Educational - Ozean Publications

European Journal of Educational Studies 2(2), 2010Table 2: Means and T-Test Results Concerning the Parent and Student Differences in Terms of CorporateImage and Image DimensionsImage dimension N x SD t pQuality image Student 255 3.46 0.76 -3.65 .00Parent 209 3.72 0.78Programme image Student 255 2.64 0.65 -2.77 .00Parent 209 2.81 0.67Infrastructure image Student 255 2.69 0.77 -4.99 .00Parent 209 3.07 0.85Appearance image Student 255 3.04 1.08 -1.80 .07Parent 209 3.22 1.04Social image Student 255 2.88 0.81 -4.46 .00Parent 209 3.22 0.82General image Student 255 2.99 0.58 -4.90 .00Parent 209 3.26 0.62As with general image, there are significant differences between students and parents in terms of otherimage dimensions. Except social image, with other dimensions, namely quality, infrastructure andprogramme image, the perceptions of students are lower than parents. The perceived social image amongparents is higher than students. This can be explained by the difference of expectations. No significantdifference was found between students and parents in terms of appearance image.Table 3: T-Test Results Concerning Perceived Corporate Image Levels By Student GenderImage dimension Gender N x SD t pQuality image Female 148 3.44 0.72 -.423 .67Male 105 3.48 0.82Programme image Female 148 2.56 0.61 -2.053 .04Male 105 2.73 0.70Infrastructure image Female 148 2.67 0.67 -.305 .76Male 105 2.70 0.90Appearance image Female 148 2.86 1.03 -3.165 .00Male 105 3.28 1.10Social image Female 148 2.87 0.80 -.121 .90Male 105 2.88 0.82General image Female 148 2.95 0.51 -1.045 .30Male 105 3.03 0.66As seen in table 3, gender didn‟t cause any difference in general image. However, with programme andappearence image, gender causes significant differences. In both dimensions, the perceived image amongmale students is higher than female students. Female students like the general appearance of the schools70