Determining Factors in Students Choice to Live in Campus or out Campus - Research Paper Example

What are the determining factors in Students’ choice to live in campus or out campus? Your name Course Name 28th October 2014 Executive summary The report which looks at analysing and finding out the different reasons why students live in or out of the campus brings forward different reasons. The research which was carried over 50 students consisted of 25 students staying in campus and 25 students staying out of campus. The sample of 25 students was selected on a random basis and descriptive method was used to find out the different factors which influence students. It was analysed that students in the age group of 18 – 21 years preferred staying out of campus while those between 22 – 25 years preferred staying in campus. In addition to it room and convenience to shopping centres were important variables which influenced people to stay out of campus where safety and family pressure were reasons which made students stay in campus. Finding out the gender who preferred to stay in campus or away from campus showed that females had a preference to stay away from campus as they have a special preference towards room and shopping centre as compared to the males. The analysis thereby highlights different reasons which were checked for consistency through the use of Chi Square Test and proved that the data was consistent and provided valid results. Table of Contents Executive summary 2 Table of Contents 2 Introduction 4 Problem definition and research objectives 4 Methodology 5 Data analysis & results 6 Limitations and caveats 20 Recommendations and conclusions 20 Transmittal letter 23 Introduction Students prefer to stay both in campus and away from campus based on the different personal needs and requirements. Colleges on their part need to evaluate and find out the different reasons which influence students so that the required planning which will help to provide students with the required amenities can be ensured. To find out the direction for the future college needs to evaluate their present situation so that they can find out the different reasons students prefer to stay in and out of the campus. This will help the college to make necessary arrangements for the future and ensure that the resources are used in the best way. The report thereby looks at finding out the different reasons which makes students stay in campus and out of campus by carrying out a research in that direction so that both students and college is benefitted through it. Problem definition and research objectives Studies and data provide information that an equal percentage of students stay in campus and out of campus. This is an area of investigation as finding out the different factors which have influenced students to take such a decision is important. Evaluating the perception of students and determining the factors which guide students to stay in campus and out of campus will help colleges to make necessary arrangements for students and ensure that no resources are wasted. This is an area which requires to be researched as no previous studies concentrated on finding out the different variables which influenced students and will thereby help to take necessary steps accordingly. The research thereby looks at achieving the following objectives i. To find out the different factors which influences students to stay in campus and out of campus ii. To find out students who stay in campus and out of campus based on age, gender, social status and other factors. Methodology The methodology which has been adopted for the research is a case study approach where information is collected from students or the respondents through questionnaire. The questionnaire is distributed among 50 students which consist of 25 students staying in campus and 25 students staying out of campus. The sample has been selected on a random basis and represents the entire population. The sample selected further has students pursuing different undergraduate, masters and doctorate courses. The questionnaire was designed with open ended questions so that descriptive data could have been collected. The purpose of using descriptive method was to establish the relationship between the data and factors which guides students to live in campus or out of campus. The hypothesis which has been identified as a result is Hypothesis 1: There is difference between factors influencing students preference to stay in campus or out of campus Hypothesis 2: There is no difference between factors influencing students preference to stay in campus or out of campus The analysis of the data was performed in SPSS 15.0. To improve the overall learning for the users the graphics were generated and then the dataset was exported and imported in word to generate better quality graphics for the purposes of this report. To test the level of significance T-test was carried out at a 95% level of significance. The use of exploratory data analysis and investigating the different reasons and establishing the relationship between them helps to bring forward different which led students to stay in or out of campus. Data collection The collection of data will involve polling results among students and their scores will be based on a scale of one to five. It follows then that there will be incorporation of survey carried among students to identify concerns and attitudes with regard to the choice of place to live. The data that will arise from the research will be used for comparison purposes. There will be the inclusion of appropriate tables and other related figures that will be generated by the gathered data. To respond to the research questions or objectives that have been stated, there must be the inclusion of subject in clear and elaborate manner. This forms part of a critical process (subject inclusion) under the circumstances where data gathering is polled among students that give their opinion on living in campus or out of campus on a scale of one to five. Another criterion that will be used to establish the subjects is through identifying those students that participate give true information as to their living place. The examination of the data that will be gathered, several statistical formulas will be employed which include; Weighted mean- This mean is preferred because it is explicit in identifying the different preferences and beliefs that are rampant among a population of students. It forms the backbone of descriptive statistics where individual classes or clusters of data can be described individually. Chi-test- This test is instrumental in determining the significant differences of the preferences of the students that prefer a certain factor Data analysis & results The following is results as produced by SPSS 15.0. Proportion of respondents that are male and female Live on campus Genger Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid male 11 44.0 44.0 44.0 Female 14 56.0 56.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 The results show that in the data there were 11 males and 14 females which is proportions of 44.0% and 56 % respectively. The bar graph above shows the distribution of gender in terms of frequency Out of campus Gender Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid Male 7 28.0 28.0 28.0 Female 18 72.0 72.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 The results show that in the data there were 7 males and 18 females which is proportions of 44.0% and 56 % respectively. The bar graph above shows the distribution of gender in terms of frequency. It shows that male was the largest number in terms of the respondents. The most common age group live in campus Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 18-21 6 24.0 24.0 24.0 22-25 19 76.0 76.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 The most age group in among those who live out of campus is 22-25 as shown by the frequency table above. It also shows that it shows that over 24% were aged between 18-21 years old while between 22-25 years were 76%. Those who live out campus Age Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 18-21 13 52.0 52.0 52.0 22-25 10 40.0 40.0 92.0 38-41 1 4.0 4.0 96.0 42-45 1 4.0 4.0 100.0 Total 25 100.0 100.0 The most age group in among those who live out of campus is 18-21 as shown by the frequency table above. It also shows that it shows that over 52% were aged between 18-21 years old while between 22-25 years were 40%. The graphs below shows how the distribution is compared From the graphs we can state that most of those who lived in campus were of age group. Relationship between gender and Cheaper bills for utilities Genger * Cheaper bills for utilities Crosstabulation Cheaper bills for utilities Total strongly agree agree uncertain disagree strongly disagree Genger male Count 2 1 4 4 0 11 % within Genger 18.2% 9.1% 36.4% 36.4% .0% 100.0% % within Cheaper bills for utilities 66.7% 20.0% 57.1% 50.0% .0% 44.0% % of Total 8.0% 4.0% 16.0% 16.0% .0% 44.0% Residual .7 -1.2 .9 .5 -.9 Std. Residual .6 -.8 .5 .3 -.9 Female Count 1 4 3 4 2 14 % within Genger 7.1% 28.6% 21.4% 28.6% 14.3% 100.0% % within Cheaper bills for utilities 33.3% 80.0% 42.9% 50.0% 100.0% 56.0% % of Total 4.0% 16.0% 12.0% 16.0% 8.0% 56.0% Residual -.7 1.2 -.9 -.5 .9 Std. Residual -.5 .7 -.5 -.2 .8 Total Count 3 5 7 8 2 25 % within Genger 12.0% 20.0% 28.0% 32.0% 8.0% 100.0% % within Cheaper bills for utilities 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% % of Total 12.0% 20.0% 28.0% 32.0% 8.0% 100.0% From the table above most(strong agree and agree) of the people who preferred cheaper bills as a reason for staying out of campus were females. This is shown in the graph below This is a clear indication that the females preferred to chose to live out of campus because of bills. Relationship between gender and Convenience to shopping centre Gender * Convenience to shopping centre Crosstabulation Count Convenience to shopping centre Total strongly agree agree uncertain/neutral disagree strong disagree Gender Male 0 1 3 3 0 7 Female 5 3 5 1 4 18 Total 5 4 8 4 4 25 Only one male believed that Convenience to shopping centre was necessary. Most females agreed that Convenience to shopping centre was necessary. Relationship between age group and Convenience to shopping centre The Convenience to shopping centres one of the reasons of living out of campus as indicated by most of the students who lived out of campus. From the cross tabulation below it can be noted that Age * Convenience to shopping centre Crosstabulation Count Convenience to shopping centre Total strongly agree agree uncertain/neutral disagree strong disagree Age 18-21 3 2 3 2 3 13 22-25 2 2 4 2 0 10 38-41 0 0 0 0 1 1 42-45 0 0 1 0 0 1 Total 5 4 8 4 4 25 Relationship between Gender and Size of the room The dataset contained 25 cases higher students who had volunteered for the survey. Looking the case of 25 who lived in campus most males disagreed or was uncertain that room was very important. This is shown in the table below Genger * Size of the room Crosstabulation Count Size of the room Total strongly agree agree uncertain disagree strongly disagree Genger male 2 3 3 2 1 11 Female 1 3 6 4 0 14 Total 3 6 9 6 1 25 Out of campus Gender * Size of room Crosstabulation Count Size of room Total strongly agree agree uncertain/neutral disagree strongly disagree\ Gender Male 1 1 2 3 0 7 Female 5 6 2 0 5 18 Total 6 7 4 3 5 25 For those living out of campus most females preferred room size as an important factor. From tables, we can see that none of the variables here had any values missing and all 25 records in the dataset were filled. Genger * Basic appliances Crosstabulation Count Basic appliances Total strongly agree agree uncertain diasgree strongly disagree Genger male 0 0 7 3 1 11 Female 4 7 0 3 0 14 Total 4 7 7 6 1 25 Out of campus - Gender * Basic appliances Crosstabulation Count Basic appliances Total strongly agree agree uncertain/neutral disagree strongly disagree Gender Male 2 0 3 2 0 7 Female 4 5 5 1 3 18 Total 6 5 8 3 3 25 50% females who lived out campus said Basic appliances were great consideration as compared to men. In campus Case Processing Summary Age Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Safety 18-21 6 100.0% 0 .0% 6 100.0% 22-25 19 100.0% 0 .0% 19 100.0% For those who lived in campus those aged between 22-25 believed that safety was a concern as they agreed while those of age 18-21 were uncertain as their average is neutral Case Processing Summary Age Cases Valid Missing Total N Percent N Percent N Percent Safty 18-21 13 100.0% 0 .0% 13 100.0% 22-25 10 100.0% 0 .0% 10 100.0% 38-41 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% 42-45 1 100.0% 0 .0% 1 100.0% Figures above display the box plots of the quantitative variables and give us a good idea of the skewness of the data. The outliers for these data are available in the charts or the box plots that have been generated via SPSS. When looking at the box plot of the variable age we can see that there are 4 outliers in the data that is in age group 18-21 and 22-25. As was mentioned earlier when taking into account the level of overstatement in the number of students particularly in a deviation from the norm we had no less than 4 outliers in the measurements of the variable as is evident in figures above. Despite, the skewed nature of the data, the median would be considered the best measure of central tendency in all such data measurements. We had to take into account the small sample size and thus the number of outliers in all data was actually very small for instance in N = 13 measurements barely 2 deviations were noted for the age group 18-21 whilst in the case of the age group 22-25 for confidence completed the deviation was only that of 1 outlier. Comparing this mean with the box plot for the purposes of an estimate we saw the the measure was not too far off. Thus, we would here mention the means for the age group 18-21 is neutral. However at this point nothing can be taken to correct for that figure a box plot may help us approximate the median figure, which is obviously lower than the mean and in this instance estimated to be around agree for in campus students. Normality of data Regarding the idea of a transportation being linked to choice of a place to stay, the majority of those live out of campus either felt neutral or disagreed towards this notion. It can be observed that most of those who live in campus are in need transport as the majority either felt agreed or felt neutral towards this notion. Regression The question is whether there is a difference between the means of safety for in campus and out of campus, in this case the alternative and null hypothesis will be: HO : μ1 -μ2 =0 Ha : μ1 -μ2 ≠0 The following is the output from SPSS at 5% level of significance. Using the statistics shown below we accept the null hypothesis if the p-value is less than 0.05. Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .121 .015 .002 .90 a Predictors: (Constant), stay ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression .934 1 .934 1.163 .284 Residual 62.616 78 .803 Total 63.550 79 a Predictors: (Constant), stay b Dependent Variable: safety Given the above p-value of 0.284 and an F-test 1.163, we conclude that place of stay is not influenced by the place of the student. Chi-test To carry out the chi test for this data the following questions have to be answered. Q1: is there evidence to reject the claim that the safety is important? Q2; is there evidence to accept the hypothesis that the convenience to shopping center is important? Test Statistics Safety Price Convenience to shopping center Roomsize Transport. Chi-Square 10.250 36.775 42.025 1.250 56.100 df 4 2 2 1 3 Asymp. Sig. .036 .000 .000 .264 .000 To answer the above questions the following are the hypothesis for each question. Q1; HO : the safety was not always necessary Ha : the safety was always necessary Q2; HO : the place has is not convenience to shopping center . Ha : the place has is convenience to shopping center .. Q3; HO : the place has no good selection for room size Ha : the place has good selection for room size Q4; HO : student does not transport Ha : student does not transport The next step is to find the critical chi- values at 5% level of significance. The following are the critical values for teach question. Q1: the degrees of freedom are 5-1 =4 giving a critical value of 9.488. Q2; the degrees of freedom is 3-1=2 giving a critical value of 5.991 Q3; the degrees of freedom is 3-1=2 giving a critical value of 5.991 Q4; the degrees of freedom is 2-1=1 giving a critical value of 3.841 Q5; the degrees of freedom is 4-1=3 giving a critical value of 7.815 In question one we reject the null hypothesis because the critical vale is less than the calculated value , therefore we conclude that the safety was always necessary. In question two we reject the null hypothesis since the calculated value is greater than the critical value therefore, we can summarize that there is enough evidence to suggest that the place has is convenience to shopping center. Also in question three we reject the null hypothesis and accept the claim that the place has good selection of room size. In question we too since the calculated value is less than the critical value, we accept the null hypothesis that the place has no good selection for room size. Finally, in question five we reject the null hypothesis and accept the claim that the student need transport Limitations and caveats While the research findings are important, like any other empirical research, this study might suffer from several limitations that need to be acknowledged. These limitations might have impeded the progress of the study to some extent, if not significantly. First, there may be problems with the sample selection procedure and the size of the sample. The sample size is relatively small and a five-year period seems short. However, some previous studies used smaller samples. Similarly, some previous studies used one year cross-sectional samples. Because of the practical limitations of time, effort, and finance, the sample size had to be reduced to a number that is statistically large enough to make a significant contribution. At the same time, it was ensured that the study was completed within the scheduled period of a study. The questionnaire technique has to be taken into account within the context of acquiring the needed data. This data is later categorised by a degree of subjectivity and bias which is seen as a frequent limitation found within different studies which have looked into this type of research. Recommendations and conclusions The study which was carried out to bring forward the different factors which influences students to stay in campus or out of campus identifies different variables. It was analysed that students in the age group 22 – 25 prefer to stay in campus due to factors like safety and family pressure. On the other hand students in the age group 18 – 21 years prefer to stay out of campus due to factors like room and convenience to shopping centres. The results were similar for both male and female students thereby reducing the gender gap. This holds an important bearing for colleges as based on the present situation the college can make necessary arrangements for future batches and ensure that the different resources are used in the best manner. This will avoid wastage and help the college to make necessary arrangements well in advance so that different needs are easily met. References Afzal, H., Khan, M., Rehman, K., Ali, I. & Wajahat, S. (2010). 'Consumer’s trust in the brand: can it be built through brand reputation, brand competence and brand predictability. International Business Research, 3 (1), p. 43-51. Ambler, T., Bhattacharya, C., Keller, K., Lemon, K. & Mittal V. (2002). 'Relating brand and customer perspectives on marketing management. Journal of Service Research , 5 (1), p. 13-25. Aron, A., Aron, E., & Coups, E. J. (2006). Statistics for psychology. Pearson: Pearson Prentice Hall. Bowonder, B., Dambal, A., Kumar, S., & Shirodkar, A. (2010). Innovation strategies for creating competitive advantage. Research Technology Management, 53 (3), p. 19-32. Bryman, A. (2001). Social Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (Third Edition ed.). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Cohen, L. and Manion, L. (1980). Research Methods in Education, London: Croom Helm. Creswell, J., (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. & Love, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction. (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publication Freytag, P. V., & Clarke, A. H. (2001). Business to business segmentation, Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 4, pp.475–86. Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (1991). Research Methods for Managers. London: Paul Chapman Publishing. Gill, J. & Johnson, P. (2002). Research methods for managers. London: Sage Publication. Ghauri, P. & Gronhaug, K. (2005). Research methods in business studies: A practical guide. Harlow, England: FT Prentice Hall. Gore, S., & Altman, D.G., (1992). Statistics in Practice. London: British Medical Association. New York: Wiley, Granovetter M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociolology 91, pp. 481–510 Greene, W. (2011). Econometric Analysis. New York: Pearson Education. Greene, J .C., Kreider, H. & Mayer. E. (2005). Combining qualitative and quantitative methods in social inquiry. In: B. Somekh & C. Lewin (eds), Research methods in the social sciences. London: Sage Publications. Hough, D. & Kratz, C.,1983. Can ‘Good’ Architecture Meet the Market Test?, Journal of Urban Economics, 1983, 14, 40–54. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neuman, W. L. (1997). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches, 3rd edition. Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., & Hungler, B.P. (2001). Essentials of Nursing Research: Methods, Appraisal and Utilization. 5th Ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Punch, K. F. (2005). Introduction to social research: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage. Quinton, S. and Smallbone, T. (2006). Postgraduate research in business: A critical guide. London: Sage. Remenyi, D., Williams, B., Money, A. & Swartz, E. (1998). Doing Research in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method. London: Sage. Rogers, G. & Bouey, E. (1996). Collecting your data. In: L. M. Tutty, M. Rothery, R. M. Grinnell, Jr. (eds.), Qualitative research for social workers: Phases, steps, and tasks (4th ed.), (50-87). Boston: Ally & Bacon. Roy, A. D. (1952). Safety first and the hold of assets. Econometrica 20 (30), 431-449. Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2003). Research Methods for Business Students. London: Pitman Publishing. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2009). Research methods for business students, 5th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Applied Social Science Research Methods Series, Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Walker, J. C., & Evers, C. W. (1999). Research in education: Epistemological issues. In J. P. Keeves & G. Lamomski (Eds.), Issues in Education Research. New York: Pergamon Yates, D., Moore, D. & McCabe, G. (1999). The Practice of statistics. New york : W.H. Freeman and company Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. California: Sage Publications. Zimmerman, J. L. (2002). Contemporary Accounting Research, Synthesis and Critique. Amsterdam Elsevier Science BV. Transmittal letter TO: Supervisor Date: 28/10/14 FROM : ____________________________________________ Student ID#: _______________ October 28, 2014 Mr/Mrs-------------- 3000 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304-1185 USA Find here two copies of my research paper. Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Master’s ----------------------------------at --------------- university The text written herein is under the sole ownership of the author, who is protected by copyright laws. No phrase, quote, or any form of material from this thesis should be made part of any other publication efforts unless given the specific consent of the author in a written capacity. Moreover, any material quoted, following the express consent of the author, should be referenced with the name of the author, or relevantly acknowledged. Signed _________________________________________________ Date ___________________________________________________ Read More