0.192 Normal

Section E: Promotion 0.270 Normal


-1.657 Not Normal


0.545 Normal

4.4. Statistical Analysis

The objectives and its statistical analysis of this study

are

51

4.4.1. To determine whether there is significance

difference in factor financing between UiTM and UMK.

Hypothesis:

H1: There is significance difference in factor

financing between UiTM and UMK

Test Statistic:

p-value=0.623

Decision Rule:

Reject H0 Since p-value=0.623 > =0.05αConclusion:

There is no significance difference in factor

financing between UiTM and UMK.

Table 4.4.1: Two Independent Sample t-tests – Testfor Relationship Between Continuous Variables and

Two Independent Group

52

Levene's Test forEquality ofVariances

t-test for Equality ofMeans

F-statist

ic Sig.

t-statisti

c df

Sig.(2-

tailed)Financing factor

Equal variances assumed

0.244 0.623 10.183 98 0.000

Equal variances not assumed

10.183 96.058 0.000

4.4.2. To determine whether there is significance

difference in factor of academic performance between

UiTM and UMK.

Hypothesis:

H1: There is a significant difference in factor of


Test statistic:

P-value=0.002

Critical value =0.05

Decision rule:

53

Reject H0 Since p-value=0.002 < =0.05α

Conclusion:

There is a significant difference in factor of






F-statist

ic Sig.

t-statisti

c df

Sig.(2-



9.728 0.002 11.500 98 0.000


11.500 89.940 0.000

To determine whether there is significance difference in

factor of academic performance between groups of gender.

Hypothesis:


academic performance between groups of gender.54

Test Statistic:

p-value=0.678

Decision Rule:

Reject H0 Since p-value=0.678 > =0.05αConclusion:

There is no significance difference in factor of

academic performance between groups of gender.





F-statist

ic Sig.

t-statisti

c df

Sig.(2-



0.174 0.678 -3.783 98 0.000


-3.850 66.796 0.000

To identify whether there is significance difference in

CGPA between UiTM and UMK.

55

Hypothesis:

H1: There is significance difference in CGPA between

UiTM and UMK.

Test Statistic:

p-value=0.640

Decision Rule:

Fail to Reject H0 Since p-value=0.640 > =0.05αConclusion:

There is no significance difference in CGPA between

UiTM and UMK.



56



F-statist

ic Sig.

t-statisti

c df

Sig.(2-



0.220 0.640 2.306 98 0.023


2.306 97.618 0.023


factor of promotion between groups of gender.

Hypothesis:

H1:There is significance difference in factor of


Test Statistic:

p-value=0.004

Decision Rule:

57

Reject H0 Since p-value=0.004 < =0.05αConclusion:

There is significance difference in factor of






F-statist

ic Sig.

t-statisti

c df

Sig.(2-



8.609 0.004 -4.051 98 0.000


-4.669 90.812 0.000

To determine whether there is significance difference

between student’s expectation level and actual level of


resources.58

Hypothesis

H1: There is a significant difference between the



resources.

Test statistic:

p-value = 0.000 Critical value =0.05

Decision rule:


Conclusion:

There is a significant difference between the



resources.

Table 4.4.6: Wilcoxon Matched Pair Rank Test

59

Satisfaction toward Facilities/Educationalresources factor(Actual) - Satisfactiontoward Facilities/Educational resources

factor(Expected)Z -7.599a

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

To investigate whether there is significance difference in

financing factors when respondents are classified

according to their parents income.

Hypothesis:



their parent’s income.

Test statistic:

p-value = 0.020

Critical value =0.05

Decision rule:


60

Conclusion:

The results indicate that there is significant


classified according to their parent’s income.

Table 4.4.7: One-Way ANOVA – Test for Relationship betweenContinuous Variable and More Two Independent Group

Sum ofSquares df

MeanSquare F Sig.

Between Groups

1638.450 3 546.150 3.453 .020

Within Groups

15184.790 96 158.175

Total 16823.240 99


factor of influencer people when respondents are


father

Hypothesis:

61




Test statistic:

p-value = 0.931

Critical value = 0.05

Decision rule:

Reject H0 Since p-value=0.000 < =0.05α .

Conclusion:

The results indicate that there is no significance

difference in factor of influencer people when

respondents are classified according highest academic

qualification of father.

Table 4.4.8: One-Way ANOVA – Test for Relationship betweenContinuous Variable and More Two Independent Group

62

Sum ofSquares df

MeanSquare F Sig.

Between Groups

267.332 4 66.833 .235 .918

Within Groups

26998.028 95 284.190

Total 27265.360 99CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion

From the result obtained, there is no significance

difference in factor financing between student UiTM and

UMK. There is a significant difference in factor of

academic performance between student UiTM and UMK.

We conclude that there is no significance difference in

factor of academic performance that influence students

preferences choosing IPTA between groups of gender male and

female. There is also no significance difference in CGPA

63

between students UiTM and UMK. There is significance

difference in factor of promotion between groups of gender.

We can also conclude that there is a significant difference

between the student’s expectation level and actual level of

satisfaction towards facilities or educational resources.

The results indicate that there is significant difference

in financing factors when respondents are classified

according to their parent’s income.

Lastly, the results indicate that there is no significance

difference in factor of influencer people when respondents

are classified according highest academic qualification of

father.

Recommendation

The fees and financing support are the most important

factors that influence student’s preferences of choosing

public higher learning institutions (IPTA). Discrepancies

64

in tuition fees for the same program are detected in the

institution itself. So, the government should give more

allocation to students spending. So that, it’s can help

students to lighten the burden.

In order to increase the number of PHD lecturers, the

government can provide a special fund that can help them to

further their education to the doctoral level. The

professional developments of academic staff are also

encouraged through collaboration between UiTM and UMK

lectures in research funds.

The advice and support from teachers and parents are also

important in influencing students preferences of choosing

public higher learning institution (IPTA), a complete

delivery system must be developed by the MOHE and each

university. So that, the information related to the program

of study, career prospects, the application and selection

process can be effectively communicated to them. With this

65

information, the comparison between UiTM and UMK can be

done before a decision is made by the student selection.

APPENDIX A

Dear respondent:

I am doing an academic research entitled:

Factors that Influence Student Preferences of Choosing

Public Higher Learning

Institutions (IPTA): A Case in Kota Bharu.

This study will present no risks to you because it only

examines the factors that influence student preferences of

choosing IPTA. Financially, it will not cost you anything,

and you will not be paid anything. However your

participation is likely to help me find out the factor that

influences student preferences of choosing Public Higher

Learning Institutions(IPTA).66

The information that we get, it will be made private and

confidential.

Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Kepada responden:

Saya membuat penyelidikan akademik bertajuk:

Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pelajar memilih Institusi Pengajian

Tinggi Awam(IPTA): Kes di Kota Bharu.

Penyelidikan ini tidak mendatangkan risiko kepada anda kerana ia hanya untuk

memeriksa faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pelaja rmemilih IPTA. Secara

umumnya, ia tidak dikenakan bayaran dan anda tidak akan dibayar apa-apa.

Walaubagaimanapun, penyertaan anda membantu saya mengenalpasti faktor-

faktor yang mempengaruhi pelajar memilih IPTA.Maklumat yang diperolehi

adalah sulit dan persendirian.

Terima kasih di atas kerjasama anda.

Sincerely,

………………………………..NIK MARINI BINTI NIK MAN

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (HONOURS) (STATISTICS)

FACULTY OF COMPUTER AND MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

QUESTIONAIRE

67

INSTRUCTION: Please answer every question carefully. Fill

up the blank space and tick (√) the best answer that is/are

relevant to you.

ARAHAN: Sila jawab semua soalan dengan berhati-hati. Isi tempat kosong dan

tanda( ) pada jawapan yang anda rasa paling sesuai dengan anda.√

SECTION A: Demographic information

1) Gender/Jantina:

Male/Lelaki Female/Perempuan

2) Age/Umur:Under 21 year/ Bawah 21 tahun 24 -25 years/tahun

22 23 years/tahun– 26 years/tahun

3) What is your current CGPA?/Keputusan PNGK terkini?

_____________

4) Financial support/Bantuan kewangan : Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) MARA

PTPTN Others /Lain-lain:

__________________

5) What is the name of your university?

Nama university anda?UiTM

UMK

68

6) Is this university your first choice in your

application for admission?(in UPU application)

Adakah universiti ini pilihan pertama anda di dalam permohonan untuk

kemasukan?(Permohonan UPU)

Yes/Ya

No/Tidak (State/Nyatakan:____________________________)

7) Parent’s monthly income/Pendapatan bulanan Ibubapa:

Less than/kurang dari RM1000 RM3001 RM5000–

RM1001 RM3000– RM5000 and above/dan

keatas

8) The highest academic qualification of your father:

Tahap pendidikan tertinggi bapa anda:PMR/ SPM/STPM Master/Sarjana

Diploma PhD

Degree/Ijazah

9) The highest academic qualification of your mother:

Tahap pendidikan tertinggi ibu anda:PMR/ SPM/STPM Master/Sarjana

Diploma PhD

Degree/Ijazah

69

10)Father’s occupation/Pekerjaan Bapa:

Government Sector /Sector kerajaan Self-

employed/Bekerja sendiri

Private Sector/Sektor swasta Business/Bisnes

Others/Lain-lain

11)Mother s occupation/’ PekerjaanIbu:

Government Sector /Sector kerajaan Self-

employed/Bekerja sendiri

Private Sector/Sektor swasta Business/Bisnes

Others/Lain-lain

INSTRUCTION: You can mark your sincere response in between 1 to

10. Please remember, there is no right or wrong answers.

ARAHAN: Anda boleh tanda jawapan anda diantara 1 hingga 10. Peringatan,

tiada jawapan yang betul atau salah.

Section B: Financial/KewanganPlease indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with the following

statement concerning your opinion toward financing.

Sila nyatakan berapa skala sangat setuju atau sangat tidak

setuju dengan penyatan yang berikut berkaitan dengan pendapat

anda tentang kewangan.I choose the IPTAbecause......

Saya memilih IPTA ini kerana...

Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

70

Sangat tidak Sangat bersetuju bersetuju

1 the living cost is low.

kos hidup adalah rendah.

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10

2 the university fee is less than other .

yuran pengajian kurang daripada universiti lain.

1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10

3 it is easy to get the financial aid.

ia senang mendapat bantuan kewangan.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 the financial aid is enough to support for a semester.

Bantuan kewangan adalah cukup untuk menampung satu semester.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5 there is additional fee beside universities fee.(tranportation fee, hostel fee, etc)

terdapat yuran tambahan selain yuran universiti.(yuran pengangkutan, yuran asrama, etc)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 I am satisfied with the universities fee.

saya berpuas hati dengan yuran universiti.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Section C: Academic Performance/Pencapaian akademikPlease indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with thefollowing statement concerning your opinion toward AcademicPerformance.

71

Sila nyatakan berapa skala sangat setuju atau sangat tidak setuju dengan penyatan yang berikut berkaitan dengan pendapat anda tentang pencapaian akademik.

I choose the IPTA that…

Saya memilih IPTA ini kerana...



1 offers courses suitable with my qualification

menawarkan program yang sesuai dengan kelayakan saya

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 offers courses suitable for the future career

menawarkan program yang sesuai dengan kerjaya di masa hadapan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 not has variety of course offered

tidak banyak program yang ditawarkan.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 Provide course with the required skills.

menyediakan program yang memerlukan kemahiran.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5 has lecturer with good quality of teaching.

Mempunyai pensyarah yang berkualiti tinggi.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

72

6 has lecturer who are knowledgeable.

Mempunyai pensyarah yang berpengetahuan tinggi.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 has lecturers with the experience in the field

mempunyai pensyarah yang berpengalamn dalam bidang pembelajaran

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

8 has lecturers who create good learning atmosphere

Mempunyai pensyarah yang mewujudkan suasana pembelajaran yang baik

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

has lecturers who use suitable teaching materials

Mempunyai pensyarah yang menggunakan bahan-bahan pengajaran yang sesuai

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

10 has lecturers who are easy for a consultation

Mempunyai pensyarah yang mudah untuk berunding

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 has lecturers with good relationship with students

Mempunyai pensyarah dengan hubungan yang baik dengan pelajar-pelajar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

73

12 Has lecturers who motivate students

Mempunyai pensyarah yang memberi motivasi kepada pelajar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

14 has good academic reputation .

mempunyai reputasi akademik yang bagus.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Section D: Influencer people/Pengaruh orang berkepentingan.Please indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with thefollowing statement concerning your opinion toward Influencer people.Sila nyatakan berapa skala sangat setuju atau sangat tidak setuju dengan penyatan yang berikut berkaitan dengan pendapat anda tentang pengaruh orang berkepentingan.

I choose the IPTA because………

Saya memilih IPTA ini kerana..........



1 suggestion from mother.

cadangan daripada ibu.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2 Suggestion from father

cadangan daripada bapa.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 suggestionfrom siblings. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

74

cadangan daripada adik-beradik.

4 suggestion from teacher.

cadangan daripada cikgu.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5 suggestion from friends.

cadangan daripada kawan-kawan

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 recommendation of former student

cadangan daripada bekas pelajar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 suggestion from counselor

cadangan daripada kaunselor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Section E: Promotion/PromosiPlease indicate how strongly you agree or disagree with thefollowing statement concerning your opinion toward Promotion. Sila nyatakan berapa skala sangat setuju atau sangat tidak setuju dengan penyatan yang berikut berkaitan dengan pendapat anda tentang promosi.

I choose IPTA because I interested….

Saya memilih IPTA ini kerana saya berminat.....



1 about university publication 1 2 3 4 5

75

tentang terbitan universiti. 6 7 8 9 10

2 with university representatives thatgive talk about their university.

dengan ucapan yang diberikan oleh wakil universiti tentang universiti.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 when I visit to university

bila saya melawat ke university

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 when goes to education exhibition

sewaktu menghadiri pameran akademik

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5 when get a phone call from institution

apabila mendapat panggilan telefon daripada institusi.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6 when get a personal letter from institution

apabila mendapat surat rasmi daripada institusi

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Section F: Satisfaction towards facilities / educational resourcesPlease indicate how strongly you satisfied or dissatisfied with the following statement concerning your satisfaction towards facilities or educational resources.

76

Sila nyatakan berapa skala sangat puas hati atau sangat tidak berpuas hati dengan penyatan yang berikut berkaitan dengan kepuasan terhadap kemudahan atau sumber pendidikan.

Please tick both statement(expectation and actual)

Expectation/Jangkaan

The university…

Universiti…

Actual/Sebenar

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has a beautiful environment

mempunyai persekitaran yangcantik

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has adequate classrooms

mempunyai kelas yang mencukupi

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has enough chair in the classroom

Mempunyai kerusi yang mencukupi di dalam kelas

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has enough desk in theclassroom

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

77

Mempunyai meja yang mencukupi di dalam kelas

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has adequate size of classroom

Mempunyai saiz kelas yang mencukupi

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has good air-conditionin the classroom

Mempunyai penghawa dingin yang baik

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has comfortable chair in the classroom

Mempunyai kerusi yang selesadi dalam kelas

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has comfortable desk in the classroom

Mempunyai meja yang selesa di dalam kelas

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has a comfortable classroom

mempunyai ruang belajar yang selesa

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has a comfortable library

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

78

mempunyai perpustakaan yang selesa

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has a adequate material in library

mempunyai bahan yang mencukupi di perpustakaan

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has a adequate references book in thelibrary

mempunyai buku rujukan yang mencukupi di perpustakaan

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has enough chairs in the library

mempunyai kerusi yang mencukupi di dalam perpustakaan

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has enough desk in thelibrary

Mempunyai meja yang mencukupi di dalam perpustakaan

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Size of the library can accommodate more students

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

79

Saiz perpustakaan dapat menampung ramai pelajar

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has library staff who are friendly

Mempunyai staf perpustakaanyang peramah

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has library staff whoare helpful

Mempunyai staf perpustakaanyang membantu

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has HEP staff who are friendly

Mempunyai staf HEP yang peramah

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has HEP staff who arehelpful

Mempunyai staf HEP yang membantu

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has HEP staff who are efficient in their work

mempunyai staf HEP yang cekap dalam bekerja

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has systematic system 1 2 3 4 5 6

80

in HEP

Mempunyai system HEP yang sistematik

7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has HEP staffs who arealways available

mempunyai staff HEP yang sentiasa bersedia

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has HEA staff who are friendly

mempunyai staf HEA yang peramah

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has HEA staff who arehelpful

Mempunyai staf HEA yang membantu

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has systematic system in HEA

Mempunyai system HEA yang sistematik

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has HEA staffs who arealways available

mempunyai staff HEA yang sentiasa bersedia

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 has a parking space 1 2 3 4 5 6

81

7 8 9 10 mempunyai ruang meletakkan kenderaan

7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has a good campus transportation system

mempunyai system pengangkutan yang bagus di kampus

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has adequate laboratory facilities

mempunyai kemudahan makmal yang mencukupi

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has adequate lab computer

mempunyai makmal komputer yang mencukupi

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has adequate ICT facilities

mempunyai kemudahan ICT yang mencukupi

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has good internet/wifisystem

Mempunyai system internet yang bagus

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has clean toilet 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

82

mempunyai tandas yang bersih

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

Has a comfortable surau

Mempunyai surau yang selesa

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has a good sport facilities

mempunyai kemudahan sukan yang baik

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

has a comfortable cafeteria and good food court

mempunyai kafetaria yang selesa dan medan selera yangbaik

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

offer a flexible classschedule

menawarkan jadual kelas yang sesuai

1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9 10

In your opinion, what are the other factors that influence student preferences of choosing IPTA?

Pada pendapat anda, apakah factor lain yang mempengaruhi student dalam memilih IPTA?

83

APPENDIX B (Reliability)


Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.855 .853 6



Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha

Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.952 .955 13

84



Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.938 .939 7

Section E: Promotion


Cronbach's

Alpha

Cronbach's

Alpha Based on

Standardized

Items N of Items

.849 .847 6

Section F: Satisfaction toward facilities/Educational background (Expectatation)


Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha

Based on

Standardized Items N of Items

.989 .989 37

85

Section F: Satisfaction toward facilities/Educational background (Actual)


Cronbach's Alpha

Cronbach's Alpha

Based on

Standardized Items N of Items

.979 .979 37

APPENDIX C (Normality)

Section A: Respondent’s CGPA

86

Descriptives

Statistic Std. Error

Respondent's CGPA Mean 3.3152 .02986

95% Confidence Interval for

Mean

Lower Bound 3.2560

Upper Bound 3.3744

5% Trimmed Mean 3.3152

Median 3.3250

Variance .089

Std. Deviation .29857

Minimum 2.70

Maximum 4.00

Range 1.30

Interquartile Range .46

Skewness -.014 .241

Kurtosis -.415 .478


87

Descriptives


Financing factor Mean 34.2600 1.30358


Mean

Lower Bound 31.6734

Upper Bound 36.8466


Median 32.0000

Variance 169.932

Std. Deviation 13.03579

Minimum 6.00

Maximum 58.00

Range 52.00

Interquartile Range 21.75

Skewness -.086 .241

Kurtosis -.993 .478

Section C: Academic Performance Factor

88

Descriptives


Academic Performance

factor

Mean 86.2900 2.38040


Mean

Lower

Bound

81.5668

Upper

Bound

91.0132


Median 94.0000

Variance 566.632


Minimum 29.00

Maximum 130.00

Range 101.00


Skewness -.339 .241

Kurtosis -.844 .478

Section D: Influencer People Factor

89

Descriptives


Influencer People factor Mean 37.0800 1.65954


Mean

Lower Bound 33.7871

Upper Bound 40.3729


Median 35.0000

Variance 275.408


Minimum 7.00

Maximum 70.00

Range 63.00


Skewness .192 .241

Kurtosis -.726 .478

Section E: Promotion Factor

90

Descriptives


Promotion factor Mean 32.9500 1.13078


Mean

Lower Bound 30.7063

Upper Bound 35.1937


Median 31.0000

Variance 127.866


Minimum 6.00

Maximum 60.00

Range 54.00


Skewness .270 .241

Kurtosis -.223 .478

Section F: Satisfaction toward Facilities/Educational resources factor(Expected

91

Descriptives


Satisfaction toward

Facilities/Educational

resources factor(Expected)

Mean 302.6600 6.23484


Mean

Lower

Bound

290.2887

Upper

Bound

315.0313


Median 319.5000

Variance 3887.318


Minimum 71.00

Maximum 370.00

Range 299.00


Skewness -1.657 .241

Kurtosis 2.808 .478

Section F: Satisfaction toward Facilities/Educational resources factor(Actual)

92

Descriptives


Satisfaction toward

Facilities/Educational

resources factor(Actual)

Mean 185.5400 6.79876


Mean

Lower

Bound

172.0498

Upper

Bound

199.0302


Median 183.0000

Variance 4622.312


Minimum 43.00

Maximum 370.00

Range 327.00


Skewness .545 .241

Kurtosis .247 .478

93

REFERENCES

1. Avery, C., & M.Hoxby, C. (2004). Do and Should Financial Aid Packages Affect Students' College Choices.

2. B. Khairani, A. Z., & B.Abdul Razak, N. (2013). Assessing Factors Influencing Students' Choice of Malaysian Public University. A Research Model Analysis .

3. B. R. (1973). A STUDY OF FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH STUDENT CHOICE IN THE UNIVERSITY SELECTION PROCESS.

4. B.Mustafa, M. Z., B.Mohd Noor, K., Abdul Rahman, S. H., Hj. Nisbah, H., B.Ahmad, Z. A., A.Jalil, S., et al. (2012). Which One Is My PreferredIvoryTower? An Analysis Among Islamic Secondary School Students in Malaysia , 2 (5).

94

5. Bt. Syed Yasin, S. N., Mohamad Noor, N. M., & B.Mamat,M. (2009). Determining the Preferences among the High School Students Towards the Local Malaysian Public Universities. A Case Study .

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY J.L, F. AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DECISION OF STUDENTS TO STUDY AT UNIVERSITI SAINS MALAYSIA. Kajian Malaysia , 28.

7. K. Holdsworth PHd, D., & Nind, D. (2008). Choice Modeling New Zealand High School Seniors' Preferences for University Education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. , 15-2, 81-102

8. Kusumawati, A., Yanamandram, V., & P. N. (2010). Exploring Student Choice Criteria for Selecting an Indonesian Public University. A Preliminary Finding .

9. Md. Sidin, S., Hussin, S. R., & T. H. (2003). An Exploratory Study of Factors Influencing the College Choice Decision of Undergraduate Students in Malaysia.

10. P.hong, S., K.S, T., B.Abdul Rahman, M., & K.W, T. ( 2010). Factors Influencing Student Choice:A Studyof a MalaysianPublic University. Asian Journal of University Education , 6 , 75-89

11. Raposo, & M.H., A. (2007). A model of university choice: an exploratory approach.

95

Full Report UITM vs UMK

Documents

Transcript of Full Report UITM vs UMK