Introduction

The higher education sector in Hong Kong has restructured substantially from elite to mass higher education (Kember 2010; Wan 2011) since the introduction of education reform by the Hong Kong government in 2000. In contrast to the limited educational opportunities in the past, multiple pathways have been offered to secondary school leavers, ranging from publicly funded universities to self-financing institutions with a variety of two-year sub-degree, two-year top-up degree and four-year degree programmes. Hence, the participation rate of post-secondary education soared from 33 % in 2000 to 66 % in 2005 (Education Bureau 2008).

To stay ahead in this competitive environment in the education sector, management teams of self-financing institutions have to compete for students and identify key factors influencing students’ choice of post-secondary programmes. While prior research mainly focused on students’ preference at the publicly funded degree level, factors influencing students’ choice of self-financing sub-degree programmes are under-explored. The purpose of this article is to address this research gap in our understanding of factors influencing students’ preferences in the context of self-financing higher education in Hong Kong. We pose three primary research objectives: (1) to examine factors affecting students’ choice of higher education institutions for their sub-degree programmes in relation to the revised model of Strategic Enrolment Management (SEM); (2) to discuss the implications of the use of the revised SEM model; and (3) to make appropriate suggestions to management teams of higher education institutions so that they may strengthen their positions by using the revised SEM model.

We begin by reviewing the literature on research related to students’ university choices and the concept of the revised Strategic Enrolment Management (SEM) model. We then outline the research design, i.e. the use of a self-completion questionnaire to collect data from sub-degree students and the analytical tool of importance–performance analysis (IPA), followed by the presentation of results. We conclude by discussing the findings, the conceptualization that captures the interrelationship of the revised SEM model and factors affecting students’ preferences for sub-degree programmes, and some implications for future research.

Literature review

An overview of Hong Kong higher education

As Fig. 1 shows, Hong Kong higher education consists of two types of institutions: publicly funded and self-financing ones. In Hong Kong, there are eight publicly funded universities providing four-year degree programmes, while nine institutions (i.e. colleges or universities) offer four-year self-financed degree programmes, seven higher education institutions run two-year self-financed top-up degree programmes (i.e. equivalent to the third and fourth years of university degree) and 22 higher education institutions provide self-financing two-year sub-degree programmes (i.e. equivalent to the first and second years of a university degree) (www.iPass.gov.hk). A limited number of senior-year undergraduate intake places of publicly funded degree programmes (i.e. the third and fourth years of a bachelor degree) are offered to sub-degree graduates who have excellent academic results (option 3 in Fig. 1), while most sub-degree graduates obtain their bachelor degree via self-financed top-up degree or self-financed bachelor degree programmes (option 4 and option 5 in Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Multiple pathways of higher education in Hong Kong (publicly funded and self-financing local programmes)

Full size image

Traditionally, higher education in Hong Kong was classified as elitist and was funded by the Government providing educational opportunities for less than 10 % of the population of secondary school leavers in 1990 (University Grants Committee 1998). In order to accommodate the changes from a skill-based to a more knowledge-based society, since 2000, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government has determined to transform the nature of higher education from elite to mass higher education with a target of 60 % of the population having opportunities to further their studies by 2011/2012 (Kember 2010). To reach this target participation rate effectively and provide a diversified higher education system, the Government has been actively encouraging the non-profit-making providers to contribute to the development of self-financed post-secondary programmes by providing loans as start-up finance to establish new sub-degree or top-up degree programmes (Yung 2002). These self-financing institutions are mainly in the form of either the school of continuing education and professional studies extended from a university or a new institution (i.e. community college) affiliated with its parent university.

It is recognized that the eight publicly funded universities appear to have more reputation in terms of variety of subjects, comprehensive school facilities and job opportunities. Among secondary school graduates who are qualified to pursue undergraduate studies, approximately the top 35 % of the population choose publicly funded four-year degree programmes as their preferred choice, whereas the rest of the population take the alternative routes (i.e. self-financed sub-degree or degree programmes) to complete their studies. Thus, self-financing tertiary institutions face significant challenges in maintaining student enrolment in the competitive environment among both emerging and existing higher education institutions in the new era of mass higher education.

Factors influencing students’ choice of institutions

In an intensely competitive environment for higher education institutions to recruit students, understanding what drives students to choose an institution will help the management of institutions to strategize and achieve successful student enrolment. Table 1 summarizes research on factors influencing students’ choice of higher education institutions (HEIs) both in Western and in non-Western contexts. Among these studies, eight common factors are found: (1) facilities of the campus (learning environment); (2) marketing strategies of the institution (e.g. information, image and reputation of the institution); (3) advice from parents/teachers; (4) location of the university; (5) programme design; (6) recognition of qualifications; (7) career prospects/internship opportunities; and (8) cost (Krampf and Heinlein 1981; Lin 1997; Soutar and Turner 2002; Carter and Yeo 2009; Kusumawati 2013). Although studies on students’ choice of higher education institutions are prolific, so far no research has explored factors influencing sub-degree students’ choice of higher education institutions. This paper could therefore contribute to and enhance the existing literature on factors influencing students’ choice of higher education institutions.

Table 1 Key factors influencing students’ choice of higher education institutions
Full size table

Strategic Enrolment Management (SEM)

Factors influencing students’ choice of higher education institutions discussed in the previous section are highly related to the success of Strategic Enrolment Management (SEM) (Hossler and Bean 1990; Dolence 1997), which provides strategic indications for management teams of higher education institutions to recruit students and promote their institutions. The concept of Strategic Enrolment Management (SEM) is an established model of institutional management and strategic planning in higher education which helps institutions achieve, maintain and improve the optimum student recruitment (i.e. enrolment), retention and graduation (Kremerer et al. 1982; Hossler and Bean 1990; Dolence 1997).

Due to the rapid development of self-financing sub-degree and degree programmes in Hong Kong, articulation has become a pressing issue. That students with sub-degrees are eager to look for senior places at publicly funded universities was explained by Kember (2010). As a result, we included the parameter of “articulation” (i.e. from a sub-degree to a degree) in the model of Strategic Enrolment Management (SEM) as this is a component of maintaining positive relationships and fostering loyalty with students (Bejou 2005).

Building upon the concept of Strategic Enrolment Management (Hossler and Bean 1990; Dolence 1997) and adding the parameter of “articulation”, a new and modified management model is proposed. As Table 2 shows, the revised model consists of four stages (i.e. enrolment, retention, graduation and articulation) containing eight core categories. They are: marketing, admission, financial aid, academic advising, learning assistance, career services, articulation and institutional research/feedback.

Table 2 Revised model of Strategic Enrolment Management
Full size table

Marketing (enrolment stage)

To entice students to enrol in a given institution, marketing the institution becomes significant in the enrolment process. Many institutions have formulated marketing plans into their overall strategic planning process in which marketing can help identify the market, assess the institutional potential for the market and guide the development of the institutions’ objectives (Dennis 1998; Hossler and Bean 1990). Marketing involves crafting the brand image of an institution, designing the institution’s programmes and courses to meet the target market’s needs, and using effective pricing, communication and distribution to inform, motivate and service the particular market segments (Kotler and Fox 1995).

Admission (enrolment stage)

A student’s choice of preferred institution is typically influenced by the marketing and recruitment activities conducted through admissions offices. A variety of recruitment marketing activities are conducted through the admissions office such that potential students may request information about their respective institutions. The role of the admissions office is to provide information for prospective students, arrange campus visits, conduct tours of facilities and provide in-depth information for prospective students about the resources and assets offered by the institution (Schuh 2003). In addition, a straightforward application process with a clear admission standard (e.g. required GPA and entry requirements) is another factor which attracts potential students (Lobasso 2005).

Financial aid (enrolment and retention stages)

Several studies have demonstrated that financial aid has a significant effect on increasing student enrolment, as well as improving student retention (Hossler 2000; Singell 2004). It has been reported that financial aid has significant positive effects on students’ enrolment decisions (enrolment stage) (Curs 2008). For example, tuition discounts for academic merit can be offered to students in the admission process in order to attract high calibre students (Dill and Soo 2005). Studies revealed that students who received financial aid seemed to make consistent progress in their institution (retention stage). Enrolment managers utilize financial aid resources in the recruitment process to attract new students to enrol, and once these students are enrolled, to influence their persistence in continued enrolment. (Hossler and Bean 1990).

Academic advising (retention stage)

Academic advising is one of the most critical services available for students. The major role of academic advising is to set students on a path towards successfully accomplishing their goals (Brigham 2001; King 1993). The connection between academic advising and retention rates has been confirmed by many studies (Tinto 1993; Hagedorn et al. 2000). As Young-Jones et al. (2013) commented, it is a win–win strategy for both students and institutions as academic advising is “to help students achieve educational and career goals while helping institutions to accomplish stated education missions” (p. 16).

Learning assistance (retention stage)

Learning assistance programmes are actually one of the most widely adopted programmes for increasing the level of academic success of students and for improving retention rates. Such learning assistance programmes support students experiencing difficulties in learning in regular classes, regardless of the cause. They include support for students with significant learning difficulties, mild intellectual disabilities and language disorders (Newburger 1999). They also provide integrated services to foster the academic and personal growth of students (Loeb 2014).

Career services (retention and graduation stage)

Heinzen and Rakes (1995) emphasized the importance of career services in higher education institutions as part of the overall enrolment management efforts. In the retention stage, career services can provide various workshops and services such as on-campus interviews, career fairs or career counselling for students in order to help them identify their career goals and strengthen their interviewing skills (retention stage). Furthermore, career guidance helps students make better decisions by providing them with well-integrated career planning and placement services and by locating job opportunities upon graduation (graduation stage) (Engelland et al. 2000; Maringe 2006).

Articulation (articulation stage)

Articulation is one of the prime concerns among sub-degree students to fulfil their wishes of becoming degree graduates (Heron 2006; Kember 2010). Providing more articulation opportunities and clear articulation pathways is necessary for sub-degree graduates. Articulation agreements can be arranged between publicly funded and self-financing institutions to ensure a smooth transition from sub-degree programmes to degree programmes, or from undergraduate programmes to postgraduate programmes. In Hong Kong, the need for articulation into degree programmes has grown to the extent that top-up degrees are now being offered to sub-degree graduates by some self-financing institutions.

Institutional research/feedback (all stages)

Institutional research is essential at every stage of the SEM process (i.e. enrolment, retention, graduation and articulation). Institutional research can enable an institution to remain sensitive to the marketplace and carefully examine external social trends and internal strengths and weaknesses, which are related to the goal of attracting, retaining and graduating students (Bontrager 2004; Huddleston 2000). The institutional research office provides data analysis and research for the institution, including retention rates, study trends, enrolment statistics and student profiles, for the purposes of better planning and quality improvement (Huddleston 2000).

Methodology

The sample

A purposive non-probability sampling technique was used in this study. Some criteria were set in order to identify respondents, such as self-financing institutions and first-year sub-degree students. Demographic characteristics of respondents are shown in Table 3. There are 370 students (151 male and 217 female, two unknown from observations) of self-financing sub-degree programmes from seven higher education institutions who took part in the survey. The rationale for choosing current sub-degree students instead of secondary school graduates was that they have already experienced the higher education learning setting and the process of enrolment. They would therefore be able to provide more insights retrospectively. The data for the present study were collected in 2013 in a classroom setting. Students took part in the survey voluntarily and were rewarded with a bookstore/café voucher after completing the questionnaire.

Table 3 Demographic characteristics of respondents
Full size table

Questionnaire design

Based on prior studies on factors influencing students’ choice of university (Lin 1997; Soutar and Turner 2002; Carter and Yeo 2009; Kusumawati 2013) and the revised SEM model (Hossler and Bean 1990; Dolence 1997), a seven-point scale questionnaire was developed. The seven-point scale is regarded to be “a reasonable range for the optimal number of response alternatives” (Cox III 1980: 420). In addition, Foddy (1994) suggested that the seven-point scale is a good range to safeguard scale validity and reliability. The questionnaire contained 45 attributes addressing factors of “institution and programme information”, “other references”, “programme design”, “admission and registration”, “financial aid”, “orientation”, “academic advising”, “learning assistance”, career services”, “articulation” and “institutional research/feedback”. Respondents were asked to rank the factors on a scale of 1–7 to show how important these factors were for them when choosing an institution. Ranking a factor as 1 meant that the factor was “Not at all important”, while ranking a factor as 7 indicated that the factor was “Very important”.Footnote 1 In addition, respondents were invited to score the factors on a scale of 1–7 to express how satisfied they were with these factors. Scoring a factor as 1 meant that they were “Not at all satisfied” with the factor, while scoring a factor as 7 showed that they were “Very satisfied” with the factor.Footnote 2 Demographic information including gender, age, GPA and the present institution was collected at the end of the questionnaire. As commonly used in previous studies (Maringe 2006; Soutar and Turner 2002), descriptive statistics based on mean and standard deviation were used to examine factors influencing students’ choice of institutions.

Data analysis: importance–performance analysis (IPA)

Descriptive statistics including frequencies of demographic information and the mean of each factor were computed using SPSS. In order to deepen the analysis, importance–performance analysis (IPA) was employed as an analytical tool in this study. Importance–performance analysis (IPA) was first introduced into the marketing domain to analyse the performance of the automobile industry (Martilla and James 1977). This analytical tool has widely been used in different disciplines examining performances of companies or institutions by measuring customer satisfaction, for example, health care (Yavas and Shemwell 2001), tourism (Chu and Choi 2000; Zhang and Chow 2004) and education (O’Neill and Palmer 2004; Douglas et al. 2006) to help companies or institutions identify areas for improvement and utilize their resources more effectively.

Figure 2 displays the analytical tool of the IPA grid. The horizontal axis indicates students’ satisfaction with the factors, while the vertical axis shows students’ perceptions of the importance of these factors. The IPA grid provides a graphical means for management teams of institutions to evaluate their performance. This grid consists of four quadrants. The first quadrant of “Concentrate Here” (high importance and low satisfaction) means that students value those factors as of high importance but have low satisfaction levels regarding those same factors. This implies that institutions should find ways to improve those areas in order to increase their competitiveness. The second quadrant of “Keep Up the Good Work” (high importance and high satisfaction) refers to those factors which students perceive as of high importance and with which they are satisfied. In this case, institutions have performed well. Factors perceived as of low importance and rated low in satisfaction by students appear in the third quadrant of “Low Priority” (low importance and low satisfaction). It is suggested that management teams of institutions should allocate limited resources to these factors as they are not important factors for students. The last quadrant of “Possible Overkill” (low importance and high satisfaction) contains factors that are regarded as of low importance but high satisfaction, which implies that resources are being over-utilized.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Importance–satisfaction grid

Full size image

Results and discussion

Table 4 shows the mean scores of the 11 factors and their 45 attributes. These 11 factors can be viewed under the revised Strategic Enrolment Management (SEM) model. As Fig. 3 shows, the revised SEM model is an iterative process in which each stage is interrelated and influences the other stages. For example, the high rates of employability (graduation stage) or clear articulation pathways (articulation stage) to prestige universities might affect potential students’ preference for a particular institution, thus enhancing the enrolment rates. The revised SEM model offers a systematic procedure that enables the fulfilment of institutional missions and students’ educational goals (Bontrager 2004).

Table 4 Mean scores of importance and satisfaction attributes
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Iterative process of the revised SEM model

Full size image

A composite score on importance and on satisfaction was calculated by averaging the attributes of each factor. For example, there are three attributes in factor 5 “orientation”. By averaging the variable scores on importance (5.26, 4.98, 5.01) and on satisfaction (4.54, 4.15, 4.26), the composite score on importance is 5.08 and on satisfaction is 4.32. Based on the mean scores, the 11 factors were calculated and presented in the four quadrants of the IPA grid in Figs. 4 and 5. The mean score of the horizontal axis (“satisfaction”) is 4.7 and the mean rating of the vertical axis (“importance”) is 5.61. A grid cross-point of importance–satisfaction analysis was built based on these two mean scores. As a result, the four quadrants were drawn and formed. The discussion and implication of each quadrant will be presented in the following paragraphs.

Fig. 4
figure 4

IPA: importance–satisfaction grid of 11 factors

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Assignment of factors to the four quadrants in the importance–satisfaction grid

Full size image

Quadrant 1: the Concentrate Here quadrant

Four factors—“articulation”, “career services”, “financial aid” and “programme design”—were identified in this quadrant. Students regarded these four factors as important but reported relatively low levels of satisfaction with these factors. In particular, sub-degree students recognized the opportunity to become full university students in the articulation stage as the most important reason (importance 6.16) to embark on their sub-degree programmes. Providing clearer guidelines on articulation pathways into degree programmes and information on clear credit transfers or exemption is necessary for sub-degree students. In Hong Kong, due to limited senior places at publicly funded universities offered to sub-degree students, top-up degrees offered by self-financing institutions are in great demand (Kember 2010).

In addition, good “programme design” attracts potential students in the enrolment stage. The attributes of “Programmes offered are recognized in the job market” and “Provision of internship by college” were highly emphasized in the factor of “programme design”. This is strongly linked to the factor of “career services” (i.e. the retention stage and graduation stage). Having access to an internship and/or job opportunities was viewed as one of the most significant factors by the respondents. Through career services, institutions could provide information and workshops, such as grooming and CV writing, to help students develop a range of skills and qualities appropriate for the working world. On the institutional level, institutions could set up a centralized career centre to build a stronger link between current/potential employers and students and to provide better career guidance and support by organizing specific talks, training and networking with potential employers for career opportunities.

Financial aid in the form of scholarships, studentships and loans has been increasingly regarded as one of the key factors in enrolment management (Hossler 2000). In this regard, financial aid may be the paramount factor in attracting better candidates to pursue their sub-degree programmes in the enrolment stage. Also, financial aid is a useful tool for student retention, which affects students’ decisions and momentum for completing their programmes.

Quadrant 2: the keep up the good work quadrant

The second quadrant consists of two factors: “admission and registration” of the enrolment stage and “academic advising” of the retention stage. Institutions have performed well in these areas. Respondents regarded these factors as important when choosing an institution and had high levels of satisfaction with their experience.

There are three functions covered by “admission and registration”: inquiry, application and enrolment (Schuh 2003). This is generally one of the first official touch points of services provided by institutions, for example arranging campus visits and providing useful guidelines for students during the enrolment process. Lobasso (2005) emphasized that admissions personnel should also possess skills in market research, which help to create the institutional marketing and enrolment plans.

The major role of “academic advising” is to help students set the right path in terms of their academic achievement or personal development path (Brigham 2001; Kim et al. 2003). A successful academic advising programme can be an important factor contributing to an improvement in student retention rates (Tinto 1993; Hagedorn et al. 2000). Depending on the resources of institutions, an academic advising programme can be centralized at the institutional level (e.g. student affairs office) or decentralized to the departmental level. Respondents scored the attribute of “Lecturers act as academic advisors” the highest in both importance and satisfaction under the factor of “academic advising”. This implies that for academic advising to be most effective, the specialism of academic advisors should be more or less similar to the students’ specialism so that students will turn to their academic advisors for specific academic advice on areas such as choosing electives, discussing study patterns.

Quadrant 3: the low priority quadrant

“Orientation”, “learning assistance” and “institutional research/feedback” were reported as having low levels both of importance and of satisfaction. “Orientation” in the enrolment stage serves as a platform to help freshmen have a smooth transit from one stage to another through various activities, to introduce the institutions’ expectations to newly enrolled students and to create more positive attitudes towards the institutions (Gass et al. 2003; Huddleston 2000). “Learning assistance” in the retention stage mainly refers to providing help for students who have learning difficulties, especially for freshmen who are new to the institutions and have not adjusted to the college life or study method (Lau 2003; Hossler and Bean 1990).

From the perspective of higher education institutions, “institutional research/feedback” that links to all four stages (i.e. enrolment, retention graduation and articulation), typically in the form of data and analytical support, has an impact on increasing enrolment and enhancing academic quality, which leads to successful strategic management (McIntyre 2011; Hossler and Bean 1990). However, from the student perspective, this factor did not play an important role influencing their choice of sub-degree programmes. It is understandable that students found this factor insignificant as institutional research/feedback only provides information on the institutional level helping gather data and information on demographic trends, labour statistics, economic and political trends, and enrolment behaviour (Pirius 2014). Based on the findings, it is suggested that self-financing institutions should not allocate too many resources to these areas as students considered these factors less significant than others.

Quadrant 4: the possible overkill quadrant

“Other references” and “institution and programme information” that are linked to the enrolment stage have been categorized as belonging to the fourth quadrant. Respondents regarded these factors as of little significance in influencing their choice of institutions, but were nevertheless very satisfied with what they experienced. In particular, the “brand image of institution” attribute scored the highest among all attributes under the factor of “institution and programme information”. A university’s image has a very strong interrelationship with the satisfaction of students (Palacio et al. 2002). In Hong Kong, regarding the brand image and reputation of an institution, students tend to have more confidence in self-financing institutions that are affiliated with well-established publicly funded universities. This, as a result, influences their choice of self-financing institutions. In terms of “other references”, the attribute of “Opinions of friends who studied for a HD/AD/Top-up Degree” had the highest rating among all attributes in this factor. Word-of-mouth communication about friends’ experiences, for example, college life, campus facilities, financial support, career prospects and teaching quality of a higher education institution, shared via social media, has a viral effect and influences students’ choice of sub-degree programmes.

Conclusion

This study provides insightful information on factors influencing students’ choice of self-financing higher education institutions in Hong Kong. Key factors related to enrolment, retention, graduation and articulation were evaluated. Based on the findings, students regarded the factors of “articulation”, “career services”, “financial aid” and “programme design” (e.g. “Programmes offered are recognized in the job market”) as important but not yet quite satisfactory. This implies that when choosing a sub-degree programme, students tend to have a more practical approach to thinking about how a particular sub-degree programme will benefit their next step in terms of finding a right job or pursuing a university degree programme. Identifying factors of high or low importance and satisfaction among sub-degree students is the first step for management teams of self-financing higher education institutions to detect areas for improvement and to enhance students’ learning experience. The management teams of institutions need to have a strategic process to synergize efforts from different units or departments and utilize resources effectively in order to stay competitive in the industry.

Also, this study enhances our understanding of current debates concerning the strategic model of enrolment, retention, graduation and articulation (i.e. the revised SEM model) by providing an empirical explanation and extending previous work in this area. The outcomes of this research will help management teams of self-financing higher education institutions improve their overall strategic plan by addressing the SEM factors comprehensively. In other words, the revised SEM model contributes to the literature on the management of the enrolment process.

It is suggested that the management teams of higher education institutions take a holistic approach to examine the process of the pre-stage (enrolment), the in-stage (retention) and the post-stage (graduation and articulation) together with the “institutional research/feedback”. As Huddleston and Rumbough (1997: 3) commented “the primary rationale for the development of the enrolment management process is to improve the enrolment environment by enhancing student learning, strengthening academic position, improving student service, increasing market share, enlarging the market, and increasing profitability”. Each stage plays a strategic function in recognizing students’ needs, promoting the institution’s programmes (enrolment stage), supporting students’ learning experience (retention stage), helping students’ career planning upon graduation (graduation stage) and providing seamless articulation to degree programmes (articulation stage).

This study has its own limitations, which in turn provide directions for future research. One possible limitation is that there is a difference between what is really desired (e.g. publicly funded institutions) and what is actually chosen (e.g. self-financing institutions) (Festinger 1964). A longitudinal investigation of the preferences of post-secondary programmes among senior high school students of the liminal stage from high school to university would be an interesting future research topic to pursue.

The findings of this study also provide a basis for other future research. In future research, it would be interesting to investigate how these core categories interplay with one another at different stages of the SEM process. Future research might compare the findings of an importance–satisfaction grid from the perspectives of students and institutions, as those factors that may be important to institutional planners on the importance–satisfaction grid might not be important to students. Triangulating the findings might provide a new perspective for management teams to manage the whole process effectively.