project rm presentation

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


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


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.


4/30

4

IntroductionThis project was undertaken to discover thesignificance of various criteria namely

Academic

ConvenienceSupport / Infrastructure

for selection of coaching institutes bystudents.


5/30

5

Research Methodology

Research DesignDescriptive Research

Data Collection MethodsSurvey

Field Survey

Online Survey


6/30

6


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.


7/307


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


8/308

Basic Data Analysis

Data size148 Respondents

Types of SurveyOnlineField


9/309

Basic Data Analysis AgeGroups


10/3010

as c a a na ys sGender


11/3011

Basic Data Analysis EducationalBackground


12/3012

as c a a na ys sOccupation


13/3013

Results HypothesisTesting

Null Hypothesis Rejected

Conclusion: The distribution of Academic, Convenience andSupport/Infra Criteria are not the same.


14/3014

Results HypothesisTesting


15/30

15

Distribution of AcademicCriteria


16/30

16

Distribution of ConvenienceCriteria


17/30

17

Distribution of Support/InfraCriteria


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.


19/30

19

Results

The result holds true for both Genders: Male Female (Ref: SPSS

File)




20/30

20

Results

The result holds true for students with EducationalBackgrounds:

Graduate Post Graduate

But Not For Under Graduate (Ref: SPSS File)




21/30

21

Results

The result holds true for students with Occupation as: Student EmployedBut Not For Self-Employed Others (Ref: SPSS File)



R l F


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


23/30

23



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


24/30

24



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


R lt F t


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


R lt F t


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



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.


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.


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 .


30/30

project rm presentation

Documents