Analysis of Esa Unggul University Students’ Preferences for Leadership Seminars Using Conjoint Analysis

Lili Hastuti; Widiastuti Widiastuti; Muhammad Ichsan; Vera Maya Santi

doi:10.58421/gehu.v5i1.928

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.58421/gehu.v5i1.928

Authors

Lili Hastuti Universitas Esa Unggul, Jakarta
Widiastuti Widiastuti Universitas Bani Saleh, Bekasi
Muhammad Ichsan Universitas Djuanda, Bogor
Vera Maya Santi Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Jakarta

Keywords:

Student Preferences, Leadership Seminar, Esa Unggul University Student, Conjoint Analysis

Abstract

This research addresses the need to understand student preferences in leadership seminar design at Esa Unggul University and aims to identify the seminar attributes that most strongly influence participation decisions. A quantitative approach was applied using Conjoint Analysis, involving 100 active students from various study programs who are members of the Student Executive Board (BEM). Data were gathered through structured questionnaires and analyzed to estimate utility scores and relative importance values across five attributes: seminar topic, speaker, delivery format, participation cost, and benefits. The findings show that students favor seminars on Leadership and Entrepreneurship, delivered by expert lecturers, implemented in a hybrid format, priced between IDR 20,000 and 50,000, and offering certificates combined with SKP or competency recognition. Importance value analysis indicates that speaker credibility, cost considerations, and topic relevance are the dominant factors shaping student preferences. Model validation results demonstrate strong predictive accuracy, with a Pearson correlation of 0.815 and Kendall’s tau of 0.407, both statistically significant. These results provide an empirical basis for universities and event organizers to develop leadership seminars that better align with student expectations, thereby improving engagement and program effectiveness.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

A. W. Astin, “Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education,” Journal of College Student Development, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 518–529, 1999, doi: 10.1353/csd.1999.0052.

J. W. Creswell and J. D. Creswell, Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2018.

D. V. Day, J. W. Fleenor, L. E. Atwater, R. E. Sturm, and R. A. McKee, “Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 63–82, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004.

I. Etikan, “Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling,” American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–4, 2016, doi: 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11.

J. D. Foubert and L. M. Grainger, “Student involvement and satisfaction with campus leadership programs,” NASPA Journal, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 539–562, 2006, doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1614.

P. E. Green and V. R. Rao, “Conjoint measurement for quantifying judgmental data,” Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 355–363, 1971, doi: 10.1177/002224377100800312.

P. E. Green and V. Srinivasan, “Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook,” Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 103–123, 1978, doi: 10.1086/208721.

P. E. Green and V. Srinivasan, “Conjoint analysis in marketing: New developments with implications for research and practice,” Journal of Marketing, vol. 54, no. 4, pp. 3–19, 1990, doi: 10.1177/002224299005400402.

J. F. Hair, W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, 8th ed. Boston, MA, USA: Cengage Learning, 2019.

Y. Hidayah and Y. F. Ali, “Understanding educational management and leadership among students through contextual learning,” JP (Jurnal Pendidikan): Teori dan Praktik, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 40–49, 2025, doi: 10.26740/jp.v5n2.p40-49.

A. Kezar and E. Holcombe, Shared Leadership in Higher Education: Important Lessons from Research and Practice. Washington, DC, USA: American Council on Education, 2017.

S. R. Komives, N. Lucas, and T. R. McMahon, Exploring Leadership: For College Students Who Want to Make a Difference, 3rd ed. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2013.

J. M. Kouzes and B. Z. Posner, The Student Leadership Challenge, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA, USA: Jossey-Bass, 2013.

W. F. Kuhfeld, Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute, 2010.

B. Li and S. Kim, “Developing student leadership readiness and core leadership skills to enhance student engagement through organizational development intervention,” ABAC ODI Journal Vision. Action. Outcome, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 82–103, 2021, doi: 10.14456/abacodijournal.2021.6.

M. Liu, E. McKelroy, S. Corliss, and J. Carrigan, “Investigating student motivation in MOOCs: Conjoint analysis of multiple learning attributes,” Computers & Education, vol. 146, p. 103772, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103772.

J. J. Louviere, T. N. Flynn, and R. T. Carson, “Discrete choice experiments are not conjoint analysis,” Journal of Choice Modelling, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 57–72, 2010, doi: 10.1016/S1755-5345(13)70014-9.

M. Magarian and W. Seering, “Understanding university students’ preferences for instructional formats: A conjoint-based study,” Journal of Educational Research, vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 185–198, 2024, doi: 10.1080/00220671.2023.2265123.

A. Mandloi, “Conjoint analysis and its applications in marketing research,” International Journal of Mathematics Trends and Technology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 43–44, 2022, doi: 10.14445/22315373/IJMTT-V68I3P508.

M. Mukhlison and Makhfud, “Optimizing student roles in organizations through leadership and organizational training in BEM FTK UIT Lirboyo Kediri,” Jurnal Pengabdian Masyarakat (JPM), vol. 4, no. 3, 2025, doi: 10.52434/jpm.v4i3.43160.

R. A. Noe, Employee Training and Development, 8th ed. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill Education, 2021.

P. G. Northouse, Leadership: Theory and Practice, 9th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2021.

B. K. Orme, Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research, 2nd ed. Madison, WI, USA: Research Publishers LLC, 2010.

B. K. Orme, Getting Started with Conjoint Analysis: Strategies for Product Design and Pricing Research, 2nd ed. Orem, UT, USA: Sawtooth Software, 2014.

A. Sahin and M. Yilmaz, “Identifying students’ preferences for instructional methods using conjoint analysis,” Education and Information Technologies, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 955–972, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12012-5.