Abstract

Purpose:  The purpose of this research is to determine either financial aid moderates the factors influence among undergraduate students’ decision making to enroll at private HEI.

Methodology: The survey consists of a questionnaire responded by 500 undergraduate students in private HEI located at Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. Data were analyzed by SPSS applied model 1 moderating analysis with the usage of the macro PROCESS by Hayes and Matthes (2009).

Results: The results of this research shows that Competition among private HEI is becoming tougher as students have many options and set of selection criteria. The high numbers of private HEI indirectly given ample choice to students to choose based on their requirements. Private HEI at the same time competes with each other to increase the number of students in order to survive. As resulted, four hypotheses (H8a, H8b, H8c, and H8e) were moderated by financial aid and two hypotheses (H8d and H8f) rejected in this study.

Implications: Therefore, the existence of financial aid was important and slightly influential students’ decision to enroll in private HEI for four hypotheses (H8a, H8b, H8c, H8e), while for two hypotheses (H4 and H6) students consider financial aid not at all influential their decision to enroll in private HEI in this study.

References

  1. 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.
  2. Agrey, L. and N. Lampadan, 2014. Determinant factors contributing to student choice in selecting a university. Journal of Education and Human Development, 3(2): 391–404.
  3. Alhawiti, M.M., and Y. Abdelhamid, 2017. A personalized e-learning framework. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 4(1): 15-21.
  4. Alshammari, F., 2016. Factors influencing decisions to enroll in health informatics educational programs. Informatics for Health and Social Care, 41(2): 177–191.Available at: http://doi.org/10.3109/17538157.2015.1008483.
  5. 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.
  6. Cao, C., C. Zhu and Q. Meng, 2016. A survey of the influencing factors for international academic mobility of Chinese university students. Higher Education Quarterly, 70(2): 200–220.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12084.
  7. Cubillo, J.M., J. Sanchez and J. Cervio, 2006. International students’ decision-making process. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2): 101-115.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/09513540610646091.
  8. 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.
  9. Dardas, L.A. and M.M. Ahmad, 2012. Coping strategies as mediators and moderators between stress and quality of life among parents of children with autistic disorder. Available from http://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2513.
  10. Ezebuilo, U., 2014. Does higher education reduce poverty among youths in Nigeria?. Asian Economic and Financial Review, 4(1): 1-19.
  11. Grapragasem, S., A. Krishnan, and A.N. Mansor, 2014. ERIC - current trends in Malaysian higher education and the effect on education policy and practice: An overview. International Journal of Higher Education, 2014. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(1): 85–93.
  12. Hayes, A.F. and J. Matthes, 2009. Computational procedures for probing interactions in OLS and logistic regression: SPSS and SAS implementations. Behavior Research Methods, 41(3): 924–936.Available at: http://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.3.924.
  13. Houcine, B. and M. Sofiane, 2018. Higher education quality management: Evidence from Adrar University. Asian Journal of Economic Modelling, 6(1): 83-89.
  14. Jackson, G.A., 1986. Workable, comprehensive models of college choice: Final and technical report. ERIC Reproduction Services, ED 275 224.
  15. Jayakumar, R., 2016. The opinion of university teachers towards educational television programmes. American Journal of Education and Learning, 1(1): 45-52.
  16. Kusumawati, A., 2013. A qualitative study of the factors influencing student choice: The case of a public university in Indonesia. J. Basic. Appl. Sci. Res, 3(1): 314–327.
  17. Maringe, F., 2006. University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment, and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6): 466–479.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1108/09513540610683711.
  18. Meyer, H., 2018. Teachers’ thoughts on student decision making during engineering design lessons. Education Sciences, 8(1): 9.Available at: http://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8010009.
  19. Mngomezulu, S., R. Dhunpath and N. Munro, 2017. Does financial assistance undermine academic success? Experiences of “at risk” students in a South African university. Journal of Education(68). Available from http://joe.ukzn.ac.za.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. Naidu, P. and N.E.S. Derani, 2016. A comparative study on the quality of education received by students of private universities versus public universities. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35: 659–666.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)00081-2.
  23. 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.
  24. Phan, V., H. Tuyen, N. Kim, T. Hien, and C. Thi, 2016. Factors influence students' choice of accounting as a major. 1471–1481.
  25. Rauschnabel, P.A., N. Krey, B.J. Babin, and B.S. Ivens, 2016. Brand management in higher education: The university brand personality scale. Journal of Business Research, 69(8): 3077–3086.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.023.
  26. Wadhwa, R., 2016. Students on move: Understanding the decision-making process and destination choice of Indian students. Higher Education for the Future, 3(1): 54–75.Available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/2347631115610221.
  27. Yanga, J.Y. and Y.C. Yenb, 2016. College students' perspectives of E-learning system use in high education. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 2(2): 53-62.