Decision Strategies Applied By Students for Their Choice of Schools through the OSYS Exam

Abstract

Use of decision making strategies has recorded a wider application in parallel with the behavior of consumers either pre-purchasing or during the purchasing process within the literature of consumer research. However, its practical application into other fields or disciplines has remained scant. Thus, with the assistance of correlation analysis, this study has tried to investigate the association between the strategies applied by the students while making a decision to choose a specific school at the Central Students' Placement Exam (ÖYS) and the satisfaction levels of students with their current schools, their intention to recommend the school to others, and also their intention to choose a different school in the future. In all these three models, both non-compensatory and opportunistic strategies have appeared as the most significant factors. In a similar model formed by taking into consideration the main characteristics of the chosen school, one sees that the quality of education, the location and life quality of the city, and the familiarity with and accessibility to the city have a direct and positive correlation with the students' intentions of recommending the school to others and of choosing a different school in the future. The discussion of findings is based upon the analysis of primary data collected through a questionnaire survey carried out among those students who were enrolled in a tourism school at the undergraduate level through the 2007 ÖYS exam.

Keywords

• decision making , decision making strategies , ösys exam.

Üniversite Adaylarının ÖSYS Tercihlerinde Kullandıkları Karar Verme Stratejileri

Öz

Bu arastırma kapsamında, ögrencilerin kendileri için önemli bir sınav özelliginde olan ÖSYS tercihini yaparken kullandıkları karar verme stratejilerinin, su anda ögrencisi bulundukları okuldan duydukları tatmin düzeyleri, okulu bir baskasına tavsiye etme ve ileride bir baska okulu tercih etme egilimleri arasındaki iliski düzeyinin ölçülmesi amaçlanmıstır. Arastırma verileri, kapalı uçlu bir soru formu yardımıyla, 2007 ÖSYS sonuçlarına göre lisans düzeyinde turizm ögrenimi görmeye hak kazanan ögrencilerden toplanmıstır. Yukarıdaki amaçların her birisi için yürütülen üç farklı korelasyon analizinde de, tazmin edilemeyen özellikteki stratejiler ile fırsat odaklı stratejiler en güçlü degiskenler olarak görülmektedir. Tercih edilen okulun özellikleri dikkate alınarak bir baska korelasyon analizi yapıldıgında ise, okulun egitim-ögretim kalitesi, sehrin konumu ve yasam kalitesi ile sehirle ilgili ulasılabilirlik ve asinalık düzeyinin yapılan tercihle ilgili tatmin düzeyini, okullarını bir baskasına tavsiye etme ve ileride bir baska okulu tercih etme egilimi ile dogrudan bir iliskiye sahip oldugu görülmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• karar verme , karar verme stratejileri , ösys sınavı.

Kaynakça

1. Ariely, D., & Levav, J. (2000). Sequential choice in group settings: Taking the road less traveled and less enjoyed. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(December), 279-290.
2. Bettman, J. R., Luce, M. F., & Payne, J. W. (1998). Constructive consumer choice processes. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 187-217.
3. Decrop A. (2006). Vacation decision making, Oxon: Cab International.
4. Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2004). Planning the summer vacation: An adaptable and opportunistic process. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 1008-1030.
5. Decrop, A., & Snelders, D. (2005). A grounded typology of vacation decision making. Tourism Management, 26, 121-132.
6. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings, Fourth Edition, Prentice-Hall, NJ.
7. Hoyer, W. D., & MacInnis, D. (2004). Consumer behavior, Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
8. Kirchler, E. (1993). Spouses' joint purchase decisions: determinants of influence tactics for muddling through the process. Journal of Economic Psychology, 14. 405-438.

9. Kirchler, E. (1995). Studying economic decisions within private households: A critical review and design for a couple experiences diary. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16, 393-419.
10. Kotler, P., & Fox, K. F.A. (1985). Strategic marketing for educational institutions. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11. Kozak, M., & Decrop, A. (2009). Decision strategies in tourism evaluation. İçinde Handbook of tourist behavior: Theory and practice. M. Kozak & A. Decrop (Editörler). New York: Routledge.
12. McGuiggan, R. L. (2004). A model of vacation choice: An integration of personality and vacation choice with leisure constraints theory. Içinde Consumer psychology of tourism, hospitality and leisure, G. I. Crouch, R. R. Purdue, H. J. P. Timmermans & M. Uysal (Editörler). Wallingford: CABI, Vol:3, ss. 169-180.
13. Palan, K., & Wilkes, R. (1997). Adolescent-parent interaction in family decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(September), 159-169.
14. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Punj, G., & Stewart, D. (1983). An interaction framework of consumer decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 181-196.
16. Swait, J., & Adamowicz, W. (2001). The influence of task complexity on consumer choice: A latent model of decision strategy switching. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(1), 135-148.