Advisor: 黃鎮平 (Peter Huang) Students : 賴志奇 (Chih-chi Lai) 張嘉晉 (Chia-chin Chang) 楊雅惠 (Ya-huei Yang) 李雪微 (Hsueh-wei Li) 2016/6/221

 Chapter One – Introduction  Background of the Study  Statement of the Problem  Research Questions  Chapter Two – Literature Review 2016/6/222

 Chapter Three – Methodology  Research Design  Instruments  Research Hypotheses  Data Analysis  Sampling  Chapter Four – Data Analysis  Chapter Five- Conclusion & Recommendation 2016/6/223

Introduction 2016/6/224

 Attending to graduate school becomes a trend to enhance professional knowledge and improve students’ competitive advantages in the job market. 2016/6/225

 The popularization of higher education in Taiwan causes most of students prefer to look for a cram school as a shortcut to get the ticket to graduate school. This phenomenon is universal in Taiwan; however, there are insufficient studies related to this issue on the factors that students may consider on selecting cram school. 2016/6/226

 1. What would be the important factors for junior and senior students on selecting a cram school that offers graduate school preparation programs ? 2016/6/227

 2. Does marketing mix play an important role in choosing a cram school ?  3. Do students select a cram school in accordance with consumer behavior ? 2016/6/228

Literature Review 2016/6/229

 The Consumer Behavioral Study of Selecting After-School Tutorial Institutes by Parents of Elementary Students in Taichung City stated that it was highly relevant among marketing mix, consumer behavior and students’ decision-making ( 林子樺, 2004). 2016/6/2210

 Consumer behavior provided the information about searching a product or service and the buying behavior to satisfied one’s needs. In doing so, students’ consideration and the external factors which influenced on decision- making for a cram school were able to offer through consumer behavior ( 林子樺, 2004). 2016/6/2211

Location and the credit of a cram school and the legality, safety, convenience, comfort of the learning environment were involved in students’ consideration( 洪郁年,2005). 2016/6/2212

 Consumer behavior was defined as the study of the buying units and the exchange process involved in acquiring, consuming, and disposing of goods, services, experiences, and ideas (Mowen& Minor, 2002). 2016/6/2213

 The “Marketing Mix” was the practice and model of the “4P’s” which was describing the strategic position of a product in the marketplace. In 1948, one interpretation of the marketing mix found while James Culliton said that a marketing decision should be a consequence of something alike to a direction (Randall, 1993). 2016/6/2214

Methodology 2016/6/2215

 There was one major research method in the study, questionnaire survey, so as to investigate the relation of marketing mix and consumer behavior to undergraduate students’ final decision for a cram school. 2016/6/2216

 The questionnaire was based on marketing mix (Promotion, Place, Price, and Product) and consumer behavior.  The first part is personal profile.  The second part is significant factors that are considered by students in accordance with marketing mix and consumer behavior.  The final part is extension of the second part. 2016/6/2217

H 1: Marketing mix of a cram school is the major factor on students’ consideration for selecting a cram school. H 2: Students will choose a cram school in accordance with consumer behavior. 2016/6/2218

 According to the research questions, Statistic Package for the Social Science (SPSS) version 15.0 was used to compute the data analyses of the study in quantitative methods. 2016/6/2219

 Junior and senior students from DAE of MCU on Taoyuan campus were purposeful samples to accomplish the questionnaire. 2016/6/2220

 The total sample was 201 undergraduates participating in the study. 69 students were junior and 132 students were senior. Zero out of the 201 responses received from the DAE students were invalid; the total valid response rate was 100% (n=201). 2016/6/2221

Data Analysis 2016/6/2222

1.Price (92%) 2.Teaching and Learning Quality (85.4%) 3.Teaching Style (83.4%) 4. Convenient Perimeter Living Function (79.2%) 5.Service Quality (73%) 6. System of Make-up Lesson (68.8%) 7. Peers (52.7%) 2016/6/2223

There were 92% of the participants considering that the price factor was important. Grade * Price 2016/6/2224

There were 85.4% of the participants agreeing that the factor was significant. Grade* Teaching and Learning Quality 2016/6/2225

There were 83.4% of the participants considering that teaching style was significant. Grade* Teaching Style 2016/6/2226

There were 79.2% of the participants considering this factor was important. Grade * Convenient perimeter living function 2016/6/2227

There were 73% of the participants thinking that service quality was significant. Grade * Service Quality 2016/6/2228

Conclusion & Recommendation 2016/6/2229

 Place, price and product of marketing mix, were more influential than promotion when students were selecting cram schools for graduate program. 2016/6/2230

 Decision making model was built up to evaluate students’ choice for cram school in accordance with consumer behavior.  Therefore, both marketing mix and consumer behaviors were important directions to analyze decision makers. 2016/6/2231

 For practitioners, those who run schools should pay more attention to those significant relations.  Those non-significant factors may not be of importance so they can ignore them. 2016/6/2232

 For future researchers, they can base on the same research direction as this study presents and apply to other schools such as TOEFL, GRE, TOEIC as well.  Besides, other researchers who are interested in this field can extend the scope of research samples to enhance degree of accuracy. 2016/6/2233

 Follow-up research studies are needed to seek for the reason why those "no comments" or "I don't know" responses took the majority.  If it is possible that the factors which responded "no comments" or "I don’t know" indicate that students do not concern about the factors, or even realize the importance of the factors. 2016/6/2234

 吳青松（ 1998 ）。現代行銷學。臺北：智 勝文化。  邱永富（ 2002 ），補習班之服務品質－以 屏東縣某立案補習班為例。國立中山大學 資源管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄 市。  林子樺 (2004) ，台中市小學生家長選擇補習 班之消費行為研究。亞洲大學經營管理學 所碩士論文，未出版，台中縣。 2016/6/2235

 洪郁年 (2005) 。國小學童家長選擇補習班因 素分析－以林園地區為例。國立屏東師範 學院教育科技研究所碩士論文，未出版， 屏東縣。  柯特勒， (Philip Kotler, Kevin Lane Keller) 著 ; 樓永堅，方世榮譯 ( 民 95) 。行銷管理學 (Marketing Management) 。台北：台灣培生 教育出版。 2016/6/2236

 Antonides, G. & Raaij, W. F.(1998).Consumer Behavior: A European Perspective, New York: Jonh Wiley & Sons  East, R. (1997), Consumer Behavior: Advances and Applications in Marketing, London: Prentice Hall.  Mowen, J.C & Minor, M. (2002). Consumer Behavior : A Framework, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 2016/6/2237

 Paul, J. P., and Olson, J. C. (1993). Consumer Behavior and Marketing Strategy, 3rd ed., Chicago: Irwin.  Randall, G. (1993),Principles of Marketing, New York: Routledge.  Sandhusen, R. (2000). Marketing, New York: Barron's Educational Series. 2016/6/2238

2016/6/2239