Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

Vakıf Üniversitesi Öğrencilerinin Tüketici Yönelim ve Öğrenen Kimlik Düzeyi ile Akademik Performansı Arasındaki İlişki

Year 2019, Volume: 19 Issue: 84, 71 - 92, 30.11.2019
https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.84.4

Abstract

Problem Durumu: Son yıllarda yükseköğretimin piyasaya açılması ile üniversitelerde tüketici yönelimli öğrencilerden daha fazla söz edilmektedir. Piyasalaşan üniversitelerde öğrencilerin tüketici yönelimli öğrenci davranış ve tutumları üzerine araştırmaların artmasına rağmen, öğrencilerin kendini tüketici olarak görme düzeyi üzerine hala yeterli sayıda araştırma bulunmamaktadır. Dolayısıyla öğrencilerin tüketici yönelimi araştırma yapılması gereken bir konu olarak gündeme gelmiştir.
Yükseköğretimde piyasalaşmanın aynı zamanda öğrencilerin öğrenen kimliği üzerinde ve dolayısıyla öğrenci kavramı üzerinde farklılıklara yol açtığı düşünülmektedir. Dolayısıyla yapılan bu araştırma ile Türkiye’de piyasaya katılan vakıf üniversitesi öğrencilerinin öğrenen kimlik düzeylerinin ortaya çıkarılması hedeflenmektedir. Bu konuda farklı ülkelerde araştırmalar bulunmasına rağmen Türkiye’de alanyazında yeterince araştırma bulunmamaktadır. Aynı zamanda piyasalaşmanın akademik performans ile öğrencilerin tüketici yönelim ve öğrenen kimlik düzeyi ile ilişkisini incelemek yükseköğretimin kalitesini artırmak için önemli görülmektedir. Dolayısıyla hem alan yazındaki eksiklikleri tamamlamak hem de konuyu Türkiye bağlamında çalışmak için bu araştırmanın yapılması hedeflenmiştir.
Araştırmanın Amacı: Bu çalışma, farklı değişkenlere göre vakıf üniversitesi öğrencilerinin tüketici yönelim ve öğrenen kimlik düzeyini ve bunların akademik performans ile arasında bir ilişkinin bulunup bulunmadığını belirlemeyi amaçlamaktadır.
Araştırmanın Yöntemi: Çalışma nicel ilişkisel tarama modeline dayalı yürütülmüştür. Araştırmada incelenen değişkenler, vakıf üniversite öğrencilerinin tüketici yönelim ve öğrenen kimlik düzeyi ve akademik performanstır. Araştırmanın evrenini, 2017-2018 eğitim-öğretim yılında İstanbul'daki iki vakıf üniversitesinde öğrenim gören 376 öğrenci oluşturmaktadır. Öğrenciler basit seçkisiz örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilmiştir. Araştırmada veriler, Bunce, Baird ve Jones (2017) tarafından geliştirilen ve İşcan ve Balyer (2018) tarafından Türkçeye uyarlanan “Öğrenci Tüketici Yönelim ve Öğrenen Kimlik Düzeyini Belirleme Ölçeği” kullanılarak toplanmıştır. Ölçek beşli likert tipi bir ölçektir. Veriler, SPSS 21 istatistik programı kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir.
Araştırmanın Bulguları: Araştırmada elde edilen sonuçlara göre katılımcıların tüketici yönelimi ‘katılmıyorum’ düzeyinde bulunmuştur (𝑥̅=2,25). Öğrencilerin tüketici yönelim düzeyini gösteren en yüksek madde (𝑥̅=2,51) ortalamayla “Mezun olduktan sonra iyi bir işe giremezsem, okul yapmış olduğum ödemelerin bir kısmını geri ödemelidir.” olarak bulunurken, en düşük madde ise (𝑥̅=1,86) ortalamayla “Hocalarımın işinin bir parçası da beni derslerimden geçirmektir.” olarak bulunmuştur. Yine diğer bir sonuca göre öğrencilerin öğrenen kimlik düzeyi (𝑥̅=3,79), ‘katılıyorum’ düzeyindedir. Öğrenen kimlik düzeyine ait en yüksek madde (𝑥̅=4,49) ortalamayla “Üniversitede mümkün olduğu kadar çok şey öğrenmek isterim.” maddesi iken, en düşük madde, (𝑥̅=3,11) ortalamayla “Derslere hazırlık yaparım.” maddesidir. Kadınların tüketici yönelim düzeyi (𝑥̅=2,08), erkeklere göre (𝑥̅=2,51) daha düşük bulunmuştur. Öğrenen kimlik düzeyinin cinsiyete göre farklılığı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir (p>0.05). Öğrencilerin tüketici yönelim ve öğrenen kimlik düzeyi yaşa göre istatistiksel anlamda bir farklılık göstermemiştir (p>0.05). Katılımcıların tüketici yönelim düzeyinin ve öğrenen kimlik düzeyinin sınıf düzeyine göre farklılığı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir (p>0.05). Bursluluk durumu değerlendirildiğinde, %25 burslu (𝑥̅=2,31) ve 50% burslu (𝑥̅=2,24) olanların tüketici yönelim düzeyi, tam burslu olanların düzeyine (𝑥̅=1,78) göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Öğrencilerin öğrenen kimlik düzeyinin bursluluk oranlarına göre farklılığı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir (p>0.05). Katılımcıların tüketici yönelim düzeyinin bölümlerine göre farklılığı istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değildir (p > 0.05). STEM bölümündeki öğrencilerin öğrenen kimlik düzeyi (𝑥̅=3,74), STEM bölümünde olmayan öğrencilere (𝑥̅=3,94) göre daha düşük bulunmuştur. Hedeflenen mezuniyet AGNO’su (-)-3,00 katılımcıların tüketici yönelim düzeyi (𝑥̅=2,60), hedeflenen mezuniyet AGNO’su 3,50-4,00 olanlara (𝑥̅=1,91) göre daha yüksek bulunmuştur. Hedeflenen mezuniyet AGNO’su (-)-3,00 (𝑥̅=3,55) olan katılımcıların öğrenen kimlik düzeyi, hedeflenen mezuniyet AGNO’su 3,00-3,50 (𝑥̅=3,78) ve 3,50-4,00 (𝑥̅=4,18) olanlara göre daha düşüktür. Akademik performans ile tüketici yönelim düzeyi arasında negatif yönde düşük kuvvetli bir ilişki bulunmuştur (r=-0,284 p=0.001, p=0,000). Akademik performans ile öğrenen kimlik düzeyi arasında pozitif yönde düşük kuvvetli bir ilişki tespit edilmiştir (r= 0,322 p=0.000, p=0,000).

Araştırma Sonuçları ve Öneriler: Araştırmada elde edilen sonuçlara göre, öğrencilerin tüketici yönelimleri ‘katılmıyorum’; öğrenen kimlik düzeyi ise ‘katılıyorum’ düzeyindedir. Kadınların tüketici yönelim düzeyi, erkeklerin tüketici yönelim düzeyine göre daha düşük iken; öğrenen kimlik düzeyi cinsiyete göre anlamlı farklılık göstermemektedir. Tüketici yönelim ve öğrenen kimlik düzeyi, yaşa göre anlamlı bir farklılık sergilememektedir. Tüketici yönelim düzeyi ve öğrenen kimlik düzeyi öğrencilerin bulunduğu sınıf düzeyine göre anlamlı farklılık göstermemektedir. %25 ve 50% burslu olanların tüketici yönelim düzeyi, tam burslu olanların tüketici yönelim düzeyine göre daha yüksek iken; öğrenen kimlik düzeyi bursluluk oranına göre anlamlı farklılık göstermemektedir. Tüketici yönelim düzeyi bölüme göre anlamlı farklılık göstermezken, STEM bölümündeki öğrencilerin öğrenen kimlik düzeyi, STEM bölümünde olmayan öğrencilerin öğrenen kimlik düzeyine göre daha düşüktür. Hedeflenen mezuniyet AGNO’su (-)-3,00 olan öğrencilerin tüketici yönelim düzeyi, hedeflenen mezuniyet AGNO’su 3,50-4,00 olan öğrencilerin tüketici yönelim düzeyine göre daha yüksektir. Hedeflenen mezuniyet AGNO’su (-)-3,00 olan öğrencilerin öğrenen kimlik düzeyi, hedeflenen mezuniyet AGNO’su 3,00-3,50 ve 3,50-4,00 olan öğrencilerin öğrenen kimlik düzeyine göre daha düşüktür. Tüketici yönelim düzeyi ile akademik performans arasında negatif yönde düşük bir ilişki var iken, öğrenen kimlik düzeyi ile akademik performansı arasında pozitif yönde düşük bir ilişki vardır.
Yükseköğrenim alanında politika geliştirenler, vakıf üniversitelerinin tüketici yönelim düzeyi ile akademik performans arasındaki negatif ilişki ve öğrenen kimlik düzeyi ile akademik performans arasındaki pozitif ilişkiyi dikkate alarak akademik performansı artırmaya yönelik düzenlemeler yapabilirler. Böylece tüketici yönelim düzeyi arttıkça, akademik performanstaki düşüşün nedenleri araştırılabilir. Ayrıca, öğrenen kimlik düzeyi ile akademik performans arasındaki pozitif ilişkiye dayanarak, öğrenen kimlik düzeyini artırmak için ne yapılması gerektiği konusu yürütülecek olan karma bir araştırma yöntemiyle karşılaştırılabilir. Yine benzer bir araştırma devlet üniversitelerinde, farklı bölgelerdeki ve illerdeki vakıf üniversitelerinde de yapılabilir. Benzer bir araştırma lisans, lisansüstü ve doktora düzeylerine yürütülebilir ve lisans öğrencileriyle karşılaştırılabilir.

References

  • Abouserie, R. (1995). Self esteem and achievement motivation as determinants of students approaches to studying. Studies in Higher Education, 20(1), 19-27.
  • Adams, D. (2007). Lifelong learning skills and attributes: The perceptions of Australian secondary school teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 17(2), 149.
  • Alkis, N. (2015). The influence of personality traits, motivation and persuasion principles on academic performance (master’s thesis). The Middle East Technical University, Ankara,Turkey.
  • Balaban, O., & Cakmak, D. (2016). Examination of university students' perception of personal development training. The Sakarya Journal of Economics, 5 (1), 1-17.
  • Balci, A. (2015). Research in social sciences (11st edition). Ankara: Pegem A Publication.
  • Barnett, R. (2011). The marketised university: Defending the indefensible. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds), The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 39-51). London: Routledge.
  • Boyle, E. A., Duffy, T., & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: The validity and utility of Vermunt's inventory of learning styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 267-290. doi:10.1348/00070990360626976
  • Brackney, B. E., & Karabenick, S. A. (1995). Psychopathology and academic performance: the role of motivation and learning strategies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(4), 456-465.
  • Brewer, E. W., & Burgess, D. N. (2005). Professor's role in motivating students to attend class. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 42(3), 23-47.
  • Brown, R. (2011). Higher education and the market. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for sale? The marketisation of UK higher education. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
  • Bunce,L., Baird, A., & Jones, S.E. (2017). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance, Studies in Higher Education, 42,11. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908
  • Buyukozturk, S. (2007). Data analysis handbook for social sciences (8th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Yayincilik.
  • Buyukozturk, S., Kilic Cakmak, E., Akgun, E.A., Karadeniz S., & Demirel, F. (2012). Scientific Research Methods (11th edition). Ankara: Pegem Publication.
  • Buyukuslu, A.R. (2010). The rise of academic capitalism and global universities. İstanbul: Derin Publication.
  • Chan, K. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning. Research in Education, 69, 36-50.
  • Clark, L. (2009). Average students debts will hit more than £10,000 by the end of the decade, The Daily Mail (21 April).
  • Clayson, D.E.,& Haley, D.A. (2005). Marketing models in education: Students as customers, products, or partners, Marketing Education Review, 15,1, 1-10. doi:10.1080/10528008.2005.11488884
  • Douglas, A., Douglas, J., & Barnes, B. (2006). The student as customer? Proceedings of the 9th Toulon-Verona Conference University of Paisley, 7th-8th September 2006.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
  • Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2010). Multivariate statistics for social sciences: spss and lisrel applications. Ankara: Pegem A.
  • Delucchi, M., & Korgen, K. (2002). We’re the customer – we way the tuition’: student consumerism among undergraduate sociology majors. Teaching Sociology, 30(1), 100–107.
  • Ekinci, N. (2008). Undergraduate students’ approaches to learning and their relationships with the variables of teaching-learning process (Ph.D. dissertation), Hacettepe University Social Sciences Institute, Department of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
  • Entwistle, N., & Tait.,H. (1995). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the learning environment across disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64, 93–103.
  • Fatih Sultan Mehmet Foundation University. (2018). Departments. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from http://www.fatihsultan.edu.tr/
  • George, D., Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference 17.0 update, 10. Boston: Pearson.
  • Geven, K. (2015). "How did the latest increase in fees in england affect student enrolment and inequality?", The European Higher Education Area, 479–500.
  • Haywood, H., Jenkins, E., & Molesworth, M. (2011). A degree will make all your dreams come true: Higher education as the management of consumer desires. In N.Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketization of higher education and the student as consumer. Abingdon: Routledge
  • Higher Education Council (YOK). (2018). The number of students in 2017-2018 education year. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
  • Ikeda, A. A., Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M., & Campomar, M.C. (2009). “Business students’ perspective on customer in education”, paper presented at the BALAS Annual Conference, ITESM, 1 April 2009, Guadalajara, Mexico, available at http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/9/6/1/4/pages296144/p296144-1.php (accessed April 2013).
  • Iscan, B., & Balyer, A. (2018). Adaptation of the scale of the extent of students’ consumer orientation and learner identity into Turkish. YILDIZ Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 1-26.
  • Istanbul Medipol University. (2018). Departments. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from http://www.medipol.edu.tr/Default.aspx
  • Johansen, V. (2014). Entrepreneurship education and academic performance, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58,3, 300-314. doi:10.1080/00313831.2012.726642
  • Jones-Devitt, S., & Smith, L. (2007). Critical thinking in health and social care. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage Publishers.
  • Kalayci, S. (2009). SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques. Ankara: Dinamik Akademi.
  • Kaynas, M. (2012). Consumers irrational behaviours and their economic outcomes (master’s thesis). T.C. Istanbul Kultur University Social Sciences Institute, Department of Economics, Economics of Management Program. Istanbul
  • Koc, G. (2007). Lifelong learning. O. Demirel (Ed.), New Directions in Education (209-222) Ankara: Pegem A Publication.
  • Koris, R., & Nokelainen, P. (2015). The student-customer orientation questionnaire (SCOQ). application of customer metaphor to higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(10), 115–138.
  • Krause, K.-L. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university Learning communities. Paper presented at the Sharing Scholarship in Learning and Teaching: Engaging Students, James Cook University, Townsville
  • Lawson, A. (2014). Learner identities in the context of undergraduates: a case study, Educational Research, 56, 3, 343-356. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2014.934557
  • Mark, E. (2013). Students are not products. They are customers. College Student Journal, 47(3), 489–493.
  • Molesworth, M., Nixon, E.,& Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14 (3), 277–87.
  • Mulligan, C. B., & Rubinstein, Y. (2008). Selection, investment, and women’s relative wages over time, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (3), 1061-1110.
  • Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning: towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20 (3): 267–281.
  • Naidoo, R., Shankar, A., & Veer, E. (2011). The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes, Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 11-12, 1142-1162. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2011.609135
  • Naidoo, R., & Williams, J. (2015). The neoliberal regime in English higher education: charters, consumers and the erosion of the public good. Critical Studies in Education, 56 (2): 208–223.
  • Newson, J. (2004). Disrupting the ‘student as consumer’ model: the new emancipatory project. International Relations. 18(2), 227-239.
  • Nixon,E., Scullion, R., & Hearn, R. (2016). Her majesty the student: marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis)satisfactions of the student consumer, Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1196353
  • Nixon, E., Scullion, R., & Molesworth, M. (2010). How choice in higher education can create conservative learners. In M. Molesworth, Scullion, R., & Nixon, E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 196–208). London:Routledge.
  • Nixon,E., Scullion, R., & Hearn, R. (2016). Her majesty the student: marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis)satisfactions of the student consumer, Studies in Higher Education.
  • Nordensvärd, J.(2010). The consumer metaphor versus the citizen. In M. Molesworth, E.
  • Nixon and R. Scullions (editors). The Marketisation of Higher Education: The Student as Consumer, Routledge.
  • Obermiller, C., Fleenor, P., & Raven, P. (2005). Students as customers or products: perceptions and preferences of faculty and students, Marketing Education Review, 15(2), 27-36.
  • O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post- secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971- 990.
  • Paricio, J. (2017). Students as customers: a paradigm shift in higher education. Debats. Journal on Culture, Power and Society, 131(3), 137-149.
  • Pathan, S. K., Mahesar, H. A., & Shah, S. (2017). The impact of student consumerism metaphor on higher education students: a critical review of literature. Grassroots, 50(3).
  • Platow, M. J., Mavor, K. I., & Grace, D. M. (2013). On the role of discipline-related self- concept in deep and surface approaches to learning among university students. Instructional Science, 41 (2), 271–85.
  • Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Newyork Routhladge Falmer.
  • Saunders, D. B. (2015). They do not buy it: exploring the extent to which entering first-year students view themselves as customers, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25,1, 5-28. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2014.969798
  • Smyth, L., Mavor, K. I., Platow, M. J., Grace, D.M & Reynolds, K.J. (2015). Discipline social identification, study norms and learning approach in university students, Educational Psychology, 35, 1, 53-72. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.82
  • Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35, Stock, J., & Cervone, D. (1999). Proximal Goal Setting Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14 (5).
  • Tomlinson, M. (2014). Exploring the impacts of policy changes on student approaches and attitudes to learning in contemporary higher education: implications for student learning engagement. Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/Research/policy_change_student_attitudes.
  • Tomlinson, M. (2016). Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38,4, 450-467. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856
  • Universities UK. (2017). Education, consumer rights and maintaining trust: what students want from their university. Retrieved from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and analysis/reports/Documents/2017/education-consumer-rights-maintaining-trust-web.pdf
  • Wellen, R. (2005). The university student in a reflexive society: consequences of consumerism and competition, Higher Education Perspectives, 1(2).
  • Williams, J. (2010). Constructing consumption: what media representations reveal about today’s students. In the marketisation of higher education, edited by M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, and E. Nixon, 170–82. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Williams, J. (2013). Consuming HE why learning can’t be bought. London: Bloomsbury.
  • Yildiz, O. (2013). Women employment in Turkey from the view of employer: A field survey. Dokuz Eylul University Literature Faculty Journal, 2(3), 95-110.
  • Yildiz, S. (2014). What do universities promise? A content analysis of print ads of the universities in Turkey. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 14(2), 157 160.

Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations with Academic Performance

Year 2019, Volume: 19 Issue: 84, 71 - 92, 30.11.2019
https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.84.4

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this research was to determine the level of foundation university students’ consumer orientation and learner identity; and their correlations with students’ academic performance. Research Methods: The study was conducted with a correlational survey model. The sample was 376 students from two foundation universities in Istanbul in 2017-2018 academic year. In order to collect the data, “The Extent of Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Scale” was used. The data were analyzed with SPSS 21 packet program.
Findings: Results showed that the level of consumer orientation was at 'Disagree' level, and the learner identity was at “Agree” level. A negative correlation was found between academic performance and students’ consumer orientation levels. There was also a low and positive correlation between academic performance and the level of learner identity.
Implications for Research and Practice: It might be said that decision-makers in higher education field should take measures to maintain and increase quality towards changing social demands, behaviors and opinions of students in marketising and marketised universities.

References

  • Abouserie, R. (1995). Self esteem and achievement motivation as determinants of students approaches to studying. Studies in Higher Education, 20(1), 19-27.
  • Adams, D. (2007). Lifelong learning skills and attributes: The perceptions of Australian secondary school teachers. Issues in Educational Research, 17(2), 149.
  • Alkis, N. (2015). The influence of personality traits, motivation and persuasion principles on academic performance (master’s thesis). The Middle East Technical University, Ankara,Turkey.
  • Balaban, O., & Cakmak, D. (2016). Examination of university students' perception of personal development training. The Sakarya Journal of Economics, 5 (1), 1-17.
  • Balci, A. (2015). Research in social sciences (11st edition). Ankara: Pegem A Publication.
  • Barnett, R. (2011). The marketised university: Defending the indefensible. In M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds), The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 39-51). London: Routledge.
  • Boyle, E. A., Duffy, T., & Dunleavy, K. (2003). Learning styles and academic outcome: The validity and utility of Vermunt's inventory of learning styles in a British higher education setting. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 267-290. doi:10.1348/00070990360626976
  • Brackney, B. E., & Karabenick, S. A. (1995). Psychopathology and academic performance: the role of motivation and learning strategies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 42(4), 456-465.
  • Brewer, E. W., & Burgess, D. N. (2005). Professor's role in motivating students to attend class. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 42(3), 23-47.
  • Brown, R. (2011). Higher education and the market. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Brown, R., & Carasso, H. (2013). Everything for sale? The marketisation of UK higher education. London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
  • Bunce,L., Baird, A., & Jones, S.E. (2017). The student-as-consumer approach in higher education and its effects on academic performance, Studies in Higher Education, 42,11. doi:10.1080/03075079.2015.1127908
  • Buyukozturk, S. (2007). Data analysis handbook for social sciences (8th ed.). Ankara: Pegem Yayincilik.
  • Buyukozturk, S., Kilic Cakmak, E., Akgun, E.A., Karadeniz S., & Demirel, F. (2012). Scientific Research Methods (11th edition). Ankara: Pegem Publication.
  • Buyukuslu, A.R. (2010). The rise of academic capitalism and global universities. İstanbul: Derin Publication.
  • Chan, K. (2003). Hong Kong teacher education students’ epistemological beliefs and approaches to learning. Research in Education, 69, 36-50.
  • Clark, L. (2009). Average students debts will hit more than £10,000 by the end of the decade, The Daily Mail (21 April).
  • Clayson, D.E.,& Haley, D.A. (2005). Marketing models in education: Students as customers, products, or partners, Marketing Education Review, 15,1, 1-10. doi:10.1080/10528008.2005.11488884
  • Douglas, A., Douglas, J., & Barnes, B. (2006). The student as customer? Proceedings of the 9th Toulon-Verona Conference University of Paisley, 7th-8th September 2006.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.
  • Cokluk, O., Sekercioglu, G., & Buyukozturk, S. (2010). Multivariate statistics for social sciences: spss and lisrel applications. Ankara: Pegem A.
  • Delucchi, M., & Korgen, K. (2002). We’re the customer – we way the tuition’: student consumerism among undergraduate sociology majors. Teaching Sociology, 30(1), 100–107.
  • Ekinci, N. (2008). Undergraduate students’ approaches to learning and their relationships with the variables of teaching-learning process (Ph.D. dissertation), Hacettepe University Social Sciences Institute, Department of Educational Sciences, Ankara.
  • Entwistle, N., & Tait.,H. (1995). Approaches to studying and perceptions of the learning environment across disciplines. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 64, 93–103.
  • Fatih Sultan Mehmet Foundation University. (2018). Departments. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from http://www.fatihsultan.edu.tr/
  • George, D., Mallery, P. (2010). SPSS for windows step by step: a simple guide and reference 17.0 update, 10. Boston: Pearson.
  • Geven, K. (2015). "How did the latest increase in fees in england affect student enrolment and inequality?", The European Higher Education Area, 479–500.
  • Haywood, H., Jenkins, E., & Molesworth, M. (2011). A degree will make all your dreams come true: Higher education as the management of consumer desires. In N.Molesworth, R. Scullion, & E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketization of higher education and the student as consumer. Abingdon: Routledge
  • Higher Education Council (YOK). (2018). The number of students in 2017-2018 education year. Retrieved from https://istatistik.yok.gov.tr/
  • Ikeda, A. A., Veludo-de-Oliveira, T.M., & Campomar, M.C. (2009). “Business students’ perspective on customer in education”, paper presented at the BALAS Annual Conference, ITESM, 1 April 2009, Guadalajara, Mexico, available at http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/9/6/1/4/pages296144/p296144-1.php (accessed April 2013).
  • Iscan, B., & Balyer, A. (2018). Adaptation of the scale of the extent of students’ consumer orientation and learner identity into Turkish. YILDIZ Journal of Educational Research, 3(1), 1-26.
  • Istanbul Medipol University. (2018). Departments. Retrieved November 5, 2018, from http://www.medipol.edu.tr/Default.aspx
  • Johansen, V. (2014). Entrepreneurship education and academic performance, Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58,3, 300-314. doi:10.1080/00313831.2012.726642
  • Jones-Devitt, S., & Smith, L. (2007). Critical thinking in health and social care. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi and Singapore: Sage Publishers.
  • Kalayci, S. (2009). SPSS applied multivariate statistical techniques. Ankara: Dinamik Akademi.
  • Kaynas, M. (2012). Consumers irrational behaviours and their economic outcomes (master’s thesis). T.C. Istanbul Kultur University Social Sciences Institute, Department of Economics, Economics of Management Program. Istanbul
  • Koc, G. (2007). Lifelong learning. O. Demirel (Ed.), New Directions in Education (209-222) Ankara: Pegem A Publication.
  • Koris, R., & Nokelainen, P. (2015). The student-customer orientation questionnaire (SCOQ). application of customer metaphor to higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(10), 115–138.
  • Krause, K.-L. (2005). Understanding and promoting student engagement in university Learning communities. Paper presented at the Sharing Scholarship in Learning and Teaching: Engaging Students, James Cook University, Townsville
  • Lawson, A. (2014). Learner identities in the context of undergraduates: a case study, Educational Research, 56, 3, 343-356. doi: 10.1080/00131881.2014.934557
  • Mark, E. (2013). Students are not products. They are customers. College Student Journal, 47(3), 489–493.
  • Molesworth, M., Nixon, E.,& Scullion, R. (2009). Having, being and higher education: the marketisation of the university and the transformation of the student into consumer. Teaching in Higher Education, 14 (3), 277–87.
  • Mulligan, C. B., & Rubinstein, Y. (2008). Selection, investment, and women’s relative wages over time, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (3), 1061-1110.
  • Naidoo, R., & Jamieson, I. (2005). Empowering participants or corroding learning: towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20 (3): 267–281.
  • Naidoo, R., Shankar, A., & Veer, E. (2011). The consumerist turn in higher education: Policy aspirations and outcomes, Journal of Marketing Management, 27, 11-12, 1142-1162. doi:10.1080/0267257X.2011.609135
  • Naidoo, R., & Williams, J. (2015). The neoliberal regime in English higher education: charters, consumers and the erosion of the public good. Critical Studies in Education, 56 (2): 208–223.
  • Newson, J. (2004). Disrupting the ‘student as consumer’ model: the new emancipatory project. International Relations. 18(2), 227-239.
  • Nixon,E., Scullion, R., & Hearn, R. (2016). Her majesty the student: marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis)satisfactions of the student consumer, Studies in Higher Education. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1196353
  • Nixon, E., Scullion, R., & Molesworth, M. (2010). How choice in higher education can create conservative learners. In M. Molesworth, Scullion, R., & Nixon, E. Nixon (Eds.), The marketisation of higher education and the student as consumer (pp. 196–208). London:Routledge.
  • Nixon,E., Scullion, R., & Hearn, R. (2016). Her majesty the student: marketised higher education and the narcissistic (dis)satisfactions of the student consumer, Studies in Higher Education.
  • Nordensvärd, J.(2010). The consumer metaphor versus the citizen. In M. Molesworth, E.
  • Nixon and R. Scullions (editors). The Marketisation of Higher Education: The Student as Consumer, Routledge.
  • Obermiller, C., Fleenor, P., & Raven, P. (2005). Students as customers or products: perceptions and preferences of faculty and students, Marketing Education Review, 15(2), 27-36.
  • O’Connor, M. C., & Paunonen, S. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post- secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971- 990.
  • Paricio, J. (2017). Students as customers: a paradigm shift in higher education. Debats. Journal on Culture, Power and Society, 131(3), 137-149.
  • Pathan, S. K., Mahesar, H. A., & Shah, S. (2017). The impact of student consumerism metaphor on higher education students: a critical review of literature. Grassroots, 50(3).
  • Platow, M. J., Mavor, K. I., & Grace, D. M. (2013). On the role of discipline-related self- concept in deep and surface approaches to learning among university students. Instructional Science, 41 (2), 271–85.
  • Ramsden, P. (2000). Learning to teaching in higher education. London: Newyork Routhladge Falmer.
  • Saunders, D. B. (2015). They do not buy it: exploring the extent to which entering first-year students view themselves as customers, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25,1, 5-28. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2014.969798
  • Smyth, L., Mavor, K. I., Platow, M. J., Grace, D.M & Reynolds, K.J. (2015). Discipline social identification, study norms and learning approach in university students, Educational Psychology, 35, 1, 53-72. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.82
  • Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35, Stock, J., & Cervone, D. (1999). Proximal Goal Setting Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14 (5).
  • Tomlinson, M. (2014). Exploring the impacts of policy changes on student approaches and attitudes to learning in contemporary higher education: implications for student learning engagement. Higher Education Academy. Retrieved from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/Research/policy_change_student_attitudes.
  • Tomlinson, M. (2016). Student perceptions of themselves as ‘consumers’ of higher education, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 38,4, 450-467. doi: 10.1080/01425692.2015.1113856
  • Universities UK. (2017). Education, consumer rights and maintaining trust: what students want from their university. Retrieved from http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and analysis/reports/Documents/2017/education-consumer-rights-maintaining-trust-web.pdf
  • Wellen, R. (2005). The university student in a reflexive society: consequences of consumerism and competition, Higher Education Perspectives, 1(2).
  • Williams, J. (2010). Constructing consumption: what media representations reveal about today’s students. In the marketisation of higher education, edited by M. Molesworth, R. Scullion, and E. Nixon, 170–82. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Williams, J. (2013). Consuming HE why learning can’t be bought. London: Bloomsbury.
  • Yildiz, O. (2013). Women employment in Turkey from the view of employer: A field survey. Dokuz Eylul University Literature Faculty Journal, 2(3), 95-110.
  • Yildiz, S. (2014). What do universities promise? A content analysis of print ads of the universities in Turkey. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 14(2), 157 160.
There are 69 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language English
Journal Section TS
Authors

Betul Iscan This is me

Aydin Balyer

Publication Date November 30, 2019
Published in Issue Year 2019 Volume: 19 Issue: 84

Cite

APA Iscan, B., & Balyer, A. (2019). Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations with Academic Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 19(84), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.84.4
AMA Iscan B, Balyer A. Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations with Academic Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. November 2019;19(84):71-92. doi:10.14689/ejer.2019.84.4
Chicago Iscan, Betul, and Aydin Balyer. “Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations With Academic Performance”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 19, no. 84 (November 2019): 71-92. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.84.4.
EndNote Iscan B, Balyer A (November 1, 2019) Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations with Academic Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 19 84 71–92.
IEEE B. Iscan and A. Balyer, “Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations with Academic Performance”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 19, no. 84, pp. 71–92, 2019, doi: 10.14689/ejer.2019.84.4.
ISNAD Iscan, Betul - Balyer, Aydin. “Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations With Academic Performance”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 19/84 (November 2019), 71-92. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.84.4.
JAMA Iscan B, Balyer A. Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations with Academic Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2019;19:71–92.
MLA Iscan, Betul and Aydin Balyer. “Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations With Academic Performance”. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, vol. 19, no. 84, 2019, pp. 71-92, doi:10.14689/ejer.2019.84.4.
Vancouver Iscan B, Balyer A. Foundation University Students’ Consumer Orientation and Learner Identity Levels and Their Correlations with Academic Performance. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research. 2019;19(84):71-92.