This study adopted the quantitative research approach to assess the influence among the study variables. In adherence to expert reviewers’ recommendations, a pilot study was conducted to confirm the factorial validity and construct reliability of the research measurement. This chapter opens with a theoretical framework, followed by; research method and procedure, data collection procedure, composite reliability and validity tests.
Research Framework
Following the review of the relevant literature, research purposes, and questions, Figure 3.1., is a research framework developed for the study. The researchers developed the research framework from variables adapted from Kruanak and Ruangkanjanases (2014) and Mazzarol, Savery, and Kemp (1996) studies. The four main variables of the study are personal factors, university experiences, labor market-related factors and choice of working (CWT) in Taiwan.
Figure 3.1. Research framework
25
Research Hypotheses
According to the result of literature review in chapter two, this study proposed the following hypotheses.
H1. International students’ personal factors have influence on their choice of working in Taiwan after graduation.
H2. International students’ personal factors have influence on their university experiences in Taiwan.
H3. International students’ university experiences have influence on their choice of working in Taiwan after graduation.
H4. Personal factors have influence on international students’ perception of Taiwan’s labor market.
H5. Labor market factors have influence on international students’ choice of working in Taiwan after graduation.
H6. University experiences mediate the influence of personal factors on international students’
choice of working in Taiwan after graduation.
H7. Labor market factors mediate the influence of personal factors on international students’
choice of working in Taiwan.
H8. University experiences and Taiwan’s labor market exert a combined mediating influence on the relation between personal factors and international students’ choice of working in Taiwan after graduation.
Research Method and Procedure
Research Method
This study adopted a quantitative approach that followed a self-reported survey to gather numerical data and to analyze the statistical relationship between the four variables. The study was delimited to Taiwan universities in order to enable the researcher to analyze the data within a specific context. The power of a quantitative research approach lies in its capacity to explore, describe and illuminate a studied phenomenon (Yin, 2013). One of the advantages of a research survey is that the gathered data are structured around key items and topic and thus it can be easily analyzed. It is also more advantageous in that, it is an efficient data collection method when the
26
researcher has a specific idea of what is required and how to measure the variables. A self-reported survey is said to be one of the most suitable methodologies for studying individual’s behavior (Howard, 1994). This methodology suited the purposes of this investigation in that the researchers were interested in discovering the staying behavior of international students in Taiwan after graduation. Lastly, a research survey increases respondents’ confidence, most especially when they respond anonymously and in that way provide honest responses.
Research Procedure
The quantitative approach was adopted to perform the research process. A survey was conducted to collect primary data from international students in Taiwan universities. A questionnaire was designed and used to obtain data from the respondents who are currently studying in Taiwan universities. The research procedure as shown in Figure 3. 2. below, outlines that the research began with the literature review and identification of a research problem. After discovering the research problem, the researcher conducted a further review of relevant literature that culminated in the identification of research questions and purposes. More literature was also reviewed to explain the necessity of this study and to find out the suitable instrument for conducting the research and solving the research problem.
27
Figure 3.2. Research procedure
Conclusions and recommendations Discussion of findings Analyze survey questionnaire data
Collect data
Develop measurement and assessment instrument Research framework, method and procedure Identify research purpose and research questions
Identify research problem Review the relevant literature
28
Measurement Measurement Draft
The 5 point Likert-type scale was used to measure personal factors, university experiences and labor market which are the three independent variables of the study. Hence all the independent variables had five response options starting from 1, representing strongly disagree’ (SD) up to 5, which stood for strongly agree’ (SA). The dependent variable was an endogenous variable as it assessed the presence or absence of international students’ future intention of working in Taiwan after graduation with 1 item. See Appendix A, and B, for the questionnaire items scales and coding.
The following section discusses the measurements of each of the four main variables.
Personal Factors
This part included 10 items statements were adapted from Kruanak and Ruangkanjanases (2014). The dimensions of this variable are career perceptions, family ties and international students’ cross-cultural adaptation process to the Taiwanese society. To measure the extent to which personal factors influence international students’ choice of working in Taiwan, 5-point Likert-type scale type was adopted from Kruanak and Ruangkanjanases (2014). The scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
By choosing strongly agree (SA) option, the international student implied that the measured condition is significantly better and thus exerts a huge influence on his or her choice of working in Taiwan. If the foreign student chose agree (A), he or she meant that the measured item has a much better influence on his or her choice of working in Taiwan. By selecting neutral (N) the foreigner implied that the situation exerted a neutral influence on her or his choice of working in Taiwan. The second option or disagree (D) position, meant that Taiwan exerts a nonsignificant influence on the assessed personal perception. Strongly disagree or the 1st option indicated that Taiwan exerts an extremely insignificant influence on the international student’s personal perception.
University Experiences
There were 13 items that assessed international students’ university experiences in Taiwan and they were adapted from the 2015 national Australian Universities survey report. The
29
dimensions of this variable were academic satisfaction, satisfaction with the chosen university, satisfaction with the education quality and professors as well as student support. Even though the survey report measurement contained 27 items, but the researchers selected only 13 after learning from the report discussion that 14 of these 27 items yielded insignificant results. The 13 items were adapted together with the 5 point Likert-scale in which strongly disagree (SD), meant that the student feels extremely dissatisfied with the measured university experience.
The second option that represented the disagree (D) stand, meant that the student is dissatisfied with the measured condition and thus had a little influence. The third or neutral position (N), implied that the student is okay with the assessed university experience. Agree which was the 4th alternative meant that the international student is satisfied with the assessed university experience and thus had a strong influence on the student’s university life in Taiwan. The last or 5th option (SA) implied that the student is extremely satisfied with the measured university experience and thus exerts a remarkable influence on the respondent.
Labor Market Factors
About 5 labor market factors items were adapted from Mazzarol, Savery and Kemp (1996), to measure international students’ views about Taiwan’s labor market in comparison to their home country’s labor markets. These items were related to the availability of job opportunities, government policies, job environment and annual salary. Like the two above mentioned variables, the labor market’s five items were also measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale. Where strongly agree (SD) implied that the student perceives that Taiwan’s measured labor market factor was extremely worst in comparison to his or her home country. Disagree (D) meant that the measured factor was worse in Taiwan in comparison to the student’s home country. Neutral (N) meant the assessed condition was the same in Taiwan and in the international student’s home country.
Agree(A) meant that the measured labor condition was better in Taiwan compared to the student’s home country. Strongly agree (SA) meant that the measured factor was much better in Taiwan compared to the student’s home country.
30
International Students’ Choice of Working in Taiwan
A single item, was adapted from Kruanak and Ruangkanjanases (2014) to measure the presence or absence of an intention to work in Taiwan after graduation. If the student chooses definitely yes, it indicated that he or she is having an intention of working in Taiwan after graduation. By choosing definitely no, the student signaled that he or she has no intention of working in Taiwan after graduation. The scale used to measure students’ overall working intention was a binary scale, in which the student was given only two options which were choosing to work in Taiwan or any other part of the world.
Formal Questionnaire
Pilot study.
The pilot test questionnaire contained the 5 variables of the study measured by 29 quantitative items, and 8 demographic items giving a total of 37 items. It was divided into 5 sections. It opened with a cover letter and the next part contained questionnaires which assessed international students’ personal factors. The third section and page consisted of Taiwan’s labor market-related factors and the fourths part comprised of factors that measured international students’ university experiences. The fifth and the last section featured demographic items and the single item which measured international students’ choice of working in Taiwan after graduation.
Main study.
After the pilot study, there were 23 questions that were retained in the questionnaire including items that measured demographic characteristics of the international students as well as the four main variables of the study. The first page of the questionnaire contained a cover letter and instructions. The second page consisted of the items that measured the personal factors variable. Page 3, had items that assessed international students’ perception of Taiwan’s labor market in comparison to their country’s labor market. The subsequent page consisted of items that assessed international students’ university experiences. The last section comprised of question 7 one of the dependent variables of the study. The other questions in this section were related to international students’ individual life experiences as well as demographic information. Please visit Appendix A, for a detailed overview of the questionnaire.
31
Data Collection Sampling
A specific group of people, objects or events that the researcher aim to investigate makes up the target population of the study (Cavana et al., 2001). The targeted study population of this research included all international students who are currently studying in Taiwan universities. This study was an “ex-ante study” because it collected primary data from aspiring international graduates before they made their choice of working in Taiwan (Musumba, 2007). This strategy was adopted because the researchers wanted to predict international students’ possibility of working in Taiwan after graduation.
The present study adopted the convenience sampling procedure. This procedure was adopted in order to quicken and increase the number of completed responses. This is made possible by the fact that convenience sampling is a non-probability method and thus respondents are chosen in a non-random manner and some members of the population have no chance of being included.
Participants
Pilot study survey.
To ensure the reliability and validity of the research instrument, the researcher first conducted a pilot study of 32 participants. Only and hand delivered paper-based questionnaires were used to collect data for the pilot study. The researcher also solicited responses only from a group of international students who are enrolled in a full English taught program and thus their English language ability was very good.
Main survey.
For the main study, the researcher received responses from 205 international students. The data was collected using online and paper-based questionnaires and the researcher had less control over participants, since most of the responses were received online and thus the researcher could not precisely determine if the respondents had full English language proficiency or not. The researchers adopted online survey because data can be conveniently gathered and easily analyzed (Morgan & Sonquist, 1963). But due to a slow and low response rate, it became necessary also to
32
use hard copy questionnaires. However, a great deal of time was wasted entering the data from the hard copies, and there was a great possibility of human errors. An online survey is good in that participants to have the privacy to fill in their responses anonymously, and in that way provides a high possibility of receiving genuine answers. The researchers also adopted the convenient sampling procedure to collect data.
Validity and Reliability
There was a need to reassess the reliability and validity of the research questionnaire items since they were adapted from mutually independent studies. The services of a subject expert and a peer reviewer were solicited in the process of face and content validity. Messick (1990) stated that content validity is based on an expert’s judgment about the relevance of the test content of a particular behavioral domain of interest. A pilot study and factorial analysis were also conducted to achieve composite reliability and construct validity of the research measurement and questionnaire items. The pilot study results gave a reliability interpretation of the questionnaire items and the overall framework. The pilot study sample consisted of 32 respondents.
Expert Review
The questionnaire’s face and content validity were reviewed by the researcher’s advisor who is a subject expert in the field. The advisor recommended the modification and elimination of some questionnaire items from the original 64 items, such that the questionnaire that was pilot tested retained only 29 quantitative items and 8 demographic items giving a total of 37 items.
The committee members also conducted face validity of the research instrument and during a thesis proposal defense meeting on the 31st of December 2015 they recommended that the researcher should not assess international students’ cultural background based on continents, but rather should be more specific by examining it region by region. After consultation and discussion with the researcher’s advisor, a decision was made to record international students’ cultural backgrounds based on their countries of origin.
33
Peer Review
Since the questionnaire was going to be answered by international students, there was also need to engage the services of the researchers’ peers in the process of face and content validity.
About two international students, assisted the researcher in the modification of the research questionnaire items’ language to suit foreign students’ taste. Based on their valuable suggestions, complicated English terms were simplified to help respondents to easily understand the items and thus provide appropriate answers. After the peer review, the researcher went on to conduct a pilot study which is about to be discussed below.
Pilot Study
The researchers pilot tested the instrument on 32 participants, before proceeding to collect the data for the main study. After collecting the data, the researchers conducted Cronbach’s alpha assessment and factorial validity to ensure the composite reliability and validity of the research instrument. Arambewela, Hall and Zuhair (2006) stated that the commonly accepted lower limit for a construct’s Cronbach’s alpha is 0.70.Reliability testing assesses the uniformity of responses in a group of questions. Reliability testing is also called internal consistency or inter-item reliability (Arambewela, Hall & Zuhair, 2006). The main purpose of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is to measure reliability. It is also to determine if a group of questions all measure the same construct, concept, or idea. It ensures that all of the items that make up the composite score are consistent with each other. Cronbach reliability test calculates the reliability coefficient alpha (α), which indicates the degree of consistency among items. Fu et al., (2010) suggested the following guidelines for evaluating α values: > .9 excellent, > .8 good, > .7 acceptable, > .6 questionable,
> .5 poor, ≤ .5 unacceptable. The Cronbach reliability test proceeds under the assumption that the tested items belong to a single construct and that all the observations are independent of each other.
The convenience sampling procedure was adopted to collect the pilot study sample. About 32 questionnaires were printed and distributed to 32 international students in Taipei, a city located in the northern part of Taiwan. After two weeks, the researchers gathered all the 32 questionnaires with valid responses and that brought the response rate to 100%. A pilot study is highly recommended for a researcher to conduct before proceeding with a formal study to test if the research instrument is valid and the measurement is reliable for use in the main study. The first
34
part of the pilot study deals with the SmartPLS3 composite reliability test, followed by confirmatory factor analysis which included dropping some items, and the last part presented constructs’ composite reliability and validity results which confirmed the suitability of the research measurement. The demographic characteristics and results of the analysis of the pilot study variables are presented in the following sections.
The pilot study research questionnaire first underwent a face validity test. Face validity is a technique that aims to verify if the measurement looks valid to the respondents (Schiavetti et al., 1981). Face validity is necessary mainly because the willingness of the respondents to participate in the survey is in part dependent upon their perception that the instrument measures content that they have and thus willing to provide. Another recommendation was that the researcher needs to conduct Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to ensure reliability and validity of all the questionnaire items. In compliance with the preceding recommendations, and in consultation with the researcher’s advisor, the researcher rebuilt the research framework by merging and deleting some of the variables. For instance, the expectation career variable was deleted, and a personal factors variable with some items measuring career perception was incorporated into the framework.
In the end, Personal Factors (PF), University Experiences (UE), Labor Market (LM) and Choice of Working in Taiwan (CWT) were retained as the main variables of the study. In order to ensure the reliability and validity of all the questionnaire items for the main study, the pilot study sample was subjected to SmartPLS3 confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), composite reliability (CR) and validity tests (AVE). Table 3.1. below, display the SmartPLS3 results of the CR and AVE before conducting CFA and dropping some items from the constructs.
Table 3.1.
35
The numbers in boldface in the table above indicate that the last two constructs have low CR and AVE values. These below the minimum required CR and AVE values make it necessary to conduct CFA and to drop some items with low factor loadings. According to Kerlinger (1986), if an item’s factor loading is below .40, it means that the item does not belong to the factor and needs to be deleted in further analyses. Table 3.2. below, display the items’ loadings before some items were dropped.
Pf= Personal Factors; CWT= Choice of Working in Taiwan; UE= University Experiences; LM=
Labor Market.
Values in boldface are below the minimum acceptable reliability and validity standards.
Table 3.2.
Factorial Analysis
Items Loadings LM Items Loadings UE Items Loadings
CWT CWT 1.000 LB1 0.729 AS1 -0.337
36 Notes. n=32.
Pf= Personal Factors; CWT= Choice of Working in Taiwan; UE= University Experiences; LM=
Labor Market.
Items lower than < .40 and in boldface will be dropped in further analysis.
Item CP-3 was dropped even though its value is above > .40 to increase the reliability or Cronbach Alpha of the personal factors construct.
We can note from Table 3.2. above that, LM and CWT factor loadings exceed the minimum required value (>.40), therefore, there is no need to drop items in these two constructs. These two constructs were not modified; rather they were used just as they are, in further pilot study analyses
We can note from Table 3.2. above that, LM and CWT factor loadings exceed the minimum required value (>.40), therefore, there is no need to drop items in these two constructs. These two constructs were not modified; rather they were used just as they are, in further pilot study analyses