Journals / Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies / 2007 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1

Türk Üniversitelerinin Algılamalarının Çok Boyutlu Ölçeklendirme (MDS) Analizi ile İncelenmesi

Analyzing the Perceptions of Turkish Universities Using Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) Analysis

Pages
125–141
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results indicate that the three private universities plus Galatasaray University form a distinct cluster on their own, while the other six public universities are separated into two distinct groups occupying unique positions in separate quadrants of the perceptual map.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:With the number of public and private universities in Turkey increasing and with the selection mechanisms offering ever more increased freedom of choice to prospective students, it is becoming important to analyze how students perceive differences among the most preferred Turkish universities.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The results indicate that the three private universities plus Galatasaray University form a distinct cluster on their own, while the other six public universities are separated into two distinct groups occupying unique positions in separate quadrants of the perceptual map.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It is also found that the ideal point indicates the direction of Boğaziçi University, ODTÜ and İTÜ.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:ölçekleme · scaling

Abstract

With the number of public and private universities in Turkey increasing and with the selection mechanisms offering ever more increased freedom of choice to prospective students, it is becoming important to analyze how students perceive differences among the most preferred Turkish universities. Education marketers may use perceptual maps either to see the current state of the market or to plan for new product launches (in this case, new universities). This paper analyzes the perceptions of the ten most preferred Turkish universities as judged by undergraduate students at universities around Turkey. The Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) technique is used to come up with a perceptual map of the ten most preferred Turkish universities in management education, after obtaining data in the form of similarity judgments, attribute ratings and preference ratings from the respondent students. Additional analyses are performed to attribute meaningful names to perceptual map dimensions, and also to determine the ideal point of the perceptual map. The results indicate that the three private universities plus Galatasaray University form a distinct cluster on their own, while the other six public universities are separated into two distinct groups occupying unique positions in separate quadrants of the perceptual map. It is also found that the ideal point indicates the direction of Boğaziçi University, ODTÜ and İTÜ.

Özet

Giderek artan kamu ve özel üniversite sayısı ve öğrencilerin seçim yapmasında getirilen esneklikler, öğrencilerin üniversiteler arasındaki farkları nasıl gördüklerinin incelenmesini önemli kılmaktadır. Eğitim pazarlamacıları algısal haritaları kullanarak piyasanın mevcut durumunu anlayabilir ya da yeni ürünlerin (yeni üniversitelerin) nasıl konumlandırılması gerektiğine karar verebilirler. Bu makalede işletme eğitiminde en çok tercih edilen on Türk üniversitesinin, Türkiye’de çeşitli üniversitelerde okuyan öğrenciler tarafından nasıl algılandığını çok boyutlu ölçeklendirme (MDS) yöntemi ile incelenmiştir. Öğrencilerden, üniversitelerin birbirine yakınlığı ile ilgili veri toplandıktan sonra, çok boyutlu ölçeklendirme tekniği kullanılarak üniversitelerin algısal haritasına ulaşılmıştır. Farklı bazı teknikler kullanılarak ise MDS sonucu ortaya çıkan boyutlara anlamlı isimler verilmiş ve “ideal” üniversite noktası bulunmuştur. Sonuçlar göstermiştir ki üç özel üniversite ve Galatasaray Üniversitesi birbirine yakın bir küme oluştururken, diğer altı kamu üniversitesi üçerli gruplar halinde farklı yerlerde konumlanmıştır. Ayrıca bulunan ideal noktanın Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, ODTÜ ve İTÜ’nün bulunduğu noktalar yönünde olduğu görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

AKKÜÇÜK, U., KÜÇÜKKANCABAŞ, S. (2007). Türk Üniversitelerinin Algılamalarının Çok Boyutlu Ölçeklendirme (MDS) Analizi ile İncelenmesi. Bogazici Journal: Review of Social, Economic and Administrative Studies, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 1, 125–141. https://ajindex.com/articles/147311

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Bucklin, R.E. and Lattin. J.M. (1992). “A Model of Product Category Competition among Grocery Retailers,” Journal of Retailing, 68: 271-293.
  2. Carroll, J.D. and Chang, J.J. (1970). “Analysis of Individual Differences in Multidimensional Scaling Via an N-Way Generalization of ‘Eckart-Young’ Decomposition,” Psychometrika, 35: 283–319.
  3. Chang, J.J. and Carroll, J.D. (1989a). “How to Use PREFMAP – A Program that Relates Preference Data to Multidimensional Scaling Solutions,” in P.E. Green, F.J. Carmone, and S.M. Smith (eds.), Multidimensional Scaling: Concepts and Applications: 303–317.
  4. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Chang, J.J. and Carroll, J.D. (1989b). “How to Use PROFIT – A Computer Program for Property Fitting by Optimizing Nonlinear or Linear Correlation,” in P.E. Green, F.J. Carmone, and S.M. Smith (eds.), Multidimensional Scaling: Concepts and Applications: 318–331.
  5. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Chapman, D.W. (1981). “A Model of Student University Choice,” Journal of Higher Education, 52(5): 490-505.
  6. Domino, S., Libraire, T., Lutwiller, D., Supercynzski, S., and Tian, R. (2006). “Higher Education Marketing Concerns: Factors Influence Students’ Choice of Universities,” 6(2): 101-111.
  7. Gorman, W.P. (1976). “An Evaluation of Student Attracting Methods and University Features by Attending Students,” University and University, (Winter), 51: 220-5.
  8. Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., and Black, W.C. (1998). Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall. Hanson, G.R., Norman, T., and William, A. (1998). “The Decision to Attend UT-Austin: What Makes a Difference?” Available at: http://www.utexas.edit/student/ research/reports/ccweb/CCweb.html [accessed in June 2007].
  9. Jackson, G.A. (1982). “Public Efficiency and Private Choice in Higher Education,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(2): 237-47.
  10. Keever, S. (1998), “Building Your Image on Campus,” Journal of Career Planning and Employment, 58(2): 42-46.
  11. Kruskal, J.B. (1964a). “Multidimensional Scaling for Optimizing a Goodness of Fit Metric to a Nonmetric Hypothesis,” Psychometrika, 29: 1-27.
  12. Kruskal, J.B. (1964b). “Nonmetric Multidimensional Scaling: A Numerical Method,” Psychometrika, 29: 115-129.
  13. Kruskal, J.B., and Carroll, J.D. (1969). “Geometrical Models and Badness-of-Fit Functions,” in P.R. Krishnaiah (ed.), Multivariate Analysis, 2: 639–671. New York: Academic Press.
  14. Lattin, J.M., Carroll, J.D., and Green, P.E. (2003). Analyzing Multivariate Data. Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole. Mazzarol, T. and Soutar,