Date post: | 05-Apr-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | vicky-kumar |
View: | 221 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 30
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
1/30
1
igni icance o riteria or election oCoaching Institutes
StudentsPerspective
Group Members
Alok Pratap Singh Amit Sukhija
Chandan Kumar
Manoj Kumar
Rahul Niranwal Siddhartha
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
2/30
2
Table of ContentsSection Topic/s Slide
Title Title 1
Table of Contents Index 2
Abstract Brief overview of findings 3
Introduction Purpose and Importance of the Project 4
ResearchMethodology
Research Design, Data Collection Methods 5
Sample Design, Fieldwork 6
Statistical methods / tools 7 8
Basic Data Analysis 9 13
Results Hypothesis Testing 14 22
Factor Analysis 23 27
Limitations Limitations of the project 28
Conclusion Conclusions drawn from the results 29
Q & A Questions and Answers 30
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
3/30
3
AbstractThe objective of this project is to find out
whether selection criteria such as Academic ,Support/Infrastructure and Convenience , holdequal or different importance for students whileselecting a particular coaching institute.
The results show that among the three criteria,Academic Criteria is considered to be the mostimportant. Support/Infrastructure Criteria comessecond which is followed by the Convenience Criteria.
However, we do see some variance when weanalyze the data for different sub-groups. Thefindings are discussed in detail in the followingslides.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
4/30
4
IntroductionThis project was undertaken to discover thesignificance of various criteria namely
Academic
ConvenienceSupport / Infrastructure
for selection of coaching institutes bystudents.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
5/30
5
Research Methodology
Research DesignDescriptive Research
Data Collection MethodsSurvey
Field Survey
Online Survey
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
6/30
6
Research Methodology
Sample DesignTarget Population
Students from different coaching institutes
located in NCR regionSimple Random Sampling
Fieldwork All six group members participated in thefieldwork to ensure high degree of accuracy.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
7/307
Research Methodology
Statistical Methods / Tools used:Basic Data Analysis: Descriptive StatisticsTables, GraphsMode, Skewness, Kurtosis
Univariate StatisticsNon-parametric Hypothesis Testing
Bivariate Analysis: Tests of DifferencesFriedman Test
Multivariate Analysis Analysis of Interdependence
Factor Analysis
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
8/308
Basic Data Analysis
Data size148 Respondents
Types of SurveyOnlineField
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
9/309
Basic Data Analysis AgeGroups
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
10/3010
as c a a na ys sGender
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
11/3011
Basic Data Analysis EducationalBackground
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
12/3012
as c a a na ys sOccupation
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
13/3013
Results HypothesisTesting
Null Hypothesis Rejected
Conclusion: The distribution of Academic, Convenience andSupport/Infra Criteria are not the same.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
14/3014
Results HypothesisTesting
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
15/30
15
Distribution of AcademicCriteria
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
16/30
16
Distribution of ConvenienceCriteria
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
17/30
17
Distribution of Support/InfraCriteria
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
18/30
18
Results
The result holds true for all Age Groups: 18 21 22 24 25 28 28 and above (Ref: SPSS File)
The distribution of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria are not the same.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
19/30
19
Results
The result holds true for both Genders: Male Female (Ref: SPSS
File)
The distribution of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria are not the same.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
20/30
20
Results
The result holds true for students with EducationalBackgrounds:
Graduate Post Graduate
But Not For Under Graduate (Ref: SPSS File)
The distribution of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria are not the same.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
21/30
21
Results
The result holds true for students with Occupation as: Student EmployedBut Not For Self-Employed Others (Ref: SPSS File)
The distribution of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria are not the same.
R l F
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
22/30
22
Results Factor Analysis
Priority of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria
Overall Priority
1. Academic 2. Support / Infrastructure 3. Convenience
R lt F t
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
23/30
23
Results Factor Analysis
Priority of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria for different Age Groups
Age Group Priority I Priority II Priority III
18 - 22 Support/Infra Academic Convenience
22 24 Academic Convenience Support/Infra
25 28 Academic Support/Infra Convenience
28 and above Support/Infra Academic Convenience
Overall Academic Support/Infra Convenience
R lt F t
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
24/30
24
Results Factor Analysis
Priority of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria on the basis of Gender
Gender Priority I Priority II Priority III
Female Academic Support/Infra Convenience
Male Support/Infra Academic Convenience
Overall Academic Support/Infra Convenience
R lt F t
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
25/30
25
Results Factor AnalysisPriority of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria for different EducationalBackgroundEducationalBackground
Priority I Priority II Priority III
Under
Graduate
Support/Infra Academic Convenience
Graduate Academic Support/Infra Convenience
Post Graduate Support/Infra Academic Convenience
Overall Academic Support/Infra Convenience
R lt F t
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
26/30
26
Results Factor AnalysisPriority of Academic, Convenience and
Support/Infra Criteria on the basis of Occupation
Occupation Priority I Priority II Priority III
Student Support/Infra Academic Convenience
Employed Academic Support/Infra Convenience
Self-employed Support/Infra Academic Convenience
Overall Academic Support/Infra Convenience
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
27/30
27
Limitations
Sample size The findings are based on a sample size of 148records. Though the sample size seems to be decentenough but one cant deny the possibility of differencein results if the sample size was larger.
The sample consisted of students from NCR region;therefore, the findings may or may not hold true onnational level due to numerous cultural and socialdifferences.
All respondents are those students who have already
selected a particular institute for study; therefore,reasons for non- selection couldnt be drawn on thebasis of this report.
Some respondents might have filled the questionnairein a hurry (esp. the online survey) and perhaps may
not have given their true opinions on certain things.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
28/30
28
ConclusionsOut of the three criteria (Academic,Support/Infrastructure and Convenience),
Academic criteria is the most important criteria for students in selection of a particular coachinginstitute.
Though this conclusion holds true for theoverall sample taken together, however, somesmall sections of the sample consider other criteriato be more important. For example:For under-graduates, the distribution of Academic,Support/Infra and Convenience Criteria are thesame. Null Hypothesis is retained.For occupation as Self -employed and Others, thedistribution of Academic, Support/Infra andConvenience Criteria are the same. NullHypothesis is retained.
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
29/30
29
ConclusionsThe overall priority for the Academic,
Support/Infrastructure and Convenience criteria is1. Academic 2. Support / Infrastructure 3. Convenience
However, this priority changes to1. Support / Infrastructure 2. Academic 3. Convenience for the following sub-groups.
Students from Age-group 18 22 and 28 andabove Gender as Male Educational background as Under -graduate andPost Graduate .Occupation as student and Self -employed .
7/31/2019 Project RM Presentation
30/30