Exploring factors influencing international students’ decision to choose a higher education institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose There is little research into small higher education institutions and international students’ choice in selecting these institutions. The purpose of this paper is to understand the factors that influence international student choices in selecting a small institution. In particular, this study compares the differences between Chinese students and other international students in selecting an institution, specifically based on sources of information used, usefulness of the information, pull motivations, and reference groups/items. Design/methodology/approach This research study examined undergraduate international students at a small-sized Canadian higher education institution. “International students” were surveyed – as the total population included all students who are studying at the institution on a study permit or a temporary resident (visitor) visa. All full-time and part-time international students attending the institution were eligible to participate in the survey regardless of their faculty or major. For the sampling process, international students at the institution were intercepted on campus using convenient sampling and personal interview method to participate in the survey. In addition, students were invited within the classroom to volunteer to complete the survey. They were able to complete either a paper-based survey or an online survey by following a hyperlink. Findings Results indicate that international students considered “the university’s website” as the most used information source but perceived “direct communication from the institution” as the highest ranked usefulness of the information when selecting a small institution. Further, findings indicate that international student cohorts perceived “environmental cues and educational facilities” as the most important pull motivational factor and the institution itself as the reference that has the most significant influence on student decision making. Research limitations/implications This study was conducted on students who were surveyed following their enrolment and attendance at the institution. Students were surveyed at various stages of their undergraduate studies. As a result, some of these responses may be several years from the actual decision of selecting an institution and student recall may not be accurately reflected. In addition, examining student decision making prior to, during, and immediately following their choice of institution would most likely create better information as student attitudes and perceptions would be recorded closer to the actual decision. In addition, given that these students are attending the institution their actual experience on-campus may have impacted their responses either positively or negatively. Practical implications This study provides insight into international student choice in choosing smaller institutions. These findings can support recruitment policy and strategy for international students and may assist in enhancing institutional performance. Social implications The study reinforces the need for policy makers, institutional leaders and recruiters to understand motivations to pursue overseas studies and to ensure push, pull, and structural factors are aligned for successful student recruitment outcomes. While there is commonality among international student cohorts, there are also significant differences that need to be addressed by institutions and destinations for international students. These findings are presented from one small higher education institution in Canada. Originality/value This study created new knowledge regarding international student decision making in choosing to study at a small higher education institution. The study compared the key factors that influenced decision making and identified differences among Chinese students and other international students. There is little research into the international student decision making and small institutions. This study provides unique insight into international student choice and influences on their decision making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".