ÇOK KRİTERLİ KARAR DESTEK YAPISINDA KONJOİNT ANALİZİ: ÜNİVERSİTE TERCİH ÖRNEĞİ

Year 2019, Issue: 20, 266 - 280, 01.06.2019

Mehmet Can Hanaylı Özel Sebetci

Abstract

Ülke genelinde hali hazırda sürmekte olan eğitim kalitesi ne kadar iyi, verilen eğitim yeterli mi, müfredat güncel mi? Gibi sorular veliler, öğrencileri ve öğretim üyelerinin kafalarını meşgul ederken yapılan bu çalışma öğrencilerin şu anki eğitim sisteminde karar verirken geçtikleri süreç içerisinde aradıkları kriterleri göz önüne bulundurarak ve bu kriterlerden hangilerini daha öncelikli tercih ettiklerini değerlendirerek bir sonuç ortaya koymuştur. En çok tercih edilen devlet ve vakıf üniversitelerini ele alarak bunların öğrenciye sağladıkları Sosyal ve Spor faaliyetleri, Aile ve Arkadaşların Önerisi, Bölüm ve İş Olanakları, Üniversite Üyelerinin Prestiji, Üniversitenin İtibarı gibi alanlarda değerlendirmeye tabi tutulmuştur. 100 kişinin katıldığı araştırmada kapsamında Andriani Kusumawati’nin yaptığı Understanding Student Choice Criteria for Selecting an Indonesian Public University: A Conjoint Analysis Approach çalışmasından yola çıkılarak kriterler belirlenmiştir. Analiz sonucu çalışmada değerlendirilmiştir.

Keywords

Üniversite Tercihi, Konjoint Analizi, Seçime Dayalı Konjoint Analizi

CONJOINT ANALYSIS IN MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION SUPPORT STRUCTURE: CASE OF UNIVERSITY PREFERENCE

Abstract

Today, the issue of decision making in multi-criteria structures is of great importan-ce. University selection in particular is a comprehensive example with many criteria included in this topic. The preference period that students face after they take the university exam is a period in which anxiety levels and stress levels are high. This process requires a thorough investigation of many existing criteria, including not only the students but also their families and advisors. Throughout the country; " how good is the quality of education already in progress, is the education provided sufficient, is the curriculum up to date?"such questions preoccupy the heads of pa-rents, students and faculty members. This study aimed to produce a result by taking into account the criteria that the students are looking for during the process of ma-king decisions in the current education system and evaluating which of these crite-ria they prefer first. Within the scope of this aim, the most preferred state and foun-dation universities were considered and the social and sports activities they provi-ded to the students, the suggestions of family and friends, department and job op-portunities, the prestige of the University members, the reputation of the University were evaluated. 100 people participated in the research, according to the selected cir-teria from Andriani Kusumawati's study called Understanding Student Choice Cri-teria for Selecting an Indonesian Public University: a Conjoint Analysis Approach. This research has a guiding nature in determining the University's position in the selection order of factors such as having good faculty members and having laborato-ries for students to use.

Keywords

University Preference, Conjoint Analysis, Conjoint Analysis Based On Criteria

References

• Aydın, N., & Yalçın, E. (2016). Seçime Dayalı Konjoint Analizi Ve Bir Uygulama. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(50), 26-48.
• Bacanlı, H. (1999). Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Değer Tercihleri. Kuram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi Dergisi, 597-610.
• Beusterien, K., Grinspan, J., Kuchuk, I., Mazzarello, S., Dent, S., Gertler, S., & Clemons, M. (2014). Use of conjoint analysis to assess breast cancer patient preferences for chemotherapy side effects. The Oncologist, 19(2), 127-134.
• Bradlow, E. T. (2005). Current İssues and a 'Wish List' For Conjoint Analysis. Applied Stochastic Models in Business and İndustry, 21(4-5), 319-323.
• Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: the case of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education, 705-722.
• DesJardins, S. L., Ahlburg, D. A., & McCall, B. (1999). An integrated model of application,admission, enrollment, and financial aid. The Journal of Higher Education, 381-429.
• Dinç, Y. (2010). Konjoint Analizi ve Otomobil Seçim Kriterleri Üzerine Bir Uygulama. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Ercan, H. (2011). Üniversite Seçiminde Öğrenci Algıları ve Türk Üniversitelerinin Konumlandırılması. İstanbul: İnstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü.
• Göksu, A., & Güngör, İ. (2008). Bulanık Analitik Hiyerarşik Proses Ve Üniversite Tercih Sıralamasında Uygulanması. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 13(3), 1-26.
• Green, P. E., & Rao, V. R. (1971). Conjoint measurement-for quantifying judgmental data. Journal of Marketing research, 355-363.
• Green, P. E., & Srinivasan, V. (1990). Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. Journal of marketing, 3-19.
• Green, P. E., Krieger, A. M., & Wind, Y. (2001). Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces, 31(3_supplement), 56-73.
• Gürbüz, H., & Kaygısız, Z. (2004). Konjoint Analizi ve Ulaşım Sektör Pazarı Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 9(1), 139-148.
• Hair, F. H., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (1995). Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Hossler, D., & Gallagher, K. S. (1987). Studying Student College Choice. A Three Phase Model And The Implications For Policy Makers. . College and University, 207-221.
• Hossler, D., Braxton, J., & Coopersmith, G. (1989). Understanding student college choice. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 231-288.
• Huertas-García, R., Nuñez-Carballosa, A., & Miravitlles, P. (2016). Statistical and cognitive optimization of experimental designs in conjoint analysis. European Journal Of Management And Business Economics, 25(3), 142-149.
• Korkut-Owen, F., Kepir, D. D., Özdemir, S., Ulaş, Ö., & Yılmaz, O. (2012). Üniversite öğrencilerinin bölüm seçme nedenleri. Mersin Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 135-151.
• Kotler, P., & Fox, K. (1995). Strategic Marketing For Educational Institutions. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
• Kusumawati, A. (2011). Understanding Student Choice Criteria for Selecting an Indonesian Public University: A Conjoint Analysis Approach. SBS HDR Student Conference, 1-16. From https://ro.uow.edu.au/sbshdr/2011/papers/16/
• Leister, D. V., Menzel, R. K., & Shanaman, J. A. (1976). Assessing Potential New Student Markets: Metamarketing Applications. Choice or chance: Planning for independent college marketing and retention. Northwest Area Foundation.
• Luce, R. D., & Tukey, J. M. (1964). Simultaneous conjoint measurement: a new type of fundamental measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1-27.
• McLauchlan, W. G. (1991). Scaling prior utilities in Sawtooth Software’s adaptive conjoint analysis. Sawtooth Software Conference Proceedings, 251-268.
• Noyan, A., & Yalçın, E. (2016). Seçime Dayalı Konjoint Analizi Ve Bir Uygulama. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(50), 26-48.
• Orme, B. K. (2001). Assessing the monetary value of attribute levels with conjoint analysis: Warnings and suggestions. Sawtooth Solutions Customer Newsletter (Spring) Sawtooth Software Inc., Sequim, WA.
• Porretta, S., Gere, A., Radványi, D., & Moskowitz, H. (2018). Mind Genomics (Conjoint Analysis): The new concept research in the analysis of consumer behaviour and choice. . Trends in Food Science & Technology.
• Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2007). A model of university choice: an exploratory approach.
• Saraçlı, S., & Şıklar, E. (2005). Bireysel Emeklilik Şirketlerinin Tercihinde Etkili Olan Faktörlerin Konjoint Analizi İle İncelenmesi. 1-12: Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi.
• Sönmez, H. (2006). Müşteri Tercihleri İçin Konjoint Analizi Uygulaması: Ev Bilgisayarı Nasıl Seçilir. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 185-196.
• Tatar, E., & Oktay, M. (2006). Search, Choice and Persistence for Higher Education: A Case Study in Turkey. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 2(2).
• Tavares, D., Tavares, O., Justino, E., & Amaral, A. (2008). Students' preferences and needs in Portuguese higher education. European Journal of Education, 107-122.
• Tuğlu, B. M. (2009). Türkiye’de Üniversite Eğitiminin Durumu, Sorunları Ve Çözüm Arayışları. 1. İNŞAAT MÜHENDİSLİĞİ EĞİTİMİ SEMPOZYUMU (pp. 303-310). Antalya: Retma Matbaa.
• Tuncalı, T. (2007). Seçime Dayalı Konjoint Analizi Yöntemi İle Gsm Servis Sağlayıcı Seçiminde Etkili Olan Faktörlerin Araştırılması ve Uygulama. İstanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
• Wagner, K., & Fard, P. Y. (2009). Factors influencing Malaysian students' intention to study at a higher educational institution. E-Leader Kuala Lumpur.
• Wittink, D. R., & Cattin, P. (1989 ). Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update. Commercial use of conjoint analysis: An update, 91-96.
• Yaman, T. T., & Çakır, Ö. (2017). ÜNİVERSİTE TERCİHLERİNİN SEÇİME DAYALI KONJOİNT ANALİZİ İLE BELİRLENMESİ. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi Uygulamalı Bilimler Dergisi , 65-84.
• Zimmermann, T. M., Clouth, J., Elosge, M., Heurich, M., Schneider, E., Wilhelm, S., & Wohlfarth, A. (2013). Patient Preferences for Outcomes of Depression Treatment in Germany: A Choice-Based Conjoint Analysis Study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 210- 219.