Index

Abstract

International Edu-tourists seeking university education outside of their countries of origin was 4.1 million in 2010 and the figure is forecasted to hit 7.2 million by the year 2020, thus creating a market value worth US$342billion. Exporting university education services contributed US$6.6billion to Malaysia’s Gross National Income (GNI) in 2009. Malaysia plans to earn US$14.67 billion yearly from 2020, including, creating 536,000 jobs. This highlights the importance of international Edu-tourists for Malaysian Edu-tourism industry promotion. Explaining the stages international Edu-tourists go through to select Malaysia as their preferred Edu-tourism destination, including validating factors that contribute to this tourist travel decision form the basis of this study.  The study is based on the push-pull theory and 500 international Edu-tourists in 13 Malaysian universities were sampled. Results of confirmatory factor analysis revealed that Edu-tourists’ socio-cultural factors, the quest for career development, and economy status of their country of origin all contributed to Edu-tourists’ decision to study abroad. The socio-cultural and economic factors of Malaysia attract Edu-tourists to Malaysia, while the institutional and internationalisation attributes of Malaysian universities encourage them to choose these universities. It is suggested that tourism operators in Malaysia make the most of the attractive socio-economic environment in Malaysia for the effective positioning strategy of Malaysia in the global Edu-tourism market. Edu-tourism destination marketing strategies should be designed for Malaysia, using her socio-economic attributes. The reputation of Malaysian universities as essential Edu-tourism assets should be promoted to develop the Malaysian tourism industry. Tourism destinations in Malaysia should encourage social interaction between Edu-tourists and host destinations.

Keywords: Edu-tourists, Edu-tourism, Edu-tourist destination, Malaysia, International edu-tourists.

Received: 16 November 2018 / Revised: 2 January 2019 / Accepted: 8 February 2019/ Published: 15 April 2019

Contribution/ Originality

This study contributes to tourism literature by branding university education as tourism product. It validates factors that influence the choice behaviour of international Edu-tourists in selecting Edu-tourism destinations in emerging economies.  The present study helps to increase the explanatory power of the push-pull theory in explaining contemporary Edu-tourist mobility trends.


1. INTRODUCTION

Edu-tourism is a brand of tourism primarily motivated by the quest for education and learning (Ritchie et al., 2003). It refers to a form of tourism in which participants travel to a location outside their original place of domicile with the primary purpose of exploring education resources that translate to learning experience (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Becker and Kolster, 2012; Bello, 2015).  It can also be described as an activity undertaken by tourist(s) for whom education and learning is the core of the trip (Ritchie et al., 2003).  Generally, edu-tourism activities include participation in conferences (Oppermann, 1996; Leipe et al., 2000; Dwyer, 2002) adult study tours (Kalinowski and Weiler, 1992; Wood, 2001)  international, and or domestic university studies (Michael et al., 2004; Shi et al., 2010; Corigliano, 2011) secondary school students’ travel, and exchange programmes (Smith and Jenner, 1997). The information above revealed that tourism development based on the need to explore educational resources that translates to education and learning experience gives rise to edu-tourism. However, the present study focused on edu-tourism motivated with the aim to explore international university education. The reason being that, this form of edu-tourism (i.e. edu-tourism with the motive to explore international university education) is gradually becoming an attractive export commodity or activity due to its economic contributions to the host countries (Anthony et al., 2004).  International university study is significant in terms of size and export earnings, it is knowledge intensive, high value added, and offer long-term economic benefits (Shanka et al., 2006).  Cross-border university education, a product of edu-tourism industry is now a multi-billion dollar business to many countries (Cheung et al., 2011) and the global economy in general. 

Globally, the number of edu-tourists seeking university education services outside their countries of origin was 4.1 million in 2010 and the figure is forecasted to hit 7.2 million by the year 2020, thus creating a market worth US$342billion (Bohm et al., 2012).  In 2013, it was estimated that the expenditure of international edu-tourists that seeks university education services supported 313,000 jobs and contributed US$19.25 billion to the economy of the United States (NAFSA, 2013) as against US$16.79 billion in 2012 (ICEF Monitor, 2012a). The Canadian government reported that international edu-tourists’ expenditure on university education services contributed more than US$6.033 billion to the Canadians’ economy in 2010 as against US$4.52 billion in 2008 (ICEF Monitor, 2012b).  It also supported about 86,570 jobs and generated US$343.13 million as tax revenue for the Canadian government in 2010 (ICEF Monitor, 2012b).  In addition, the economic contribution of international edu-tourists being attracted by university education to Australia grew slightly from US$3.30 billion in 2007 to US$10.95 billion in 2011.  Furthermore, export of edu-tourism services in the United Kingdom are valued at US$8.70 billion in 2012 of which approximately US$7.51billion is associated with expenditure of international edu-tourists that consumed university education services (ICEF Monitor, 2012a).  In 2012, the government of New Zealand earned about US$1.23billion from international edu-tourists that seeks university education (ICEF Monitor, 2013) as against US$367.98million in 2008. The study on the economic impact of edu-tourism by the info – metrics, estimated that edu-tourism industry supports approximately 32,000 jobs in New Zealand in 2012 (ICEF Monitor, 2013). Malaysia had her fair share from exporting university education services (Bashir, 2007). This specialised form of edu-tourism product contributed approximately US$6.6billion or four percent to the Malaysia’s Gross National Income (GNI) in 2009  (Borneo Post, 2011 cited in Bello et al. (2015)).  The government of Malaysia forecasted to earn about US$14.67 billion per year from this segment of edu-tourists from the year 2020 (Rehda Institute, 2014 cited in Bello et al. (2014)) consequently, creating additional jobs of about 536,000 with majority of them in the professional and technical fields. 

The problem essentially is that the target of government of Malaysia to attract a minimum of 100,000, 150,000 and 200,000 international edu-tourist by the year 2010, 2015 and 2020 respectively (Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2008) could not be met. Recent report on the enrolment statistics of international edu-tourists in Malaysia shows a decrease in the enrolment rate of international edu-tourists, especially from the major edu-tourist source countries (Bello, 2015). The knowledge of the stages international edu-tourists go through to selecting an edu-tourism destination is important including the corresponding determinants of edu-tourist behaviour in each stages of the choice process (Becker and Kolster, 2012).  It is therefore pertinent to state that a number of studies had explained the stages (process) international edu-tourists from emerging countries go through to selecting edu-tourist destination in advanced economies (i.e. The West) (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Vossensteyn, 2005; Chen, 2007; Fowler, 2009; Hagel and Shaw, 2010; Becker and Kolster, 2012). However, studies that examine the stages international edu-tourist from emerging economies go through to selecting edu-tourism destination in the context of Malaysia had not been reported (Siti et al., 2010).  In addition, limited studies had been conducted to explore determinants of international edu-tourists choice behaviour in each stages of the destination choice process in Malaysia context.  In view of this, the present study aim to examine the stages in edu-tourism destination choice process among international edu-tourists in the context of Malaysia, including, determinants of edu-tourists choice behaviour in each stages of the choice process. The outcome of the present study will enable authorities in charge of Malaysian edu-tourist industry to know dimensions that determine edu-tourist’s behaviour at each stage of the destination choice process.  Furthermore, it will enable the management of Malaysian edu-tourist industry know the extent at which they understand and translate these dimensions into reality in terms of edu-tourist service delivery.  Moreover, the study will educate policy makers in Malaysian edu-tourist institutions on how to improve and sustain international edu-tourist inflow. Aside, the study also bridges the gap of limited studies on edu-tourism destination choice process that characterised the Malaysian tourism literature.

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Theoretical Perspective: Push-Pull Theory

Push-Pull theory was developed by the E. G. Ravenstein, a Fellow of the Royal Geographic Society in the mid-eighteenth century (Ravenstein, 1855).  Ravenstein used the push-pull theory to explain migration patterns of people both within and between nations hence, proposed the law of migration (Ravenstein, 1876).  The theory holds that travellers embarked on a trip because they are pushed by their internal forces (intrinsic factors) and the external forces (extrinsic factors) of their origin country (Ravenstein, 1889).  The theory also holds that travellers are pulled to migrate to a particular destination as a result of attractiveness of the destination as being perceived by them (Ravenstein, 1889).  Numerous empirical studies had applied the push pull theory in tourism motivation studies (Lee and Tan, 1984; Baloglu and Uysal, 1996; Bashar and Ahmad, 2010; Foo et al., 2010; Jacqueline, 2010; Jason et al., 2011).  The theory in the context of tourism holds that tourists are motivated to travel outside their original place of abode, because, they are pushed by their internal forces (intrinsic factors) and the external forces (extrinsic factors) of their origin country (Lee and Tan, 1984; Baloglu and Uysal, 1996) thus, indicating that push factors are tourists’ personal oriented and origin country based.  The theory also explained the pull side of tourist migration, and holds that tourists are pulled to migrate to a particular tourist destination as a result of the tourist’s perception and expectations such as novelty, benefit expectation and other touristic image of the destination (Lee and Tan, 1984; Baloglu and Uysal, 1996).

The push-pull theory had been applied to explaining decision making process of international edu-tourists in selecting edu-tourism destinations (Altbach et al., 1985; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Chen, 2007).  In this case, the theory holds that international edu-tourists are motivated to study abroad because they are pushed by their internal (intrinsic) forces and the external (extrinsic) forces of their origin country (Foo et al., 2010).  Having decided to study abroad, they are also pulled to choose an edu-tourism destination country, and as well, choose a university at the destination (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Chen, 2007).  The decision of international edu-tourist to choose a country and a university of study are being determined by dimensions such as attractiveness of the country, and the university as being perceived by them (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Chen, 2007).

As it applied to the current study, edu-tourism destination selection process in Malaysia is viewed as comprising of three distinct stages which include: (1) decision of international edu-tourists to choose to study abroad rather than studying locally at home country; (2) the choice of Malaysia as the host country, and (3) the choice of a university in Malaysia. In view of the applicability of the push-pull theory to the present study, the researchers adopted these three variables as the stages international edu-tourists go through to explore edu-tourism services in Malaysia.

2.2. Predictors of Edu-Tourism Destination Selection Process

According to the push-pull theory, stage one in edu-tourism destination choice process is tagged “predisposition stage / decision to study internationally rather than studying locally at home country” (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Chen, 2007).  Decision of international edu-tourists in this stage are being determined by both the intrinsic (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002) and, extrinsic push dimensions (Becker and Kolster, 2012).  Previous studies reveals edu-tourist characteristic (McMahon, 1992; Chen, 2007; Hung, 2008) academic learning (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Rees, 2002; Hung, 2008; Joseph, 2011; Becker and Kolster, 2012) and career development (Chen, 2007; Hung, 2008; Alex, 2010) as intrinsic dimensions of edu-tourist’s decision to study abroad. In addition, extrinsic dimensions of edu-tourist’s decision to study abroad include; social/cultural factor (Carlson et al., 1990; Van Hoof and Verbeeten, 2005; Hung, 2008) economic factor of home country (Agarwal and Winkler, 1985; McMahon, 1992) and education / academic system of home country (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Kapur and McHale, 2005; Hung, 2008).

Furthermore, the push-pull theory explains that once an international edu-tourist had decided to study abroad, the next decision is the search and selection of a preferred host country (Jason et al., 2011).  Previous studies reported dimensions that determines selection of a host country to include, economy of the host country (McMahon, 1992; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Chen, 2007) the host country edu-tourism image (Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Chen, 2007; Wilkins and Huisman, 2011) and  the socio-cultural factor of the host country (Cateora and Graham, 1999; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; De Mooij, 2004 ; Chen, 2007; Wilkins et al., 2011). Aside, overwhelming number of research in the domain of edu-tourism destination choice process examined dimensions of edu-tourists’ choice of a university in stage three of the choice process. Evidences from these studies shows institutional characteristics (Harari, 1992; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002; Cohen, 2003; Keling, 2006; Chen, 2007; Bin Yusof et al., 2008; Lee, 2008; Ismail, 2009) cost / fees (i.e. Financial Factor (Agarwal and Winkler, 1985; Webb, 1993; Mazzarol and Soutar, 2002)) internationalisation of the university (Deem and Brehony, 2005; Ayoubi and Massoud, 2007; McGowan and Potter, 2008; Wende, 2009) and peer group / relation (Mazzarol et al., 1997; Licata and Maxham, 1998; Baharun, 2006; Chen, 2007) are plausible dimensions of choice of a university.

Due to dynamic nature of edu-tourist’s behaviour, and variation in the level of development of edu-tourism resources of countries, it was reported that predictors of edu-tourism destination choice process varies from country to country (Becker and Kolster, 2012). In view of this, it is important to assess dimensions that determine international edu-tourists’ behaviour in each stages of edu-tourism destination choice process in the context of Malaysia.

3. METHODOLOGY

Quantitative research design was used in this study hence; the researchers used structured questionnaire to measure the process international edu-tourists went through to selecting edu-tourism destination in Malaysia. The enrolment statistics of the international edu-tourists, both the undergraduates and postgraduates, from each of the following six selected countries: Republic of China, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, and Yemen in 13 Malaysian public and private universities were obtained to determine the population of this study hence, 16, 205 international edu-tourists were confirmed. International edu-tourists from these six countries were used for this study because they had consistently top the list of countries that generates international edu-tourists to the following 13 Malaysian public and or private universities as presented in Table 1.

Table-1. The List of Selected Malaysian Public and Private Universities with High Enrolment of International Edu-tourists.

Public
Private
Universiti Malaya
Limkokwing University of  Technology
Universiti Sains Malaysia
Multimedia University
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Linton University
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Taylor’s University
International Islamic Universiti Malaysia
Asia Pacific University
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
INTI International University
Universiti Utara Malaysia
-

Source: Researcher Computation (2018).

To determine the exact sample size for the present study, the suggestion in MacCallum et al. (1999) that a sample size of 500 or more observations is adequate for factor analysis was adopted. To determine sample size of each of the 13 selected universities vis-a-vis the undergraduate and postgraduate international edu-tourists from the six selected countries, the present study conceded to the method of proportional allocation suggested in Kothari (1990). The proportion of international edu-tourists from each of the 6 selected countries (i.e. Pi....6) to be drawn from the sample size (n) of 500 edu-tourists was determined hence; Pi....6, / N. The sample size of each of the six selected countries (i.e. pi.....6) was determined by multiplying the sample size (n) for this study, put at 500, with the enrolment proportion of international edu-tourists for each of the 6 countries hence; Pi....6,/ n. The process was repeated in the 13 universities to determine the sample size for international edu-tourists per country, per university and level of programme. Since it is practically impossible to access the nominal register of international edu-tourists from the six selected countries in each of the targeted institutions, the researchers opted for non-probability sampling with convenience sampling technique. In view of this, the researchers personally visited each of the 13 targeted universities in Malaysia and, thus, administered the structured questionnaires to every international edu-tourist from the six targeted countries until the sample size for international edu-tourist per countries, per university, and level of programme was met.

Chen (2007) synthesis instrument was adopted and modified based on previous studies in the domain of edu-tourism destination choice process as operationalized in Table 2-4. The instrument was originally used to examine dimensions of destination choice process among international edu-tourists from East-Asian countries in respect to the Canadian graduate schools. The modified questionnaire contained four parts with part one focused on measures of decision to study abroad, and part 2 addresses dimensions of choice of host country (i.e. Malaysia).  Part three of the questionnaire posits dimensions of choice of a university in Malaysia.  Part one, two, and three of the questionnaire adopted a 5-point Likert scale answer of: 1 for strongly not agreed to 5 strongly agreed. Part four of the questionnaire focused on the demographic information of the respondents.

Table-2. Operationalisation of Observed Variables for Edu-tourist’s Predisposition / Decision to Study Abroad.

Latent Variable
Observed Variables
Number of Items
Description
Source
Predisposition / Decision to Study Abroad
EDUCH
5
Edu-tourist characteristics
ACDLN
5
Academic learning motives
CARDV
5
Career development
SOICF
5
Social / cultural
interaction
ECOFA
5
Economic factors
of the home country
 
EDUAS
  5
Education and academic system at the home country

Source: Researchers Computation (2018).

Table-3. Operationalisation of Observed Variables for Choice of a Host Country.

Latent Variable
Observed Variables
Number of Items
Description
Source
Choice of the Host Country
SIGOH
5
Edu-tourist personal ties to the host country
ECNFT
5
Economic factors of the host country
HCEDU
5
Host country  edu-tourism image
HCSCF
5
Socio-cultural relationship between the host and home Country
ENVGF
5
Environmental factors and geographical link between the edu-tourist’s hosts and home country.

Source: Researchers Computation (2018).

Table-4. Operationalisation of Observed Variables for Choice of the Host University.

Latent Variable
Observed Variables
Number of Items
Description
Source
Choice of the
Host University
INSCH
5
Institutional Characteristics
COTFS
5
Cost factors
INTUN
5
Degree of Internationalisation of the host university
 
PEGRT
5
Influence of peer group / relation

Source: Researchers Computation (2018).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis CFA was employed in the present study to test the fitness of the model. The purpose of CFA is to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of a model (Hair et al., 2010).  This implies that, to examine determinants of international edu-tourist behaviour at each stages of the choice process, the percentage of the value of coefficient of determination (R2), that measure the variability of each dimension on their corresponding constructs in the second order measurement model is assessed.  However, prior to the conduct of factor analysis, psychometric reliability of measures to determine the extent to which each underlying variables obtained from responses to questionnaires is free from random measurement errors was conducted (Chatfield and Collins, 1992; Kline, 2005; Pallant, 2010).

4. RESULTS AND FINDINGS

The reliability of measures of each construct of edu-tourism destination selection process in respect to international edu-tourists in Malaysia was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha.  The composite reliability of each of the six aggregate dimensions of decision to study abroad among international edu-tourists in Malaysia ranges between 0.75 to 0.871 except for “Edu-tourist characteristics” and “Academic learning” with composite scores of .439 and .511 respectively.  This suggests that the two dimensions are not reliable and are thus dropped from the scale.  However, the composite reliability scores of the remaining four dimensions: - Career development (α=0.775), Social cultural factor (α=0.871), Economic factor of the origin country (α=0.859), and education / academic system of the host country (α= 0.704) show that they are all statistically reliable.  This implies that items for the remaining four measures of decision to study abroad among international edu-tourists in Malaysia are internally consistent (Barrett, 2007).  In addition, the composite reliability score for each of the five aggregate dimensions of edu-tourist’s choice of a host country among international edu-tourists in Malaysia ranges from 0.747 and 0.809 with  Significant Other, (α=0.747), Economic factor of the host country, (α=0.809), Edu-tourist image of the host country, (α=0.806), Social cultural factor of the host country, (α= 0.806), and Environmental factor of the host country, (α=0.769).  This justifies that all the items for the five measures of choice of country among international edu-tourists in Malaysia are internally consistent. Furthermore, the composite scores for each of the four aggregate dimensions of choice of a university among international edu-tourists in Malaysia range from 0.753 and 0.839.  The composite reliability value of Institutional characteristics, (α=0.836), Cost / Fees, (α=0.839), Internationalisation of the university, (α=0.812), and Peer group / Relations, (α= 0.753) show that they are all statistically reliable.  This implies that items for the four latent subscales of choice of a university among international edu-tourists in Malaysia are internally consistent. The results of the initial model specification did not fit well with the data, as the normed chi-square (CMIN/DF) = 3.36; comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.796; goodness of fit index (GFI) = 0.751; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058; and incremental Fit Index (IFI) = 0.797.  This indicates the need for further modification of the model. To improve the initial model specification, items with factor loading < 0.6 were deleted from the model, one item at a time starting from the lowest loading.  Following this procedure, two items which include EDAS5 and EDAS4 were deleted from the Education and Academic System in the home country (EDUAS) variable. Hair et al. (2010) suggested that every latent variable should have a minimum of three items to justify its retention in the model.  In view of this, only two items which could not justify the retention of EDUAS variable in the model were deleted. Three items SIGOH2, SIGOH5, and SIGOH1 were deleted in the Significant Others.  The variable could not be retained with only two items; hence, it was deleted from the model.  Only one item could not justify the retention of the Environmental factor variable as three items which include EVNGF1, EVNGF2, and EVNGF3 were deleted due to low factor loadings. Items HCEDU4 and HCEDU1 were deleted from the EDU_Image variable, while item EVNGF2 and HCSCF2 were deleted from the Socio-cultural variable.  Four items, PEGR1, PEGR3, PEGR2, and PEGR5 and two items, COTFS5, and COTFS4 were deleted from the Peer and Cost dimensions respectively; the researchers therefore did not retain both variables in the model.

Items that share relative numbers of large standardized residual covariance with other items were deleted as indicators for possible misspecification.  This was confirmed via modification indices (M.I) which show the extent to which overall mode X2 is reduced by constraining respective paths (Hair et al., 2010).  Following this guide, HCEDU3 was deleted in EDU_Image variable, making us lose the variable due to limited items to justify its retention in the model.  An examination of the results of the third attempt yielded better results but the model still did not fit despite the adoption of stringent cut-off factor loadings of < 0.6-0.7. In this case, more specification improvement was warranted. 

Figure-1. Final Standardised Measurement of Contemporary Edu-tourism Mobility Model.

Source: Researchers Computation (2015).

Following suggestions in Hooper et al. (2008) two errors of the same dimensions with high M.I value are said to be redundant, thus, one of such items should be deleted or better still, both items should be co-varied.  In view of this, item 5, 6, 7, 8, 20 and 21, were correlated.  This significantly improves the model as shown in Figure 1 . Thus revealed that the value of Chi-square (x2) = 1165.486; Comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.917; Goodness of fit index (IFI) = 0.917; TLI = 0.908; Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.053; Normed Chi-square = 2.966, and df = 393.   This implies that the model fit well with the data.

In addition, all factor loadings (coefficients) of items of each dimensions in each stages of edu-tourism destination choice process in the context of international edu-tourists in Malaysia substantially meet the ideal threshold value of > 0.2 (Joreskoh and Sorbom, 2001; Hoe, 2008) as shown in Figure 2.

Figure-2. Final Unstandardised Measurement of Contemporary Edu-tourism Mobility Model in Malaysia.

Source: Researchers Computation (2015).

The results of the construct and discriminant validity of the final measurement of contemporary edu-tourism mobility model shows that both CR and AVE computed for the model meet the cut-off minimum values of 0.7 and 0.5, respectively.   The result of composite reliability shows that the value of CR is greater than 0.7 thus shows the fulfillment of composite reliability as shown in Table 5. Convergent validity is achieved when all the CR values’ corresponding to different constructs exceeds their respective AVE values.  This evidences the fulfillment of this rule as shown in Table 5.

Table-5. Validity and Reliability of Edu-tourist Destination Choice Model in Malaysia.

Edu-tourism Destination Choice Process
CR
AVE
MSV
ASV
Choice of Country
Choice of University
Decision to Study Abroad
Choice of Country
0.821
0.698
0.377
0.252
0.836
Choice of University
0.808
0.678
0.468
0.422
0.614
0.823
Decision to Study Abroad
0.775
0.54
0.468
0.298
0.357
0.684
0.735

The discriminant validity was assessed by examining both minimum shared variance (MSV) and average shared variance (ASV).  The rule of thumb for achieving discriminant validity is if the values of both MSV and ASV are less than their corresponding AVE values for each of the constructs.  The evidence of this rule is met as shown in Table 5.

The result of coefficient of determination (R2) that validates determinants of international edu-tourists’ behaviour at each stages of the choice process shows that social cultural factor of international edu-tourists accounted for about 0.67 (67%) of the total variance, followed by quest for career development which accounted for 0.61 (61%) of the total variance, and lastly, economic factor of edu-tourist’s home countries accounted for 0.35 (35%) of the total variance.  In terms of determinants of choice of country (Malaysia) among international edu-tourists, the result of percentage of the value of R2 shows that social cultural factor of Malaysia accounted for about 0.71 (71%) of the total variance, followed by economic factor of Malaysia which accounted for 0.70 (70%) of the total variance. In addition, the results of determinants of choice of Malaysian universities among international edu-tourists shows that institutional characteristics of Malaysian universities accounted for 0.70 (70%) of the total variance, while internationalisation of Malaysian universities accounted for 0.65 (65%) of the total variance.

5. DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

The current study sought to establish determinants of international edu-tourist’s choice behaviour at each stage of edu-tourism destination choice process in Malaysia. The major findings of the study are as follows;
i. Regarding the determinants of international edu-tourist’s decision to study abroad, rather than their origin country, the study found that social cultural factor of edu-tourists is the biggest influencer of edu-tourists’ decision to study abroad. This is followed by the quest for career development, and lastly, the economic factor of edu-tourist’s home countries. This finding is not in conformity with the previous literature in respect to determinants of decision to study abroad. McMahon (1992) examined determinants of international edu-tourists from emerging economies to study abroad in respect to the USA in the 70s.  The outcome of the study reveals unequal economic factor of edu-tourist’s home country is the most determinant, followed by academic factor of international edu-tourist’s home country.  Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) concluded in their study of determinants of international edu-tourists from four Asian countries - China, India, Indonesia, and Taiwan who studied at Australia.  Their study revealed that social-cultural factor is the most determinant, followed by academic learning, and lastly the perceived quality of the overseas education. Chen (2007) results on determinants of decision of East Asian edu-tourists who choose to study at Canadian graduate school revealed socio- economic status of the edu-tourists as the most determinant, followed by edu-tourist’s personal characteristics, and lastly, the academic ability of edu-tourists.

ii. In respect to determinants of international edu-tourist’s choice of host country (i.e. Malaysia), the finding shows that social / cultural, and economic factor of Malaysia have almost the same degree of influence on international edu-tourist’s choice of Malaysia.  This finding is partially in conformity with the previous literature in respect to determinants of choice of a host country. Agarwal and Winkler (1985) examined determinants of choice of USA among international edu-tourists from 15 developing countries in Africa, Asia, and Middle – East.  The study revealed that the economic factor of the USA is the most determinant. McMahon (1992) studied the determinants of choice behaviour of international edu-tourists from emerging economies that chooses the USA in the 70s.  The study reveals the economy of the USA as the major determinant. Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) study determinants of choice of country (Australia) among international edu-tourists from the four Asian countries - China, India, Indonesia, and Taiwan who studied at Australia.  The study revealed that the economy of Australia as the most determinants.   

iii. On the determinants of choice of university among international edu-tourists in Malaysia, the study found that institutional characteristics of Malaysian universities are considered the most influencer.  This is followed by the internationalisation nature of Malaysian universities.  This finding is in conformity with previous literature in respect of determinants of choice of a university. Lee (2008) examined determinants of choice of a university in USA among international edu-tourists from East Asia.  The study revealed that institutional characteristics are the most determinant. Mazzarol and Soutar (2002) concluded in their study of determinants of choice of a university among international edu-tourists from the 4 Asian countries - China, India, Indonesia, and Taiwan who studied at Australia.  The study revealed that the choice of a university at Australia among international edu-tourists from Asian countries is mostly determined by institutional characteristics. 

6. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

One of the conclusions that could be drawn from this study is that socio-cultural factor is the most determinant of decision to study abroad among international edu-tourists in Malaysia. This is followed by quest for career development, and lastly, the economic factor of edu-tourist’s home countries. In addition, the socio-cultural and economic factor of Malaysia has almost the same degree of influence to determining the choice of Malaysia as a preferred edu-tourism destination among international edu-tourists. Furthermore, international edu-tourists in Malaysia are motivated to choose Malaysian universities due to its institutional characteristics, and internationalisation nature. Based on these conclusions, it is pertinent to state that the knowledge of the motive of the edu-tourists to study abroad may be useful in segmenting tourism, and edu-tourism market in Malaysia, including, its usefulness to designing promotional programs, and decision making about edu-tourism destination development. Since the findings in this study discloses socio-cultural factor of edu-tourists as the most influencer of edu-tourists’ decision to travel for higher education outside their countries, hence, to sustain the inflow of international edu-tourists to Malaysia, the ministry of tourism Malaysia in collaboration with the ministry of higher education can explore a new thrust of culture-base or adventure tourism to attract this specific niche market of education oriented travellers. 

Also, tourists’ travel behaviour could also be driven by external factors; hence, the decisions on where tourists go are based on the destination attributes. It is critical to identify the unique attributes that are perceived important by the visitor to ensure effective positioning strategy of a destination.  In the context of the present study, the economic, and socio-cultural factor of Malaysia are perceived important to choosing Malaysia as a preferred edu-tourism destination among international edu-tourists.  Hence, the government of Malaysia, and the tourism operators should make the most of the attractive country image of Malaysia in the context of its economic, and socio-cultural factor as perceived by international edu-tourists to design marketing strategies for the country to attracting more edu-tourists. Furthermore, the government of Malaysia and the private sector should aggressively provide environment and atmosphere at the Malaysian tourism destinations visited by international edu-tourists to encourage social interaction especially where tourists-host interaction is low. Involving residence in the provision of edu-tourism services (i.e. Tour guides, edu-tourist recruitment agents among others) could be appropriate strategy to achieving this goal. 

Finally, the results of the present study further identified the influence of institutional characteristics of Malaysian universities, including, its internalisation attribute as a contributing factor to attracting international edu-tourists. The ministry of tourism Malaysia can maximise the institutional image, and internalisation reputation of Malaysian universities as essential tourism assets for the country to develop her edu-tourism industry.

Funding: This study received no specific financial support.   
Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
Contributors/Acknowledgement: Both authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, V.B. and D.R. Winkler, 1985. Foreign demand for United States higher education: A study of developing countries in the Eastern Hemisphere. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 33(3): 623-644.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/451482.

Alex, V.D.M., 2010. Does human capital theory account for individual higher education choice. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 9(6): 81-93.Available at: https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v9i6.587.

Altbach, P.G., D.H. Kelly and Y.G.M. Lulat, 1985. Research on foreign students and international study: An overview and bibliography. New York: Praeger.

Alvord, C., P. Long, R. Pulwarty and B. Udall, 2008. Climate and tourism on the Colorado Plateau. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 89(5): 673-675.

Anthony, B., F. Marcelo, H. Andrew, J. Sarah, K. Neil, P. David and V.C. Kelvin, 2004. Vission 2020; forcasting international student mpbility; A UK perspective. England: British Council Department.

Ayoubi, R.M. and H.K. Massoud, 2007. The strategy of internationalization in universities: A quantitative evaluation of the intent and implementation in UK universities. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(4): 329-349.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540710749546.

Baharun, R., 2006. Identifying needs and wants of university students in Malaysia. Malaysian Management Review, 39(2): 1-7.

Baloglu, S. and M. Uysal, 1996. Market segments of push and pull motivations: A canonical correlation approach. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3): 32-38.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09596119610115989.

Barrett, P., 2007. Structural equation modelling: Adjustment model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5): 815-824.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018.

Bashar, A.A. and P.M.S. Ahmad, 2010. An analysis of push and pull travel motivations of foreign tourists to Jordan. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12): 41-50.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p41.

Bashir, S., 2007. Trends in international trade in higher education: Implications and options for developing countries. Washington DC: World Bank.

Becker, R. and R. Kolster, 2012. International student recruitment: Policies and developments in selected countries. Netherland: Organisation for International Cooperation in Higher Education.

Bello, Y.O., 2015. Destination selection process among higher education students in Malaysia. University Putra Malaysia: Doctorate Degree Thesis Submitted to School of Graduate Studies.

Bello, Y.O., N. Raja, R. Y., A.A. Yuhanis and W.A. Khairil, 2014. The framework of Edu-tourism system; Towards the definition of Edu-tourism, Edu-tourist, and Edu-tourist industry. In H. Hamimah, & Hossein, N, Selected Isseues in Hospitality and Tourism Sustainability. Malaysia: UPM Press (Malaysia). pp: 128-152.

Bello, Y.O., N.R.Y. Raja, A. Yuhanis and W.A. Khairil, 2015. Benchmarking Malaysian Edu-tourism policy strategies, and instruments with other Edu-tourist destinations in the South East Asia: Implications for sustainable Edu-tourism industry in Malaysia. In H. J. Ammer, Siti, R. H, & Muhammad, S. A, Trends in Hospitality and Tourism. Malaysia: UPM Press (Malaysia). pp: 20-40.

Bin Yusof, M., S.N.B. Binti Ahmad, M. Bin Mohamed Tajudin and R. Ravindran, 2008. A study of factors influencing the selection of a higher education institution. UNITAR e-Journal, 4(2): 27-40.

Bohm, C., G. Doris, S. Meares and L. Pearce, 2012. Global student mobility 2025: Forecasts of the global demands for international higher education (GDIHE) in Australia.  [Accessed November 17, 2013].

Carlson, J., B. Burn, J. Ussem and D. Yachimowicz, 1990. Study abroad: The experience of American undergraduates in Western Europe and the United States. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press.

Cateora, P.A. and J.L. Graham, 1999. International marketing. 10th Edn., Boston: Irwin: McGraw-Hill.

Chatfield, C. and A.J. Collins, 1992. Introduction to multivarite analysis. London: Chapman and Hall.

Chen, C.H., 2007. Understanding Taiwanese students' decision-making factors regarding Australian international higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2): 91-100.

Cheung, A.C., T.W. Yuen, C.Y. Yuen and Y. Cheong Cheng, 2011. Strategies and policies for Hong Kong's higher education in Asian markets: Lessons from the United Kingdom, Australia, and Singapore. International Journal of Educational Management, 25(2): 144-163.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111107579.

Cohen, D., 2003. Australia has become the academic destination for much of Asia. Can it handle the influx. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 49(21): 1-40.

Corigliano, M., 2011. The outbound Chinese tourism to Italy: The new graduates' generation. Journal of China Tourism Research, 7(4): 396-410.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160.2011.627015.

De Mooij, M., 2004 Consumer behaviour and culture: Consequences for global marketing and advertising., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deem, R. and K.J. Brehony, 2005. Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’in higher education. Oxford Review of Education, 31(2): 217-235.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980500117827.

Dwyer, L., 2002. Economic contribution of convention tourism: Conceptual and empirical issues. In K. Weber and K. Chon (Eds.), Convention Tourism: International Research and Industry Perspectives. New York: Haworth Hospitality Press.

Foo, C.C., I. Russsayani and H.E. Lim, 2010. Factors affecting choice for education destination: A case of international students at universiti Utara Malaysia. Third International Conference on International Studies. Held at Hotel Istana, Kuala Lumpur: Tourism Educators of Malaysia.

Fowler, J., 2009. Lists and learners: The importance of university rankings in international graduate student choice. Master Dissertation, University of Oslo.

Hagel, P. and R.N. Shaw, 2010. How important is study mode in student university choice? Higher Education Quarterly, 64(2): 161-182.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2273.2009.00435.x.

Hair, J.F., C.B. William, J.B. Barry and E.A. Rolph, 2010. Multivariate data analysis. 7th Edn., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Harari, M., 1992. Internationalization of the curriculum. In C. B. Klasek (Ed.), Bridges to the Future: Strategies for Internationalizing Higher Education. Washington: Washington State University’s Centre for International Development.

Hoe, S.L., 2008. Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3(1): 76-83.

Hooper, D., Coughlan and M. Mullen, 2008. Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. The Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1): 53-60.

Hung, C.Y., 2008. An examination of the effects of participation in a college study abroad program. Unpublished Thesis in Leisure Studies. Pennsylvania State University: Pennsylvania.

ICEF Monitor, 2012a. Opendoor 2012 report; international students enrollment increases by nearly 6%. Available from www.monitor.icef.com [Accessed March 11, 2014].

ICEF Monitor, 2012b. International students generate CDN$6.5 billion for Canadian. Available from www.monitor.icef.com [Accessed March 11, 2014].

ICEF Monitor, 2013. New Zealand aims to double value of international education by 2025. Available from www.monitor.icef.com/2013/05/new-zeland [Accessed March 11, 2014].

Ismail, N., 2009. Mediating effect of information satisfaction on college choice. A Paper Presented in Oxford Business and Economics Conference Program. UK.

Jacqueline, L., 2010. An exploratory study of factors influencing the decision of students to study at universiti Sains Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 28(2): 107-136.

Jason, L., A.M.A. Ahmad and H.A. Azhar, 2011. Edutourism: Exploring the push-pull factors in selecting a university. International Journal of Business and Society, 12(1): 63-78.

Joreskoh, K.G. and D. Sorbom, 2001. LISREL 8: User's reference guide. Scientific Software International. Inc.

Joseph, K.M., 2011. Post secondary students behaviour in college choice decision. Journal of Marketing Research and Case Study: 1-15.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5171/2011.440964.

Joseph, K.M., 2011. Post secondary students behaviour in college choice decision. Journal of Marketing Research and Case Study: 1-15.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5171/2011.440964.

Kalinowski, K. and B. Weiler, 1992. Review educational travel. B. Weiker and C. Hall (Eds.) Special Intrest Tourism. London: Bellhaven.

Kapur, D. and J. McHale, 2005. Give us your best and brightest: The global hunt for talent and its impact on the developing world. Baltimore, MD: Brookings Institution Press for the Centre for Global Development.

Keling, S.B., 2006. Institutional factors attracting students to Malaysian institutions of higher learning. International Review of Business Research, 2(1): 46-64.

Kleckley, J., 2008. Economy: NC and its regions. A Workshop on Climate, Weather and Tourism. East Carolina University, November 14-15.

Kline, R.B., 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

Kothari, C.R., 1990. New age research methodology; methods and techniques. 2nd Edn., New Delhi: New Age International (P) Limited.

Lee, J., 2008. Beyond borders: International student pathways to the United States. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12(3): 308-327.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315307299418.

Lee, K.H. and J.P. Tan, 1984. The international flow of third level lesser developed country students to developed countries: Determinants and implications. Journal of Higher Education, 3(6): 687-707.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00137020.

Leipe, N., V. Mc Cabe, B. Poole and P. Weeks, 2000. Business and management of conventions. Brisbane: John Wiley and Sons.

Licata, J.W. and J.G. Maxham, 1998. Student expectations of the university experience: Levels and antecedents for pre-entry freshmen. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 9(1): 69-91.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1300/j050v09n01_06.

MacCallum, R.C., K.F. Widaman, S. Zhang and S. Hong, 1999. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1): 84-99.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//1082-989x.4.1.84.

Mazzarol, T., S. Kemp and L. Savery, 1997. International students who choose not to study in Australia: An examination of Taiwan and Indonesia. Canberra: Australian International Education Foundation.

Mazzarol, T. and G.N. Soutar, 2002. Push-pull factors influencing international student destination choice. International Journal of Educational Management, 16(2): 82-90.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540210418403.

McGowan, S. and L. Potter, 2008. The implications of the Chinese learner for the internationalization of the curriculum: An Australian perspective. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(2): 181-198.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2005.12.006.

McMahon, M.E., 1992. Higher education in a world market. Higher Education, 24(4): 465-482.

Michael, I., A. Armstrong and B. King, 2004. The travel behaviour of international students: The relationship between studying abroad and their choice of tourist destinations. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 10(1): 57-66.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/135676670301000106.

Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia, 2008. Quick facts: Malaysian higher education statistics. Putrajaya: Ministry of Higher Education.

NAFSA, 2013. Explore international education; the international students economic value too. Available from https://www.nafsa.org/Policy_and_Advocacy/Policy_Resources/Policy_Trends_and_Data/NAFSA_International_Student_Economic_Value_Tool/ [Accessed March 21, 2014].

Oppermann, M., 1996. Convention destination images: Analysis of association meeting planners' perceptions. Tourism Management, 17(3): 175-182.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(96)00004-0.

Pallant, J., 2010. SPSS Survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. McGraw-Hill International.

Ravenstein, E.G., 1855. The laws of migration. Journal of the Statistical Society of London, 48(2): 167–235.

Ravenstein, E.G., 1876. The birthplace of the people and the laws of migration. The Geographical Magazine, 3(1): 173–177.

Ravenstein, E.G., 1889. The laws of migration. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 52(2): 241–305.

Rees, M., 2002. An exploratory model of destination choice by international students. ANZMAC Conference. Bankok: ANZMAC. pp: 2751-2757.

Ritchie, B., N. Carr and C. Cooper, 2003. Managing educational tourism. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.

Shanka, T., V. Quintal and R. Taylor, 2006. Factors influencing international students' choice of an education destination–a correspondence analysis. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 15(2): 31-46.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1300/j050v15n02_02.

Shi, Y., T. Nakatani, T. Sajiki, D. Sawauchi and Y. Yamamoto, 2010. Travel behaviour of international students at a university in Japan: A comparison of Chinese and non-Chinese students. Journal of China Tourism Research, 6(1): 61-72.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/19388160903586596.

Siti, F.P., K. Abdul Razak and B. Rohaizat, 2010. International students’ choice behaviour for higher education at Malaysia private universities. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(2): 202-211.Available at: https://doi.org/10.5539/ijms.v2n2p202.

Smith, C. and P. Jenner, 1997. Educational tourism. Travel & Tourism Analyst, 3(1): 60-75.

Van Hoof, H.B. and M.J. Verbeeten, 2005. Wine is for drinking, water is for washing: Student opinions about international exchange programs. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9(1): 42-61.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315304271480.

Vossensteyn, J., 2005. Perceptions of student price-responsiveness: A behavioural economics exploration of the relationships between socio-economic status, perceptions of financial incentives and student choice. Enscheda: PhD Dissertation, University of Twente.

Webb, M.S., 1993. Variables influencing graduate business students college selection. College and University, 68(1): 38 - 46.

Wende, V.D.M., 2009. Internationalization of higher education in the OECD countries: Challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(1): 274–289.

Wilkins, S., S.M. Balakrishnan and J. Huisman, 2011. Student choice in higher education: Motivations for choosing to study at an internatonal branch campus. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(10): 1-23.

Wilkins, S. and J. Huisman, 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.Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/08841241.2011.573592.

Wood, D., 2001. Winners and losers of participation in praxis: A case study of strategic tourism planning in Australia’s North West. Shanghai, China: The World Planning Schools Congress.

Zhang, Y. and W.-S. Chen, 2012. Factors influencing Chinese students to study in Malaysian private higher educational institutions: A cross-sectional survey. SEGi Review, 5(1): 123-131.

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Journal of Tourism Management Research shall not be responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content.