NASB (ACTUALIZADO) TEXTO: 6:52-59

Research into decision making relating to student choice became popular during the late 1970s and early 1980s with the focus on the USA (Veloutsou et al., 2005). Research has expanded into other countries such as Africa, Australia, Denmark, Spain, UK and overseas students generally. Chapman (1981), Krampf and Heinlein (1981), Hooley and Lynch (1981) and later Moogan et al. (1999) were recognised as some of the first to link the theory of buying behaviour to education.

54 | P a g e Ivy (2010) states that there are three types of models to explain students’ decision making regarding their choice of HE institution:

Economic models are based upon a cost-benefit analysis, where prospective students

take into account costs related to their studies and compare against the financial benefits expected on graduation (Chapman, 1981).

Sociological models consider issues such as family background, academic ability,

motivation and personal goals (for example see Kotler and Fox, 1995).

Information processing models combine aspects of the previous two categories and

consider both the decision and the processes (Hossler and Gallagher, 1987)

Vrontis et al. (2004) supports this view and used similar terms to define student choice models: economic models, status-attainment models and combined models. Hossler et al. (1987) suggest that models that combine the first two types provide more explanatory powers. Generally models within HE tend to focus on what is known as the cognitive perspective (Egan, 2014) or alternatively known as information processing models (Ivy, 201; Bettman et al., 1998). Maringe (2006) applies the general stages to education, which are detailed in Table 3.4 below.

Table 3.4: Student decision model for HE.

Stage Detail

Pre-search

behaviour Early, passive thoughts regarding HE study. Universities needs to maintain an institutional presence in passive minds of choosers

Search

behaviour Applicants already have a short-list of universities. They start to use a variety of sources to provide information to assist in decision making process.

University needs to maximise information opportunities

Application

stage Applicant submits their application to the universities. Universities needs to deal with application quickly, and develop ‘keep warm’ activities.

Choice

decision Applicant accepts one or more offers. Universities need to build a psychological bond and maintain dialogue with applicant to become preferred choice.

Registration Applicant registers on the course and turns-up to study. Some may leave within the first few days due to early negative post purchase feelings.

Based upon stages provided by Maringe (2006)

The model above closely identifies with the general consumer decision making process discussed previously, although the importance of post purchase evaluation is not

55 | P a g e evident in this particular model and it is a very rational perspective of the process. However, what the Maringe (2006) model adds to the discussion is perception of a longer time element, through the pre-search behaviour, prior to search behaviour.

Many authors when researching student decision making simply refer to generic models such as the ones by Kotler (1997; 2003), Engel et al., (1968), or Blackwell et al.,(2006). However, many adapt to suit the HE environment, but a number fail to see the importance of post purchase evaluation, as can be seen in Table 3.5 below. Post purchase evaluation is likely to have an increased role in today’s highly interactive communications culture, where more open, instant and less formal communications take place 24/7 (Tuten and Solomon, 2013).

Table 3.5: Views of HE decision making stages

Author(s) Stages identified

Brown, Varley, Pal (2009) Problem recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision

Maringe (2006) Pre-search behaviour, search behaviour, application stage, choice

decision, registration Vrontis, Thrassou, Melanthiou

(2004)

Need recognition, info search, alternatives evaluation, purchase & consumption, post-consumption evaluation

Foskett and Hemsley- Brown(2001)

Entering the game, scanning the options, focusing the choice, shortlisting, prioritising and preferencing, conversion and decision-taking

Kotler and Fox (1985) Need arousal, information gathering, decision evaluation, decision execution, post decision assessment

Litten (1982) College aspirations, decision to start process, information

gathering, applications, enrolment

Perun (1981) Desire to attend, decision (plans) to attend, investigation of institutions, applications for admission, admission, enrolment Kotler (1976) Decision to attend, information seeking and receiving, specific

college inquiries, application, admission(s), college choice, registration

The student decision making model by Maringe (2006), in Table 3.4 and a number of other models in Table 3.5 (Foskett and Hemsley-Brown 2001; Litten 1982; Perun 1981; Kotler 1976), fail to recognise the importance of post-purchase evaluation. Many positive or negative comments can be posted on online social media sites, which are likely to influence future students, as previously suggested by the Wolny and Charoensuksai (2014) model. Maringe’s model is a rather simplistic representation as it does not include a variety of environmental and individual factors that may impact upon how individuals evaluate their choice during the process, as proposed by the Blackwell

56 | P a g e et al., (2001) in Figure 3.3. Moreover, decision making is still represented as a linear process and does not consider the changing nature of communications nor recognise more contemporary mainstream decision making models that now represent decision making as a more circular model.

A number of models devised for HE decision making, do however consider not just the stages, but also other factors that impact upon it. For example, Litten (1982) highlights high school attributes/student’s performance, influences/media used, college characteristics/actions, public policy, environmental, background, personal attitudes, and environmental as important factors that impact upon the decision making process, but fails to identify any post purchase evaluation stage. Moreover, this model was developed in a pre-internet era, and does not reflect any social media use, as seen in mainstream consumer models. The model also suggests a rational and linear approach to decision making and this may not be necessarily true.

Figure 3.11: An expanded model of the college selection process (Litten 1982)

Vrontis et al., (2004) create a complex model and identify individual determinants, environmental determinants, high-school characteristics, HE institutions characteristics and actions specifically, but also focus on the wider environment and developed country differences, multi-culturalism, and the business and macro environment. The authors

57 | P a g e also highlight that this model is only applicable to developed countries and establish a link between the decision making process and factors that affect it, with the effect on education as business. However, it does not consider the post purchase evaluation stage, nor the influence of agents for international students, or consider that multiple decisions may be taken within a single decision process and as Lipshitz (1993), who views it “as a sequence of activities”. Whilst a post purchase evaluation stage is evident within the Vrontis et al., (2004) model, and a number of influences are evident within it, the central stages suggest a linear and rational approach. For example, after a decision has been made, there is no suggestion that any further information is searched for, and that at a later stage a change to this decision may take place.

Figure 3.12: A contemporary higher education student-choice model for developed countries (Vrontis et al. 2004)

58 | P a g e Davis and McCarthy (2005), which considers both a student and coordinator view (see Figure 3.13), present a further model. This particular model appears to be based more on the psychodynamic perspective, with a focus on consumers reducing alternatives to a manageable number to facilitate choice. Rather than a focus on the student journey and various touch points, the coordinator view appears to link closely with the sales funnel that identifies the buying process that a company leads potential customers through. However, Strauss and Neal (2015) state that the sales funnel should be renamed a sales circle, as digital media means that prospects and customers have lots of information when they enter the buying cycle, they enter at various points, which impacts on the role of marketing/sales, giving increased power to prospective customers. What this particular model does highlight is considering the decision process from both a student and an HEI perspective; however, this does not go as far as considering various touch points as with the Lemon and Verhoef (2016) model.

Figure 3.13: Matching recruiting activities with student decision making (Davis and McCarthy 2005)

Finally, the work by Brown et al., (2009) utilises existing linear-type decision making stages within their research. Whilst providing some qualitative insight into university selection, the research does not really add anything new to the process, nor question whether the stages are still appropriate. However, there is some discussion regarding ‘moments of truth’ or ‘critical incidents’, and the importance of having positive experiences with students’ first interactions with universities. Evidence of an increasing consumerist approach was also found.

59 | P a g e