KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 1

Yükseköğretimde Kalitenin Akademik Çekicilik Üzerindeki Etkisinde Fiyatın Aracı Rolü

The Mediating Role of the Price in the Relationship Between Quality and Academic Attractiveness of Higher Education

Önder Kethüda(Düzce Üniversitesi, Akçakoca Meslek Yüksek Okulu, Düzce, Türkiye)
Sayfa
78–87
Yayın Tarihi
2020-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Sonuçlar, kalitenin akademik çekicilik üzerinde çok güçlü ve fiyat üzerinde ise güçlü bir etkisinin olduğunu göstermektedir.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Fiyat ve kalite, yükseköğretim pazarlamasının en önemli unsurlarından ikisidir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Bunun yanında, fiyatın çekicilik üzerindeki etkisi tartışmalıdır.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Sonuçlar, kalitenin akademik çekicilik üzerinde çok güçlü ve fiyat üzerinde ise güçlü bir etkisinin olduğunu göstermektedir.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Fiyat · Kalite · Akademik çekicilik

Özet

Fiyat ve kalite, yükseköğretim pazarlamasının en önemli unsurlarından ikisidir. Kalitenin tüm mamul ve hizmetler için çekiciliği artıran bir nitelik olduğu genel kabul görmektedir. Bunun yanında, fiyatın çekicilik üzerindeki etkisi tartışmalıdır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, yükseköğretimde kalitenin akademik çekicilik üzerindeki etkisinde fiyatın aracılık rolünü incelemektir. Araştırmanın evrenini en çok uluslararası öğrenciye ev sahipliği yapan ilk 30 ülke oluşturmaktadır ve bu evrende tam sayıma gidilmiştir. Araştırmada ikincil kaynak veriler kullanılmış olup veriler, ikiden fazla değişken arasındaki ilişkiyi aynı anda analiz etmeye olanak sağlayan yapısal eşitlik modellemesi ile analiz edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, kalitenin akademik çekicilik üzerinde çok güçlü ve fiyat üzerinde ise güçlü bir etkisinin olduğunu göstermektedir. Bunun yanında, fiyat akademik çekiciliği istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir şekilde etkilememektedir. Bu sonuçlardan hareketle, diğer sektörlerde olduğu gibi fiyatın yükseköğretim sektöründe de kalitenin göstergesi olarak değerlendirilebileceği, fakat yüksek fiyatın akademik çekiciliği artırmadığı sonucuna varılabilir. Araştırmanın sonuçlarından hareketle, uluslararası yükseköğretim sektöründeki pazar payını geliştirmek isteyen ülkelere, kalite bağlamında kendilerini konumlandırmak istedikleri yere göre fiyat belirlemeleri tavsiye edilmektedir

Abstract

Price and quality are two of the most important elements of higher education marketing. It is widely accepted that quality is an attribute that enhances attractiveness for all goods and services. However, the influence of price on attractiveness is controversial. The aim of this paper is to examine the mediating role of price in the relationship between quality and academic attractiveness in higher education. The population of the research was determined as the first 30 countries hosting the most international students in the world and all countries were included in the sample. Secondary data were used to test the theoretical model, and the data analyzed by structural equation modeling that enabled to test the relations between more than two variables at the same time. Results show that quality has a very strong influence on academic attractiveness and a strong impact on price. However, price has no significant influence on academic attractiveness. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the price is an indicator of quality in the higher education sector, as in other sectors, but the high price does not reduce academic attractiveness of countries. Therefore, countries aiming to develop their share in the international higher education market are advised to determine prices according to where they want to position themselves in the context of quality

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kethüda, Ö. (2020). Yükseköğretimde Kalitenin Akademik Çekicilik Üzerindeki Etkisinde Fiyatın Aracı Rolü. Yükseköğretim ve Bilim Dergisi, Sayı: 1, 78–87. https://ajindex.com/articles/1316576

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (45)

  1. Albayrak, T., & Aksoy, S. (2008). Tüketici davranışında temel yaklaşımlar. Pazarlama ve Pazarlama Araştırmaları Dergisi, (3), 1–19.
  2. Arkalı, G. O., & Bulu, M. (2016). Rankings of Turkish universities in international university ranking indexes. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 6(2), 95–103. http://doi.org/10.2399/yod.16.003
  3. ARWU. (2016). Academic Ranking of World Universities. Retrieved from http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU2018.html 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. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ e2fa/4b13f4e837cc634d4259550e5716dc836444.pdf
  4. Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Research on the students’ perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 21(5), 318–327. http://doi.org/10.1108/02634500310490265
  5. Bourke, A. (2000). A model of the determinants of ınternational trade in higher education. The Service Industries Journal, 20(1), 110–138. http://doi.org/10.1080/02642060000000007
  6. Bryan, G. A., & Whipple, T. W. (1995). Tuition elasticity of the demand for higher education among current students: A pricing model. Journal of Higher Education, 66(5), 560-574.
  7. Briggs, S. (2006). An exploratory study of the factors influencing undergraduate student choice: the case of higher education in Scotland. Studies in Higher Education, 31(6), 705–722. http:// doi.org/10.1080/03075070601004333
  8. Briggs, S., & Wilson, A. (2007). Which university? A study of the influence of cost and information factors on Scottish undergraduate choice. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 29(1), 57–72. http://doi.org/10.1080/13600800601175789
  9. Christie, H., Munro, M., & Rettig, H. (2001). Making ends meet: Student incomes and debt. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 363–383. http://doi.org/10.1080/0307507012007631
  10. Cremonini, L., & Antonowicz, D. (2009). In the eye of the beholder? Conceptualizing academic attraction in the global higher education market. European Education, 41(2), 52–74. http:// doi.org/10.2753/EUE1056-4934410203
  11. CWTS. (2016). Leiden ranking. Retrieved from http://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2018/list Çatı, K., Kethüda, Ö., & Bilgin, Y. (2016). Positioning strategies of universities: An investigation on universities in Istanbul. Education And Science, 41(185), 219–234. http://doi.org/10.15390/ EB.2016.2723
  12. Dotterweich, D., & Baryla, E. A., Jr. (2005). Non-resident tuition and enrollment in higher education: ımplications for tuition pricing. Education Economics, 13(4), 375-385
  13. Eder, J., Smith, W. W., & Pitts, R. E. (2010). Exploring factors influencing student study abroad destination choice. Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 10(3), 232–250. http://doi.org /10.1080/15313220.2010.503534
  14. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A Simple guide and reference. (10th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
  15. Hemsley-Brown, J. (2012). ‘The best education in the world’: reality, repetition or cliché? International students’ reasons for choosing an English university. Studies in Higher Education, 37(8), 1005–1022. http://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2011.56 2286
  16. Hemsley‐Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316–338. http://doi. org/10.1108/09513550610669176
  17. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit ındexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
  18. Joseph, M., & Joseph, B. (2000). Indonesian students’ perceptions of choice criteria in the selection of a tertiary institution: Strategic implications. International Journal of Educational Management, 14(1), 40–44. http://doi. org/10.1108/09513540010310396
  19. Keskin, H. Ü. (2013). Tanımlayıcı İstatistikler. In Ş. Kalaycı (Ed.), SPSS Uygulamalı çok değişkenli istatistik teknikleri (3. baskı). Ankara: Asil Yayın Dağıtım.
  20. Kethüda, Ö. (2015). Türkiye’deki uluslararası öğrenci hareketliliği üzerine bir araştırma. Yükseköğretim Dergisi, 5(3), 147–161. http://doi.org/10.2399/yod.15.015
  21. Kethüda, Ö. (2017). Segmenting international student market: An investigation in the United Kingdom. Journal of Higher Education, 7(3), 186–196. http://doi.org/10.2399/yod.17.015
  22. Kolster, R. (2010). Academic attractiveness of countries to students: Explaining and measuring a countries’ academic X factor. University of Oslo. Retrieved from https://www.duo. uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/30477/AcademicxAttractivenessxofxcountriesxxR.xKolster.pdf?sequence=1
  23. Kolster, R. (2014). Academic attractiveness of countries; a possible benchmark strategy applied to the Netherlands. European Journal of Higher Education, 4(2), 118–134. http://doi.org/10. 1080/21568235.2013.879835
  24. Kondakçı, Y. (2011). Student mobility reviewed: Attraction and satisfaction of international students in Turkey. Higher Education, 62(5), 573–592. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-011- 9406-2
  25. Kotler, P., & Armstrong, G. (2010). Principles of marketing (13th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education. Leavitt, H. J. (1954). A note on some experimental findings about the meanings of price. The Journal of Business, 27(3), 205–210.
  26. Li, M., & Bray, M. (2007). Cross-border flows of students for higher education: Push-pull factors and motivations of mainland Chinese students in Hong Kong and Macau. Higher Education, 53(6), 791–818. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-005-5423-3
  27. 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. http://doi. org/10.1108/09513540710780000
  28. Martens, K., & Starke, P. (2006). Education as an export industry: The case of New Zealand. TranState Working Papers, 33, 1–19. http://econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24946/1/51450112X. PDF
  29. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2002). “Push‐pull” factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management,16(1), 82–90. http://doi. org/10.1108/09513540210418403
  30. Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G. N. (2012). Revisiting the global market for higher education. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 24(5), 717–737. http://doi.org/10.1108/13555851211278079
  31. Meydan, C. H., & Şeşen, H. (2015). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi: AMOS Uygulamaları (2. baskı). Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık.
  32. Murphy, P. J. (1984). Preparing administrators for the Twenty-First Century. Higher Education, 13(4), 439-449.
  33. Naidoo, V. (2006). International education: A tertiary-level industry update. Journal of Research in International Education, 5(3), 323–345. http://doi.org/10.1177/1475240906069455
  34. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841240902904703
  35. Pyvis, D., & Chapman, A. (2007). Why university students choose an international education: A case study in Malaysia. International Journal of Educational Development, 27(2), 235–246. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2006.07.008
  36. Richardson, P. S., Dick, A. S., & Jain, A. K. (1994). Extrinsic and intrinsic cue effects on perceptions of store brand quality. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 28. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251914
  37. QS. (2016). QS World University Rankings. Retrieved from https://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/worlduniversity-rankings/2018
  38. Rao, A. R., & Monroe, K. B. (1989). The effect of price, brand name, and store name on buyers’ perceptions of product quality: An integrative review. Journal of Marketing Research, 26(3), 351. http://doi.org/10.2307/3172907
  39. Rothschild M., & White, L. J. (1995). The analytics of the pricing of higher education and other services in which the customers are inputs. Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 573-586. https://doi.org/10.1086/261995
  40. Soo, K. T., & Elliott, C. (2010). Does price matter? Overseas students in UK higher education. Economics of Education Review, 29(4), 553–565. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.10.016 Times Higher Education (THE). (2016). World University Rankings. Retrieved from https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ world-university-rankings/2018/worldUNESCO. (2016). Institute for Statistics. Retrieved from http://uis. unesco.org/en/uis-student-flow
  41. Wilkins, S. (2013). “Home” or away? The higher education choices of expatriate children in the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Research in International Education, 12(1), 33–48. http://doi. org/10.1177/1475240913479519
  42. Wilkins, S., & Huisman, J. (2011). International student destination choice: The influence of home campus experience on the decision to consider branch campuses. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(1), 61–83. http://doi.org/10.1080/0 8841241.2011.573592
  43. 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. http://doi.org/10.1080/030750 79.2014.881347
  44. Wilkins, S., Balakrishnan, M. S., & Huisman, J. (2012). Student choice in higher education: Motivations for choosing to study at an international branch campus. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(5), 413–433. http://doi. org/10.1177/1028315311429002
  45. Christie, H., Munro, M., & Rettig, H. (2001). Making ends meet: Student incomes and debt. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 363–383. http://doi.org/10.1080/0307507012007631