See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/332945023

Factors influence undergraduate students’ decision making to enroll and

social media application as an external factor

Article in Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews · April 2019

DOI: 10.18510/hssr.2019.7116

CITATIONS READS

7 1,434

4 authors, including:

Mohd Farid Shamsudin Aeshah Mohd Ali

Universiti of Kuala Lumpur University of Kuala Lumpur
100 PUBLICATIONS 565 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Rosni Binti Wahid

University of Kuala Lumpur
12 PUBLICATIONS 26 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Aeshah Mohd Ali on 18 January 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116

FACTORS INFLUENCE UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS’ DECISION

MAKING TO ENROLL AND SOCIAL MEDIA APPLICATION AS AN
EXTERNAL FACTOR
Mohd Farid Shamsudin*, Aeshah Mohd Ali, Rosni Ab Wahid, Zulkifli Saidun
Business School, Universiti Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Email: *mfarid@unikl.edu.my, aeshah.ali01@s.unikl.edu.my, rosni@unikl.edu.my, zulkiflisaidun@unikl.edu.my
th th th
Article History: Received on 12 January 2019, Revised on 30 March 2019, Published on 15 April 2019

Abstract
Purpose: This study conducted to classify factors of fixed Higher Education Institution (HEI) characteristics influenced
students' decision making to enroll at private HEI and social media application as an external factor exclusively in
Malaysia phenomena. The main focus of this research was to determine the relationship between independent variables
(academic programs, tuition fees, location, institution rankings, institution facilities, employment opportunities, social
media application) influence dependent variable (decision making); and to determine the major factor that influence
students' decision making to enroll at private HEI.
Methodology: The underpinning theory applied in this study was Theory Reason Action (TRA) for social media
application, while Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) applied for academic programs, tuition fees, location, institution
rankings, institution facilities, and employment opportunities. Five hundred (500) questionnaires distributed at selected
private HEI around Kuala Lumpur and Selangor. Respondent was an undergraduate student semester one the year 2018
only. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 24.
Results: Findings indicated result for direct effect revealed decision making were significant in the relationship between
tuition fees, location, institution ranking, institution facilities, employment opportunities, and social media application
thus hypothesis H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, and H7 accepted.
Implications: Therefore, the only academic program was insignificant with decision making thus hypothesis H1
rejected. While the major factor that influences students' decision making to enroll at Private HEI in rank number one
was employment opportunities H6 (β = .301; p = .000 < .05). Thus, Results of direct effects indicated there is a
relationship between employment opportunities and students’ decision making to enroll at private HEI.
Keywords: Students’ Decision Making, Factors Influence, Social Media Application, Undergraduate, Private Higher
Education Institution, Malaysia.

INTRODUCTION
The growth in HEI industry has caused a remarkable growth in the number and type of Higher Education Institution
(HEI) (Mbawuni and Nimako, 2015); and an increasing of HEI led to highlighting role in the economy in taking of the
practices of branding and brand management (Rutter et al., 2016). In the same time, the serious competition in the private
HEIs in Malaysia leads to all private HEI come out with their own way to attack and penetrate the markets. Several
research studies on the HEI’s recruitment process have shown the potential of online advertising when used as a
recruitment instrument (Jan and Ammari, 2016). Therefore, engaging online advertising tools such as social media
application into the HEI advertising plan is found to be an essential step, because social media application like Facebook
and Twitter was effective tools for current communication especially in marketing(Ezebuilo, 2014; Nyekwere et al.,
2014; Jayakumar, 2016; Adedoyin and Okere, 2017; Houcine and Sofiane, 2018).

LITERATURE REVIEW
Exploring factors influence students’ decision making to enroll at private HEI is not something new anymore. In the year
2015, Tantivorakulchai (2014) in his thesis resulted revealed the location of the institution, academic, rankings, available
facilities, cost of study, and employment opportunities have a positive influence on students’ decision. Meanwhile, the
study conducted by Rutter et al. (2016) also demonstrated that a strong social media presence can have a positive effect
on university student recruitment.

ACADEMIC PROGRAM
The choice on which academic program to study at HEI is determined by a complex mixture of considerations relating to
the field of study, the particular course and the HEI which offers it Baldwin and James (2000); (Pan, 2014; Yanga and

126 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
Yenb, 2016; Alhawiti and Abdelhamid, 2017). Dagang and Mesa (2017) in their research revealed academic programs
one of the factors found to be HEI characteristics that influence decision making by the student, supported by Zain et al.
(2013) the academic programs offered in a particular HEI is said as the top attribute as the decision choice for students’
enrolment.
Tuition fees
Tuition fees are describing the prices like that which is given up in exchange to acquire goods and services (Olaleke et
al., 2014; Anyi, 2017; Dandan and Marques, 2017; Muthuselvi and Ramganesh, 2017). Tuition fees play an important
part as a factor that influences students' decision making to select HEI because students in general highly consider the
cost of education before deciding on the university that they want to study in. It was reviewed by Mustafa et al. (2018)
where tuition fee is an important factor considered in choosing a HEI.
Location
Today, the location of HEI plays a vital role in decision making because according to Dagang and Mesa (2017) stated
location one of factor found to be HEI characteristics that influence decision making by student, and strategic location
can be the main factor to influencing the decision of students in choosing HEI (Yusuf and Qabbir, 2017).
Institution Rankings
As have been noted by Ancheh et al. (2007) on their study conducted in Malaysia stated that the most influential factor
that students will evaluate in selecting their choice of HEI was institution ranking with average mean score of 3.730,
supported by Migin et al. (2015) revealed empirical findings show the institution rankings is consistently ranked as the
most important factor in the students’ selection of a HEI. In fact, these rankings may be the first thing students think
about when beginning their HEI research and even when ultimately deciding where to attend (Azmi et al., 2015).
Institution Facilities
Education quality is not only limited to the lectures and notes, but it also includes students' experience with the physical
infrastructure provided by HEI such as institution facilities (Navarez, 2017). Therefore, physical evidence would give the
first impression about the HEI usually they see the building and facilities (Kotler and Keller, 2009), also supported by
Olaleke et al. (2014) basically students were particularly satisfied with the HEI placements and the atmosphere among
students but were mostly dissatisfied with the university buildings and the quality of classroom (Wilkins et al., 2012).
Employment Opportunities
Students put more emphasis now on the HEI as preparation for careers as being critical for decision making (Petruzzellis
and Romanazzi, 2010). As a matter of fact, it is very important for the HEI to provide their student with a job career to
increase self and career awareness (Milsom and Coughlin, 2015). It happens because, for some students who can identify
their future career aspirations earlier, it directly affects their decision-making process to enroll in HEIs (El Nemar and
Vrontis, 2016).
Social Media Application
As said by Selvarajah and Sajilan (2014) social media contents' have become collation information for potential students
in searching for HEI, and it is a very serious issue for them to make the correct decision where to apply. Supported by
Hajli (2014) stated social media is effective in affecting adoption, usage or purchasing intention of customers. Same goes
with Hamari et al. (2014) stated technology can persuade individuals in multiple ways. While Rutter et al. (2016)
demonstrated that a strong social media presence can have a positive effect on university student recruitment, especially
when university interacts with students via their social media application accounts and can promptly respond to questions
and comments. Therefore, social media application is a great opportunity for management of private HEI to reach
prospective student to enroll at private HEI.
Students’ Decision Making
The decision making process is adapted to fit the purpose of the decisions being made, whether they are designed choices
or personal needs; how we make the decision is vitally important (Meyer, 2018). The influences that impact on student
decisions usually come from a variety of factors. Decision-making process happen after a student satisfied with the
evaluation of the factors that exist that meets with their need. According to Hossler and Gallagher (1987), the decision-
making process is simply defined as the process through which student decide whether to go to HEI or not. Furthermore,
it also can be defined as the selection of an HEI to attend.

127 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
Theory of Reason Action and Theory of Planned Behaviour
The underpinning theory used in this study is the Theory Reason Action (TRA) for social media application. TRA was
selected as a model because TRA has shown successful application to general consumer information technologies
(Peslak et al., 2012; Lai, 2017). While the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) applied for academic programs, tuition
fees, location, institution rankings, institution facilities, and employment opportunities. As information, the TPB is used
to understand, anticipate and simulate the human behavior in different situations (Ajzen, 2012).
Proposed research model

Fixed HEI Characteristics

h1
Academic Programs

h2 Tuition fees

h3 Location
Students’ Decision Making
h4 Institution rankings

h5 Institution facilities

h6 Employment Opportunities

External Factor
h7 Social Media Application

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Figure 1: Research framework model
Figure 1 above shows the theoretical framework adapted from Chapman (1981), Hossler and Gallagher (1987), and
Selvarajah and Sajilan (2014).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A quantitative survey approach was employed in this study and according to Alkhunaizan and Love (2013), a
quantitative method emphasizes objective measurements and the statistical, mathematical, or numerical analysis of data
collected through questionnaires (Jabarullah and Hussain, 2019). An appropriate research design is essential to determine
the type of data, data collection technique, and sampling methodology; in order to achieve the research objectives (Burns
and Bush, 2014). The basic research design utilized for this study was a questionnaire with 48 items and five-point Likert
scales range by one not at all influential and five extremely influential to be measured.

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULT

The result answered two main objectives of the research which to determine the relationship between independent
variables (academic programs, tuition fees, location, institution rankings, institution facilities, employment opportunities,
social media application) influence dependent variable (decision making); and to determine the major factor that
influence students’ decision making to enroll at private HEI.
Descriptive Statistic
A total of 500 respondents were surveyed. The respondents are currently registered as an undergraduate student. The
respondents consist of students a first year (semester 1) with different gender, race and study program (see table. 1).

128 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
Table 1
Variable Categories N (%)
Gender Male 203 40.6
Female 297 59.4
Race Malay 330 66.0
Chinese 108 21.6
India 62 12.4
Study Program Diploma 109 21.8
Bachelor’s degree 391 78.2
Data screening, Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA), Multicollinearity analysis
Mahalanobis applied for data screening in the detection of an outlier. The existence of outliers in the data set able to lead
nonreliable result on the study (Talatu et al., 2016). According to table .2, Mahalanobis distance between minimum 2.919
until maximum 143.470. As a result, thirty-three of data set identified with Mahalanobis values above 89.27 and
permanently deleted after confirm it was outliers and leaving N=467 data set to be used.
Table 2 Residuals Statistics
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 82.85 430.44 250.37 47.360 500
Std. Predicted Value -3.537 3.802 .000 1.000 500
Standard Error of
12.397 75.291 44.580 9.397 500
Predicted Value
Adjusted Predicted Value 100.40 450.95 250.65 49.805 500
Residual -254.815 302.544 .000 132.438 500
Std. Residual -1.821 2.162 .000 .946 500
Stud. Residual -1.936 2.262 -.001 1.001 500
Deleted Residual -287.867 331.009 -.280 148.220 500
Stud. Deleted Residual -1.942 2.272 -.001 1.002 500
Mahal. Distance 2.919 143.470 51.896 20.444 500
Cook's Distance .000 .017 .002 .002 500
Centered Leverage Value .006 .288 .104 .041 500
Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) can be used as the measure of central tendency and variability (Mertler and Reinhart,
2017). Overall, all the variables studied had positive mean levels (see table 3).
Table 3 Summary of Mean and Standard Deviation
Mean Standard Deviation
Academic Program 3.5832 .61798
Tuition Fees 3.6124 .87063
Location 3.4989 .73378
Institution Rankings 3.7275 .83738
Institution Facilities 3.4622 .82167
Employment Opportunities 3.6874 .76539
Social Media Application 3.3408 .73563
financial aid 3.6440 .78837
decision making 3.6997. .61734
Meanwhile, skewness and kurtosis informed about the shapes of the distributions and the values should not exceed 3.0 as
to determine their normality (West et al., 1995). The variables' skewness and kurtosis did not exceed 3.0; therefore
indicating the distributions did not differ significantly from normality. It is approximately normally distributed (see table
4).

129 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
Table 4 Skewness and Kurtosis
Skewness Std. Kurtosis Std. Error
Valid Missing
Error
Academic Program 467 0 .090 .113 -.317 .225
Tuition Fees 467 0 -.179 .113 -.439 .225
Location 467 0 -.061 .113 -.329 .225
Institution Rankings 467 0 -.174 .113 -.548 .225
Institution Facilities 467 0 -.125 .113 -.599 .225
Employment Opportunities 467 0 .157 .113 -.879 .225
Social Media Application 467 0 -.138 .113 -.263 .225
financial aid 467 0 -.014 .113 -.480 .225
decision making 467 0 -.071 .113 -.443 .225
According to Hair et al. (2010) if tolerance value of 0.20 or lower than that and VIF value is higher than 5 and, it
indicated a potential collinearity problem. From the collinearity statistics conducted, tolerance values for all IVs were
above 0.2. This showed that they were all free from multicollinearity problems. Their variance inflation factor, VIF, was
also less than 5, indicating that no signal to multicollinearity problem as suggested by Hair et al. (2011) (see table 5).
Table 5 Collinearity statistics
Collinearity Statistics
Model Tolerance VIF
Academic Program .575 1.738
Tuition Fees .499 2.005
Location .599 1.669
Institution Rankings .456 2.193
Institution Facilities .492 2.033
Employment Opportunities .390 2.563
Social Media Application .629 1.589
Factor analysis, KMO and Cronbach’s Alpha
Factor analysis is one of the important steps in data analysis to reduce a vast number of variables to a meaningful,
interpretable and manageable set of factors (Sekaran and Bougie, 2013). This is done by defining that the common
underlying cut-off point chosen for significant factor loading is 0.50, which was suggested by Hair et al. (2010). Based
on the result of the analysis, it shows 46 items were higher than 0.5 with a range between .514 and .863 considered as
acceptable as recommended by Hair et al. (2010) (see table 6), and only 2 items (AP3 and LO2) removed since the factor
loading less than 0.5.
The purpose of KMO is to assessing the strength of the relationships and suggesting factorability of the variables,
Beavers et al. (2013). According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) and Hair et al. (2010) stated the KMO must exceed
0.50. For actual data, results indicate the value of KMO has exceeded the minimum value 0.5 suggested by Tabachnick
and Fidell (2007) also Hair et al. (2010) (see table 6).
Cronbach’s alpha can be considered as a perfectly adequate indication of the internal consistency, and thus of reliability
(Sekaran, 2000; Selvarajah and Sajilan, 2014). They also stated if Cronbach’s Alpha is closer to 1, the reliability of the
measures is higher. Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.6 is considered poor, 0.7 is good and 0.8 is categorized as very good and 0.9
is categorized excellent. According to table 6, results showed that all 8 variables Cronbach’s alpha values yielded .70 and
above suggested by Sekaran and Bougie (2013).

130 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
Table 6 Summary factor loadings, KMO and Cronbach’s alpha for all variables (n=467)

No Item Factor KMO Cronbach’s

Item Loadings Alpha
(α)

Academic Program
AP1 The duration of the study .719
AP2 Credits hours needed to complete the major
.586
subject
AP4 Acceptance of transfer credits .568 .726 .737
AP5 Opportunity to work in course applied .567
AP6 Its qualification are recognize .540

Tuition Fee
TF1 The cost of tuition fee charged by the university .739
TF2 The price paid for studying at this university is
.720
reasonable .792 .813
TF3 Studying at the university is value for money .663
TF4 My guardians are able to afford the tuition fee .713

Location
LO1 The city in which the university is located .764
LO3 The distance of the university from my home .806
LO4 The university’s campus is easily accessible by
.655 .771 .800
transport
LO5 The university’s campus is located near malls .544
LO6 The university’s campus is close to health services .782
LO7 Accommodation is near the campus .706
Institution Rankings
IR1 The good reputation of the university .740
IR2 University status .786
IR3 The prestige of the university .748 .853 .932
IR4 The value of my degree reflected by the reputation
.724
of the university
Institution Facilities
IF1 Campus safety .711
IF2 Campus security .719
IF3 Quality of facilities .785
IF4 The campus looks attractive .731
IF5 University buildings are well maintained .692 .886 .910
IF6 The equipment sports facilities well maintained .717
IF7 The recreation facilities (e.g. student center) look
.677
attractive
Employment Opportunities
EO1 Career opportunity available for graduates .751
EO2 Availability of working opportunity through this
.713
university
EO3 Studying at this university will make it possible to .883 .901
.740
find a job after qualifying
EO4 Studying at this university will increase career
.633
prospects
EO5 University has a positive image with possible
.746
employers
Social Media Application
SMA1 Easy to search for information thru university
.610
social media application
SMA2 Information provided on an institution's social
.629
media application up-to-date

131 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
SMA3 University’s social media application allows
.514
interaction among university staff .841 .893
SMA4 Facebook .752
SMA5 Instagram .779
SMA6 Twitter .885
SMA7 YouTube .811
Decision Making
DM1 Variety of academic programme offered .788
DM2 Tuition fees structure .863
DM3 Location of university .563
DM4 The good reputation of the university .808
DM5 The good facility provided by the university .700 .811 .821
DM6 The future employment opportunities available for .651
graduates
DM7 Advertisement in social media application done by .806
university
DM8 Availability of financial aid at university .629
Removed items
AP3 Entry requirements required .483
LO2 The cost of living in the area where the university
.457
is located

REGRESSION ANALYSIS
In regression, it has been set that if the p value is less than 0.05 (p = < .05), the IV considered as having significantly
related to the dependent variable. According to table 7 and.8 independent variables (tuition fees, location, institution
ranking, institution facilities, employment opportunities, and social media application) were found to be significant and
related to decision making. In terms of the contributions made by these independent variable individually academic
program had contribution (β = -.018; p = .623 > .05), tuition fees (β = .175; p = .000 < .05), location (β = .114; p = .001 <
.05), institution ranking (β = .158; p = .000 < .05), institution facilities (β = .119; p = .002 < .05), employment
opportunities (β = .301; p = .000 < .05), and social media application (β = .215; p = .000 < .05). Therefore, H2, H3, H4,
H5, H6, and H7 accepted. However, academic program (β = -.018; p = .623 > .05) were found to be insignificant. Thus,
H1 rejected.
Meanwhile, the result also revealed that major factor that that influences students’ decision making to enroll at private
HEI in rank number one was employment opportunities H6 (β = .301; p = .000 < .05), second rank was social media
application H7 (β = .215; p = .000 < .05), third rank was tuition fees H2 (β = .175; p = .000 < .05), forth rank was
institution ranking H4 (β = .158; p = .000 < .05),fifth rank was institution facilities H5 (β = .119; p = .002 < .05), sixth
rank was location H3 (β = .114; p = .001 < .05), and last rank was academic program H1 had contribution (β = -.018; p =
.623 > .05).
As conclusion, the result meets the objective number one which to determine the relationship between independent
variables (academic programs, tuition fees, location, institution rankings, institution facilities, employment opportunities,
social media application) influence dependent variable (decision making); and objective number two to determine the
major factor that influences students' decision making to enroll at private HEI.
Table 7 Multiple regression analysis of all independent variable on dependent variable

Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. β
Error
(Constant) .737 .117 6.296 .000
(H1) Academic program -.018 .037 -.018 -.491 .623
(H2) Tuition fees .124 .025 .175 4.895 .000
1
(H3) Location .096 .030 .114 3.236 .001
(H4) Institution ranking .117 .030 .158 3.843 .000
(H5) Institution facilities .089 .029 .119 3.040 .002

132 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
(H6)Employment opportunities .243 .035 .301 6.941 .000
(H7)Social media application .181 .029 .215 6.170 .000
Note R2 = .645; adjusted R2 = .640 F = 119.145; sig. F = .000; ** p< .05;
Durbin-Watson = 1.945

Table 8 Results of hypotheses tested in this study are as follows:

Hypotheses Result
H1: There is a relationship between the academic program and students' Rejected
decision making to enroll at Private HEI.
H2: There is a relationship between tuition fees and students’ decision making Accepted
to enroll at Private HEI.
H3: There is a relationship between location and students’ decision making to Accepted
enroll at Private HEI.
H4: There is a relationship between institution ranking and students’ decision Accepted
making to enroll at Private HEI.
H5: There is a relationship between institution facilities and students’ decision Accepted
making to enroll at Private HEI.
H6: There is a relationship between employment opportunities and students’ Accepted
decision making to enroll at Private HEI.
H7: There is a relationship between social media application and students’ Accepted
decision making to enroll at Private HEI.

CONCLUSION, LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

As a conclusion, the purpose of the study is to investigate the factors influencing students' decision making to enroll at
Private HEI in the Malaysian education industry. Results of direct effects indicated there is a relationship between
employment opportunities and students’ decision making to enroll at private HEI. The result aligned with Mazzarol and
Soutar (2012) through industry alliances HEI can have access to industry expertise and opportunities to provide
employment pathways for students
Based on the findings, this study, however, was short of limitations. First, only private HEI with university status only
was studied. Not included other means such as college university or college status. Second, other types of HEI such as
public HEI have yet to be studied within this context.
Despite the limitations of this study, these limitations provide suggestions for further research. First, it is recommended
in future studies more research should be done for private HEI in college university and college status. Second, a
suggestion for public HEI is as a part of the respondent.

REFERENCES
Adedoyin, O. and E. Okere, 2017. The significance of the inclusion concept in the educational system as perceived by
junior secondary school teachers: Implications for teacher training programmes in Botswana. Global Journal of Social
Sciences Studies, 3(1): 13-28.
Ajzen, I., 2012. The theory of planned behavior. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, 1(1): 438–459.Available
at: http://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n22.
Alhawiti, M.M., and Y. Abdelhamid, 2017. A personalized e-learning framework. Journal of Education and e-Learning
Research, 4(1): 15-21.
Alkhunaizan, A. and S. Love, 2013. An empirical study of the social Individual differences. European, Mediterranean &
Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems, 2013, pp: 1–8.
Ancheh, K.S.B., A. Krishan and O. Nurtjahja, 2007. Evaluative criteria for selection of private universities and colleges
in Malaysia. Journal of International Management Studies, 2(1): 1-11.
Anyi, E.M.E., 2017. The role of guidance and counseling in effective teaching and learning in schools: The Cameroonian
perspective. International Journal of Educational Technology and Learning, 1(1): 11-15.
Azmi, N. Bin Hashim, A.O. Abdullateef and B.D. Sarkindaji, 2015. The moderating influence of trust on the relationship
between institutional image/reputation, the perceived value on student loyalty in a higher education institution.
International Review of Management and Marketing, 5(3): 122-128.

133 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
Baldwin, G. and R. James, 2000. The market in Australian higher education and the concept of student as an informed
consumer. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 22(2): 139-148.
Beavers, A.S., J.W. Lounsbury, J.K. Richards, S.W. Huck, G.J. Skolits and S.L. Esquivel, 2013. Practical considerations
for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 18(6): 1-11.
Burns, A.C. and R.F. Bush, 2014. Marketing research. 7th Edn.: Pearson.
Chapman, D.W., 1981. A model of student college choice. The Journal of Higher Education, 52(5): 490-505.
Dagang, A.L.B. and C.D.D. Mesa, 2017. Factors influencing the choice of a business school in a city of Southern
Philippines, 10(2): 1–7.
Dandan, M.M. and A.P. Marques, 2017. Higher education leadership and the gender gap in Jordan. Asian Development
Policy Review, 5(3): 131.139.
El Nemar, S. and D. Vrontis, 2016. A higher education student-choice analysis: The case of Lebanon. World Review of
Entrepreneurship, Management, and Sustainable Development, 12(2/3): 337-351.
Ezebuilo, U., 2014. Does higher education reduce poverty among youths in Nigeria?. Asian Economic and Financial
Review, 4(1): 1-19.
Hair, J.F., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, and R.E. Anderson, 2010. Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edn., New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, Upper Saddle River Pearson Education.
Hair, J.F., C.M. Ringle and M. Sarstedt, 2011. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 19(2): 139-152.
Hajli, N., 2014. A study of the impact of social media on consumers. International Journal of Market Research, 56(3):
387-401.Available at: http://doi.org/10.2501/IJMR-2014-025.
Hamari, J., A. Pakkanen and J. Koivisto, 2014. Do persuasive technologies persuade? A review of empirical studies.
International Conference on Persuasive Technology: 118–136.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07127-5.
Hossler, D. and K. Gallagher, 1987. Studying college choice: A three-phase model and the implications for
policymakers. College and University, 62: 207-221.
Houcine, B. and M. Sofiane, 2018. Higher education quality management: Evidence from Adrar university. Asian
Journal of Economic Modelling, 6(1): 83-89.
Jabarullah, N.H., and H.I. Hussain, 2019. The effectiveness of problem-based Learning in technical and vocational
education in Malaysia, Education + Training.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-06-2018-0129.
Jan, M.T. and D. Ammari, 2016. Advertising online by educational institutions and students’ reaction: A study of
Malaysian Universities. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2): 168–180.Available at:
http://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2016.1245232.
Jayakumar, R., 2016. The opinion of the university teachers towards educational television programmes. American
Journal of Education and Learning, 1(1): 45-52.
Kotler, P. and K.L. Keller, 2009. Marketing management. Organization, 22.Available at:
http://doi.org/10.1080/08911760903022556.
Lai, P., 2017. The literature review of technology adoption models and theories for the novelty technology. JISTEM-
Journal of Information Systems and Technology Management, 14(1): 21-38.
Mazzarol, T. and G.N. Soutar, 2012. Revisiting the global market for higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing
and Logistics, 24(5): 717-737.
Mbawuni, J. and S.G. Nimako, 2015. Critical factors underlying students' Choice of the institution for graduate
programmes: Empirical evidence from Ghana. International Journal of Higher Education, 4(1): 120–135.Available at:
http://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v4n1p120.
Mertler, C.A., and R.V. Reinhart, 2017. Practical application and interpretation. 6th Edn.
Meyer, H., 2018. Teachers’ thoughts on student decision making during engineering design lessons. Education Sciences,
8(1): 9.

134 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
Migin, M.W., M. Falahat, M.S.A. Yajid, and A. Khatibi, 2015. Impacts of institutional characteristics on international
students' choice of private higher education institutions in Malaysia. Higher Education Studies, 5(1): 31-42.
Milsom, A. and J. Coughlin, 2015. Satisfaction with college major: A grounded theory study. The Journal of the National
Academic Advising Association, 35(2): 5-14.
Mustafa, S.A., A.L. Sellami, E. Assaad, A. Elmaghraby and H.B. Al-qassass, 2018. Determinants of college and
university choice for high-school students in Qatar. International Journal of Higher Education, 7(3): 1–15.Available at:
http://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v7n3p1.
Muthuselvi, L. and E. Ramganesh, 2017. Use of e-governance by administrators of higher learning institutions.
International Journal of Emerging Trends in Social Sciences, 1(2): 68-73.
Navarez, J., 2017. Student residential satisfaction in an on-campus housing facility.
Nyekwere, E.O., M. Nnanyelugo, P. Okoro and C. Azubuike, 2014. New media and mass communication an assessment
of the use of social media as advertising vehicles in Nigeria: A Study of Facebook and Twitter, 21: 2224–3267.
Available from www.iiste.org.
Olaleke, O.O., T.T. Borishade, S. Adeniyi, and O.O. Omolde, 2014. An empirical analysis of the marketing mix strategy
and student loyalty in education marketing. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23): 616–625.Available at:
http://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n23p616.
Pan, C.-Y., 2014. Effects of reciprocal peer-questioning instruction on EFL college students English reading
comprehension. International Journal of English Language and Literature Studies, 3(3): 190-209.
Peslak, A., W. Ceccucci and P. Sendall, 2012. An empirical study of social networking behavior using the theory of
reasoned action. Journal of Information Systems Applied Research, 5(3): 12-23.
Petruzzellis, L. and S. Romanazzi, 2010. Educational value: How students choose university: Evidence from an Italian
university. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(2): 139-158.
Rutter, R., S. Roper, and F. Lettice, 2016. Social media interaction, the university brand, and recruitment performance.
Journal of Business Research, 69(8): 3096–3104.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.025.
Sekaran, U., 2000. Research methods for business. New York: John Wiley & Sons, New Ltd.
Sekaran, U. and R. Bougie, 2013. Research methods for business: A skill-building approach. 6th Edn., West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Selvarajah, T.K.K. and S. Sajilan, 2014. The effects of social media on Gen Z's intention to select private universities in
Malaysia. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 3(2): 466.
Tabachnick, B.G. and L.S. Fidell, 2007. Using multivariate statistics. 5th Edn., New York: Allyn and Bacon. Pearson
Education.
Talatu, A.S., Y.B. Don and I.H. Hamzat, 2016. The influence of citizenship norms, Efficacy belief, and Parents’
Participation on students’ Civic Engagement in Nigerian Universities: Data screening and Preliminary Analysis. Journal
of Educational and Social Research, 6(2): 81-90.
Tantivorakulchai, K., 2014. Thai students' destination choice for higher education. AU Journal of Management, 12(2):
31-41.
West, S.G., J.F. Finch and P.J. Curran, 1995. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and
remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA,
US.Sage Publications, Inc pp: 56-75.
Wilkins, S., M. Stephens Balakrishnan, and J. Huisman, 2012. Student satisfaction and student perceptions of quality at
international branch campuses in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(5):
543-556.
Yanga, J.-Y. and Y.-C. Yenb, 2016. College students' perspectives of the e-learning system used in high education. Asian
Journal of Education and Training, 2(2): 53-62.

135 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

 Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews
eISSN: 2395-6518, Vol 7, No 1, 2019, pp 126-136
https://doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.7116
Yusuf, B.N.M. and M.G.M. Qabbir, 2017. Factors influencing local and international students decision in choosing
public higher learning institutions in the Northern Region of Malaysia. International Journal of Social Sciences, 48(1):
29–41.
Zain, O., M.T. Jan, and A. Ibrahim, 2013. Factors influencing students' Decisions in choosing private institutions of
higher education in Malaysia: A Structural Equation Modelling Approach. Asian Academy of Management Journal,
18(1): 75–90.Available at: http://web.usm.my/aamj/18012013/AAMJ180205.pdf.

136 |www.hssr.in ©Authors

View publication stats