Sosyal Yaşam mı, Öğrenim Kalitesi mi: Yükseköğretimde Hangisi Daha Önemlidir? Vakıf ve Devlet Üniversiteleri Arasında Bir Karşılaştırma

Yıl 2021, , 51 - 62, 03.05.2021

Önder Kethüda

https://doi.org/10.2399/yod.19.021000

Cited By: 3

Öz

Yükseköğretim kurumları arasında arzulanan nitelik ve nicelikte öğrenci çekmek için rekabet her geçen gün artmaktadır. Bu nedenle, üniversitenin kurumsal imajını ve öğrenci memnuniyetini ve öğrenci sadakatini etkileyen faktörlerin araştırılması önemlidir. Bu doğrultuda bu çalışmanın amacı, üniversiteler tarafından öğrencilere sağlanan sosyal yaşam olanaklarının ve öğrenim kalitesinin üniversite kurumsal imajına, öğrenci memnuniyetine ve öğrenci sadakatine etkisini ortaya koymak ve sosyal yaşam ve öğrenim kalitesi değişkenlerinin bağımlı değişkenleri açıklama düzeylerini karşılaştırmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda İstanbul'da bulunan 10 vakıf ve 5 devlet üniversitesinde kotalı örneklem yöntemi ile 829 öğrenciden veri toplanmıştır. Veri seti Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi ile analiz edilmiştir. Araştırma sonucuna göre hem öğrenim kalitesinin hem de sosyal yaşamın üniversite kurumsal imajını ve öğrenci memnuniyetini doğrudan etkilemektedir. Ayrıca, hem öğrenim kalitesinin hem de sosyal yaşam değişkenleri öğrenci sadakatini kurumsal imaj ve öğrenci memnuniyeti değişkenleri üzerinden dolaylı olarak etkilemektedir. Modelde yer alan değişkenler arası etki katsayılarındaki farklılıklardan hareketle, üniversitelere önerilerde bulunulmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Devlet üniversitesi, öğrenci memnuniyeti, öğrenci sadakati, öğrenim kalitesi, sosyal yaşam, üniversite imajı, vakıf üniversitesi

Which Matters More in Higher Education: Social Environment or Teaching Excellence? A Comparison Between Private and Public Universities

Öz

The competition among higher education institutions to attract and retain prospective students is constantly getting fiercer. Therefore, it is important to investigate the factors that affect student satisfaction, student loyalty, and perceived image of a university. This study aims to identify and compare the influence of social environment and teaching excellence provided to students on institutions' university image, student satisfaction, and student loyalty. The data were collected from 829 undergraduate students who were studying at 15 universities, 5 public and 10 private, in Istanbul. The data were analyzed by Structural Equation Modeling. The hypotheses were tested by using path analysis in AMOS and Independent Sample t-Test in SPSS. The results provide evidence that both social environment and teaching excellence have a direct significant influence on the image of a university and student satisfaction, together with an indirect influence on student loyalty through university image and student satisfaction. Some suggestions for higher education institutions are made based on the differences between coefficients among variables.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Private university, public university, social environment, student loyalty, student satisfaction, teaching excellence, university image

Kaynakça

• Aghaz, A., Hashemi, A., & Sharifi Atashgah, M. S. (2015). Factors contributing to university image: The postgraduate students’ points of view. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25(1), 104–126.
• Alcaide-Pulido, P., Alves, H., & Gutiérrez-Villar, B. (2017). Development of a model to analyze HEI image: A case based on a private and a public university. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 27(2), 162–187.
• Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2007). Conceptual model of student satisfaction in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 18(5), 571–578.
• Alves, H., & Raposo, M. (2010). The influence of university image on student behaviour. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(1), 73–85.
• Amaro, D. M., Marques, A. M. A., & Alves, H. (2019). The impact of choice factors on international students’ loyalty mediated by satisfaction. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 16(2–4), 211–233.
• Behara, R. S., Fontenot, G. F., & Gresham, A. B. (2002). Customer process approach to building loyalty. Total Quality Management, 13(5), 603–611.
• Belanger, C., Mount, J., & Wilson, M. (2002). Institutional image and retention. Tertiary Education and Management, 8(3), 217–230.
• Beneke, J. H. (2011). Marketing the institution to prospective students – A review of brand (reputation) management in higher education. International Journal of Business & Management, 6(1), 29–44.
• Blut, M., Evanschitzky, H., Vogel, V., & Ahlert, D. (2007). Switching barriers in the four-stage loyalty model. Advances in Consumer Research, 34, 726–734.
• Borden, V. M. H. (1995). Segmenting student markets with a student satisfaction and priorities survey. Research in Higher Education, 36(1), 73–88.
• Brown, R. M., & Mazzarol, T. W. (2009). The importance of institutional image to student satisfaction and loyalty within higher education. Higher Education, 58(1), 81–95.
• Browne, B. A., Kaldenberg, D. O., Browne, W. G., & Daniel, J. (1998). Student as customer: Factors affecting satisfaction and assessments of institutional quality. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 8(3), 1–14.
• 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), 1958–1978.
• Carvalho, S. W., & de Oliveira Mota, M. (2010). The role of trust in creating value and student loyalty in relational exchanges between higher education institutions and their students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 20(1), 145–165.
• Chapleo, C. (2005). Do universities have “successful” brands? International Journal of Educational Advancement, 6(1), 54–64.
• Chapleo, C., Carrillo Durán, M. V., & Castillo Díaz, A. (2011). Do UK universities communicate their brands effectively through their websites? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(1), 25–46.
• Clemes, M. D., & Gan, C. E. C. (2008). University Student satisfaction: An empirical analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 17(2), 292–325.
• Conway, T., Mackay, S., & Yorke, D. (1988). Strategic planning in higher education: Who are the customers? International Journal of Educational Development, 8(6), 29–36.
• Çatı, K., & Bilgin, Y. (2015). A qualitative research on positioning of universities in Turkey. [Article in Turkish] Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 5(2), 91–102.
• Çatı, K., Kethüda, Ö., & Bilgin, Y. (2016). Positioning strategies of universities: An investigation on universities in Istanbul. Education and Science, 41(185), 219–234.
• Çetin, R. (2004). Planning and implementing institutional image and promoting academic programs in higher education. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 13(1–2), 57–75.
• Darawong, C., & Sandmaung, M. (2019). Service quality enhancing student satisfaction in international programs of higher education institutions: A local student perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 29(2), 268–283.
• Dennis, C., Papagiannidis, S., Alamanos, E., & Bourlakis, M. (2016). The role of brand attachment strength in higher education. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3049–3057.
• Donaldson, B., & McNicholas, C. (2004). Understanding the postgraduate education market for UK-based students: A review and empirical study. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9(4), 346–360.
• Eagle, L., & Brennan, R. (2007). Are students customers? TQM and marketing perspectives. Quality Assurance in Education, 15(1), 44–60.
• Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to recruitment and retention. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 10(4), 1–11.
• Elliott, K. M., & Shin, D. (2002). Student satisfaction: An alternative approach to assessing this important concept. Journal of Higher Education, 24(2), 197–209.
• Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (1998). Brand equity as a signaling phenomenon. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(2), 131–157.
• Guilbault, M. (2016). Students as customers in higher education: Reframing the debate. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 26(2), 132–142.
• Helgesen, Ø. (2008). Marketing for higher education: A relationship marketing approach. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 18(1), 50–78.
• Helgesen, Ø., & Nesset, E. (2007). Images, satisfaction and antecedents: Drivers of student loyalty? A case study of a Norwegian University College. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(1), 38–59.
• Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3(4), 331–344.
• Hill, Y., Lomas, L., & Macgregor, J. (2003). Students’ perceptions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education, 11(1), 15–20.
• Hoyt, J. E., & Brown, A. B. (2003). Identifying college choice factors to successfully market your institution. College & University Journal, 78(4), 3–10.
• Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image: A correspondence analysis approach. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 276–282.
• Kethüda, Ö. (2016). The effect of brand positioning strategies for universities to student satisfaction and loyalty: A research on Universities in Istanbul. Düzce: Düzce University, Düzce Business School.
• Kethüda, Ö. (2017). Segmenting international student market: An investigation in the United Kingdom. [Article in Turkish] Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 7(3), 186–196.
• Kuo, Y.-K., & Ye, K.-D. (2009). The causal relationship between service quality, corporate image and adults’ learning satisfaction and loyalty: A study of professional training programmes in a Taiwanese vocational institute. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20(7), 749– 762.
• Lo, C. C. (2010). How student satisfaction factors affect perceived learning. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), 47–54.
• Luque-Martínez, T., & Del Barrio-García, S. (2009). Modelling university image: The teaching staff viewpoint. Public Relations Review, 35(3), 325–327.
• Maringe, F. (2006). University and course choice: Implications for positioning, recruitment and marketing. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 466–479.
• Maringe, F., & Carter, S. (2007). International students’ motivations for studying in UK HE: Insights into the choice and decision making of African students. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(6), 459–475.
• Masserini, L., Bini, M., & Pratesi, M. (2019). Do quality of services and institutional image impact students’ satisfaction and loyalty in higher education? Social Indicators Research, 146(1–2), 91–115.
• Mavondo, F. T., Tsarenko, Y., & Gabbott, M. (2004). International and local student satisfaction: Resources and capabilities perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(1), 41–60.
• Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2012). Revisiting the global market for higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 717–737.
• Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: AMOS uygulamaları (2nd ed.). Ankara: Detay Publication.
• Mount, J., & Belanger, C. H. (2004). Entrepreneurship and image management in higher education: Pillars of massification. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34(2), 125–140.
• Ng, I. C. L., & Forbes, J. (2009). Education as service: The understanding of university experience through the service logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 38–64.
• Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in student’s retention decisions. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(6), 303–311.
• Okumuş, A., & Duygun, A. (2008). Eğitim hizmetlerinin pazarlanmasında hizmet kalitesinin ölçümü ve algılanan hizmet kalitesi ile öğrenci memnuniyeti arasindaki ilişki. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(2), 17–38.
• Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17(4), 460–469.
• Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63(Special Issue), 33–44.
• Palacio, A. B., Meneses, G. D., & Pérez, P. J. P. (2002). The configuration of the university image and its relationship with the satisfaction of students. Journal of Educational Administration, 40(5), 486–505.
• Paswan, A. K., & Ganesh, G. (2009). Higher education institutions: Satisfaction and loyalty among international students. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19(1), 65–84.
• Price, I., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L., & Agahi, H. (2003). The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities, 21(10), 212–222.
• Schertzer, C. B., & Schertzer, S. M. B. (2004). Student satisfaction and retention: A conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 14(1), 79–91.
• Steenkamp, J. B. E. M., & van Trijp, H. C. M. (1991). The use of lisrel in validating marketing constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8(4), 283–299.
• Subrahmanyam, A. (2017). Relationship between service quality, satisfaction, motivation and loyalty: A multi-dimensional perspective. Quality Assurance in Education, 25(2), 171–188.
• Tayyar, N., & Dilşeker, F. (2012). The effect of service quality and image on student satisfaction at state and private universities. [Article in Turkish] Muğla Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 28, 184– 204.
• Thomas, S. (2011). What Drives student loyalty in universities: An empirical model from India. International Business Research, 4(2), 183–192.
• Tomlinson, M. (2018). Conceptions of the value of higher education in a measured market. Higher Education, 75(4), 711–727.
• Torlak, Ö., & Doğan, V. (2011). Assess the impact of prospective students’ perceptions of university brand on their preferences for universities. Journal of Management Faculty, 12(1), 97–113.
• Widiputera, F., De Witte, K., Groot, W., & van den Brink, H. M. (2017). The attractiveness of programmes in higher education: An empirical approach. European Journal of Higher Education, 7(2), 153–172.
• Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2014). Factors affecting university image formation among prospective higher education students: The case of international branch campuses. Studies in Higher Education, June 2014, 1–17.
• Woodall, T., Hiller, A., & Resnick, S. (2014). Making sense of higher education: Students as consumers and the value of the university experience. Studies in Higher Education, 39(1), 48–67.
• Yamamoto, G. T. (2006). University evaluation-selection: A Turkish case. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(7), 559–569.