CHAPTER 4 (1) - Copy Latest

SCHOOL OF TOURISM, HOSPITALITY AND EVENT MANAGEMENT
COLLEGE OF LAW, GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA
TOPIC RESEARCH: TRAVEL BEHAVIOR AMONG UNIVERSITI UTARA
MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS
GHZZ4076 TOURISM RESEARCH PROJECT PAPER (GROUP I)
SECOND SEMESTER SESSION 2021/2022 (A212)
MUHAMMAD MUKHLIS BIN HASSAN
271413
MADAM RASLINDA BINTI MOHD GHAZALI

Submission of Research Proposal Form (Chapters One to Three)
SCHOOL OF TOURISM, HOSPITALITY AND EVENT MANAGEMENT

COLLEGE OF LAW, GOVERNMENT, AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Second Semester 2021/2022 Session (A212)
GHZZ 4076 Tourism Research Project Paper

_____________________________________________________________________________
_____
RESEARCH TITLE:
INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR IN UNIVERSITY UTARA MALAYSIA
STUDENT’S NAME: MUHAMMAD MUKHLIS BIN HASSAN
MATRIC NUMBER: 271413
SUPERVISOR’S NAME: Dr. RASLINDA BINTI MOHD. GHAZALI
This student’s progress is satisfactory / unsatisfactory*. The research proposal is allowed / not
allowed* to be submitted for grading.
*Delete as applicable
Supervisor’s signature and stamp:

______________________________________________________
DATE: ______________________________
Declaration
I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Travel Behavior Among Universiti
Utara Malaysia International Student” submitted to the University Utara Malaysia, is an
original work that have been done by me under guidance of Madam Raslinda Binti
Mohd Ghazali, the supervisors of my project and lecturer at School of Tourism,
Hospitality and Event management. This project work is submitted to fulfill the
requirement to pass the degree of the Bachelor of Tourism Management with Honors.
The results embodied in this thesis have not been submitted to any other universities or
institutes for any other intention.
Name: Muhammad Mukhlis Bin Hassan
No. Matric: 271413
Acknowledgements
First of all, thanks to Allah the Almighty that giving me a good health and wellbeing in
order to complete this research for two semesters. I wish to express my gratitude to my
supervisor, Madam Raslinda Binti Mohd Ghazali, one of the lecturers at the School of
Tourism, Hospitality and Event Management in University Utara Malaysia, for her
guide and support by providing me her ideas, feedback, opinion and encouragement to
help me to complete my research.
I also would like to express my gratitude to my family who always give their support
and encouraged when i was down throughout my life. I also thankful to my friends that
help me complete this research directly and indirectly. Next, I grateful to the School of
Tourism, Hospitality and Event Management for keep providing the best alternatives to
guide students to finish their research. Not to forget, I also would like to express my
gratitude to the respondent that help me providing their knowledge and opinion
regarding my research. Lastly, I wish my express my sincere thanks to people who
involved indirectly and directly lent their hand and time to help me to completed this
research for two semesters.
Abstract
International students represent a large and potentially lucrative market for various
sectors of the tourism industry. Although previous empirical studies have examined this
topic, most treated the market as homogeneous and small sample sizes have been the
norm. The present UUM-based study represents the first investigation of the travel
activities of international students. The sample size (N = 100) has allowed the
researchers to identify nationality-based differences between international student travel
behaviours and the factors that constrain their travel. The approach that has been
adopted extends theoretical and applied understanding of this important tourism market
and informs how tourism industry leaders may capitalise on the opportunities by
undertaking initiatives, such as innovative tourism marketing, product development and
packaging initiatives.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1......................................................................................................................1
1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................1
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND JUSTIFICATION...............................3
1.2 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS............................................................................5
1.3 THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVE.............................................................................5
1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS......................................................................................5
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY.....................................................6
1.6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY................................................................6
CHAPTER 2......................................................................................................................7
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW........................................................................................7
2.1 PROPOSED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...................................................11
CHAPTER 3....................................................................................................................13
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF REASEARCH APPROACH................................................13
3.1 SELECTION OF SUBJECT..................................................................................15
3.1.1 Targeted population........................................................................................15
3.1.2 Sampling size..................................................................................................15
3.2 INSTRUMENTATION.........................................................................................16
3.2.1 Measurement items.........................................................................................17
3.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE.................................................................19
3.3.1 Primary data....................................................................................................19
3.3.2 Secondary data................................................................................................19
3.4 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS............................................................20
3.4.1 Statistical analysis...........................................................................................20
3.4.2 Descriptive analysis........................................................................................20
3.4.3 Pearson correlation analysis............................................................................21
CHAPTER 4....................................................................................................................21
4.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................21
4.2 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE.................................................23
4.2.1 GENDER.........................................................................................................24
4.2.2 AGE.................................................................................................................24
4.2.3 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN................................................................................25
4.2.4 MARITAL STATUS......................................................................................25
4.2.5 DEGREE LEVEL...........................................................................................25
4.2.6 FINANCIAL SUPPORT.................................................................................25
4.3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS.................................................................................26
4.3.1 Descriptive analysis of UUM international student travel behavior. (Mean and
standard deviation)...................................................................................................26
4.3.2 Descriptive analysis of UUM international student travel behavior...............28
4.4 CROSSTAB TABLE TO SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE AND UUM INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TRAVEL
BEHAVIOR.................................................................................................................40
4.4.1 The relationship between travel behavior among UUM students and gender 40
4.4.2 The relationship between age and travel behavior among UUM students,.....48
4.4.3 The relationship between marital status and travel behavior among UUM
students.....................................................................................................................58
4.4.4 The relationship between country of origin and travel behavior among UUM
students.....................................................................................................................66
4.4.5 The relationship between degree level and travel behavior among UUM
students.....................................................................................................................76
4.4.6 The relationship between financial support and travel behavior among UUM
students.....................................................................................................................84
CHAPTER 5....................................................................................................................95
5.0 INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................95
5.1 DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDING.......................................................................95
5.2 RESEARCH IMPLICATION...............................................................................95
5.3 RESEARCH LIMITATION..................................................................................97
5.4 FUTURE STUDY.................................................................................................98
REFERENCE................................................................................................................100
APPENDIX...................................................................................................................104
CHAPTER 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A population's changing demographics open several chances for presenting and offering
a wide range of tourist goods and services. One of these developments is the rise in
international students' engagement in education during the past ten years, which has
happened in many nations. The popularity of traveling for educational purposes is not
new, and it is anticipated to grow in the tourist sector. According to Marzuki (2018),
during the 1990s, universities throughout the world have become more globally
engaged through greater than previously student mobility (Marzuki, 2018), which has
grown to be an essential component of international higher education, 3.0 million pupils
from various nations are enrolled in schools throughout the world right now (statista,
2022). International students frequently travel throughout the host country since they
frequently have free time during semester breaks and vacations and are driven to do so
while studying abroad to learn the local culture. This kind of travel is seen as an
essential component of the whole experience of studying abroad; therefore, the host
nation will profit much from it (Marzuki, 2018).
Malaysia has the necessary capacity to boost its tourism-related revenue by entering this
growing sector. The number of international students enrolling in Malaysia has climbed
significantly over the past 25 years, going from 32 in 1970 to 12,605 in 1999, even
though the country's first university was founded in 1962 (statista, 2022). Due to
government policy, it is anticipated that this sum will increase during the next ten years.
According to the most recent figures, Malaysia now has 170,000 international students
enrolled, with Indonesia (10,280), Bangladesh (6660) and China (28,590) having the
largest numbers (statista, 2022). Due to the number of international students enrolled in
1
Malaysia, researcher can conclude that Malaysia succeeded to attract people to study in
Malaysia.
Thus, understanding student travel habits aids in the segmentation of the tourism
industry and has significant advantages for marketers of vacation destinations
(Anantamongkolkul, 2020). There is a distinct lack of academic research and literature
reviews about foreign students' tourist behavior, as well as information on their travel
habits generally and in Malaysia in particular. The absence of trustworthy public
sources on tourism behavior can be attributed to most of the current material being at
the level of thesis submission rather than academic publishing (Anantamongkolkul,
2020). In addition to the writers' particular interest in this area, this essay tries to solve
this deficiency. Without accurate and readily available information, it would be
impossible to strengthen this market sector, and the host nation would lose out on a
significant portion of the financial benefits that may be derived from this kind of
tourism (Marzuki, 2018).
Several shortcomings that were found in the literature review were addressed in this
study. In earlier research, students of a single nationality were polled, whereas in
subsequent studies, students of an Asian ethnicity were surveyed. As they only provided
information on the travel habits of a small number of nations, the respondents' clear
mono-ethnicity limits the research's ability to be generalized for a larger, more global
setting (Marzuki, 2018). This study tried to include participants from a variety of
nationalities to combat the discovered bias. Although these findings are helpful for the
specific study endeavor, it is challenging to extrapolate the results to the larger
population of overseas students. International students from Universities Utara Malaysia
have been chosen to be polled to get over this restriction and lessen the prejudice that
has been found. In much earlier research, respondents were only recruited from one
2
country of origin for foreign students due to constraints including convenience, time,
and money. International students from many nations attend the universities in this
programmed, which is located on one major campus (Marzuki, 2018).
The precise data on international students' travel preferences during the last 12 months
depending on their interests, particular needs, is another study contribution of this work
(Marzuki, 2018). The variety of preferences addressed by this survey includes things to
do, place to stay and eat, places to go, and sources of information they have utilized.
Investigations were also done into how much money overseas students spent overall
when visiting Malaysia (Marzuki, 2018). In addition to exploring demographic
information, such as gender, age, marital status, and nationality for demographics, this
paper also examined students' travel behavior trends.
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND JUSTIFICATION
Tourism businesses are paying more attention to international students because of the
phenomena of studying a broad’s enormous size, expansion, and impact. There is a
growing corpus of study on student travel and recreational behavior's (CFL, 2015).
Despite the promising outlook, the tourism industry's efforts to produce and promote
tourism-related goods to international students have frequently been marred by poor
positioning, failure to engage prospective participants, and insufficient customer
experiences. The marketing operations will not be successful if the sector just adopts the
tactics that have been established for leisure travel in general, because some of the most
important customer characteristics are very different (CFL, 2015). Compared to foreign
tourists, international students often remain longer and/or obtain temporary residence in
the place where they are enrolled. International students are distinguished from
domestic tourists by their shorter stay in the target country and greater desire to travel
3
extensively before departing (CFL, 2015). In addition, they are distinguished from
domestic travelers by their financing sources, lifestyles (often combining employment
and education), and financial obligations (Varasteh, 2015). On this premise, the issues
limiting foreign students' travel activities may differ from those affecting other
travelers. Understanding the issues that limit travel activities is crucial for capitalizing
on the related commercial possibilities (Varasteh, 2015). Also, it certainly gives little
trouble to international students to maximize their spending for travel in Malaysia.
Furthermore, it is evident that foreign students are not identical with youth travelers or
back-packers, which are the focus of several youth travel programmed and campaigns.
The fact that the student market and its criteria have been inadequately defined may
have inhibited the tourist and leisure sectors from producing specialized products for
this sector, despite their unique qualities (CFL, 2015). Providing a complete profile of
overseas students has the potential to advance scholarship and aid in the creation of
focused marketing initiatives, given the existing lack of market sophistication. Prior
study was characterized using small sample sizes, consequently restricting the capacity
to comprehend the behaviors of different segments of the international student travel
industry (Varasteh, 2015).
1.2 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. What is the relationship between international student and travel behaviour?
2. What is the relationship between demographic and international student travel

behaviour?
4
1.3 THE RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
1. To measure travel behaviour
2. To identify the relationship between demographic and international student

travel behaviour.
1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS
I．INTERNATIONAL STUDENT
The most frequently acknowledged definition of a globally mobile student is the
UNESCO's. According to UNESCO mobile student refers to "students who leave their
nation or territory of origin and travel to another country or territory in order to further
their education" (UNESCO, 2015). Among other distinguishing qualities, these students
are not permanent residents throughout their enrolment time in the host nation. A
university student, for example, must have finished high school in a country other than
the one in which they are pursuing postsecondary education. Thirdly, they are not
citizens of the nation of residence. In this research study, international student is defined
as international students who come from other countries with the aim of studying while
travelling in the country travelled in their own way.
II．TRAVEL BEHAVIOR
According to Hanieh (2015) travel behavior consider as plans and behaviors for tourist
spending, length of stay, attractions, destination, accommodation and many more
(Hanieh, 2015), for example, an international student wants to travel, so he chooses the
accommodation that suits him, the activities that he wants during travel, and the
transportation that suits him and so on. In this research study, travel behavior is defined
as human behaviour to travel according to one's own convenience without considering
the opinions of others.
5
1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
In most previous studies, only respondents from one department or one international
student community were surveyed (Hanieh, 2015). Although these results are beneficial,
it is difficult to extrapolate them to a larger population. To circumvent this ban, foreign
students at University Utara Malaysia were selected to be polled since international
students at University Utara Malaysia are from many nations. Earlier study was
constrained by criteria such as respondent, time, and convenience. The selection of
replies was restricted to a single geographic region which is University Utara Malaysia,
Sintok, Kedah, however this was a deliberate decision made for the purpose of
conducting this study.
1.6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
International students come to Malaysia to study or conduct research, but they should
also be encouraged to travel around the country. To that purpose, we devised and
implemented a system to facilitate foreign student tourism in Malaysia. However, the
tourism behavior of international students has not been examined (Hanieh, 2015). As a
result, in this study, we first provide an analytical approach for analyzing foreign
students' tourist behavior. With this we can see how international student choose the
place they want to vacation. Also, we can see how action can be taken by the
government to further strengthen the system to facilitate the movement of foreign
students to go on vacation. This is particularly important in a country boosting the
economy fully with the tourism industry. Lastly, this study is also especially important
to provide reference to people to facilitate the next study to be conducted better.
6
CHAPTER 2
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
According to UNESCO international students are those who decide to pursue all or a
portion of their tertiary education in a nation other than their own and relocate there to
pursue their studies. Very different from the number we wish to see in four years, the
Higher Education Ministry's website states that there were 95,955 international students
registered in Malaysia's higher education institutions and polytechnics in 2020, up from
93,570 in 2019. The average annual cost of an international student in Malaysia is
RM46, 000; if the student brings his family, the cost rises to RM88, 000 annually
(statista, 2022).
According to (Anantamongkolkul, 2020), travel is not purely derived. Simply put, travel
is made not only because there is a need for travel or for the sake of getting to the
destination. Travel has value of its own and also an intrinsic positive utility that is to say
that, a certain positive factors or characteristics that lead some people to engage in
travel might not be working on the same condition to the others. This suggestion is
much similar with the fact pointed by Frame (1957), Robert Stevenson (1913) and
Chatwin (1989) where in these literature reviews, travel is described as ‘an activity
which man took pleasure in doing it. People love to travel for the sake of travel itself
where there are times when travel itself is the desired activity’ (Anantamongkolkul,
2020). Study was carried out to serve the intention of having clear policy implications.
Results show that rather than determined by demographically based needs (age, income,
gender, level of education), travel is much more influenced by traveller’s attitude
toward travel. Additionally, demographically-based needs are positively related to
travel engagement when subjective variables such as travel liking, the adventure-
seeker personality, the travel stress attitude as well as the excess travel indicator were
7
evaluated jointly. Land-use pattern also plays a hand in influencing travel where
suburban residents showed a significant result in short-duration counterparts.
Schiffman and Kanuk (2007) explained that the study of travel behaviour is about why
people purchase one particular tourism products and how they make their traveling
decision. In related to that, the study on factors that influences the purchase of tourism
products whether internal or external motivations must be studied thoroughly which had
stated by Wang (2014) that clustered motivations for travelling into three groups which
are psychological, economic and cultural. However, these motivations will also affect
by external environment which are social, economic and political factors.
It is important for travel marketing researchers to better understand the characteristics of
generation y and develop specific products to meet their needs and desires. To
understand this target market, it is important to examine their travel behaviour. For
examples, what motivates the generation y to take a trip, what activities they prefer to
do during the trip, what type of trip they prefer, what type of transport they like to use,
type of accommodation and restaurants they choose during travelling, which sources of
information they use when planning a trip, and how much they willing to spend during
the trip.
Then, move to Kotler's criteria, which classify market segmentation features into four
categories—geographic, demographic, psychographic, and behavioural—were used to
reconcile segmentations because it was unclear how markets should be categorized
(Hanieh, 2015). In segmentation studies, the use of demographic parameters has
consistently been shown to be effective. Due to the placement of customers on easily
understood scales of measurement, Beane emphasized demographic segmentation as the
most prevalent method of market segmentation. The evaluation, acquisition, and
8
transfer of the data from one research to the next are often simple. Make effective use of
demographics when classifying light and heavy users (Hanieh, 2015). Then, additional
studies looked at different demographic attributes and their use in market segmentation,
whereas preceding research found a substantial correlation between buyer behavior and
their demographics (Hanieh, 2015).
One of the most major tourist activities that contribute to the expansion of the tourism
industry is travel. Findings on the travel patterns of each market group can help
businesses become more competitive and help them better satisfy the needs and
aspirations of their customers by boosting marketing tactics and supplying pertinent
items (Marzuki, 2018). University students are social groups that tend to exhibit certain
travel behaviors, therefore the requirement for creating and offering products that are
tailored to their needs is seen as being even more important.
Travelling while abroad is another way that international students are known to benefit
the tourist sector of their host nation. International tourism produced US$602 billion in
2021 or US$1.6 billion every day, according to the United Nations World Tourism
Organization (statista, 2022). Exports of tourism make up 6% of all exports of goods
and services and 30% of exports of commercial services. For most developing nations,
it is the cornerstone of one of the most significant sources of revenue and a crucial kind
of export that generates a significant amount of employment and development
opportunities (statista, 2022).
International students have an impact on a nation's economy both directly and
indirectly. International students frequently travel for pleasure in the country where they
are studying, and their substantial outlays on leisure travel are significant to the sector
(Hanieh, 2015). Tuition and living expenses, along with travel and tourist activities
9
conducted while pursuing other studies, make up the bulk of direct economic
contributions to a nation. Furthermore, there is a convincing case to be made that
foreign students frequently travel for pleasure, which has significant economic
implications for the travel and tourism sector. Indirect donations are given by friends
and family who go to see the student (Hanieh, 2015). Because international students
often stay at their chosen place for a long time, the economic advantages of their trip
have enormous value to the tourism industry in addition to and apart from the education
sectors.
Countries with a thriving export education industry immediately profit from this
growing market. As was previously said, Malaysia has overlooked the travel
preferences of students as a unique market segment. It is critical to identify the travel
preferences of this sizable population because little is known about university students'
travel preferences in Malaysia, even though Malaysia is gradually becoming recognized
by a large number of young foreigners as the preferred destination for continuing
education. Even while (Hanieh, 2015) research produced some exciting findings, it had
several drawbacks (Hanieh, 2015). First off, the study's small sample size—only 140
participants—make extrapolating the results challenging. Second, the sample of foreign
students at the UTHM Malacca Campus cannot be taken as representative of all foreign
students' travel habits in Malaysia. Given the geographical variety of Malaysia and the
availability of tourist-related goods that are thoughtfully dispersed around the nation,
similar studies should be conducted at other institutions in Malaysia which is UUM.
Travel behavior is characterized as a planned approach to organizing travel-related
activities. These sets of activity scheduling options need to be understood as various
variables that include a range of traits that characterize the roles and preferences of
tourists.
10
According to Hanieh employed demographic characteristics to identify the objectives of
this targeted segment and emphasized the importance of nation, age, and gender in
developing marketing strategies and promoting pertinent products (Anantamongkolkul,
2020). According Hanieh suggested, among other things, that the student market be
segmented based on ethnicity because each ethnic group has unique travel preferences
(Hanieh, 2015). One of the most recent research projects on travel behavior, by
according to Marzuki, also suggested that the market may be divided into segments
based on factors outside ethnicity, such as gender and marital status (Marzuki, 2018). In
order to carefully target this segment with carefully chosen products and services, this
study sought to understand the preferences of various demographic groups of
international students currently enrolled in Malaysia, one of the world's major centers
for international education. It also sought to understand how students prefer to travel
and engage in other activities while abroad. Malaysian tour operators may enhance their
services by creating trips that are both accessible and concentrated on highlighting the
destination's uniqueness, since they must organize their services around the activities
that most appeal to international students.
11
2.1 PROPOSED THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The theoretical framework in figure 1 has been created and studied so well to further
refine each item included. By taking the previous study to further strengthen the
existing theory of travel behaviour so that it is more complex. Then, in the framework it
is included every component that is in the list to facilitate the direction of research well
that is to know international student travel behaviour.
Travel preference
 Time travel
Demographic characteristic  Length of stay
 Accommodation
 Age  Eating
 Gender  Travel party
 Marital status  Leisure
 Country origin Travel behaviour  Sport nature/natural
 Level education  Event
 Financial support  Cultural
 Recreational
 Touring
Travel preferences and travel-related activities were the two categories into which the
dependent variables (DVs; travel behaviours) in this study were split. The time of trip,
accommodations, dining preferences, travel party composition, and travel objective are
all considered as DVs (travel preferences) in this study, which is in line with Hanieh's
research. These DVs are influenced by the demographic features of the travellers. Based
12
on prior studies, this study includes travel-related activities that people have engaged in
while travelling, such as leisure-based activities, sporting events, nature activities,
touring activities, and action and recreational activities.
The need to clearly understand how tourists and student travellers obtain information
about their destinations becomes a crucial issue in tourism marketing because of how
the current competitive condition of the tourism market means consumption of tourism
products completely depends on the information sources used by the tourist. Hanieh
asserts that travellers improve the quality of their journeys by researching their
preferred locations, and destination marketers may effectively sell their products by
understanding how travellers gather information. Additionally, it was noted that even
though information search, which was used as a descriptor to profile tourist behaviour,
was divided into different groups based on some other criteria, it still provided
significant and valuable information for the planning and positioning of effective
tourism marketing strategies. The earlier studies established the information sources as
being travel agencies and tourism offices, as well as friends, family, and close relatives
as well as publications including newspapers, magazines, radio, and television.
The correlations between preferred information sources and trip outcomes are also
corroborated by earlier research. According to Hanieh claimed that ratings of
information sources are related to travel behaviours, while other researchers claimed
that information sources about chosen destinations had an impact on travel outcomes
(Hanieh, 2015). In this study also added that diverse behavioural patterns come from the
way information seeking is frequently combined with cultural background. It is also
important to note that research has shown that how tourists behave when travelling can
vary depending on the information sources they use. For example, it was found that
when choosing a destination, information becomes more important as well as more

13
professional and reliable as travel distance increases. Additionally, it was discovered
that the earlier the final decision is made prior to leaving, the higher the level of
professionalism and general value of the information sources. Based on the debates and
assertions made above, it is thought that information source preference serves as a
moderator, primarily adjusting the strength of the associations between nationality and
travel behaviour. When used as a descriptor to profile the behaviour of tourists
segmented on other bases as well, stated information search has produced useful data
for designing marketing tactics.
14
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF REASEARCH APPROACH
This study used a quantitative approach to evaluate the wide range of travel habits of
international students at University Utara Malaysia in Sintok, Kedah. Postgraduate and
undergraduate students have been chosen to participate in this study's survey because
they make up a sizeable portion of the postgraduate and undergraduate students in
Malaysian universities and because this study is intended to look into the travel habits
of international students. It was decided upon to employ a stratified random selection
based on school. Based on information released by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher
Education in 2010, there were 2,279 international postgraduate and undergraduate
students enrolled at UUM (UUM, 2017), research universities in Malaysia. One
hundred respondents have been determined to be the ideal sample size for this
investigation. Each stratum is given a number that is proportional to its size relative to
the population. The research examines the travel habits of foreign postgraduate and
undergraduate students enrolled in University Utara Malaysia. The survey instrument
was sent to the target sample via an online survey technology.
Results of the study focused on students' preferred travel times, lodging preferences,
preferred dining options, travelling companions, primary travel goals, activities
completed, preferred sources of information about preferred destinations, and the
relationship between these factors and their travel habits (Hanieh, 2015). To formulate
and support questions in a legitimate and pertinent way, a review of the literature on
questionnaires from earlier studies was used. A preliminary pattern of the travel habits
of international students was created using literature reviews, and a pilot survey was
15
then conducted. The content validity procedure, a crucial stage in ensuring the validity
of the research, was completed prior to the pilot test. A review team made up of seven
academic faculty members who are authorities in methodology, analysis, and tourist
planning looked at the content validity of the preliminary items. They were tasked with
going over the questionnaire's content and its items and evaluating whether it was
appropriate for the current study. To make sure that the survey's directions, language,
justifications, and questions were understandable and written correctly and effectively, a
pilot test was undertaken.
3.1 SELECTION OF SUBJECT
Sampling is the process of selecting a sample from a big population to be studied. By
examining a smaller portion of the target population, sampling helps to cut down on the
time, money, and resources required for the study. As this research seeks to provide
easy accessibility and voluntary participation within geographical proximity and time
range, convenience sampling approach was used in this study. According to,
convenience sampling is a type of non-probability and non-random sampling in which
the population's proximity to one another has been predetermined. Due to the time and
financial constraints, this sample technique was chosen to conduct the investigation.
3.1.1 Targeted population

During this research study, a population study will be conducted on certain demography
of people. The population of interest in this study is the international students currently
enrolled in Universities in Utara Malaysia. There were no restrictions on respondents'
gender, country, or ethnicity if they were UUM students and had visited several tourist
destinations in Malaysia.
16
3.1.2 Sampling size
Due to time constraints and a tight budget, the vast student body at UUM makes data
collecting difficult for the entire population. To establish the sample representative for
generalisation, it is crucial to choose an effective and suitable sample size for a research
project. To guarantee the accuracy of the survey's results, it is also crucial to determine
the sampling size of the respondents. University Utara Malaysia have 2,279 total
international students enrolled until 2020, international students from forty-two
countries. According to, the criteria of sampling size should be established at a
minimum of 333 with a confidence level of 95% and a standard deviation of 0.5 percent
if the entire population is over 2,000. Also, 95 percent confidence in a survey's outcome
suggests that ninety-five out of one hundred will provide the expected results. Because
the researchers could not reach a substantial number of respondents in a short amount of
time and because it is most frequently used by other research, the confidence level was
chosen at 95% rather than 99.5%. The number of respondents for the sampling was
fixed at one hundred because the researcher was unable to reach 333 respondents in the
short amount of time.
Table 1: Sample Size for ±5% and ±10% Precision Level where Confident Level is 95%
and P=0.5
17
3.2 INSTRUMENTATION
Closed-ended questionnaires were the research tools used in this study. The survey
questions used in this study were all modified from other studies to ensure study
validity. The measurement items are listed and described below. The study used a
systematic and organised questionnaire that was constructed around the goal of the
investigation. Participants received their questionnaires via social media with a link to
the Google Forms website. The data collection methods used were Google Forms since
they were more user-friendly, affordable, and convenient for sharing through social
media platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp. Respondents' personal information was
kept private and secure. In addition, the questionnaire is made with the intention of
gathering quantitative data from respondents utilising closed-ended questions. Marzuki
research study claimed that offering a small number of options for answers in closed-
ended inquiries will increase response rates because the respondent won't have to think
of a response (Marzuki, 2018). Because it is more acceptable to communicate with our
respondents in English, the questionnaire's layout has also been designed in that
language.
3.2.1 Measurement items

Section A and section B make up the two sections of the questionnaire. First, section A
dealt with UUM international students' demographic with 6 items. Then, section B
travel behavior while travelling of UUM international students travel behaviour was
assessed using a total of 17 items.
18
Table 2: Measurement items of basic travel preferences
Dimension Measurement items Sources
1. Travel purpose
 Have fun
 New places
 Sight seeing
 Gain more knowledge of
Malaysia
Travel  Taking break from study (Hanieh, 2015; Marzuki,
behaviour 2. Time of travel 2018)
 Semester breaks
 Weekdays
 Weekends
3. Accommodation
 Hotel
 Friend’s house
 Home stay
 Hostel
 Camping
4. Preferred meal
 Fast food
 Local
 Branded restaurant
5. Travel party
 Friends
 Family
 Partner
1. Activities
 Leisure
Activities  Sport nature/natural (Hanieh, 2015)
preferences  Cultural
 Event
 Recreational
 Touring
Next, in section B, five types of questions were used to assess each of the travel
preferences. Briefly stated, a total of 5 items point measuring the travel preferences
were evaluated by selecting the answer point provided. All items derived from (Hanieh,
2015) were used to measure the travel preference of international student travel
19
behaviour. The measuring items culled from earlier investigations are displayed in the
table above.
3.3 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE
Data collection is the process of acquiring the desired information for analysis with the
least amount of distortion and cautiously to enable the analysis to produce results that
are dependable and make sense (D, 2019). Primary and secondary categories were used
to organise the data. This study uses both primary and secondary data to come at its
conclusion. The information gathered indicates that the study's findings are more
trustworthy because the previous author or researcher had established such facts. In
addition, the data collected supported the specified hypotheses and the research
objectives.
3.3.1 Primary data

Primary data is information that has been directly gathered by the researcher for a
particular goal; primary data is information that has been received by first-hand
experience; primary data is more unbiased and trustworthy (Wagh, 2020). The major
source of data was a survey questionnaire. To better understand the mechanism leading
to the results found in this study for the intended respondents, the researchers created
survey questionnaires. These survey questions made it possible to obtain an accurate
measurement. Because there is less societal pressure to do well, the questionnaire
created for responders to interview uses closed-ended questions. Additionally, using a
survey questionnaire had the advantages of being less expensive than alternative
methods and making it simple to gather the respondents' comments.
20
3.3.2 Secondary data
The data that has already been gathered from another source and used in the research to
support our opinions is known as secondary data (Wagh, 2020). Books, journals, web
articles, newspapers, and more are examples of secondary data. Emerald Insight,
Google Scholar, Sage, and other databases were employed in the current study to gather
data because to the savings in time and money, as well as their accessibility.
3.4 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS
Data obtained from the questionnaire is organised and transformed into valuable
information, such as data management, predictive testing, and other technical aspects,
using a data processing tool. When population-based data are acquired, it is necessary to
transform such raw data into usable data to better comprehend and depict the outcome.
According to (L, 2022) computed the data in this quantitative study in numerical form.
Thus, IBM SPSS statistics were used to examine the data that was gathered from the
online responders.
3.4.1 Statistical analysis

In the field of science known as statistics analysis, data collection, organisation,
analysis, and population-wide inferences from samples are all part of the process
(Contributor, 2020). However, a suitable study design was necessary before doing a
statistical analysis because poor statistical methods could provide false results and
unethical behaviour.
3.4.2 Descriptive analysis

The parameters included in frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviation
were reported using the descriptive statistic (Trochim, 2020). Descriptive analysis is
used to identify the fundamental characteristics of the study's data (Trochim, 2020). The
descriptive analysis, which may condense huge data into a more understandable form, is
21
crucial. Therefore, descriptive statistics, such as frequency, percentages, mean, median,
mode, and standard deviation, were employed in this study to assess the demographic
breakdown of the respondents' gender, age, nationality, level of degree, marital status
and financial support.
3.4.3 Pearson correlation analysis

The Pearson Correlation determines direction, significance, and strength of the link
between the independent factors and the dependent variable are all determined by
coincidence. It is best to use Pearson because this study explores the association
between characteristics like travel preferences and activity when travel preferences.
Using correlation as an inferential approach, one can evaluate the relationship between
demographics and the travel patterns of international students; to investigate the travel
behavior of international students. To investigate the relationship between activity
preferences and the demographic of international students. Its coefficient value ranges
from a negative (-1) to a positive (+l). The association between variables is weaker the
lower the correlation value. In contrast, the stronger the correlation, the more closely
related the variables are (University, 2022). Since the outcome is 0, there is no link
between the variables (University, 2022).
22
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The findings of the statistical review will be provided in this chapter, based on data
acquired through the use of questionnaires in Google Forms to answer and achieve the
study goals outlined in the previous chapter. The aim of this study is to measure travel
behavior and to identify the relationship between demographic and international student
travel behavior
This research aims to learn about international students' behavior at Universiti Utara
Malaysia when they travel; with this, we can see how international students choose the
place, food, partner, time and activities when they are on vacation. In chapter 4, the data
from each questionnaire component indicated by the respondent will be analyzed,
interpreted, and summarized in frequency, percentage, mean, standard deviation, and
other ways in this chapter.
23
4.2 RESPONDENT DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
The researcher has six questionnaires in this section to collect demographic data for this
chapter. Gender, age, marital status, country of origin, degree level and financial
support are all questions on the questionnaire. The first element of the survey form is
the demographic profile. The demographic component is significant in this study since
it allows us to learn about the characteristics of respondents and ensure that they are
qualified to participate.
Demographic variables Categories Frequency Percentage (%)
(N=100)
Gender Male 72 72.0
Female 28 28.0
Age 18-20 22 22.0
21-23 45 45.0
24-26 23 23.0
27 or more 10 10.0
Country of origin China 32 32.0
Indonesia 46 46.0
Iran 7 7.0
Nigeria 9 9.0
Pakistan 6 6.0
24
Marital status
Single 88 88.0
Married 12 12.0
Degree level Postgraduate
10 10.0
Undergraduate 90 90.0
Financial support Family support 49 49.0
Part-time work 14 14.0
Saving 16 16.0
Scholarship 21 21.0
Table 1: Demographic profile of respondents
4.2.1 GENDER
The number of respondents in this study is 100; table 1 shows the frequency and
percentage of the demographic profile of the respondents. A total of 72 respondents (or
72.0 percent) were male, while 28 respondents (or 28.0 percent) were female among the
100 people polled.
4.2.2 AGE
Then, the second respondent’s demographic is based on age. From the total 100
respondents that join the survey, respondents aged between the ranges 18 to 20 years
old are 22 people equivalent to 22.0% and respondents aged 21 to 23 are 45 people
equivalent to 45.0%. Then, respondents aged between the ranges 24 to 26 are 23 people
equivalent to 23.0%, and respondents aged 27 or more are 10 people equivalent to
10.0%.
25
4.2.3 COUNTRY OF ORIGIN
After that, the third respondent’s demographic is based on country of origin. Of the total
100 respondents who were surveyed, 32 people represent China equivalent to 32.0%,
respondents from Indonesia are 46 equivalents to 46.0%, respondents from Iran are 7
equivalents to 7.0%, respondents from Nigeria are 9 equivalents to 9.0% and
respondents from Pakistan 6 equivalent to 6.0%.
4.2.4 MARITAL STATUS

Based on the table and figure above, the majority of respondents is single. Single
respondents have recorded 88 individuals (88.0%). The balance number for married is
12 individuals (12.0%). It can conclude mostly UUM international students are single
and do not have an official relationship yet.
4.2.5 DEGREE LEVEL

Next analysis on data education level. Between of these two categories, mostly
respondents answer this survey was undergraduate student. The undergraduate
respondents recorded 90 (90.0%) from total 100 respondents. While the respondents for
post graduates only had 10 response (10.0%).
4.2.6 FINANCIAL SUPPORT

Next, the last respondent’s demographic is based on financial support. Then, from 100
respondents who join this study survey, 49 people represent family support equivalent
to 49.0%, part-time work is 14 equivalents to 14.0%, saving is 16 equivalents to 16.0%
and scholarship is 21 equivalents to 21.0%.
26
4.3 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
Descriptive analysis was used to interpret the researcher’s data from the survey by
respondents. Descriptive analysis can show and summarize the point of data to know
the condition data. In this section, researcher create two different tables for descriptive
analysis. The first table has a content mean and standard deviation and the second table
have a content of frequency and percentage.
4.3.1 Descriptive analysis of UUM international student travel behavior. (Mean

and standard deviation)
No. Item Mean Standard
deviation
1. I travel to have fun 4.21 0.844
2. I like to travel to explore new places 4.25 0.936
3. I like sightseeing when travel 4.22 0.894
4. I travel to gain more knowledge about 4.08 0.971
Malaysia
5. I travel to take a break from study and 4.12 0.935
release tension
6. I would like to travel during semester breaks 4.06 0.983
7. I like to travel on weekdays 3.25 1.114
8. I like to travel on weekends 3.73 1.033
9. I like to stay in a hotel when I travel 3.44 1.183
10. I prefer to stay at friend’s house when I 2.94 1.153
travel
11. I love to stay at a hostel 3.03 1.123
12. I prefer to stay at a homestay 3.54 1.176
27
13. I prefer to spend the night camping 3.80 1.128
14. I would rather stay in a rented house 3.14 1.295
15. I prefer fast food when I travel 3.59 1.138
16. I prefer local food when I travel 4.11 0.931
17. I prefer branded restaurant when I travel 2.93 1.174
18. I choose to travel with family 3.86 1.073
19. I like to enjoy travelling with friends 3.99 1.040
20. I would prefer to travel with a partner 3.99 1.040
21. I would like leisure activities to relax 4.10 0.859
22. I would like to enjoy sports nature/natural 3.88 1.018
activities
23. I would like to experience cultural activities 4.09 0.900
to know the art of local
N=100
Table 2: Descriptive analysis of UUM international student travel behavior
Based on table 2, the mean for 23 statements is between 2.94 to 4.25 was recorded. The
highest mean was “I like to travel to explore new places” which is 4.25 and the lowest
mean was “I prefer to stay at friend’s house when I travel” which is 2.94. The standard
deviation state in the table above between of 0.844 to 1.295. The highest standard
deviation was “I would rather stay in a rented house” and the lowest standard deviation
was “I travel to have fun”.
28
4.3.2 Descriptive analysis of UUM international student travel behavior
No Item Categories Frequency Percentage
. (%)
I travel to have fun Strongly disagree 3 3.0%
1. Disagree 3 3.0%
Neither disagree nor 2 2.0%
agree
Agree 55 55.0%
Strongly agree 37 37.0%
I like to travel to explore Strongly disagree 4 4.0%
2. new places Disagree 1 1.0%
agree
Agree 48 48.0%
3. I like sightseeing when Strongly disagree 1 1.0%
travel Disagree 1 1.0%
agree
Agree 48 48.0%
I travel to gain more Strongly disagree 1 1.0%
4. knowledge about Disagree 1 1.0%
Malaysia Neither disagree nor 12 12.0%
agree
Agree 50 50.0%
I travel to take a break Strongly disagree 1 1.0%
5. from study and release Disagree 2 2.0%
tension Neither disagree nor 10 10.0%
agree
Agree 50 50.0%
29
6. I would like to travel Strongly disagree 2 2.0%
during semester breaks Disagree 3 3.0%
agree
Agree 50 50.0%
7. I like to travel on Strongly disagree 4 4.0%
weekdays Disagree 28 28.0%
agree
Agree 28 28.0%
8. I like to travel on Strongly disagree 2 2.0%
weekends Disagree 10 10.0%
agree
Agree 51 51.0%
9. I like to stay in a hotel Strongly disagree 3 3.0%
when I travel Disagree 8 8.0%
agree
Agree 41 41.0%
I prefer to stay at Strongly disagree 8 8.0%
10. friend’s house when I Disagree 31 31.0%
travel Neither disagree nor 32 32.0%
agree
Agree 16 16.0%
11. I love to stay at a hostel Strongly disagree 6 6.0%
Disagree 17 17.0%
30
agree
Agree 34 34.0%
12. I prefer to stay at a Strongly disagree 5 5.0%
homestay Disagree 9 9.0%
agree
Agree 45 45.0%
13. I prefer to spend the Strongly disagree 4 4.0%
night camping Disagree 9 9.0%
agree
Agree 44 44.0%
14. I would rather stay in a Strongly disagree 9 9.0%
rented house Disagree 16 16.0%
agree
Agree 25 25.0%
15. I prefer fast food when I Strongly disagree 2 2.0%
travel Disagree 12 12.0%
agree
Agree 40 40.0%
16. I prefer local food when Strongly disagree 2 2.0%
I travel Disagree 2 2.0%
agree
Agree 53 53.0%
31
17. I prefer branded Strongly disagree 10 10.0%
restaurants when I travel Disagree 32 32.0%
agree
Agree 16 16.0%
Strongly agree 13 13,0%
18. I choose to travel with Strongly disagree 1 1,0%
family Disagree 5 5.0%
agree
Agree 46 46.0%
19. I like to enjoy travelling Strongly disagree 2 2.0%
with friends Disagree 3 3.0%
agree
Agree 48 48.0%
20. I would prefer to travel Strongly disagree 3 3.0%
with a partner Disagree 3 3.0%
agree
Agree 50 50.0%
21. I would like leisure Strongly disagree 3 3.0%
activities to relax Disagree 5 5.0%
agree
Agree 59 59.0%
22. I would like to enjoy Strongly disagree 1 1.0%
sports nature/natural Disagree 4 4.0%
activities Neither disagree nor 16 16.0%
32
agree
Agree 52 52.0%
23 I would like to Strongly disagree 1 1.0%
experience cultural Disagree 3 3.0%
activities to know the art Neither disagree nor 9 9.0%
of local agree
Agree 54 54.0%
N=100
Table 3: Descriptive analysis of UUM international student travel behavior
4.3.2.1 I travel to have fun
The table above shows the frequency and percentage data analysis of
international student travel behavior. The first travel behavior statement is “I travel to
have fun”. Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated
agree, which is 55 people equivalent to 55.0%. While the lowest frequency of the
respondents indicated neither disagree nor agree with 2 people equivalent to 2.0%. The
respondent strongly agrees with 37 people equivalent to 37.0%, then disagree with 3
people equivalent to 3.0%, and strongly disagrees with 12 people equivalent to 12.0%.
4.3.2.2 I like to travel to explore new places
The table above shows the second data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I like to travel to explore new places”.
Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated agree, which
is 48 people equivalent to 48.0%. While the lowest frequency of the respondents
indicated disagree with 1 person equivalent to 1.0%. The respondent strongly agrees
with 44 people equivalent to 44.0%, then strongly disagrees with 4 people equivalent to
4.0%, and neither disagrees nor agrees with 3 people equivalent to 3.0%.
33
4.3.2.3 I like to sightseeing when travel
The table above shows the third data analysis about international student travel
behavior in frequency and percentage: “I like to sightseeing when travel”. Based on the
data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated agree, which is 48 people
equivalent to 48.0%. While the lowest frequency of the respondents indicated disagree
with 1 person equivalent to 1.0% and also strongly disagree with 1 person equivalent to
1.0% The respondent strongly agrees with 42 people equivalent to 42.0%, and neither
disagrees nor agrees with 8 people equivalent to 8.0%.
4.3.2.4 I travel to gain more knowledge about Malaysia
The table above shows the fourth data analysis about international student travel
behavior in frequency and percentage: “I travel to gain more knowledge about
Malaysia”. Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated
respondents indicated disagree with 1 person equivalent to 1.0% and also strongly
disagree with 1 person equivalent to 1.0% The respondent strongly agrees with 36
people equivalent to 36.0%, and neither disagree nor agree with 12 people equivalent to
12.0.
4.3.2.5 I travel to take a break from study and release tension
The table above shows the fifth data analysis about international student travel
behavior in frequency and percentage: “I travel to take a break from study and release
tension”. Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated
respondents indicated strongly disagree with 1 person equivalent to 1.0%. The
34
respondent strongly agrees with 37 people equivalent to 37.0%, then disagrees with 2
people equivalent to 2.0%, and neither disagrees with 10 people equivalent to 10.0%.
4.3.2.6 I would like to travel during semester breaks
The table above shows the sixth data analysis about international student travel
behavior in frequency and percentage: “I would like to travel during semester breaks”.
indicated strongly disagree with 2 people equivalent to 2.0%. The respondent strongly
agrees with 35 people equivalent to 35.0%, then disagrees with 3 people equivalent to
3.0%, and neither disagrees with 10 people equivalent to 10.0%.
4.3.2.7 I like to travel on weekdays
The table above shows the seventh data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I like to travel on weekdays”. Based on
the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated agree and disagree,
which is 28 people equivalent to 28.0%. While the lowest frequency of the respondents
agrees with 15 people equivalent to 15.0%, and neither disagrees nor agrees with 25
people equivalent to 25.0%.
4.3.2.8 I like to travel on weekends
The table above shows the eighth data analysis about international student travel
behavior in frequency and percentage: “I like to travel on weekends”. Based on the data
table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated agree, which is 51 people
equivalent to 51.0%. While the lowest frequency of the respondents indicated strongly
disagree with 2 people equivalent to 2.0%. The respondent strongly agrees with 21
35
people equivalent to 21.0%, then disagrees with 10 people equivalent to 10.0%, and
neither disagrees with 16 people equivalent to 16.0%.
4.3.2.9 I like to stay in a hotel when I travel
The table above shows the ninth data analysis about international student travel
behavior in frequency and percentage: “I like to stay in a hotel when I travel”. Based on
the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated agree, which is 41
people equivalent to 41.0%. While the lowest frequency of the respondents indicated
strongly disagree with 3 people equivalent to 3.0%. The respondent strongly agrees with
19 people equivalent to 19.0%, then disagrees with 8 people equivalent to 8.0%, and
4.3.2.10 I prefer to stay at friend’s house when I travel
The table above shows the tenth data analysis about international student travel
behavior in frequency and percentage: “I prefer to stay at friend’s house when I travel”.
Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated neither
disagree nor agree, which is 32 people equivalent to 32.0%. While the lowest frequency
of the respondents indicated strongly disagree with 8 people equivalent to 8.0%. The
people equivalent to 31.0%, and agrees with people equivalent to 16.0%.
4.3.2.11 I like to stay at a hostel
The table above shows the eleventh data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I like to stay at a hostel”. Based on the
data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated neither disagree nor agree,
36
17.0%, and agrees with 34 people equivalent to 34.0%.
4.3.2.12 I prefer to stay in a homestay
The table above shows the twelfth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I prefer to stay in a homestay”. Based on
4.3.2.13 I prefer to spend the night camping
The table above shows the thirteenth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I prefer to spend the night camping”.
9.0%, and neither disagrees nor agrees with 14 people equivalent to 14.0%.
4.3.2.14 I would rather stay in a rented house
The table above shows the fourteenth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I would rather stay in a rented house”.
Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated neither
disagree nor agree, which is 31 people equivalent to 31.0%. While the lowest frequency
of the respondents indicated strongly disagree with 9 people equivalent to 9.0%. The
37
people equivalent to 16.0%, and agree with 25 people equivalent to 25.0%.
4.3.2.15 I prefer fast food when I travel
The table above shows the fifteenth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I prefer fast food when I travel”. Based
on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated agree, which is 40
neither disagree nor agrees with 23 people equivalent to 23.0%.
4.3.2.16 I prefer local food when I travel
The table above shows the sixteenth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I prefer local food when I travel”. Based
on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated agree, which is 53
strongly disagree and disagree with 2 people equivalent to 2.0%. The respondent
strongly agrees with 35 people equivalent to 35.0%, and neither disagrees nor agrees
with 8 people equivalent to 8.0%.
4.3.2.17 I prefer branded restaurants when I travel
The table above shows the seventeenth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I prefer branded restaurant when i travel”.
Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents indicated disagree,
indicated strongly disagree with 10 people equivalent to 10.0%. The respondent
38
strongly agrees with 13 people equivalent to 13.0%, then agree with 16 people
equivalent to 16.0%, and neither disagree nor agrees with 29 people equivalent to
29.0%.
4.3.2.18 I choose to travel with family
The table above shows the eighteenth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I choose to travel with family”. Based on
strongly disagree with 1 person equivalent to 1.0%. The respondent strongly agrees with
neither disagree nor agrees with 18 people equivalent to 18.0%.
4.3.2.19 I like to enjoy traveling with friends
The table above shows the nineteenth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I like to enjoy traveling with friends”.
3.0%, and neither disagree nor agrees with 13 people equivalent to 13.0%.
4.3.2.20 I would prefer to travel with a partner
The table above shows the twentieth data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I would prefer to travel with a partner”.
39
indicated strongly disagree and disagree with 3 people equivalent to 3.0%. The
respondent strongly agrees with 33 people equivalent to 33.0%, and neither disagrees
nor agrees with 11 people equivalent to 11.0%.
4.3.2.21 I would like leisure activities to relax
The table above shows the twenty-first data analysis about international student
travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I would like leisure activities to relax”.
indicated strongly disagree and neither disagree nor agree with 3 people equivalent to
3.0%. The respondent strongly agrees with 30 people equivalent to 30.0%, and disagree
with 5 people equivalent to 5.0%.
4.3.2.22 I would like to enjoy sports nature/natural activities
The table above shows the twenty-second data analysis about international
student travel behavior in frequency and percentage: “I would like to enjoy sports
nature/natural activities”. Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the
respondents indicated agree, which is 52 people equivalent to 52.0%. While the lowest
frequency of the respondents indicated strongly disagree with 1 person equivalent to
1.0%. The respondent strongly agrees with 27 people equivalent to 27.0%, then,
disagree with 4 people equivalent to 4.0% and neither disagree nor agrees with 16
people equivalent to 16.0%.
4.3.2.23 I would like to experience cultural activities to know the art of local
The table above shows the last data analysis about international student travel
behavior in frequency and percentage: “I would like to experience cultural activities to
know the art of local”. Based on the data table, the highest frequency of the respondents
40
indicated agree, which is 54 people equivalent to 54.0%. While the lowest frequency of
the respondents indicated strongly disagree with 1 people equivalent to 1.0%. The
respondent strongly agrees with 33 people equivalent to 33.0%, then, disagree with 3
people equivalent to 3.0% and neither disagree nor agrees with 9 people equivalent to
9.0%.
4.4 CROSSTAB TABLE TO SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE AND UUM INTERNATIONAL STUDENT
TRAVEL BEHAVIOR.
Cross tabulation is use to show the relationship between two or more variable in the
research study. In this study, researcher use the crosstab to measure the relationship
between demographic profile and the travel risk perception. This table above show the
frequency and percentage of respondent data according to the categories and
demographic profile.
4.4.1 The relationship between travel behavior among UUM students and gender
No Item Categories Male Female
. % f % f
I travel to Strongly disagree 3.0 3 0 0
1. have fun Disagree 3.0 3 0 0
Neither disagree 2.0 2 0 0
nor agree
Agree 39.0 39 16.0 16
Strongly agree 25.0 25 12.0 16
I like to Strongly disagree 3.0 3 1.0 1
2. travel to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0
explore new Neither disagree 3.0 3 0 0
places nor agree
Agree 33.0 33 15.0 15
41
3. I like Strongly disagree 1.0 1 0 0
sightseeing Disagree 1.0 1 0 0
when travel Neither disagree 7.0 7 1.0 1
nor agree
Agree 37.0 37 11.0 11
4. gain more Disagree 1.0 1 1.0 1
knowledge Neither disagree 11.0 11 0 0
about nor agree
Malaysia Agree 35.0 35 15.0 15
I travel to Strongly disagree 1.0 1 1.0 1
5. take a break Disagree 2.0 2 0 0
from study Neither disagree 9.0 9 10.0 10
and release nor agree
tension Agree 36.0 36 14.0 14
6. I would like Strongly disagree 2.0 2 0 0
to travel Disagree 2.0 2 1.0 1
during Neither disagree 7.0 7 3.0 3
semester nor agree
breaks Agree 36.0 36 14.0 14
7. I like to Strongly disagree 2.0 2 1.0 1
travel on Disagree 25.0 25 3.0 3
weekdays Neither disagree 14.0 14 11.0 11
nor agree
Agree 21.0 21 7.0 7
8. I like to Strongly disagree 2.0 2 0 0
weekends Neither disagree 11.0 11 5.0 5
42
nor agree
Agree 33.0 33 18.0 18
9. I like to stay Strongly disagree 3.0 3 0 0
in a hotel Disagree 7.0 7 1.0 1
when I travel Neither disagree 22.0 22 7.0 7
nor agree
Agree 30.0 30 11.0 11
I prefer to Strongly disagree 5.0 5 3.0 3
10. stay at Disagree 20.0 20 11.0 11
friend’s Neither disagree 23.0 23 9.0 9
house when I nor agree
travel Agree 12.0 12 4.0 4
11. I love to stay Strongly disagree 4.0 4 2.0 2
at a hostel Disagree 9.0 9 8.0 8
Neither disagree 24.0 24 11.0 11
nor agree
Agree 30.0 30 4.0 4
12. I prefer to Strongly disagree 4.0 4 1.0 1
stay at a Disagree 6.0 6 3.0 3
homestay Neither disagree 13.0 13 8.0 8
nor agree
Agree 32.0 32 13.0 13
spend the Disagree 4.0 4 5.0 5
night Neither disagree 9.0 9 5.0 5
camping nor agree
Agree 32.0 32 12.0 12
43
14. I would Strongly disagree 4.0 4 5.0 5
rather stay in Disagree 8.0 8 8.0 8
a rented Neither disagree 21.0 21 10.0 10
house nor agree
Agree 22.0 22 3.0 3
15. I prefer fast Strongly disagree 2.0 2 0 0
food when I Disagree 7.0 7 5.0 5
travel Neither disagree 15.0 15 8.0 8
nor agree
Agree 29.0 29 11.0 11
16. I prefer local Strongly disagree 2.0 0 0
food when I Disagree 2.0 2 0 0
nor agree
Agree 36.0 36 17.0 17
17. I prefer Strongly disagree 7 7 3.0 3
branded Disagree 23.0 23 9.0 9
restaurants Neither disagree 21.0 21 8.0 8
when I travel nor agree
Agree 10.0 10 6.0 6
18. I choose to Strongly disagree 1.0 1 0 0
travel with Disagree 5.0 5 0 0
family Neither disagree 12.0 12 6.0 6
nor agree
Agree 33.0 33 13.0 13
enjoy Disagree 2.0 2 1.0 1
travelling Neither disagree 8.0 8 5.0 5
44
with friends nor agree
Agree 34.0 34 14.0 14
20. I would Strongly disagree 3.0 3 0 0
prefer to Disagree 2.0 2 1.0 1
travel with a Neither disagree 8.0 8 3.0 3
partner nor agree
Agree 33.0 33 17.0 17
21. I would like Strongly disagree 2.0 2 1.0 1
leisure Disagree 3.0 3 2.0 2
activities to Neither disagree 2.0 2 1.0 1
relax nor agree
Agree 42.0 42 17.0 17
22. I would like Strongly disagree 1.0 1 0 0
to enjoy Disagree 4.0 4 0 0
sports Neither disagree 11.0 11 5.0 5
nature/natural nor agree
activities Agree 35.0 35 21.0 21
Strongly agree 21.0 21 6.0
23 I would like Strongly disagree 1.0 1 0 0
to experience Disagree 3.0 3 0 0
cultural Neither disagree 6.0 6 3.0 3
activities to nor agree
know the art Agree 39.0 39 15.0 15
of local Strongly agree 23.0 23 10.0 10
N=100
Table 4: Relationship between gender and international student travel behavior
Based on the table above, the highest data of first item 39 (39.0%) male
respondent agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was neither disagree nor
agree because had 2 male respondents (2.0%).
45
The higher data for second item was 33 male respondents (26.0%) that made a
choice for agree. The lowest female and male which is 1 respondent (1.0%) that chosen
disagree and strongly disagree.
The highest data of third item 37 (37.0%) male respondent agree for this item.
The lowest choice was recorded was disagree and strongly disagree equivalent to 1 male
respondent (1.0%).
Next the highest data for item four 35 (35.0%) male respondent agree for it. The
lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and disagree equivalent to 1 male
respondents (1.0%) and the lowest for female equivalent to 1 respondent (1.0%) with
neither disagree nor agree.
Item number 5 also show the highest number 36 female respondents (36.0%)
agree for this item. While the lowest was 1 male respondents (1.0%) strongly disagree
for this item and female also equivalent to 1 respondent (1.0%) with neither disagree
nor agree.
The highest data of item 6 36 (36.0%) male respondent agree for this item. The
lowest choice was recorded was disagree because had 1 male respondent (1.0%).
Next, for item number 7 the highest data that showed in table was 25 female
respondents (25.0%) disagree for this item. While the lowest one had 1 male
respondents (1.0%) chosen strongly disagree.
According to the table also, for the item number 8 from highest data were 33
female respondents (33.0%) chosen agree. While the lowest only 2 male respondents
(2.0%) strongly disagree.
The highest data for item number 9 also 30 male respondents (30.0%) for that
chosen agree. The lowest data also 1 male respondent (1.0%) that chosen disagree.
46
The higher data for item number 10 was 23 male respondents (23.0%) made
choice for neither disagree nor agree. The lowest recorded was strongly agree because
only had 1 female respondents (1.0%).
Next, 30 female respondents (30.0%) agree for this item and it was highest data
for item number 11. While the lowest data is female with 2 respondent (2.0%) that
choose strongly disagree.
Item number 12 data from the table show that the highest was 32 male
respondents (32.0%) agree for this item. While the lowest data for this item only had 1
female respondents (1.0%) that chosen strongly disagree.
Based on the same table also, the highest data for item 13 was 32 male
respondents (32.0%) that chosen agree. The lowest was 1 female respondents (1.0%)
that chosen strongly disagree.
Next, for item number 14 the highest data that showed in table was 22 male
respondents (22.0%) agree for this item. While the lowest one also female respondent
which is 2 respondent (2.0%) chosen strongly agree.
Next, 29 respondents (29.0%) were the highest data for them item 15 from male
respondents that made a choice for agree. While the lowest data is also from male
respondent which is 2 respondent (2.0%) that choose strongly disagree.
Item number 16 show the highest data 36 female respondents (36.0%) that
chosen agree. While the lowest only had 2 female and male respondents (2.0%) that
chosen strongly disagree and neither disagree nor agree.
Next, following the table above highest data for item number 17 was 23 male
respondents (23.0%) that chosen disagree. The lowest was also female which is 2
respondents (2.0%) made a choice for strongly agree.
47
According to table above, the highest data for item number 18 was 33 female
respondents (33.0%) chosen agree. The lowest data also on strongly disagree that only
had 1 male respondent (1.0%).
Next, based on the table above the highest data for item 19 was 34 female
respondents (34.0%) that chosen agree. While the lowest data is from female and male
respondent which is only had 1 respondent (3.0%) chosen strongly disagree and
disagree.
According to table above, the highest data for item number 20 was 33 female
respondents (33.0%) chosen agree. The lowest data is disagreed that only had 1 female
respondent (1.0%).
Next, following the table above highest data for item number 21 was 42 male
respondents (42.0%) that chosen agree. The lowest was female which is 2 respondents
(2.0%) made a choice for strongly disagree and neither disagree nor agree.
Next, for item number 22 the highest data that showed in table was 35 male
respondents (35.0%) agree for this item. While the lowest one also male respondent
which is only 1 respondent (1.0%) chosen strongly disagree.
Lastly, item number 23, the highest data that showed in table was 39 male
respondents (39.0%) agree for this item. While the lowest one also male respondent
which is only 1 respondent (1.0%) chosen strongly disagree.
48
4.4.2 The relationship between age and travel behavior among UUM students,
No. Item Categories 18-20 21-23 25-26 27 or more
% f % f % f % f
I Strongly 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
1. travel disagree
to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 2.0 2 0 0
have Neither 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
fun disagree nor
agree
Agree 11.0 11 26.0 26 12.0 12 6.0 6
Strongly 7.0 7 18.0 18 8.0 8 4.0 4
agree
I like Strongly 2.0 2 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
2. to disagree
travel Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
to Neither 1.0 1 0 0 2.0 2 0 0
explor disagree nor
e new agree
places Agree 14.0 14 19.0 19 11.0 11 4.0 4
Strongly 5.0 5 25.0 25 8.0 8 6.0
agree
3. I like Strongly 1.0 0 0 0 0 0 0
sights disagree
eeing Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
when Neither 3.0 3. 3.0 3 2.0 2 0 0
travel disagree nor
agree
Agree 13.0 13 20.0 20 9.0 9 8.0 8
Strongly 5.0 5 22.0 22 11.0 11 4.0 4
agree
I Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
4. travel disagree
to Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
49
gain Neither 2.0 2 5.0 5 4.0 4 1.0 1
more disagree nor
knowl agree
edge Agree 13.0 13 21.0 21 9.0 9 7.0 7
about Strongly 6.0 6 19.0 19 9.0 9 2.0 2
Malay agree
sia
I Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5. travel disagree
to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
take a Neither 2.0 2 4.0 4 3.0 3 1.0 1
break disagree nor
from agree
study Agree 9.0 9 22.0 22 12.0 12 7.0 7
and Strongly 9.0 9 19.0 19 7.0 7 2.0 2
releas agree
e
tensio
n
6. I Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
travel Neither 2.0 2 3.0 3 3.0 3 2.0 2
durin disagree nor
g agree
semes Agree 11.0 11 21.0 21 13.0 13 5.0 5
ter Strongly 7.0 7 20.0 20 6.0 6 2.0 2
break agree
s
7. I like Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1
to disagree
travel Disagree 3.0 3 16.0 16 7.0 7 2.0 2
on Neither 7.0 7 11.0 11 4.0 4 3.0 3
50
week disagree nor
days agree
Agree 9.0 9 8.0 8 8.0 8 3.0 3
Strongly 2.0 2 9.0 9 3.0 3 1.0 1
agree
8. I like Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
to disagree
travel Disagree 1.0 1 4.0 4 4.0 4 1.0 1
on Neither 3.0 3 6.0 6 4.0 4 3.0 3
weeke disagree nor
nds agree
Agree 14.0 14 20.0 20 13.0 13 4.0 4
Strongly 3.0 3 14.0 14 2.0 2 2.0 2
agree
9. I like Strongly 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0 0 0
to disagree
stay Disagree 1.0 1 6.0 6 1.0 1 0 0
in a Neither 7.0 7 12.0 12 8.0 8 2.0 2
hotel disagree nor
when agree
I Agree 8.0 8 16.0 16 11.0 11 6.0 6
travel Strongly 5.0 5 9.0 9 3.0 3 2.0 2
agree
I Strongly 3.0 3 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2
10. prefer disagree
to Disagree 5.0 5 19.0 19 4.0 4 3.0 3
stay Neither 9.0 9 11.0 11 11.0 11 1.0 1
at disagree nor
friend agree
’s Agree 3.0 3 6.0 6 4.0 4 3.0 3
house Strongly 2.0 2 7.0 7 3.0 3 1.0 1
when agree
I
51
travel
11. I love Strongly 2.0 2 3.0 3 1.0 1 0 0
to disagree
stay Disagree 3.0 3 7.0 7 3.0 3 4.0 4
at a Neither 10.0 10 12.0 12 10.0 10 3.0 3
hostel disagree nor
agree
Agree 5.0 5 19.0 19 8.0 8 2.0 2
Strongly 2.0 2 4.0 4 1.0 1 1.0 1
agree
12. I Strongly 3.0 3.0 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1
prefer disagree
to Disagree 2.0 2 5.0 5 2.0 2 0 0
stay Neither 5.0 5 4.0 4 7.0 7 5.0 5
at a disagree nor
home agree
stay Agree 8.0 8 24.0 24 11.0 11 2.0 2
Strongly 4.0 4 11.0 11 3.0 3 2.0 2
agree
13. I Strongly 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1
prefer disagree
to Disagree 3.0 3 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2
spend Neither 4.0 4 3.0 3 4.0 4 3.0 3
the disagree nor
night agree
campi Agree 9.0 9 18.0 18 13.0 13 4.0 4
ng Strongly 4.0 4 21.0 21 4.0 4 0 0
agree
14. I Strongly 3.0 3 4.0 4 1.0 1 1.0 1
would disagree
rather Disagree 4.0 4 6.0 6 3.0 3 3.0 3
stay Neither 7.0 7 10.0 10 9.0 9 5.0 5
in a disagree nor
52
rented agree
house Agree 3.0 3 15.0 15 6.0 6 1.0 1
Strongly 5.0 5 10.0 10 4.0 4 0 0
agree
15. I Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
prefer disagree
fast Disagree 2.0 2 4.0 4 3.0 3 3.0 3
food Neither 7.0 7 4.0 4 7.0 7 5.0 5
when disagree nor
I agree
travel Agree 7.0 7 22.0 22 9.0 9 2.0 2.
Strongly 5.0 5 14.0 14 4.0 4 0 0
agree
16. I Strongly 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
prefer disagree
local Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
food Neither 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0 2 2.0
when disagree nor
I agree
travel Agree 10.0 10 21.0 21 14.0 14 8.0 8
Strongly 8.0 8 21.0 21 6.0 6 0 0
agree
17. I Strongly 2.0 2 5.0 5 2.0 2 1.0 1
prefer disagree
brand Disagree 4.0 4 17.0 17 8.0 8 3.0 3
ed Neither 7.0 7 11.0 11 6.0 6 5.0 5
restau disagree nor
rants agree
when Agree 6.0 6 5.0 5 4.0 4 1.0 1
I Strongly 3.0 3 7.0 7 3.0 3 0 0
travel agree
18. I Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
choos disagree
53
e to Disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2 2.0 2 0 0
travel Neither 5.0 5 8.0 8 2.0 2 3.0 3
with disagree nor
famil agree
y Agree 8.0 8 21.0 21 12.0 12 5.0 5
Strongly 8.0 8 13.0 13 7.0 7 2.0 2
agree
19. I like Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
to disagree
enjoy Disagree 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
travell Neither 2.0 2 2.0 2 3.0 3 6.0 6
ing disagree nor
with agree
friend Agree 13.0 13 21.0 21 10.0 10 4.0 4
s Strongly 6.0 6 20.0 20 8.0 8 0 0
agree
20. I Strongly 0 0 3.0 3 0 0 0 0
would disagree
prefer Disagree 0 0 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0
to Neither 4.0 4 1.0 1 2.0 2 4.0 4
travel disagree nor
with a agree
partne Agree 14.0 14 22.0 22 10.0 10 4.0 4
r Strongly 4.0 4 18.0 18 9.0 9 2.0 2
agree
21. I Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
would disagree
like Disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2 2.0 0 0
leisur Neither 2.0 2 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
e disagree nor
activit agree
ies to Agree 13.0 13 24.0 24 14.0 14. 8.0 8
relax Strongly 5.0 5 18.0 18 6.0 6 1.0 1
54
agree
22. I Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like to Disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0
enjoy Neither 3.0 3 6.0 6 4.0 4 3.0 3
sports disagree nor
nature agree
/natur Agree 13.0 13 22.0 22 11.0 11 6.0 6.
al Strongly 5.0 5 14.0 14 7.0 7 1.0 1
activit agree
ies
23 I Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like to Disagree 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
experi Neither 5.0 5 1.0 1 1.0 1 2.0 2
ence disagree nor
cultur agree
al Agree 9.0 9 22.0 22 16.0 16 7.0 7
activit Strongly 7.0 7 20.0 20 5.0 5 1.0 1
ies to agree
know
the art
of
local
N=100
Table 5: Relationship between age and international student travel behavior
Based on the table above, the higher of first item is choice by respondent age 21
to 23 year was agree that recorded 26 (26.0%). The lowest choice was recorded for
many stages of age was strongly disagree, neither disagree nor agree and disagree
equivalent to 1 respondent (1.0%).
The higher data for second item was 25 respondents (25.0%) that age 21 to 23
years made a choice for strongly agree. The lowest recorded was strongly disagree,
55
disagree and neither disagree nor agree because only had 1 respondent (1.0%) by three
stages of age.
The highest data for third item was agree which is had 22 respondent (22.0%)
for age category 21 to 23 years. The lowest data was for age 18 to 20 and 24 to 26 years
equivalent to 1 respondent (1.0%) that choose strongly disagree and disagree.
Next for item number 4, agree was be the highest choice for respondents
because recorded 21 responses (21.0%) for age 21 to 23 years. While, the lowest
number only had 1 respondent for age 18 to 20, 24 to 26 and 27 or more that chosen
strongly disagree, disagree and neither disagree nor agree.
Item number 5 also show the highest number 22 respondents (22.0%) for age 21
to 23 years that made a choice for agree. While the lowest is also 1 respondent (1.0%)
for age 18 to 20 years, 24 to 26 and 27 or more that chosen strongly disagree, disagree
and neither disagree nor agree.
Based on the table above, the higher of item 6 is choice by respondent age 21 to
23 year was agree that recorded 21 (21.0%). The lowest choice was recorded for many
stages of age was strongly disagree and disagree equivalent to 1 respondent (1.0%).
Next, for item number 7 the highest data that showed in table was 16
respondents (16.0%) for age 21 to 23 years that chosen strongly disagree. While the
lowest one had 1 respondent (1.0%) that chosen strongly disagree and strongly agree
from all stage of age.
According to the table also, for the item number 8 from all stage of age the
highest data is from age 21 to 23 years which is 20 respondents (20.0%) chosen agree.
While the lowest was recorded only 1 respondent (1.0%) for age 18 to 20, 21 to 23 and
27 or more that chosen strongly disagree and disagree.
56
The highest data for item number 9 also 16 respondents (16.0%) for age 21 to 23
that chosen agree. The lowest data also 1 respondent (1.0%) respondents that chosen
strongly disagree and disagree by age 18 to 20 and 24 to 26.
The higher data for item number 10 was 19 respondents (19.0%) that age 21 to
23 years that choose disagree. The lowest recorded was strongly disagree, neither
disagree nor agree and strongly agree equivalent to 1 respondent (1.0%) by respondents
for age 24 to 26 and 27 or more respondents.
Next, 19 respondents (19.0%) for age 21 to 23 years be a highest data for item
number 11. This respondent was chosen agree. While the lowest data for this item had 1
respondent (1.0%) for age 24 to 26 and 27 or more that chosen strongly disagree and
strongly agree.
Item number 12 data from the table show that the highest was 24 respondents
(24.0%) for age 21 to 23 years that chosen agree. While the lowest for strongly disagree
only had 1 respondent (1.0%) from age 21 to 23 years and 27 or more.
Based on the same table also, the highest data for item 13 was recorded 21
respondents (21.0%) for age 21 to 23 years that chosen strongly agree. The lowest was 1
respondent (1.0%) that chosen strongly disagree from age 21 to 23 and 27 or more.
respondents (15.0%) from age 21 to 23 years that chosen agree. While the lowest one
had 1 respondent (1.0%) that chosen strongly disagree and agree from age 24 to 26 and
27 or more.
Next, 22 respondents (22.0%) were the highest data for them item 15. This data
from respondents that age 21 to 23 years which is have made a choice for agree. While
the lowest only had 1 respondent by age 18 to 20 and 21 to 23 that chosen strongly
disagree.
57
Item number 16 show the highest data also 21 respondents (21.0%) that chosen
agree and strongly agree by respondents that age 21 to 23 years. While the lowest only
had 1 respondent (1.0%) that chosen strongly disagree and disagree by respondent that
age 18 to 20, 21 to 23 and 24 to 26.
Next, following the table above highest data for item 17 was 17 respondents
(17.0%) that chosen disagree by respondents that age 21 to 23. The lowest was had 1
respondent (1.0%) that made a choice for strongly disagree and agree by respondent that
age 27 or more.
According to table above, the highest data for item 18 was 21 respondents
(21.0%) that age 21 to 23 year which is chosen agree. The lowest data is strongly
disagreed and disagree that only had 1 respondent (1.0%) that age 18 to 20 and 21 to 23.
Next, following the table above highest data for item number 19 was 21
respondents (21.0%) that chosen agree by respondents that age 21 to 23. The lowest was
had 1 respondent (1.0%) that made a choice for strongly disagree and disagree by
respondent that age 18 to 20, 21 to 23 and 24 to 26.
According to table above, the highest data for item number 20 was 22
respondents (22.0%) that age 21 to 23 year which is chosen agree. The lowest data is
neither disagree nor agree and disagree that only had 1 respondent that age 21 to 23.
(24.0%) that chosen agree by respondents that age 21 to 23. The lowest was had 1
respondent (1.0%) that made a choice for strongly disagree, neither disagree nor agree,
disagree and strongly agree by all stage of age.
(22.0%) that chosen agree by respondents that age 21 to 23. The lowest was had 1
58
respondent (1.0%) that made a choice for strongly disagree, disagree and strongly agree
by all stage of age.
Lastly, item number 23, the highest data that showed in table was 22 male
respondents (22.0%) agree for this item. While the lowest is from all stage of age that
choose strongly agree, neither disagree nor agree, disagree and strongly agree
equivalent to 1 respondent (1.0%).
4.4.3 The relationship between marital status and travel behavior among UUM
students.
No Item Categories Married Single
. % f % f
I travel to Strongly disagree 0 0 3.0 3
1. have fun Disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2
Neither disagree 0 0 2.0 2
nor agree
Agree 6.0 6 49.0 49
2. travel to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0
explore new Neither disagree 0 0 3.0 3
places nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 44.0 44
3. I like Strongly disagree 0 0 1.0 1
sightseeing Disagree 1.0 1 0 0
when travel Neither disagree 0 0 8.0 8
nor agree
Agree 5.0 5 43.0 43
4. gain more Disagree 1.0 1 0 0
59
knowledge Neither disagree 0 0 12.0 12
about nor agree
5. take a break Disagree 1.0 1 1.0 1
from study Neither disagree 0 0 1.0 1
6. I would like Strongly disagree 0 0 2.0 2
semester nor agree
breaks Agree 5.0 5 45.0 45
nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 24.0 24
8. I like to Strongly disagree 0 0 2.0 2
nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 47.0 47
9. I like to stay Strongly disagree 0 0 3.0 3
in a hotel Disagree 1.0 1 7.0 7
nor agree
Agree 6.0 6 35.0 35
60
10. stay at Disagree 5.0 5 26.0 26
nor agree
Agree 1.0 1 33.0 33
12. I prefer to Strongly disagree 0 0 5.0 5
homestay Neither disagree 5.0 5 16.0 16
nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 41.0 41
13. I prefer to Strongly disagree 0 0 4.0 4
camping nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 40.0 40
house nor agree
Agree 2.0 2 23.0 23
15. I prefer fast Strongly disagree 0 0 2.0 2
61
nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 36.0 36
Strongly agree 0 0 23.0 23
16. I prefer local Strongly disagree 0 0 2.0 2
nor agree
Agree 8.0 8 45.0 45
17. I prefer Strongly disagree 1.0 1 9.0 9
Agree 2.0 2 14.0 14
18. I choose to Strongly disagree 0 0 1.0 1
travel with Disagree 1.0 1 4.0 4
nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 42.0 42
enjoy Disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2
Agree 4.0 4 44.0 44
20. I would Strongly disagree 0 0 3.0 3
prefer to Disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2
partner nor agree
Agree 3.0 3 47.0 47
62
activities to Neither disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2
relax nor agree
Agree 7.0 7 52.0 52
to enjoy Disagree 1.0 1 3.0 3
23 I would like Strongly disagree 0 0 1.0 1
to experience Disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2
cultural Neither disagree 2.0 2 7.0 7
N=100
Table 6: Relationship between marital status and international student travel
behavior
Based on the table above, the highest data of first item 49 (49.0%) single
respondent agree. The lowest choice was recorded disagree equivalent to 1 married
respondent (1.0%).
The higher data for second item was 44 single respondents (44.0%) that made a
choice for agree. The lowest for married respondents was 1 (1.0%) that chosen strongly
disagree and disagree.
63
The highest data of third item 43 (43.0%) single respondent agree. The lowest
choice was recorded strongly disagree and disagree because had 1 married and single
respondent (1.0%).
The highest data of item 4, 45 (45.0%) single respondents agree for this item.
The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree, and disagree because had 1 married
and single respondent (1.0%).
The highest data of item 5, 43 (43.0%) single respondents agree. The lowest
choice was recorded strongly agree and disagree because had 1 married and single
respondent (1.0%).
The lowest choice was recorded disagree because had 1 single respondent (1.0%).
The highest data of item 7, 26 (26.0%) single respondents disagree for this item.
The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree because had 1 married respondent
(1.0%).
According to the table also, for the item number 8 from highest data were 47
single respondents (47.0%) chosen agree. While the lowest only 1 married respondent
(1.0%) strongly agree.
The highest data for item number 9, 35 single respondents (35.0%) agree this
item. While the lowest only 1 married respondent (1.0%) disagree.
The highest data of item 10, 30 (30.0%) single respondents neither disagree nor
agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded agree because had 1 married
respondent (1.0%).
The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree, agree and strongly agree because had
1 married respondent (1.0%).
64
The higher data for item 12 was 41 single respondents (41.0%) that made a
choice for agree. The lowest for married respondents was 1 (1.0%) that chosen disagree.
The lowest choice was recorded strongly agree because had 1 married respondent
(1.0%).
Next the highest data of item 14, 26 (26.0%) single respondents neither disagree
nor agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree and strongly
agree because had 1 also married respondent (1.0%).
Table above show the highest data for item 15 36 (36.0%) single respondent
agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree because had 2
single respondent (2.0%).
The highest data of item 16, 45 (45.0%) single respondents agree for this
item. The lowest choice was recorded disagree and strongly agree because had 1
married and single respondent (1.0%).
The highest data of item 17, 28 (28.0%) single respondents disagree for this
item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree and strongly agree because had
1 married respondent (1.0%).
According to table above, the highest data for item number 18 was 42 single
respondents (42.0%) chosen agree. The lowest data also on strongly disagree and
disagree that only had 1 married and single respondents (1.0%).
Next, based on the table above the highest data for item number 19, 44 single
respondents (44.0%) agree this item. While the lowest only 1 married respondent
(1.0%) strongly disagree, disagree and strongly agree.
The lowest choice was recorded disagree because had 1 married respondent (1.0%).
65
(1.0%) strongly disagree, neither disagree nor agree and disagree.
(1.0%) strongly disagree, neither disagree nor agree and disagree.
respondents (45.0%) agree this item. While the lowest only 1 married and single
respondent (1.0%) strongly disagree and disagree.
Lastly, item number 23, the highest data that showed in table was 47 single
respondents (47.0%) agree for this item. While the lowest is from married and single
that choose strongly disagree and disagree equivalent to 1 respondent (1.0%).
66
4.4.4 The relationship between country of origin and travel behavior among UUM
students.
No. Item Categories Indonesia China Nigeria Pakistan Iran
% f % f % f % f % f
I Strongly 0 0 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
1. travel disagree
to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
have Neither 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
fun disagree
nor agree
Agree 18.0 18 25.0 25 4.0 4 5.0 5 3.0 3
Strongly 13.0 13 19.0 19 2.0 2 2.0 2 1.0 1
agree
I like Strongly 2.0 2 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
2. to disagree
travel Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
to Neither 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0
explor disagree
e new nor agree
places Agree 15.0 15 21.0 21 3.0 3 4.0 4 5.0 5
Strongly 15.0 15 24.0 24 2.0 2 2.0 2 1.0 1
agree
3. I like Strongly 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
sights disagree
eeing Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 0
when Neither 0 0 3.0 3 2.0 2 2.0 2 1.0 1
travel disagree
nor agree
Agree 14.0 14 22.0 22 3.0 3 5.0 5 4.0 4
Strongly 18.0 18 21.0 21 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1
agree
I Strongly 0 0 0 0 1.0 0 0
4. travel disagree
67
to Disagree 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
gain Neither 2.0 2 6.0 6 0 0 2.0 2 2.0 2
more disagree
knowl nor agree
edge Agree 13.0 13 23.0 23 5.0 5 6.0 6 3.0 3
about Strongly 17.0 17 17.0 17 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1
Malay agree
sia
I Strongly 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
5. travel disagree
to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
take a Neither 3.0 3 3.0 3 1.0 1 3.0 3 0 0
break disagree
from nor agree
study Agree 16.0 16 23.0 23 3.0 3 4.0 4 4.0 4
and Strongly 12.0 12 20.0 20 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2
releas agree
e
tensio
n
6. I Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like to Disagree 2.0 2 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
travel Neither 3.0 3 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2 2.0 2
durin disagree
g nor agree
semes Agree 17.0 17 23.0 23 3.0 3 5.0 5 2.0 2
ter Strongly 10.0 10 20.0 20 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2
break agree
s
7. I like Strongly 1.0 1 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
to disagree
travel Disagree 6.0 6 18.0 18 1.0 1 3.0 3 0 0
68
on Neither 8.0 8 11.0 11 1.0 1 2.0 2 3.0 3
week disagree
days nor agree
Agree 10.0 10 10.0 10 3.0 3 2.0 2 3.0 3
Strongly 7.0 7 5.0 5 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0
agree
8. I like Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
to disagree
travel Disagree 3.0 3 4.0 4 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0
on Neither 5.0 5 5.0 5 1.0 1 3.0 3 2.0 2
weeke disagree
nds nor agree
Agree 17.0 17 23.0 23 3.0 3 4.0 4 4.0 4
Strongly 7.0 7 13.0 13 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
agree
9. I like Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
to disagree
stay Disagree 4.0 4 3.0 3 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
in a Neither 8.0 8 13.0 13 1.0 1 3.0 3 4.0 4
hotel disagree
when nor agree
I Agree 12.0 12 20.0 20 3.0 3 4.0 4 2.0 2
travel Strongly 7.0 7 9.0 9 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0
agree
I Strongly 4.0 4 3.0 3 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
10. prefer disagree
to Disagree 9.0 9 17.0 17 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2
stay Neither 11.0 11 13.0 13 1.0 1.0 5.0 5 2.0 2
at disagree
friend nor agree
’s Agree 4.0 4.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 1 3.0 3 1.0 1
house Strongly 4.0 4.0 6.0 6.0 2.0 2 0 0 1.0 1
when agree
69
I
travel
11. I love Strongly 2.0 2 3.0 3 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
to disagree
stay Disagree 7.0 7 4.0 4 1.0 1 3.0 3 2.0 2
at a Neither 12.0 12 13.0 13 3.0 3 4.0 4 3.0 3
hostel disagree
nor agree
Agree 8.0 8 22.0 22 1.0 1 2.0 2 1.0 1
Strongly 3.0 3 4.0 4 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
agree
12. I Strongly 2.0 2 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
prefer disagree
to Disagree 5.0 5 2.0 2 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
stay Neither 7.0 7 5.0 5 1.0 1 4.0 4 4.0 4
at a disagree
home nor agree
stay Agree 13.0 13 26.0 26 4.0 4 1.0 1 1.0 1
Strongly 5.0 5 11.0 11 1.0 1 3.0 3 0 0
agree
13. I Strongly 1.0 1 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
prefer disagree
to Disagree 6.0 6 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
spend Neither 5.0 5 4.0 4 2.0 2 2.0 2 1.0 1
the disagree
night nor agree
campi Agree 12.0 12 23.0 23 3.0 3 4.0 4 2.0 2
ng Strongly 8.0 8 16.0 16 1.0 1 2.0 2 2.0 2
agree
14. I Strongly 3.0 3 5.0 5 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
would disagree
rather Disagree 8.0 8 3.0 3 2.0 2 2.0 2 1.0 1
stay Neither 10.0 10 11.0 11 3.0 3 3.0 3 4.0 4
70
in a disagree
rented nor agree
house Agree 6.0 6 16.0 16 0 0 2.0 2 1.0 1
Strongly 5.0 5 11.0 11 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0
agree
15. I Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
prefer disagree
fast Disagree 5.0 5 2.0 2 0 0 2.0 2 3.0 3
food Neither 10.0 10 7.0 7 2.0 2 4.0 4 0 0
when disagree
I nor agree
travel Agree 12.0 12 20.0 20 3.0 3 2.0 2 3.0 3
Strongly 5.0 5 16.0 16 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
agree
16. I Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
prefer disagree
local Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
food Neither 3.0 3 2.0 2 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1
when disagree
I nor agree
travel Agree 19.0 19 21.0 21 4.0 4 6.0 6 3.0 3
Strongly 9.0 9 22.0 22 1.0 1 1.0 1 2.0 2
agree
17. I Strongly 2.0 2 7.0 7 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
prefer disagree
brand Disagree 8.0 8 18.0 18 1.0 1 3.0 3 2.0 2
ed Neither 11.0 11 11.0 11 3.0 3 3.0 3 1.0 1
restau disagree
rants nor agree
when Agree 7.0 7 4.0 4 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2
I Strongly 4.0 4 6.0 6 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0
travel agree
18. I Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
71
choos disagree
e to Disagree 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0
travel Neither 3.0 3 8.0 8 2.0 2 3.0 3 2.0 2
with disagree
famil nor agree
y Agree 14.0 14 23.0 23 3.0 3 3.0 3 3.0 3
Strongly 14.0 14 13.0 13 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1
agree
19. I like Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
to disagree
enjoy Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
travell Neither 4.0 4.0 4 2.0 2 2.0 2 1.0 1
ing disagree
with nor agree
friend Agree 18.0 18 23.0 23 2.0 2 4.0 4 1.0 1
s Strongly 8.0 8 18.0 18 3.0 3 2.0 2 3.0 3
agree
20. I Strongly 0 0 2.0 2 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
would disagree
prefer Disagree 2.0 2 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
to Neither 2.0 2 4.0 4 3.0 3 2.0 2 0 0
travel disagree
with a nor agree
partne Agree 17.0 17 22.0 22 3.0 3 4.0 4 4.0 4
r Strongly 11.0 11 18.0 18 1.0 1 2.0 2 1.0 1
agree
21. I Strongly 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like Disagree 3.0 3 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
leisur Neither 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
e disagree
activit nor agree
ies to Agree 17.0 17 29.0 29 3 3 6.0 6 4.0 4
72
relax Strongly 9.0 9 16.0 16 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2
agree
22. I Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like to Disagree 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
enjoy Neither 4.0 4 6.0 6 1.0 1 3.0 3 2.0 2
sports disagree
nature nor agree
/natur Agree 19.0 19 21.0 21 3.0 3 5.0 5 4.0 4
al Strongly 8.0 8 17.0 17 2.0 2 0 0 0 0
activit agree
ies
23 I Strongly 0 0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0
experi Neither 2.0 2 3.0 3 2.0 2 1.0 1 1.0 1
ence disagree
cultur nor agree
al Agree 17.0 17 23.0 23 3.0 3 7.0 7 4.0 4
activit Strongly 12.0 12 19.0 19 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1
ies to agree
know
the art
of
local
Table 7: Relationship between country of origin and international student travel
behavior
Based on the table above, the higher of first item is choice by Indonesia 25
respondent (25.0%) with agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree,
neither disagree nor agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent
from China, Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan (1.0%).
73
Next, the higher data for item 2 is choice by Indonesia 24 respondent (24.0%)
with strongly agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, neither
disagree nor agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from
Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan (1.0%).
Next, the higher data for item 3 is from Indonesia 22 respondent (22.0%) was
agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Iran, Nigeria and
Pakistan (1.0%).
The higher data for item 4 is from Indonesia 23 respondent (23.0%) with agree.
The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, disagree and strongly agree
because only had 1 respondent from Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan (1.0%).
The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, neither disagree nor agree,
disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Iran, Nigeria and China
(1.0%).
Next, the higher data for item 6 is from Indonesia 23 respondent (23.0%) with
agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Indonesia, Iran
and Nigeria (1.0%).
The higher data for item 7 is from Indonesia 18 respondent (18.0%) with
disagree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, neither disagree nor
agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from China and Iran
(1.0%).
The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, neither disagree nor agree,
74
disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Indonesia and Iran
(1.0%).
The higher data for item 9 is from Indonesia 20 respondent (20.0%) that choose
agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from China,
Indonesia, Iran and Nigeria (1.0%).
agree, disagree, agree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Iran,
Nigeria and Pakistan (1.0%).
agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, disagree, agree and
strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Iran and Pakistan (1.0%).
agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Iran, Nigeria and
Pakistan (1.0%).
agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from China,
agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, disagree, agree and
strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Iran and Pakistan (1.0%).
75
agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and strongly agree
because only had 1 respondent from Indonesia, Iran and Nigeria (1.0%).
strongly agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, neither disagree
nor agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from China,
Indonesia, Iran Nigeria and Pakistan (1.0%).
agree, disagree, agree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from Iran
agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, disagree and strongly
agree because only had 1 respondent from China, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan
(1.0%).
agree, disagree, and agree because only had 1 respondent from China, Indonesia,
agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, disagree and strongly
agree because only had 1 respondent from Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan (1.0%).
Next, the higher data for item 21 is from Indonesia 29 respondent (29.0%) that
choose agree. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree, neither disagree
76
nor agree, disagree, and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from China,
Indonesia, Iran and Nigeria (1.0%).
Next, the higher data for item 22 is from Indonesia 21 respondent (21.0%) that
nor agree and disagree because only had 1 respondent from China, Indonesia, Iran and
Nigeria (1.0%).
Lastly, the higher data for item 23 is from Indonesia 23 respondent (23.0%) that
nor agree, disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 respondent from China,
4.4.5 The relationship between degree level and travel behavior among UUM
students.
No Item Categories Postgraduate Undergraduate
. % f % f
I travel to Strongly disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2
1. have fun Disagree 0 0 3.0 3
Neither disagree 0 0 2.0 2
nor agree
Agree 5.0 5 50.0 50
2. travel to Disagree 0 0 1.0 1
explore new Neither disagree 0 0 3.0 3
places nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 44.0 44
3. I like Strongly disagree 1.0 1 0 0
sightseeing Disagree 0 0 1.0 1
when travel Neither disagree 1.0 1 7.0 7
77
nor agree
Agree 3.0 3 45.0 45
4. gain more Disagree 0 0 1.0 1
knowledge Neither disagree 1.0 1 11.0 11
about nor agree
5. take a break Disagree 0 0 2.0 2
from study Neither disagree 1.0 1 9.0 9
semester nor agree
breaks Agree 5.0 5 45.0 45
nor agree
Agree 2.0 2 26.0 26
nor agree
Agree 3.0 3 48.0 48
78
9. I like to stay Strongly disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2
in a hotel Disagree 0 0 8.0 8
nor agree
Agree 6.0 6 35.0 35
10. stay at Disagree 4.0 4 27.0 27
nor agree
Agree 2.0 2 32.0 32
homestay Neither disagree 4.0 17.0 17
nor agree
Agree 1.0 1 44.0 44
Strongly agree 3.0 3 17.0 17.0
camping nor agree
Agree 3.0 3 41.0 41
79
house nor agree
Agree 3.0 3 22.0 22
15. I prefer fast Strongly disagree 1.0 1 1.0 1
nor agree
Agree 2.0 2 38.0 38
16. I prefer local Strongly disagree 0 0 2.0 2
travel Neither disagree 0 0 8.0 8
nor agree
Agree 8.0 8 45.0 45
17. I prefer Strongly disagree 1.0 1 9.0 9
Agree 1.0 1 15.0 15
18. I choose to Strongly disagree 0 0 1.0 1
travel with Disagree 1.0 1 4.0 4
nor agree
Agree 4.0 4 42.0 42
19. I like to Strongly disagree 0 0 2.0 2
enjoy Disagree 0 0 3.0 3
Agree 3.0 3 45.0 45
80
20. I would Strongly disagree 0 0 3.0 3
prefer to Disagree 0 0 3.0 3
partner nor agree
Agree 5.0 5 45.0 45
activities to Neither disagree 0 0 3.0 3
relax nor agree
Agree 8.0 8 51.0 51
to enjoy Disagree 1.0 1 3.0 3
23 I would like Strongly disagree 0 0 1.0 1
to experience Disagree 1.0 1 2.0 2
cultural Neither disagree 0 0 9.0 9
N=100
Table 8: Relationship between degree level and international student travel
behavior
Based on the table above, the higher of first item is choice 50 undergraduate
respondent (50.0%) agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly
disagree equivalent to 1 postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
81
The higher data for second item was 44 undergraduate respondent (44.0%) agree
for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and disagree
because only had 1 postgraduate and undergraduate respondent (1.0%).
The highest data for third item was 45 undergraduate respondent (45.0%) agree
for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and disagree
because only had 1 undergraduate and postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
Next for item number 4, agree was be the highest choice because had 46
undergraduate respondents (46.0%). The lowest choice was recorded was strongly
disagree, neither disagree nor agree and disagree because only had 1 from
undergraduate and postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
Item number 5 also show the highest number 45 undergraduate respondent
(45.0%) agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and
neither disagree nor agree because only had 1 from postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
Based on the table above, 45 undergraduate respondents (45.0%) were be the
highest data for item number 6 with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded
was strongly disagree, neither disagree nor agree and disagree because had 1
postgraduate and undergraduate respondents (1.0%).
undergraduate respondent (27.0%) disagree for this item. The lowest choice was
recorded was disagree equivalent to 1 postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
According to the table for the item number 8, 48 undergraduate respondent
(48.0%) agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and
strongly agree because only had 1 postgraduate and undergraduate respondents (1.0%).
82
The highest data for item number 9, 35 undergraduate respondent (35.0%) agree
for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and neither
disagree nor agree because only had 1 postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
The higher data for item number 10 was 30 undergraduate respondent (30.0%)
neither disagree nor agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded agree and
strongly agree because had 1 postgraduate respondents (1.0%).
Next, the highest data for item number 11, 32 undergraduate respondent (32.0%)
agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree because had 1
post graduate respondent (1.0%).
Item number 12 data from the table show that the highest was 44 undergraduate
respondent (44.0%) agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly
disagree, disagree and agree because only had 1 postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
Based on the same table also, the highest data for item 13 was recorded 41
undergraduate respondent (41.0%) agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded
was strongly disagree and strongly agree because only had 1 postgraduate respondent
(1.0%).
undergraduate respondent (28.0%) neither disagree nor agree for this item. The lowest
choice was recorded was strongly disagree and strongly agree because only had 1
postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
For item 15 the highest data was 38 undergraduate respondent (38.0%) agree for
this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and strongly agree
because had 1 postgraduate and undergraduate respondents (1.0%).
Item number 16 show the highest data 45 undergraduate respondents (45.0%)

because strongly agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was disagree and
strongly agree with 1 postgraduate and 1 undergraduate respondents (1.0%).
83
Next, following the table above highest data for item number 17 was 29
undergraduate respondent (29.0%) disagree for this item. The lowest choice was
recorded was strongly disagree and agree because only had 1 postgraduate respondent
(1.0%).
According to table above, the highest data for item number 18 was 42
undergraduate respondent (42.0%) agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded
also strongly disagree, disagree and strongly agree because had 1 postgraduate and
undergraduate respondents (1.0%).
Next, based on the table above the highest data for item 19 was 45
undergraduate respondents (45.0%) because agree for this item. The lowest choice was
recorded was strongly agree because had 1 postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
Next, based on the table above the highest data for item 20 was 45
undergraduate respondents (45.0%) because agree for this item. The lowest choice was
recorded was strongly agree because had 2 postgraduate respondent (2.0%).
Next, the highest data for item 21 was 51 undergraduate respondents (51.0%)
because agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was disagree and strongly
agree because had 1 postgraduate respondent (1.0%).
Next, the highest data for item 22 was 46 undergraduate respondents (46.0%)
because agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree,
disagree and strongly agree because had 1 postgraduate and undergraduate respondent
(1.0%).
Lastly, the highest data for item 23 was 46 undergraduate respondents (46.0%)
because agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded was strongly disagree and
disagree because had 1 postgraduate and 1 undergraduate respondent (1.0%).
84
4.4.6 The relationship between financial support and travel behavior among UUM
students.
No. Item Categories Family Part-time Saving Scholarship
support work
% f % f % f % f
I Strongly 2.0 2 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
1. travel disagree
to Disagree 2.0 2 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
have Neither 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
fun disagree nor
agree
Agree 26.0 26 5.0 5 11.0 11 13.0 13
Strongly 18.0 18 8.0 8 4.0 4 7.0 7
agree
I like Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 2.0 2
2. to disagree
travel Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
to Neither 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
explor disagree nor
e new agree
places Agree 24.0 24 3.0 3 9.0 9 12.0 12
Strongly 22.0 22 9.0 9 6.0 6 7.0 7
agree
3. I like Strongly 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
sights disagree
eeing Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
when Neither 4.0 1.0 1 2.0 2 1.0 1
travel disagree nor
agree
Agree 24.0 24 4.0 4 8.0 8 12.0 12
Strongly 21.0 21 9.0 9 5.0 5 7.0 7
agree
I Strongly 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1.0
85
4. travel disagree
to Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
gain Neither 6.0 6 2.0 2 3.0 3 1.0 1
more disagree nor
knowl agree
edge Agree 26.0 26 4.0 4 8.0 8 12.0 12
about Strongly 17.0 17 8.0 8 4.0 4 7.0 7
Malay agree
sia
I Strongly 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
5. travel disagree
to Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
take a Neither 5.0 5 1.0 1 3.0 3 1.0 1
break disagree nor
from agree
study Agree 26.0 26 3.0 3 10.0 10 11.0 11
and Strongly 18.0 18 10.0 10 2.0 2 7.0 7
releas agree
e
tensio
n
6. I Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
would disagree
like to Disagree 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1
travel Neither 3.0 3 2.0 2 2.0 2 3.0 3
durin disagree nor
g agree
semes Agree 26.0 26 4.0 4 10.0 10 10.0 10
ter Strongly 19.0 1 7.0 7 3.0 3 6.0 6
break agree
s
7. I like Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1 1.0 1
to disagree
travel Disagree 16.0 16 1.0 1 7.0 7 4.0 4
86
on
week Neither 10.0 10 4.0 4 5.0 5 6.0 6
days disagree nor
agree
Agree 16.0 16 4.0 4 1.0 1 7.0 7
Strongly 6.0 6 4.0 4 2.0 2 3.0 3
agree
8. I like Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
to disagree
travel Disagree 2.0 2 3.0 3 3.0 3 2.0 2
on Neither 4.0 4 4.0 4 4.0 4 4.0 4
weeke disagree nor
nds agree
Agree 30.0 30 5.0 5 5.0 5 11.0 11
Strongly 12.0 12 2.0 2 4.0 4 3.0 3
agree
9. I like Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 2.0 2
to disagree
stay Disagree 3.0 0 0 2.0 2 3.0 3
in a Neither 14.0 14 5.0 5 4.0 4 6.0 6
hotel disagree nor
when agree
I Agree 19.0 19 5.0 5 4.0 6.0 6
travel Strongly 12.0 12 4.0 4 0 0 3.0 3
agree
I Strongly 3.0 3 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2
10. prefer disagree
to Disagree 16.0 16 4.0 4 7.0 7 4.0 4
stay Neither 12.0 12 5.0 5 7.0 7 8.0 8
at disagree nor
friend agree
’s Agree 10.0 10 1.0 1 1.0 1 4.0 4
house Strongly 8.0 8 2.0 2 0 0 3.0 3
87
when agree
I
travel
11. I love Strongly 1.0 1 3.0 3 0 0 2.0 2
to disagree
stay Disagree 8.0 8 1.0 1 6.0 6 2.0 2
at a Neither 14.0 14 8.0 8 6.0 6 7.0 7
hostel disagree nor
agree
Agree 19.0 19 2.0 2 4.0 4 9.0 9
Strongly 7.0 7 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
agree
12. I Strongly 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 2.0 2
prefer disagree
to Disagree 5.0 5 0 0 2.0 2 2.0 2
stay Neither 7.0 7 6.0 6 3.0 3 5.0 5
at a disagree nor
home agree
stay Agree 24.0 24 4.0 4 9.0 9 8.0 8
Strongly 11.0 11 3.0 3 2.0 2 4.0 4
agree
13. I Strongly 2.0 2 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1
prefer disagree
to Disagree 3.0 3 1.0 1 3.0 3 2.0 2
spend Neither 7.0 7 3.0 3 1.0 1 3.0 3
the disagree nor
night agree
campi Agree 22.0 22 5.0 5 7.0 7 10.0 10
ng Strongly 15.0 15 4.0 4 5.0 5 5.0 5
agree
14. I Strongly 3.0 3 4.0 4 0 0 2.0 2
would disagree
rather Disagree 6.0 6 0 0 6.0 6 4.0 4
88
stay Neither 13.0 13 8.0 8 4.0 4 6.0 6
in a disagree nor
rented agree
house Agree 14.0 14 1.0 1 5.0 5 5.0 5
Strongly 13.0 13 1.0 1 1.0 1 4.0 4
agree
15. I Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
prefer disagree
fast Disagree 4.0 4 3.0 3 2.0 2 3.0 3
food Neither 6.0 6 5.0 5 5.0 5 7.0 7
when disagree nor
I agree
travel Agree 25.0 25 2.0 2 6.0 6 7.0 7
Strongly 13.0 13 4.0 4 3.0 3 3.0 3
agree
16. I Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 1.0 1
prefer disagree
local Disagree 0 0 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
food Neither 4.0 4 1.0 1 1.0 1 2.0 2
when disagree nor
I agree
travel Agree 25.0 25 6.0 6 12.0 12 10.0 10
Strongly 19.0 19 7.0 7 2.0 2 7.0 7
agree
17. I Strongly 4.0 4 3.0 3 1.0 1 2.0 2
prefer disagree
brand Disagree 18.0 18 3.0 3 7.0 7 4.0 4
ed Neither 10.0 10 6.0 6 4.0 4 9.0 9
restau disagree nor
rants agree
when Agree 7.0 7 2.0 2 3.0 3 4.0 4
I Strongly 10.0 10 0 0 1.0 1 2.0 2
travel agree
89
18. I Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
choos disagree
e to Disagree 2.0 2 1.0 1 2.0 2 0 0
travel Neither 6.0 6 5.0 5 3.0 3 4.0 4
with disagree nor
famil agree
y Agree 23.0 23 5.0 5 6.0 6 12.0 12
Strongly 17.0 17 3.0 3 5.0 5 5.0 5
agree
19. I like Strongly 1.0 1.0 1 0 0 0 0
to disagree
enjoy Disagree 2.0 2 0 0 1.0 1 0 0
travell Neither 5.0 5 3.0 3 4.0 4 1.0 1
ing disagree nor
with agree
friend Agree 21.0 21 5.0 5 7.0 7 15.0 15
s Strongly 20.0 20 5.0 5 4.0 4 5.0 5
agree
20. I Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1
would disagree
prefer Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
to Neither 1.0 1 4.0 4 1.0 1 5.0 5
travel disagree nor
with a agree
partne Agree 29.0 29 5.0 5 7.0 7 9.0 9
r Strongly 17.0 17 4.0 4 7.0 7 5.0 5
agree
21. I Strongly 1.0 1 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1
would disagree
like Disagree 2.0 2 0 0 1.0 1 2.0 2
leisur Neither 2.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 0 0 0 0
e disagree nor
activit agree
90
ies to Agree 27.0 27 6.0 6 13.0 13 13.0 13
relax Strongly 17.0 17 6.0 6 2.0 2 5.0 5
agree
22. I Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 2.0 2 1.0 1
enjoy Neither 10.0 10 2.0 2 3.0 3 1.0 1
sports disagree nor
nature agree
/natur Agree 21.0 21 5.0 5 10.0 10 16.0 16
al Strongly 16.0 16 7.0 7 1.0 1 3.0 3
activit agree
ies
23 I Strongly 1.0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
would disagree
like to Disagree 1.0 1 0 0 1.0 1 1.0 1
experi Neither 3.0 3 3.0 3 1.0 1 2.0 2
ence disagree nor
cultur agree
al Agree 24.0 24 5.0 5 12.0 12 13.0 13
activit Strongly 20.0 20 6.0 6 2.0 2 5.0 5
ies to agree
know
the art
of
local
N=100
Table 9: Relationship between financial support and international student travel
behavior
Based on the table above, the highest data of first item 26 (26.0%) respondent
that got family support agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly
91
disagree, neither disagree nor agree and disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for
family support, part time work, saving and scholarship.
Next, the highest data from item 2 is 24 (24.0%) respondent that got family
support agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree, neither
disagree nor agree and disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family support,
part time work and saving.
disagree nor agree and disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for part time work,
saving and scholarship.
disagree nor agree and disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for saving and
scholarship.
support with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree,
neither disagree nor agree and disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for part time
work, saving and scholarship.
support with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree and
disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family support, part time work, saving
and scholarship.
support with disagree and agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly
92
disagree, disagree and agree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family support, part
time work, saving and scholarship.
support with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree that
chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family support and scholarship.
support with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree that
chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family support.
support with disagree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree
and agree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for part time work and saving.
disagree and strongly agree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family support, part
time work and scholarship.
disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for part time work.
neither disagree nor agree and disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for saving,
part time work and scholarship.
support with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded agree and strongly
agree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for part time work and saving.
93
support with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree, that
chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family support and scholarship.
neither disagree nor agree and disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family
support, saving, part time work and scholarship.
support with disagree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree
and strongly agree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for saving.
support with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree and
disagree that chosen by 1 respondent (1.0%) for family support and part time work.
support with agree for this item. The lowest choice was recorded strongly disagree
support, part time work, saving and scholarship.
94
neither disagree nor agree, disagree and strongly agree that chosen by 1 respondent
(1.0%) for family support, saving and scholarship.
Lastly, the highest data from item 23 is 24 (24.0%) respondent that got family
support, saving and scholarship.
95
CHAPTER 5
5.0 INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the researcher will draw conclusions from the data analysis in the
previous chapter, Chapter 4. This chapter will cover everything important, such as the
research objective based on the results and the relationship between the dependent
variable and the independent variable. In this research study, 100 people answered a
survey questionnaire. Furthermore, an implication has been drawn based on the
previous chapter's results to improve future studies. All limitations and problems
encountered in this study will be addressed in future studies. This chapter concludes
with a discussion of the limitations and suggestions.
5.1 DISCUSSION OF KEY FINDING
UUM currently hosts approximately two thousand international students per year and
there is further capacity for growth (UUM, 2017). For tourism destination authorities,
the substantial number of international students who are already present within the
university for extended periods constitutes a potentially attractive and readily accessible
market. This UUM-based study is the first investigation of the travel behaviours of
international students and of what is constraining such travel (N- 100). This article can
assist destination marketers and tourism organizers to gain useful information on the
travel behaviour of international students in Malaysia through a comprehensive
investigation with the aim of achieving two objective which were to examine the
relationships between demographic characteristics and travel behavior of international
students in UUM. SEM was utilized to analyze the quantitative data and to explore the
existing relationships among variables. The testing of assumptions before the
performance of each statistical technique was all satisfied. The following sections
discuss the objectives and the findings of the study in reasonable detail. SEM was
96
utilized to analyze the quantitative data and to explore the existing relationships among
variables, followed by assessments of the measurement model and structural model,
which were reported to describe reliability and validity of developed questionnaires as
well as relationships between variables. The testing of assumptions before the
performance of each statistical technique was all satisfied. The following sections
discuss the objectives and the findings of the study in reasonable detail. Results
revealed that preferred time for traveling was affected by nationality in UUM.
Significant relationships between preferred accommodation and gender, marital status,
and nationality were also revealed. The study also found preferred meal to be
significantly influenced by gender, age and nationality, which is in agreement with
(Marzuki, 2018) who reported in their study that age and gender affect choices of food
outlets. The results also showed preferred travel party is significantly affected by age,
nationality and financial support. Regarding the reasons behind international students’
main purposes for traveling, it was found that travel purpose is associated with
nationality of international students. The study also found travel activities undertaken
by students when they are traveling were affected by gender, nationality. Findings of
(Marzuki, 2018) confirmed the influence of nationality on different travel activities and
levels of participation. Relationships between demographic characteristics, information
source preference, and travel behaviors of students were investigated as the main
objective of the study.
Then, the highest preferred activities when travel. The data finding provides important
insights into the leisure preferences of international students when they travel. The
question asked was whether the respondents would like leisure activities to relax, and
the responses were recorded in terms of frequency and percentage.
97
According to the data, the highest frequency of responses was "agree," which was
indicated by 59 respondents, equivalent to 59.0% of the total sample size. This indicates
that a clear majority of international student’s value leisure activities when they travel
and prioritize relaxation during their free time.
This data could have important implications for the tourism industry, particularly in
terms of developing and promoting leisure activities that cater to the preferences of
international students. By providing a range of activities that promote relaxation, such
as spa treatments, outdoor activities, and cultural experiences, tourism providers can
appeal to the interests of international students and enhance their overall travel
experience.
Moreover, universities and educational institutions that host international students could
also consider incorporating leisure activities into their programs to provide students
with opportunities to unwind and relax. By offering a range of leisure activities,
universities can help students to manage the stress and demands of their academic
studies and promote overall well-being.
In conclusion, the data presented in the table provides valuable insights into the leisure
preferences of international students when they travel. The majority of respondents
indicated their preference for leisure activities to relax, highlighting the importance of
promoting such activities in the tourism industry and educational institutions. However,
the significant proportion of neutral responses suggests that further research may be
needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of the factors that influence the leisure
preferences of international students.
98
5.2 RESEARCH IMPLICATION
International student travel behavior is an important area of research, as it has
significant implications for both the international education sector and the tourism
industry. Understanding the travel behavior of international students can help
educational institutions and tourism organizations to develop effective strategies to
attract and retain international students, as well as to promote tourism.
One of the key research implications of international student travel behavior is the need
to understand the motivations behind international student travel. Researchers can
investigate the reasons why international students choose to travel and how these
reasons influence their travel behavior. For example, some students may travel for
cultural immersion and language learning, while others may travel for leisure or to visit
friends and family. Understanding these motivations can help educational institutions
and tourism organizations to tailor their programs and services to meet the needs of
international students.
Another important research implication is the need to explore the impact of travel on
international students. Researchers can investigate the benefits and challenges of
international student travel, such as cultural adaptation, language acquisition, academic
performance, and social and emotional well-being. This can help educational
institutions and tourism organizations to design programs and services that promote
positive outcomes for international students.
Research can also investigate the impact of international student travel on the tourism
industry. By understanding the travel behavior of international students, tourism
organizations can develop marketing strategies that target this group of travellers. For
99
example, they can promote cultural and educational experiences that appeal to
international students, or develop special travel packages and discounts for this group.
Another research implication is the need to explore the impact of external factors on
international student travel behavior. Global events such as pandemics, natural disasters,
or political instability can significantly impact international student travel behavior.
Research can investigate how these external factors influence travel behavior and how
educational institutions and tourism organizations can respond to these challenges.
Overall, research on international student travel behavior has important implications for
both the international education sector and the tourism industry. By understanding the
motivations and travel behavior of international students, educational institutions and
tourism organizations can develop effective strategies to attract and retain this group of
travelers. They can also promote cultural exchange and facilitate cross-cultural learning,
which can have significant benefits for individuals and society as a whole.
5.3 RESEARCH LIMITATION
International student travel behavior has become an area of interest for researchers as
globalization continues to grow and the number of international students studying
abroad increases. However, there are several limitations that can arise when studying
this topic, which can affect the accuracy and reliability of the research findings. In this
essay, we will explore some of the limitations that can arise when studying international
student travel behavior.
One of the primary limitations of studying international student travel behavior is
sampling bias. Researchers may not be able to collect data from all international
students, which can lead to a biased sample. For example, students who are more
inclined to travel may be overrepresented, while those who cannot afford to travel may
100
be underrepresented. This can affect the accuracy of the study's findings and make it
difficult to generalize the results to the broader population of international students.
Another limitation is self-reporting bias. Students may not be entirely truthful in their
responses when asked about their travel behaviors. They may under or overstate their
travel behavior based on social desirability or memory recall bias. This can affect the
validity of the study's results and make it difficult to draw accurate conclusions about
international student travel behavior.
Cultural differences can also affect the accuracy of research findings. Students from
different countries may have different cultural attitudes towards travel and may not
respond to survey questions in the same way. For example, some students may view
travel as an essential part of their education, while others may view it as a luxury. This
can make it difficult to compare results across different countries and to draw
meaningful conclusions about international student travel behavior.
Limited time frame can also be a limitation of international student travel behavior
studies. Research studies may have a limited time frame, which can make it difficult to
capture the full range of international student travel behavior. The study may only
capture a snapshot of student behavior, which may not be representative of their overall
travel behavior.
External factors such as travel restrictions or global pandemics can also affect the
accuracy and reliability of research findings. These factors can have a significant impact
on travel behavior, which may not be accounted for in the study. For example, a global
pandemic such as COVID-19 may have a significant impact on international student
travel behavior, but studies conducted before the pandemic may not capture this effect.
101
In conclusion, studying international student travel behavior has several limitations,
including sampling bias, self-reporting bias, cultural differences, limited time frame,
and external factors. These limitations can affect the accuracy and reliability of research
findings and make it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about international
student travel behavior. Therefore, it is important for researchers to acknowledge and
address these limitations when conducting studies on this topic.
5.4 FUTURE STUDY
As international education and travel continue to grow, it is important to continue to
research the travel behavior of international students. Future studies in this area can
provide valuable insights into the changing trends and behaviors of international
students, as well as the impact of new technologies and external factors on their travel
behavior.
One area for future research is the impact of social media and technology on
international student travel behavior. Social media platforms such as Instagram and
Facebook have become important sources of travel inspiration and planning for many
people, including international students. Future research can explore the impact of
social media on the travel behavior of international students, including how it influences
their destination choices and travel planning.
Another area for future study is the impact of sustainability and ethical considerations
on international student travel behavior. As more students become aware of the
environmental impact of travel and the importance of responsible tourism, there may be
changes in travel behavior, such as a preference for eco-friendly accommodations or
alternative modes of transportation. Future research can investigate how sustainability
102
and ethical considerations influence the travel behavior of international students and
how educational institutions and tourism organizations can respond to these changes.
The impact of pandemics and other external factors on international student travel
behavior is also an important area for future research. The COVID-19 pandemic has had
a significant impact on international student travel behavior, with many students being
unable to travel or facing travel restrictions. Future research can investigate the long-
term impact of pandemics and other external factors on international student travel
behavior and how educational institutions and tourism organizations can adapt to these
changes.
Finally, future research can explore the impact of cultural differences on international
student travel behavior. As more students from non-Western countries study abroad,
there may be differences in travel behavior based on cultural norms and values. Future
research can investigate how cultural differences influence international student travel
behavior and how educational institutions and tourism organizations can respond to
these differences.
In conclusion, future studies of international student travel behavior can provide
valuable insights into changing trends and behaviors, the impact of new technologies,
sustainability and ethical considerations, external factors, and cultural differences. By
understanding these factors, educational institutions and tourism organizations can
develop effective strategies to attract and retain international students, promote
responsible tourism, and facilitate cross-cultural learning.
103
REFERENCE
Statista. (2022, June 3). Number of international students in higher education in
Malaysia 2021, by country. Retrieved June 30, 2022, from
https://www.statista.com/statistics/866731/international-students-in-malaysia-
by-country-of-origin/
Malaysia Students Web - UNIVERSITI UTARA MALAYSIA (UUM). (2017). UUM.
Retrieved June 30, 2022, from https://sites.google.com/a/malaysia-
students.com/www/universiti-utara-malaysia-uum
Varasteh, H., & Marzuki, A. (2018, December 4). A Framework for International
Students’ travel behaviour in Malaysian Universities. Academia. Retrieved June
30, 2022, from
https://www.academia.edu/9329456/A_Framework_for_International_Students_
travel_behavior_in_Malaysian_Universities
Anantamongkolkul, C. (2020, March 31). Thai University Student Travel Behaviour: An
Extension of Theory of Planned Behaviour | ABAC Journal. ABAC JOURNAL.
Retrieved June 30, 2022, from
http://www.assumptionjournal.au.edu/index.php/abacjournal/article/view/4558
Varasteh, H., Marzuki, A., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2015). Factors affecting
international students’ travel behavior. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 21(2),
131–149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766714562823
104
C.-F.L. (2015, July 15). Sci-Hub | International Students in Asia: Travel Behaviours
and Destination Perceptions. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 21(4),
457â“476 | 10.1080/10941665.2015.1062786. Tandfonline. Retrieved June
30, 2022, from
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10941665.2015.
1062786
H. (2015b, June 10). Sci-Hub | International students™ travel behaviour in Malaysia.
Anatolia, 26(2), 200â“216 | 10.1080/13032917.2014.934698 . Tandfonline.
Retrieved June 30, 2022, from
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13032917.2014.
934698?casa_token=hes9FHITCH4AAAAA
%3AisQbbkiMSe7RYQ_CG980xL3RsC3Mcp3SZ1pdHnajWWgRYbuo76Gq65
X4jZDyKjf-eZSEww5shHrM
Facts and figures: Mobility in higher education. (2015, November 9). UNESCO.
Retrieved July 1, 2022, from https://en.unesco.org/node/252278
Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. (2015). Likert Scale: Explored and Explained.
British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403.
https://doi.org/10.9734/bjast/2015/14975
D. (2020, October 9). What is a Research Instrument? DiscoverPhDs. Retrieved July 1,
2022, from https://www.discoverphds.com/blog/research-instrument
105
D. (2021, December 14). What Are the Methods of Data Collection? | How to Collect
Data. Lotame. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from https://www.lotame.com/what-are-
the-methods-of-data-collection/
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY. (2022, June 24). LibGuides: SPSS Tutorials: Pearson
Correlation. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from
https://libguides.library.kent.edu/spss/pearsoncorr
L. (2022, April 19). What Is Data Processing in Research? Lucid. Retrieved July 1,
2022, from https://luc.id/knowledgehub/what-is-data-processing-in-research/
Contributor, T. (2020, September 23). statistical analysis. WhatIs.Com. Retrieved July
1, 2022, from https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/statistical-analysis#:
%7E:text=Statistical%20analysis%20is%20the%20collection,or%20designing
%20surveys%20and%20studies.
Trochim, W. M. K. (2020, June 23). Descriptive Statistics. Research Methods
Knowledge Base. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from
https://conjointly.com/kb/descriptive-statistics/
Wagh, S. (2020, June 30). Research Guides: Public Health Research Guide: Primary &
Secondary Data Definitions. Benedictine. Retrieved July 1, 2022, from
https://researchguides.ben.edu/c.php?g=282050&p=4036581#:
%7E:text=Primary%20data%20refers%20to%20the,collected%20by
106
%20someone%20else%20earlier.&text=Surveys%2C%20observations%2C
%20experiments%2C%20questionnaire,journal%20articles%2C%20internal
%20records%20etc.
APPENDIX
INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS TRAVEL BEHAVIOR: A CASE STUDY OF UNIVERSITI

UTARA MALAYSIA
Dear respondent,
I am currently conducting a study on “Travel Behavior among Universiti Utara
Malaysia international students”. I hope you could contribute to this study and
appreciate your time going through the question provided. This research is carried out
as partial fulfillment of the requirements of a degree at the Universiti Utara Malaysia
(UUM). The outcomes of the survey will be valuable to administrators, lecturers, and
students. I would therefore value your kind support and valuable time in answering the
attached questionnaire. All your answers will be kept strictly confidential and used in
aggregate form with other responses. Thank you for your time and compassionate
support.
Have a nice day ahead
Thank you
107
Muhammad Mukhlis bin Hassan
Mukhlishassan64@gmail.com
SECTION A: DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILE
1. Age
☐18-20
☐21-23
☐24-26
☐27 or more
2. Gender
☐Male
☐Female
3. Marital status
☐Single
☐Married
4. Country of origin
☐Indonesia
☐China
☐Nigeria
☐Pakistan
☐Iran
Others (please specify______)
5. Degree level
☐Undergraduate
108
☐Postgraduate
6. Financial support
☐Scholarship
☐Part-time work
☐Family support
☐Saving
Others: (please specify______)
SECTION B: TRAVEL PREFERENCES

From the scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), please indicate the answer
that is most appropriate to you.
1-Strongly disagree
2-Disagree
3-Neither disagree nor-agree
4-Agree
5-Strongly disagree
Basic travel preferences among international students.
1 2 3 4 5
1. I travel to have fun
2. I would like to travel to explore
new places
3. I like traveling to sightseeing
4. I travel to gain more knowledge
about Malaysia
5. I travel to take a break from
study and release tension
6. I like to travel during semester
109
breaks
7. I like to travel on weekdays
8. I like to travel on weekends
9. I like to stay in a hotel when I
travel
10. I prefer to stay at a friend’s
house when I travel
11. I love to stay at a hostel
12. I prefer to stay at a homestay
13. I prefer to spend the night
camping
14. I would rather stay in a rented
house
15. I prefer fast food when I travel

16. I prefer local food when I travel
17. I prefer branded restaurants
when I travel
18. I choose to travel with family
19. I like to enjoy traveling with
friends
20. I would prefer to travel with a
partner
21. I would like leisure activities to
relax
22. I would like to enjoy sports
nature/natural activities
23. I would like to experience
cultural activities to know the
art of local
Thank you for your participation.
110
111

CHAPTER 4 (1) - Copy Latest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 4 (1) - Copy Latest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCHOOL OF TOURISM, HOSPITALITY AND EVENT MANAGEMENT

COLLEGE OF LAW, GOVERNMENT AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

TOPIC RESEARCH: TRAVEL BEHAVIOR AMONG UNIVERSITI UTARA

MALAYSIA INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

GHZZ4076 TOURISM RESEARCH PROJECT PAPER (GROUP I)

SECOND SEMESTER SESSION 2021/2022 (A212)

MUHAMMAD MUKHLIS BIN HASSAN

MADAM RASLINDA BINTI MOHD GHAZALI

SCHOOL OF TOURISM, HOSPITALITY AND EVENT MANAGEMENT

Second Semester 2021/2022 Session (A212)

GHZZ 4076 Tourism Research Project Paper

INTERNATIONAL STUDENT TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR IN UNIVERSITY UTARA MALAYSIA

STUDENT’S NAME: MUHAMMAD MUKHLIS BIN HASSAN

MATRIC NUMBER: 271413

SUPERVISOR’S NAME: Dr. RASLINDA BINTI MOHD. GHAZALI

Supervisor’s signature and stamp:

Utara Malaysia International Student” submitted to the University Utara Malaysia, is an

Mohd Ghazali, the supervisors of my project and lecturer at School of Tourism,

institutes for any other intention.

Name: Muhammad Mukhlis Bin Hassan

No. Matric: 271413

help me to complete my research.

regarding my research. Lastly, I wish my express my sincere thanks to people who

researchers to identify nationality-based differences between international student travel

undertaking initiatives, such as innovative tourism marketing, product development and

grown to be an essential component of international higher education, 3.0 million pupils

nation will profit much from it (Marzuki, 2018).

industry and has significant advantages for marketers of vacation destinations

(Anantamongkolkul, 2020). There is a distinct lack of academic research and literature

habits generally and in Malaysia in particular. The absence of trustworthy public

the level of thesis submission rather than academic publishing (Anantamongkolkul,

this deficiency. Without accurate and readily available information, it would be

tourism (Marzuki, 2018).

study. In earlier research, students of a single nationality were polled, whereas in

specific study endeavor, it is challenging to extrapolate the results to the larger

population of overseas students. International students from Universities Utara Malaysia

programmed, which is located on one major campus (Marzuki, 2018).

when visiting Malaysia (Marzuki, 2018). In addition to exploring demographic

paper also examined students' travel behavior trends.

1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND JUSTIFICATION

phenomena of studying a broad’s enormous size, expansion, and impact. There is a

tourism-related goods to international students have frequently been marred by poor

positioning, failure to engage prospective participants, and insufficient customer

domestic travelers by their financing sources, lifestyles (often combining employment

trouble to international students to maximize their spending for travel in Malaysia.

to comprehend the behaviors of different segments of the international student travel

industry (Varasteh, 2015).

1.2 THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the relationship between international student and travel behaviour?

2. What is the relationship between demographic and international student travel

1. To measure travel behaviour

2. To identify the relationship between demographic and international student

1.4 DEFINITION OF TERMS

travelling in the country travelled in their own way.

spending, length of stay, attractions, destination, accommodation and many more

as human behaviour to travel according to one's own convenience without considering

the opinions of others.

it is difficult to extrapolate them to a larger population. To circumvent this ban, foreign

students at University Utara Malaysia were selected to be polled since international

constrained by criteria such as respondent, time, and convenience. The selection of

conducting this study.

1.6 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

implemented a system to facilitate foreign student tourism in Malaysia. However, the