Student Survey Research Report

8/13/2019 Student Survey Research Report

1/89

Mrs. Jennifer Cherneski

Marketing Research Instructor

Northern Alberta Institute of Technology

11762-106 Street

Edmonton, AB T5G 2R1

December 2, 2013

Dear Mrs. Cherneski:

The research team is extremely pleased to submit the report you requested to be completed by

December 2, 2013. This report discusses Students perspectives regarding their level of satisfaction with

the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology instructors, as well as the overall impression of the

institute. This report is titled as “Student Satisfaction Report”.

The purpose of this study is to determine if and how NAIT students evaluate their instructors in all areas

of study. Graphs, charts, cross-tabulations, and a data matrix will be included in this report in order to

interpret the information received from the data. Recommendations and conclusions will also be

incorporated in order to suggest potential improvements and support founding’s.

Thank-you for providing the research team with the necessary tools to complete this report. Should you

have any questions or concerns, our team would be more than happy to discuss our findings with you.

Sincerely,

The Research Team


2/89

Student Satisfaction Report

2013

Prepared for: Jennifer Cherneski, Marketing instructor

Prepared by: Kelsey McKenzie, Steven Lack, Richard Schultz, Cindy Washbrook

and Steve LeBlanc

NAIT | Marketing Research | MARK2267 | Section 101


3/89

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 1

Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1

Results ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3

Methodology ................................................................................................................................................. 4

Instrument Design ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Sampling Issues ......................................................................................................................................... 6

Pretesting .................................................................................................................................................. 7

Data Collection .......................................................................................................................................... 8

Editing/Coding........................................................................................................................................... 9Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 11

Presentation of Findings ............................................................................................................................. 13

Complicated and difficult-to-answer questions...................................................................................... 26

Classification Questions .......................................................................................................................... 30

Data Analysis and Interpretation ................................................................................................................ 34

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 46

References .................................................................................................................................................. 48

Appendices ..................................................................................................................................................... i

Time Log ..................................................................................................................................................... i

Blank Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................. vi

Coded Questionnaire ............................................................................................................................... ix

Data Matrix ............................................................................................................................................. xii

Original Proposal .................................................................................................................................... xxx

Background.................................................................................................................................................. xxx Research Objectives .................................................................................................................................. xxxiv

Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. xxxv

Timing ......................................................................................................................................................... xxxv

Costs .......................................................................................................................................................... xxxvi

Terms of Business ...................................................................................................................................... xxxvi

References ............................................................................................................................................ xxxviii


4/89

1

Executive Summary

Background

Theproblemisthatstudentsarenotgivenavoiceinregardstothequalityofthe

educationtheyarereceiving.Studentsdonothaveaprocedureinwhichtoformally

evaluatetheirinstructors,andtheserviceprovidedbythoseinstructors.Inthisreportthe

researchersaregoingtofocusonhowstudentsevaluatetheirinstructorsonapersonal

level,andiftheyarehappywiththecurrentservicetheyarereceiving.Theresearchers

arealsogoingtodetermineisstudentswouldliketodoanin-classevaluationforevery

instructor.Finally,theresearchersaregoingtodetermineisstudentsconductsecondary

researchontheirinstructorsandifthisresearchaffectstheirevaluationcriteria.

Results

Aftergatheringandinterpretingthedata,mostoftheresultswerenotwhattheresearch

teamexpectedthemtobe.Only25%ofthestudentssurveyedhavevisited

RateMyProfessor.com.Theresearchersweresurprisedbythisinformation,they

assumedthattherewouldbealargerpercentageofstudentsusingthesite,and

unfortunatelythedataproveddifferently.

Theresearchersoriginallyassumedthatstudentsdevelopopinionsabouttheir

instructorsbasedonthegradereceivedintheprogram,buttheresearchedprovidedan

alternativeanswer.Itturnsoutthatthemostpopularvariableusedbystudents,isto

evaluatetheirinstructorsbasedontheirknowledgeabouttheprogram,notgradesas

previouslythought.


5/89

2

Studentsevaluatetheirteachersonapersonalleveleveryday,butnotmanygeta

chancetodoaformalin-classteacherevaluation.Only32%ofstudentssurveyedsaid

thattheyhadachancetoformallyassesstheirinstructors.Theresearchersassumed

thisnumberwouldbealothigher.

Conclusions and Recommendations

NAITcurrentlydoesnothaveanywaytogivestudentsavoiceontheirinstructors,the

onlywaythatstudentscanpostfeelingsabouttheirinstructorswouldbebyusing

websitessuchasRatemyprofessor.com.Thedatacollectedshowedthatmoststudents

donotvisitthesitebecausetheybelieveitisfullofemotionallyconnectedand

unprofessionalpostings.Therefore,theonlywayforstudentstocommunicatetheir

feelingsisbywordofmouth.Thismethodmaybeinfluentialbetweenstudents,butona

professionallevelithasnopull.StudentspayfortheservicesthatNAITprovides,but

thereisnowaytoassessthequalityofthatservice.IfNAITweretoimplementa

campuswidepolicythatenforcedstudentevaluations,thenNAITwouldhaveanofficial

waytomonitortheperformancesoftheirinstructorsfrominsidetheclassroom.Further

researchwillbeneededtodetermineiftheseevaluationswouldhaveaneffectonthe

performanceoftheirinstructors.


6/89

3

Introduction

TheNorthernAlbertaInstituteofTechnologyisawell-establishedtechnicalschool

specializingintradesandbusiness.NAIT’sstudentsareevaluatedeverydayon

aspectssuchasperformance,prof essionalism,andappliedknowledge,butisn’tas

commonthatthetablesareturnedandstudentsareabletoevaluatetheirinstructors.

NAITcurrentlyhasnoestablishedpoliciesthatenforceinstructorstoadminister

evaluations.Withoutthisinformationthereisnowaytodeterminewhatfactorsare

importanttostudentswhilesittinginaclassroom,thereforethereisnowaytoimprove

thequalityofeducationprovided.Toaddresstheseissuestheresearchersaregoingto

focusonhowstudentsevaluatetheirinstructorsonapersonallevel,andiftheyare

happywiththecurrentservicetheyarereceiving.Theresearchersarealsogoingto

determineisstudentswouldliketodoanin-classevaluationforeveryinstructor.Finally,

theresearchersaregoingtodetermineisstudentsconductsecondaryresearchontheir

instructorsandifthisresearchaffectstheirevaluationcriteria.


7/89

4

Methodology

Instrument Design

Thesurveycreatedfortheprojectwasdesignedtobeaself-administeredsurvey.

Respondentswerehandedapen-and-paperandwereaskedtocompletethesurveyat

hisorherownpace.Therespondentsdidnothavetofeelpressuredfortime,andcould

berelaxedwhileansweringthequestions.Therewasnohumanorcomputer

administeringthesurvey,therespondentsansweredthequestionsdirectlyonthe

survey.Thesurveywasintendedtobeanundisguisedsurvey.Theresearcherwould

introducethemselvesandthepurposeofthesurveytopotentialrespondentsbefore

askingthemtocompletethesurvey.Itwasimportanttosomerespondentstoknowwhy

theinformationwasbeingcollected,anditwasthejoboftheadministratortoensure

thattheinformationwasprovided.

Thetypesofquestionsaskedvariedbutthebasicthemeofthequestionnairestayedthe

same.Themajorityofthequestionnairewasformattedsothatrespondentscouldgo

throughitquicklywithminimaldecisionmaking.Inordertomakethispossible,the

researchersonlyincorporatedoneopen-endedquestionandoneLikertscaleinthe

survey.TheresearchersdecidedtouseaLikertscaleinordertodeterminestudent

overallsatisfactionwiththeirinstructors.Theyusedascalefrom1to4(with4being

mostsatisfied)todeterminethis.Theresearchersintentionallydevelopedthescalewith

anevenamountofvariablesinordertoabolisha“middle -of-the-road”response.The

restofthesurveywasmanufacturedbyusingacategoricalresponseformat.Thisformat

wascomprisedofafewmultiplechoice,butmostlydual-choice.Theresearchers


8/89

5

wantedabsoluteanswers,so“yesorno”questionsand“checkallthatapply”were

favorable.

Whencreatingthesurveyitwasimportanttofocusontheobjectivesthatwerefirst

createdintheresearchproposal.Alargeamountofthesurveywasfocusedon

determiningwhatcriteriastudentsevaluatetheirinstructorson.Theresearcherswanted

tolinkasmanyquestionsaspossibletothisobjectiveinordertogainsubstantialdata.

ThesecondobjectivewastodetermineifRatemyprofessor.comwasareputable

secondaryresourceforstudentstolearnandpersonallyevaluatetheirinstructors.The

researcherswantedtodetermineifandwhentherespondentsvisitedthesite,andwhat

thevisitorstookawayfromthesite.Theresearchteamispassionateaboutthe

opportunitytoformallyevaluatetheirinstructors,andwantedtodetermineiffellowNAIT

studentsfeltthesame.Theresearchersaddedafewcategoricalquestionsasking

studentsiftheyhaveeverhadthechancetoformallyevaluatetheirinstructors,andif

theyfeltitwastakenintoconsideration.

Ittooktwoweekswithseveralinterventionsandrevisionsinordertocompletetheinitial

draftforthesurvey.Itdidn’ttakelongtowritethequestions,becausetheresearchers

knewwhatquestionstheywantedanswered.Theproblemsfacedwerethoseof

questionstructureandquestionnairedesign.Thesurveywasdesignedsothatthere

wouldbenobiasinthequestions.Opinionswerekeptfromthephrasingofthe

questionnairetoensurethattherewouldbenoissueswithabias,andallquestions

weretobeansweredneutrally.


9/89

6

Sampling Issues

ThepopulationunderstudywasthestudentpopulationattheNorthernAlbertaInstituteof

Technology(NAIT).Thesizeofthepopulationincludedbothcreditandnon-creditstudents(a

totalofapproximately60,095students),invaryingprograms.Theresearchersweregiven210

surveystoadministertostudents,butonlyreceived201respondents.Thesamplesizewas

minimalcomparedtotheactualsizeofthepopulation,butitwasassumedtoberepresentative

oftheentirepopulation. Inordertoreceiveun-biasresponsesthatwerenotlimitedtoacertainfacultyatNAIT,the

researcherspracticedaprobabilitysamplingmethod.Itwasimportanttoensurethateach

prospecthadanequalchanceofselection,sotheresearchersusedaformoftherandom

samplemethodtomakethatpossible.Insteadofselectingpotentialrespondentsfromasample

frame,theresearcherswereinstructedtoapproachrandomstudentsandaskthemtocomplete

thesurvey.Therewerenojudgmentsregardingwhowasaskedtotakepartinthesurvey,the

surveyswerehandedtoallwillingindividuals.Theonlyjudgmentmadeguidedtheresearchers

towheretheyshouldadministersurveys.Iftheresearcherswantedtosurveyalargeamountof

businessstudents,theywouldadministersurveysintheBusinessTower’sLoungeontheeighth

floor.IftheresearchersneededtosurveymoreITandengineeringstudents,theywould

administersurveysinthestudyareasintheSpartanCentre. Thereliabilityofthesurveyvariesfromquestiontoquestion.Whenaskingstudentsaboutthe

aspectsonwhichtheyreviewedtheirinstructors,mostoftheansweredthequestion“Whichof

thefollowingfactorsdoyouconsiderwhileevaluatingyourinstructors?”verysimilarly.Themost

commonfactorpickedwas“knowledgeable”leadingtheresearcherstobelievethatthisis

reliabledata.Inregardstothevalidityofthemeasurement,theresearchershavenowayto


10/89

7

determineifrespondentsansweredthequestionstruthfullyornot.Theymustassumethatthe

dataprovidedishonestandaccurate.

Pretesting

Aftercreatingthefirstroughdraftofthesurvey,alltheresearchgroupsgottogether

duringthemorningblockforanhourtoanhourandahalftogooveranddiscussallthe

surveys.Eachgroupwasgivenacopyofthesurvey,includingtheinstructortogoover

andmakenotes.Constructivefeedbackwasgivenduringthelengthoftheblockfor

eachgroup,allowinganychangestobemadebythegroup’smembersbeforethenext

pretest;adayortwolater.Therewereatotalof3pretestingclasses,withatotalof15

studentsandoneinstructor.ThepurposeofthePretestswastodeterminewaysof

improvingeachother’ssurveystoachievebetterresultswhilemaintainingashort,

straight-forwardsurveywithoutconfusingquestionsforthepopulationbeingsurveyed.

Eventhoughconstructivefeedbackwasneverintendedtobetakenpersonally,

problemsarosewhenstudentswhomadethesurveywoulddefendthequestionsthey

providedwhencriticismwasgivenbyothers.Toresolvetheseproblems,theinstructor

wouldgivetheirpersonalopiniononwhateachgroupshoulddoandgivethefinal

judgmentcallonwhetherornotanythingwaschangedtoeachresearchgroup.The

pretestingwasagreatwaytocommunicatewiththeothergroupswithregardsto

ensuringaconsistentsurveydesignwhilegeneratingideasforallgroupsonquestions

andthoughtsgroupswouldn’thavethoughtofontheirown.


11/89

8

Data Collection

Everyresearchgroupwasgiventwoweeksoncethefinalsurveywasreviewedand

printedtocompleteandcodethesurveyintosoftware,ensuringthatitwasreadyfor

dataanalysiswithcrosscomparisons.Thefirstweekwasintendedfortheuseof

interviewingandgatheringallthesurveysneededforthenextstepofinputtingdata.A

fullweekwastheallowanceof3classes,1.5hoursforatotalof4.5hourstocomplete

200surveys.Toensuretheleastamountoftimewastakenoncompletingthesurvey,

theresearchgroupprintedandcompletedtheirsurvey,takingonaverage2-4minutes

tocomplete.Underthesecircumstances,withthetimegiven,theamountofsurveys

completedwas137outofthe200surveys.

Toshortenthetimetakentocompletethesurveys,theresearcherssetoutingroupsof

3and2toavarietyofareasacrossNAITsuchastheCommonMarketandFresh

Express;thetwolargestcafésonthecampus.Thisallowedlargersamplesofthe

overallpopulationtobesurveyedandsignificantlycuttingdownthetimeneededtotake

eachsurvey.

Withtimerestrictions,thesurveyneededtobecreatedusingstraight-forwardquestions

thatwouldnotconfusethosesurveyed,whilemaintaininganinterviewfreesurvey,

allowingfortheresearcherstohandoutsurveysafterintroducingthemselves,tellingthe

subjectswhatthemainpurposeofthesurveywas,andwhattheywantedtoaccomplish

withtheinformationanonymouslycollected.


12/89

9

Editing/Coding

Therewillalwaysbeerrorsandmisjudgmentswhenitcomestosurveys;it’suptothe

researcherstotryandmitigateandresolvetheselimitationsanderrorsfromskewingthe

finalsurveyresults.Whilethecodingistakingplace,researcherscompiledatafrom

questionsthatallowedusersinvolvementtocategorizemanyanswersintooneormany

basedonfrequency.Inoneformoranother,everyquestionthatallowedanyuserinput

hadtobeedited.Whentheresearchersaskedhowstudentspaidfortheireducation,

multipletimesthosesurveyedwouldanswer,“me”,“workinghard”,“myownmoney”

whichisn’tdif ficulttoseetheyarethesame,butithastobeeditedtominimizethelist

the“other”optioncontains.Editingwasdonewhilecodingineachsurvey,thisallowed

foreachsurveytobelookedatandeditedfortheproperinformationtobeinputted.

Commonproblemsthatconfusedorwasn’tcleartotherespondentswerequestionsthat

containedtheoptionto“Skip”.Eventhoughthequestionwasintendedfortheuserto

selectnoandskiptothenextquestionthat’sapplicabletothem,mostwouldnotcheck

theboxspecifyingnoandmoveon.Researcherswerethenabletomakeajudgment

callandeditthosedocumentsforproperinputofthedatawhencoding.Codingthe

surveyisoneofthehardestbutessentialpartsofanalyzingthedata;researchershave

toensurethatthecodesworkproperlyandalegendisprovidedtoensureproper

understandingbyoutsiders.Atotalof41variableswereused,withamajorityof

variablesbeingusedinquestionsthatcontaineda“Checkallthatapply”inwhicheach

variablewouldhavea1foransweredand0forunanswered;makingiteasierforthe

researcherstoinputandifrequired,specifydataonmultiplelevels.Forquestions


13/89

10

containingasimple“Yes”or“No”,onevariablewasusedwitha1foryes, 2fornoand0

forleftblank.

Data Analysis

OneofthemostversatileprogramstouseforinputtingacodedsurveyisMicrosoft

Excel.Thealgorithmsintheprogramallowforaneasycrosscomparisonofspecific

datausingpreloadedstatisticalformulas.TheDataMatrixisacompilationofdata

derivedfromthesurveyinacodedformatusingvariablesandnumberstodetermine

questionsandthenumbersassociatedwiththeanswers.Thevariablesareinputtedat

thetopoftheworksheetalongwithalegendattheveryendtohelpidentifyhowthe

codeworksandwhatvariablesmatchwhatquestions.Whenanalyzingthedata,finding

outthesingularinformationsuchashowmanyMalestookthesurveyandhowmany

Femalestookthesurvey,thepreloadedCOUNTIFstatisticalformulahelpedidentifyand

seekoutthatinformationbasedonusingthevariablethatcorrespondedwiththe

questionGenderanduse1or2todetermineMaleorFemales.Whenwantedto

determinehowmanyMaleswereina1st,2nd,3rdor4thyear,researcherswouldusethe

formulaCOUNTIFStodetermineacross-referencebetweenmultiplevariablesto

determinethedesiredoutcomes.

Analysisofthedatacanrunintomanyissueswiththewaythesurveywascoded.When

comparingmultiplevariables,oneoftheissuestheformulascouldrunintoisifthere

was130males,andtheywantedtodeterminetheyearofstudiestheywerein,thetotal

ofyearswouldn’tadduptothe130,possiblyconfusingtheresearchersandskewingthe

finalresults.Tooffsetandmitigatetheseissues,researcherswouldreversethe


14/89

11

comparisonstofirstdeterminehowmanystudentswereinwhatyearandthencross

comparethatnumberwithhowmanymalesandfemaleswereineach.Thisallowsfora

totalnumberbasedoffhowmanychosetoselecttheyear,notthetotalpopulation

surveyed.

Limitations

Theresearcherstookmanymeasurestoensurethattheprojectwasdoneinanefficient

andorderlyfashion.Therewereactionsandproceduresinplaceinordertoensurea

positiveoutcomeofthestudy.Theresearcherswouldmeetduringtimesthatfit

everyone’sscheduletoensurenoonewasleftoutofanyinformation.Inputtingdatawas

doneasagroupeffortsothatnoindividualswereleftoutorburdenedwithtoomuch

work.

Inordertoensurethatthesurveyswereadministeredontime,theresearchersdecided

tosplitintoteamstocoverdoublethearea.Butbeforethegroupsseparated,theywould

organizethecompletedsurveysonabasisoftheprogramsstudentswereenrolledin.

Thiswouldallowresearcherstofocusonwheretoadministersurveys.Iftherewasa

largeamountofbusinessstudentssurveyedandafewamountofculinarystudents,the

researcherswouldheadtowheretheculinarystudentswouldgather(Common

Market).Thisorganizationprocesswasanattempttogetanevenamountofstudentsin

everyfacultyatNAITtocompletethesurvey,thatwaytheresultswouldbewell-

rounded.

Duringthecourseofthisproject,theresearchershadtoovercomevariousobstaclesin

ordertocompletetheresearch.Thefirstlimitationwasthetimeconstraintsonthe


15/89

12

individualcomponents,andthetimesavailabletodothesecomponents.The

administrationofthesurveyswasdoneduringthefirstblock(8amto9:20am)onthe

Monday,Wednesday,andFridayontheweekofthe27thofOctober.Theresearchers

splitintoteamsandadministeredthesurveystowillingrespondents.Theonlyproblem

wasthattherewasalimitedamountofstudentsoutofclassatthosespecifictimes.This

madeitdifficulttoadministeralargeamountofsurveysinashortperiodoftime,the

researchershadtoworkquicklyinordertojustbarelyadministerthesurveysontime.If

theadministrationprocessweretoberepeated,theresearcherswouldpickdifferent

timestohandoutquestionnaires.Usinghindsight,thebesttimestoadministersurveys

wouldbeduringthehourssurroundinglunchtime(between11amand1pm),because

therewouldbealargeamountofstudentsoutofclass,anditwouldtakelesstimeto

administerover200surveystostudents.

Anotherlimitationtheresearchershadtoendurewasthelengthofthequestionnaire.

Thequestionnairehadover20questionsand41variables;thismadetheprocessof

inputtingthedataaverylengthyandtimeconsuming.Theprocessofinputtingallthe

surveystookfivedaysandtenandahalfhoursofworkbytheresearchers.Thegroup

metduringtheirbreakstodotheimputingprocesstogether.Ifthesurveywasshorter,it

woulddefinitelytakelesstimeandthegroupcouldhavemovedonwithotheraspectsa

lotsooner.Ifthequestionnaireweretoberedesigned,theresearcherswouldfocusonly

ontheobjectivesstatedintheproposalandreducethenumberofunimportant

questionssothatitwouldbeshorter.Ifthesurveywereshorter,respondentswouldbe

abletofinishitfaster,andtheresearcherswouldbeabletoinputthedatamore

efficiently.


16/89

13

Presentation of Findings

1. What program are you currently taking at NAIT?a. Thepurposeoftheclassificationquestionwastodeterminewhat

programsstudentstake,inordertosegmentthembydemographics.This

wasanimportantquestionsbecauseitwouldhelpdetermineifstudentsin

thesamefacultythink oranswerthequestionsinasimilarway.

Theprimaryobjectiveforthisquestionwastogatheranequalnumberofrespondents

fromeachfacultyinordertoequallyevaluatethedata.Therealityisthatthe

researchersdidnotachievethisgoal,andwerefarfromit.Themajorityofthestudents

surveyedwereprimarilyHealthandSafety,Business,EngineeringandApplied

31%

12% 12%

19%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Business &

Administration

Engineering & Applied

Sciences

Health & Safety Trades Others

%

O F T O T A L S U R V E Y E D

PROGRAM

What program are you currently taking at NAIT?


17/89

14

Sciences,andTrades.Theresearchersfeltitwasimportanttocomparethefacultyto

thepopularityofinstructorshandingoutsurveys.Theresearcherswantedtoknowifthe

administrationofinstructorevaluationsvariedfromprogramtoprogram.Thiswasgoing

tobeprimarilydifficultinaccordancetothelackofrepresentationfromlesscovered

programs.Itwasexpectedthatmostofthe201surveyswouldbefilledoutbybusiness

students,buttherepresentationofHealthandSafetystudentswasasurprise.

2. What year are you currently in at NAIT?a. Thepurposeofthisclassificationquestionwastoseeiftheyeartowhich

studentsarecurrentlyenrolledaffectedhow satisfiedtheyarewiththeir

instructors.Theresearcherswantedtoseeifstudentsevaluatedtheir

teachersdifferentlyastheiryearswenton.

Themajorityoftherespondentswereintheirfirstyearofeducation,andtherestofthe

respondentsaredividedintothesecondhalfoftherespondents.Theresearchers

51%

25%

10%

13%

What year are you currently in at NAIT?

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4


18/89

15

assumedthattherewouldbemoresecondyearstudents,atleastanequalamountof

firstandsecondyearstudents.Thenumbersforthethirdandfourthyearstudentswere

notsurprising;NAIToffersmanydiplomaprogramsthatmakestudentsindustryreadyin

justtwoyears.

3. What is important to you while at NAIT?a. Thepurposeofthissurveywastowarmuptherespondents.The

researcherswantedtogettherespondentsthinkingabouttheirvalues

regardingtheireducation.“Instructors”wasusedasanoptiontogetthe

respondentstorecalltheinitialexpectationsofpost-secondaryinstructors.

Thatwaytherespondentscancomparetheirpreviousexpectationstotheir

currentsituationregardinginstructors.

Size of

ClassesInstructors Tuition

Quality of

Instructors

Recreation

al Activities

Overall

pricing of

consumer

goods

Other

Student Respondents 98 124 94 153 29 41 17

% of all students surveyed 49% 62% 47% 76% 14% 20% 8%

49%

62%

47%

76%

14%

20%

8%

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

# O F R E S P O N D E N T S

What matters to students while at NAIT

Student Respondents % of all students surveyed


19/89

16

Theresearchersusedthisquestiontodeterminewhatinitiallydrewandkeptstudentsat

NAITfortheirchoiceinpost-secondaryeducation.Theresearcherswereunsurewhich

variableswereimportanttostudents,andwhatvariableswereunconsidered.The

resultsweresurprising,themostpopularselectionforstudentswas“Qualityof

Instructors”,andsincethemajorityofthesurveywasfocusedaroundinstructorquality,

thefactthatstudentsselectedthisoptionshowstheirpassionforthisissue.

4. On a scale of 1 4 (with 4 being most satisfied) how satisfied are you with yourinstructors?

a. ThisLikertscalewasstrategicallycreatedwithanevennumberofvariablesinordertoabolisha“middleoftheroad”response.Itwas

designedtoensurethatrespondentswouldgiveanabsoluteanswer.

1 (Least Satisfied) 2 3 4 (Most Satisfied)

18 – 21 2 13 55 30

22 – 25 0 6 29 19

26 – 29 0 3 13 5

30+ 0 0 11 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


How satisfied each age range was with their instructors

overall


20/89

17

Theresearcherswantedtousethisquestiontodeterminetheoverallsatisfactionwith

theservicesprovidedbytheinstructorsatNAIT.Thisdatawouldbefurtherusedto

comparewithothervariablestodetermineitsrelevancy.Thepopularityofthethird

option(Satisfied)wastobeexpected,theresearchersknewtherewouldn’tbeahigh

numberofstudentschoosing“LeastSatisfied”asananswer.Thisdatawouldbe usedto

betterinterpretothervariablesthatdirectlyrelatetotheresearchobjectives.

5. Which of the following factors do you consider while evaluating your instructors?(Check all that apply)

a. Thepurposeofthisclassificationquestionwastodetermineiftherearesimilaritiesregardingthepersonalevaluationofinstructors.Whetherthat

bebyfaculty,gender,age,theresearcherswantedtoknowifpeopleof

similartraitsreviewedinstructorssimilarly.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

R E S P O N D E N T S

FACTORS FOR EVALUATION

What factors students consider when evaluating their

instructors

Business & Administration Engineering & Applied Sciences Health & Safety Trades Others


21/89

18

Theresearchersdidnotknowwhattoexpectforthisquestion,theyweren’tsurewhat

evaluatingfactorwouldbethemostpopularamongstudents.Themostpopular

responsewas“Knowledgeable”,almostallthestudentsineachoftheprograms

selectedthisvariable.Thistellstheresearchersthatstudentsarehighlyconsciousin

regardstohowwelltheirinstructorsknowaboutwhattheyareteaching.Itseemsthat

studentsexpecttheirinstructorstobeexpertsinwhatthey’recommunicatingtothe

classroom.Thisdatahelpstoanswertheprimaryobjectiveintheproposal,whichis

“howstudentsevaluatetheirinstructors”.Thedatashowsthatstudentsprimarilydonot

focusonphysicalcharacteristicswhenevaluatingtheirinstructor,theytendtoevaluate

basedonknowledgeandexperience.

6. Have you ever been on RateMyProfessor.com? If no, skip to question 12.a. ThepurposeofthequestionwastodetermineifRatemyprofessor.comisa

popularchoiceforcollegestudentstofindsecondaryinformationontheir

instructors.

25%

75%

RATEMYPROFESSOR.COM

Have used RateMyProfessor.com Haven't Used RateMyProfessor.com


22/89

19

Thedatacollectedforthisquestionwasadisappointmentfortheresearchers,they

thoughtthattherepresentationforvisitorswouldbemoreequal.Only51outof201

studentssaidtheyhavevisitedthesite.Thisinformationcommunicatesthat

Ratemyprofessor.comisnotapopulartoolforstudentstodiscovertheabilitiesoftheir

instructor.Thisanswersanotherresearchobjectivewrittenintheproposal,the

researcherswantedtodetermineifRatemyprofessor.comwasusedbystudentsto

becomeinformedabouttheirinstructors.Thedatadisplaysthatitisnotafrequently

usedtoolbystudents.Itcanbeassumedthatmoststudentsdiscoverinformationby

simplyattendinglectures.

7. When do you typically use Ratemyprofessor.com?a. Theresearcherswantedtousethisquestiontodetermineiftherewasa

specifictimeduringthecourseofthetermthatstudentsusethewebsite.

Theywantedtoknowifstudentsdopreliminaryresearchtoknowwhatto

expect,researchtosecureopinionsthattheyaredeveloping,orpostdated

researchtoseeifotherstudentssharedasimilarexperience.

46%

32%

22%

WHEN STUDENTS TYPICALLY USE

RATEMYPROFESSOR.COM

Before the class program During the program After the program


23/89

20

ThedatashowsthatmoststudentsvisitRatemyprofessor.combeforetheystartthe

program.Itcanbeassumedthatstudentsvisitthesiteatthistimeinordertoknowwhat

toexpect.Thisshowsthatthemostpopulartimetoretrieveinformationfromthesiteis

beforetheprogramstarts,thisalsoshowsthatalotofstudentsarevisitingthesite,but

notalotofstudentsareleavingreviews.Thoughthemajorityofthestudents(54%)visit

thesiteduringandafterendingtheprogram,furtherresearchwillhavetobeconducted

todetermineifthesestudentspartakeinleavingreviews.Sinceonly51students

answeredthisquestion,theinformationisdividedmoresointhegraphabove.The

informationcannotbeusedtorepresenttheentirepopulationofRatemyprofessor.com

visitorsorNAITstudentvisitors.

8. Did Ratemyprofessor.com affect how you evaluate your instructor?a. Thepurposeofthisquestionwastodetermineifvisitorsofthewebsite

tookinformationawayfromthepostingsandappliedittotheircurrent

situations.Theresearcherswantedtodetermineifthepostingson

Ratemyprofessor.comwereinfluential.

37%

63%

Did RateMyProfessor.com affect how you

evaluated your instructors?

Yes No


24/89

21

Thedatadisplayedshowsthatstudentsarenotheavilyinfluencedbyoutsidesources.

Overhalfoftherespondentsremainedindependentaftervisitingthesite,andwerenot

influencedbythepostingsfromotherstudents.Theresearchersassumedthatthedata

wouldbereversed,butwithsuchasmallamountofstudentsrespondingtothequestion,

thedatacannotbeusedasanaccuraterepresentation.

9. Did you agree or disagree with your findings on Ratemyprofessor.com?a. Thepurposeofthisquestionwastodetermineiftheopinionspostedon

Ratemyprofessor.comwerepopular,orunique.

Almost70%ofrespondentstothequestionagreewiththepostingsfoundon

Ratemyprofessor.com.Thereisnowaytodeterminewhatthepostingsareorwhat

opinionstheyendorse,buttheresearcherscanassumethatthemajorityofwhatis

foundiscommonconceptions.Thisresponsewastobeexpected,theresearchersknow

thatstudentsvisitthesiteinordertoconfirmtheiropinionswiththoseofotherstudents,

69%

31%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Did you agree or disagree with your findings from

RateMyProfessor.com?

Agreed Disagreed


25/89

22

andtoseeifotherssharethesameopinion.Thedatasuggeststhatstudentsdoseem

tosharesimilaropinionsabouttheirinstructors.

10. Would you recommend Ratemyprofessor.com as an accurate representation ofyour instructors? Explain

a. TheresearcherswantedthisquestiontogettherespondentstothinkabouttheirexperienceonRatemyprofessor.com,anddetermineifthe

informationthewebsiteprovidedwasworthsharing.Theresearchers

wantedtohaveaninsighttowhyorwhynottheinformationprovidedis

applicable.

Theresearchersfoundthatmostoftherespondentsagreedwiththepostingson

Ratemyprofesor.com,andthatthereviewsrepresentedtheirinstructorsappropriately.

67%

33%

Was RateMyProfessor.com an accurate

respresentation of your instructors?

Yes No


26/89

23

Theresearchersexpectedahigheroutcomeofpositiveexperiences,butitappearsthat

aportionofthestudentsdidnotfindthatRatemyprofessor.comwasareputablesource

forinstructorevaluations.Mostoftherespondentswhochose“yes”asananswerd id

notexplainwhy,butthemajorityofthe“no”respondentsleftsimilarviews, Mostofthe

reviewsonRatemyprofessor.comareintheextremesofeitherpositiveornegative.Of

thestudentsthatdidexplainwhy,themostpopularreasonfornotagreeingwasalack

ofprofessionalisminthepostings.

11. Did you receive any opinions about your instructors by word of mouth?a. Thepurposeofthisquestionwastoseeifstudentsfoundanyinsighton

theirinstructorsfromotherstudents.

Theresearchersconcludedthatwhilethedataissimilartostudentsagreeingwiththe

opinionsonRatemyprofessor.com,therewasahigherresponsetothisquestion.More

studentsreceivedopinionsbywordofmouththantheydidbyusing

62%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Did you receive opinions about your instructors by word of mouth?

Did you receive opinions about your instructors by

word of mouth?

Yes No


27/89

24

Ratemyprofessor.com.Theresearcherscanrelatethistotheobjectivebystatingthat

studentsdosearchfor,andreceivesecondaryinformationabouttheirinstructors.

12. Did you agree or disagree with your findings by word of mouth?a. Thepurposeofthisquestionwastodetermineiftheopinionsspreadingby

wordofmouthwerepopularordependenttotheindividualexperienceof

thesource.

Thedataaboveillustratesthattherespondents,afterreceivingopinionsfromothersby

wordofmouth,mostlyagreedwiththesourceoftheopinion.Theresearchersusedthe

datatoconcludethat,asexpected,therespondentsandthesourceofthewordof

mouthweremostlyinagreementwiththeiropinionsabouttheirinstructors.Most

studentsthathavehadthesameinstructorforapost-secondaryclasshaverelatively

thesamereactiontohowtheyteachintheclassroom.

69%

31%

Did you agree or disagree with the findings by word of

mouth?

Agreed Disagreed


28/89

25

13. Have you had the chance to in-class evaluate your instructors? If no, skip toquestion 18.

a. Thepurposeofthisskipquestionistoseeifanyoftherespondentshavehadtheopportunitytofilloutasurveyevaluatingtheirinstructorswhilein

theirclasses.Theresearcherswantedtofindouthowmanyrespondents

havereceivedasurveyin-classregardingtheperformanceoftheir

instructors.

Thedatashowsthatoutofthe201respondentsthatcompletedthesurvey,32%of

studentsenrolledinclassesatNAIThadbeengivenanin-classevaluationbytheir

instructors.Theresearchersthoughtthedatashowedwhattheyexpected.Thenumber

ofinstructorsatNAITthatoffertheirstudentsanoutlettoprovidefeedbackinan

anonymouswayisnothigh.

32%

68%

How many students overall have had the

chance to take an in-class evaluation

In-Class Evaluation Have not been given an in-class evaluation


29/89

26

Complicated and difficult-to-answer questions

14. Did you think it was a fair evaluation?a. Thepurposeofthisquestionistofindoutiftherespondents,thathave

receivedanin-classevaluation,thoughtthatitwasapropersurveyto

judgetheperformanceoftheirinstructor.

Whenreceivingaperformanceevaluationfromtheirinstructorstocomplete,themajority

ofrespondentsfoundthattheevaluationwasafairrepresentationfortheirexperience

withtheirinstructors.Theresearchersagreedthatwhenevaluationsaregivento

students,theyareausefultoolofgivingstudentfeedbacktotheirinstructorsaftera

semesteroflessons.

74%

26%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Did you think your in-class evaluation for your

instructor(s) was fair?

Yes No


30/89


31/89

28

16. Did all of your instructors pass out an evaluation?a. Thisquestionisimportanttotheresearcherstofindoutif,orany,ofthe

respondent’sinstructorsgavethemanevaluationtocomplete.The

researchersusedthisquestiontoseeifinstructorsthatteachacertain

programpassoutevaluationsmorethanothers.

OutofalloftheprogramsavailableatNAIT,lessthanhalfreceivedanin-class

evaluationfromtheirinstructors.Theresultswerenotwhattheresearchersexpected.

Outsideofthebusinessfaculty,theresearchersexpectedahighernumberofin-class

evaluationsforfacultiessuchasTrades,andEngineering.Theinstructorsthatdonot

passoutevaluationswillnotknowhowtheirteachingstylescomeacrosstotheir

students.

Business &

Administrati

on

Health &

Safety

Engineering

& Applied

Sciences

Trades Others

Number of students in the

program given an evaluation for

their instructor

30 4 10 9 14

% of students who filled out an

evaluation from the program48% 16% 42% 23% 28%

30

4

10 9

14

48%

16%

42%

23%28%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

How many students from each program have had the chance to take

an in-class evaluation

Number of students in the program given an evaluation for their instructor

% of students who filled out an evaluation from the program


32/89

29

17. If your in-class evaluation was taken into consideration by your institution, wouldyou be more likely to fill it out?

a. Thepurposeofthisquestionistoseeiftherespondentswouldcompleteanin-classsurveybasedontheperformanceoftheirinstructors,ifthe

surveyswouldbeusedbyNAITasajobperformancereviewafterevery

semester,orattheendoftheteachingyear.Theresearcherswantedto

seehowmanyrespondentswouldcompleteasurvey,iftheresultshadan

impactontheirjobstatusatNAIT.

Theresultsfromthisquestionwereexactlywhattheresearchersexpectedtosee.Ifthe

resultsofanin-classevaluationwereusedbyNAITasaperformancereview,orbythe

instructorsthemselvesasawaytoimprovethewaytheyteach,almostallofthe

respondentswouldcompleteone.Thisshowsthatmoststudentshaveopinionsabout

instructors,andwouldtakeadvantageofanopportunitytoevaluatethemifgiven.

89%

11%

If your evaluation was taken into consideration, would you be

more likely to fill it out?

Yes No


33/89

30

Classification Questions

18. Male or Female?a. Thisclassificationquestion’spurposeistofindiftherespondentismaleor

female.Theresearchersfeltitwasimportanttoknowthegenderofthe

respondentstoputthemintocategoriesfordataanalysis.

Whenhandingoutsurveysforstudentstofillout,theresearcherstriedtoreachaneven

amountofmalesandfemaletohaveasrespondents.Theresearchersdidn’twantto

haveanextremedifferenceofrespondentsbetweenthetwogenders,butrathertriedto

approachasmanyfemalesasmales.Thedatashowsthatmoremalesendedupas

respondents,basedsolelyonthefactthatthereweremoremalesavailabletofillouta

surveythantherewerefemaleswhenthesurveyswerecompleted.

Males, 115,

59%

Females,86,

41%

Males and Females Surveyed

Males Females


34/89

31

19. Age Rangea. Thisclassificationquestion’spurposeistofindouttheageofthe

respondents.Theresearcherswantedtoknowiftheageofthe

respondentshadaneffectonwhetherornotstudentswantedtoformally

evaluatetheirinstructors.

Thedatashowsthatthemostfrequentagerangesofrespondentswere18-21.This

didn’tcomeasasurprisetotheresearchers,asmostpost -secondarystudentsattending

NAITarerecenthighschoolgraduates,orareonlyafewyearsoutofhighschool.

52%

29%11%

8%

Age Ranges

18-21 22-25 26-29 30+


35/89

32

20. Income Rangea. Thisclassificationquestionspurposeistofindoutamorepersonalfact

abouttherespondents.Knowingtheincomerangeoftherespondents

helpstheresearchersputtherespondentsintocategoriesforthedata

analysisprocess.

Theresearchersexpectedthemajorityofrespondentstohaveanincomeof$10,000or

less,whichthedataprovedcorrect.Seeingasmostoftherespondentsforthesurvey

areinthe18to21agegroup,thatdemographicstilllivesathomewiththeirparents,

withapart-timejob,ornotworkingatallwhileinschool.Thiswouldleadtosmall

numbers,suchastheonesabove,showingthatmostpost-secondarystudentsdonot

haveahighincome.

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

$0-$10,000 $10,001-$15,000 $15,001-$25,000 $25,001-$60,000 $60,001+

# o f r e s p o n d e n t s

Income

What students satisfaction level is based on their income



36/89

33

21. How do you pay for you education?a. Thepurposeofthisclassificationquestionistofindouthowthe

respondentspaidfortheirpost-secondaryeducation.Thegroupfeltitwas

importanttofindoutthatiftherespondentspaidfortheireducation

themselves,theywouldexpecthigherqualityinstructorsandclasses

providedtothematNAIT.

Knowingthatmostoftherespondentsareatayoungage,anddon’thaveahigh

income,theresearcherswerenotsurprisedtoseethatthemajorityofrespondents

eitherpayfortuitionfromtheirparents,orbystudentloans.Moststudentswouldn’tbe

abletoaffordapost-secondaryeducationontheirown,andthedatashowsthatstudent

loans,parentspayingfortuition,grants,andscholarshipsarethemostpopularwayto

payforit.

0

10

20

30

40

50

Student Loans Parents/Relatives Grants Scholarships Other

espondets

Payment Options

How students pay for education and theirsatisfaction level



37/89

34

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Objective #1

Todeterminehowstudentsarecurrentlyevaluatingtheirinstructors.

Question 5:Whichofthefollowingfactorsdoyouconsiderwhileevaluatingyourinstructors?

of female students Total female studentssurveyed

The % of females versusthe total surveyed

Age 8 79 10%Gender 5 79 6%Class Size 21 79 27%Grade Received 25 79 32%Knowledgeable 71 79 90%Accessible/Availability 51 79 65%Other 7 79 9%

10% 6%

27%32%

90%

65%

9%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

01020304050607080


FACTORS WHEN EVALUATING INSTRUCTORS

What factors females students considerwhen evaluating their instructors

Female Student Respondents % Of All Females Surveyed


38/89

35

of male students Total male studentssurveyed

The % of males versusthe total surveyed

Age 18 115 16%Gender 7 115 6%Class Size 20 115 17%Grade Received 36 115 31%Knowledgeable 106 115 92%Accessible/Availability 60 115 52%Other 16 115 14%

Itwasimportanttotheresearcherstounderstandwhatfactorsinfluenceastudentwhen

theyarepersonallyevaluatingtheirinstructors.Togetaclearerinsightintothese

factors,theresearchersbrokedownthedatabasedongendertofindwhichvariables

malesandfemaleconsiderthemost.Theresultsconcludedthatbothmaleandfemale

studentsvalue“knowledgeable”and“accessible/availability”asthemostimportant

factorswhenevaluatingtheirinstructors.“Studentsviewedthecharacteristicsof

availabilityandhelpfulnesstolargelybysynonymouswithquality(Alliance,2011).”

Whenreviewingthemaleresponses,theresearchersweresurprisedtodiscoverthat

16%6%

17%

31%

92%

52%

14%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

90%100%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

# O F R E S P O N D E N T

S

What factors male students consider

when evaluating their instructors

Male Student Respondents % Of All Males Surveyed


39/89

36

malestudentstendtovalue“age”and“classsize”asequalevaluatingfactors.The

researchersdidnotexpecttoseethosetwovariablestohaveequalimportance.“Class

size”wasthoughttobeamorepopularvariablethanstudentbasingopinionsontheage

ofaninstructor.Uponfurtherdiscussion,theresearchersconcludedthatstudents

wouldn’twantayoungerinstructorthathasn’thadverymuch“realworld”experiencein

theirchosenprogram,rather,theywantaninstructorthathashadyearsforknowledge

topassalong.

Question 13

13)Haveyouhadthechancein-classtoevaluateyourinstructors?

# Of Respondents Frequency (%)

Yes 67 33%

No 134 67%

Total 201 100%

QUESTION 13

Thisquestionismeanttodeterminehowmanystudentsactuallygettoevaluatetheir

instructors.Thiswaschosenasaquestionbecauseithelpstosetupthetoneforthe

33%

67%

Have you had the chance in-class to evaluate

your instructors?

Yes No


40/89


41/89

38

Question 3whatisimportanttoyouwhileatNAIT?

Business &Administration

Engineering& Applied

Science

Health &Safety

Trades Others Total Frequency(% of 201

surveyed)

Age 6 5 4 3 8 26 13%

Gender 4 1 1 3 6 15 7%

Class Size 14 10 4 7 8 43 21%

Grade

Received in

Program

25 12 5 7 20 69 34%

Knowledgeable 57 23 23 39 41 183 91%

Accessible/

Available

37 13 20 21 25 116 58%

Other 6 4 5 5 4 24 12%

Accordingtotheresults,themajorityofstudentsfeelthat“knowledgeable”isthemost

importantqualitywhileattendingNAIT.Studentswanttolearnfrominstructorsthathave

49%

62%

47%

76%

14%

20%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Size of Classes Instructors Tuition Quality of

Instructors

Recreational

Activities

Overall pricing

of consumer

goods

Other


What matters to students while at NAIT

Student Respondents % of all students surveyed


42/89

39

experienceintheprogram,andknowwhattheyareteachinginsideandout.Thenext

importantfactoristhe“accessibilityandavailability”oftheirinstructors.Thedatashows

thatstudentsputahighvalueonthisfactor,asitisimportanttobeabletocommunicate

withinstructorsatdifferenttimesthroughoutthesemester,outsideoftheclassroom.

Thethirdmostselectedvariablebytherespondentswas“gradereceivedinprogram”.

Thiscanbeviewedasanemotionresponsebystudentsiftheycompleteaclasswitha

poorgrade.ThisvariablecouldberelatedtothefindingsonRatemyprofessor.com,

wherethemajorityofthepostingsarerelatedtostudentgrades.Furtherresearchwill

needtobeconductedtoconcludeifthisvariableisrelatedtoemotionalepisodesor

instructorquality.


43/89

40

Anothercross-tabulationwasalsousedtohelptheteamdeterminethisobjective.The

questionsusedare:

Question 20IncomeRange?Question 4onascaleof1-4(with4beingmostsatisfied)howsatisfiedareyouwithyourinstructors?

1 (Least

Satisfied)

2 3 4 Total Frequency

(% of 175

Surveyed)

$0-$10,000 1 8 47 22 78 45%

$10,001-$15,000

0 6 14 8 28 16%

$15,001-

$25,000

0 1 10 6 17 10%

$25,001-

$60,000

0 2 19 11 32 18%

$60,001 + 0 3 10 7 20 11%

Total 175

Respondents

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

$0-$10,000 $10,001-$15,000 $15,001-$25,000 $25,001-$60,000 $60,001+

# o f r e s p o n d e n t s

Income

What students satisfaction level is based on their income



44/89

41

Thiscross-tabulationprovidedtheteamwiththenecessaryinformationinorderto

determineifincomelevelsandsatisfactioncorrelate.Themajorityofstudentswhomake

tenthousandorunderarehighlysatisfiedwiththeinstructors.Incomelevelsseemto

notplayaroleinhowsatisfiedstudentsarewiththeirprofessors.

Objective #3

Thepurposeofthisobjectivewastofindoutifstudentswouldliketoformallyevaluate

theirinstructors.

17)Ifyourin-classevaluationwastakenintoconsiderationbyyourinstructor,wouldyou

bemorelikelytofillitout?

# Of Respondents Frequency (%)

Yes 77 89%

No 10 11%

TOTAL 87 100%

89%

11%

If your evaluation was taken into consideration,

would you be more likely to fill it out?

Yes No


45/89

42

Thisquestionrevealedsurprisingresults.Ifsomeone’sadvicewastakeninto

considerationandactedupon,theresultsshouldbe100%,itwasinterestingtosee11%

wouldnottendtofilloutthesurveyanywayseveniftheirsuggestionwasconsidered.

Duetoonly87respondentsofthetotal201surveyed,theresearchersareunableto

makeconclusionsonwhetherornotstudentscareaboutevaluatingtheirinstructorsor

not.Although,fromthestudentssurveyed,theresearcherswereabletodeterminea

vastmajorityofstudentswillingtofilloutasurveyiftheirthoughtsweretakeninto

considerationbytheadministration.

Objective #4

Toinvestigateifstudentsconductsecondaryresearchabouttheirprofessorsbeforeor

duringthecourseandifithadanyeffectonhowtheyratedtheirinstructors.

1) HaveyoueverbeenonRateMyProfessor.com?Ifno,skiptoquestion11. # Of Respondents Frequency (%)

Yes 51 25%

No 150 75% Total 201 100%

25%

75%

RATEMYPROFESSOR.COM

Have used RateMyProfessor.com Haven't Used RateMyProfessor.com


46/89

43

RateMyProfessor.comisoneofthebestresourcesforstudentstofindoutinformation

pertainingtotheirinstructorsderivedfromratingsbasedonotherstudent’sexperience.

Toseethat75%ofstudentssurveyedhaveneverbeenonRateMyProfessor.comwasa

surprisetotheresearchers.Theresearcherswereabletoaskin-depthquestionstohelp

determineifthe25%whohavebeenonRateMyProfessor.comhasanybiastowards

evaluatingtheirinstructorsornot.

Did RateMyProfessor.comaffect how you effect your

instructors?

Frequency (% of 57respondents)

Yes 21 37%

No 36 63%

Total 57 100%

37%63%

Did RateMyProfessor.com affect how you

evaluated your instructors?

Yes No


47/89

44

Did you agree with your

findings from

RateMyProfessor.com

Frequency (% of the

Agreed 38 69%

Disagreed 17 31%

Total 55 100%

Theoverallgoaloftheobjectivewastodeterminehowmanystudentshadused

RateMyProfessor.comandifithadanyeffectonthewaystudentswhohavebeengiven

thechanceratetheirinstructor.Theresultsweresurprisingwithover75%ofstudents

sayingtheydonotusethewebsite.Thisisanimportantquestionusedbecauseithelps

todetermineifstudentsareusingothermethodstofindoutinformationontheir

instructors.Accordingtothedateitappearsthateventhoughstudentsagreedwiththeir

findingsfromRateMyProfessor.com,theyrealizedthattherearealotmorefactorswhen

itcomestoevaluatingtheirinstructors.37%ofthestudentssaythat

RateMyProfessor.comactuallyaffectedhowtheyratedtheirinstructorsversusthe69%

69%

31%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Did you agree or disagree with your findings

from RateMyProfessor.com?

Agreed Disagreed


48/89

45

thatsaidtheyagreedwiththeirfindings.Askingmorein-depthquestionsabout

RateMyProfessor.comallowedtheresearcherstodeterminehow/ifstudentsevaluated

theirinstructorsbasedontheinformationtheyfound.Fromthedata,69%ofstudents

agreedwiththeirfindingsfromRateMyProfessor.com,whichinturnmeansthateven

though37%saiditaffectedthewaytheirevaluatedtheirinstructor,morestudentswere

abletoseethattherearealotmorefactorswhenitcomestoevaluatingtheirinstructors

thanjustfindinginformationoffawebsite.


49/89

46

Conclusions and Recommendations

Theoriginalproblemstatedintheproposalreferredtothelackofofficialevaluations

administeredtostudentsinordertoformallyreviewtheirinstructors.Thereareno

standardssetinplacebyNAITthatenforcestheadministrationofthesurveys;therefore

thereisnodatathatdemonstratesthemultiplewaysstudentsevaluatetheirinstructors’

performance.

Basedontheinformationfoundbytheresearchers,thereareanumberofways

studentspersonallyevaluatetheirinstructors;somemorepopularthanothers.

Regardingtheinitialproblem,theresearchersagreedthatstudentscurrentlyhaveno

influentialwaytoreviewtheirinstructors.ThewebsiteRatemyprofessor.comisnota

reputablesourceofinformationanditwasfoundthatmoststudentsdonotevenusethe

site.Only51outof201respondentssaidtheyvisitedthesite.Thismaybebecausethe

postingsaremostlydoneinstatesofemotionalepisodes;reviewsareeithervery

positiveorextremelynegative.Therefore,thepostingsarenottakenseriouslyby

visitors,butthedatashowsthatthemajorityofstudentsexposedtootheropinionstend

toagreewiththefindings.Almost70%ofstudentswhohaveeitherused

Ratemyprofessor.com,orreceivedverbalopinionscametothesameconclusion.

Althoughmoststudentsaresatisfiedwiththeiroverallinstructors,thereisnowayto

determinewhytheyaresatisfiedorwhotheyaresatisfiedwith.Studentswouldhaveto

gooutoftheirwayinordertotellasuperiorabouttheirexperience,buttherewouldbe

nowayofknowingifitwereconsidered.Also,studentswhoaredissatisfiedmayfeel


50/89

47

defeatedandunimportantbecausetheirtreatmentbyinstructorswillgounnoticed,and

teacherswillnotbeheldaccountable.

NAITcurrentlydoesnothaveanywaytogivestudentsavoiceontheirinstructors,but

whobettertoreviewtheinstructorsthanthestudents?Studentsmaypayforthe

servicesoftheinstructors,butthereisnowayforthemtoreviewthatserviceandits

performance.Accordingtotheresearchers’findings,theonlytwofacultiesatNAITthat

regularlyadministerevaluationstotheirstudentsaretheBusiness&Administration

programalongwithEngineering&AppliedScienceswith48%and42%respectivelyof

studentswhohavebeengiventheopportunitytoreviewtheirinstructors.Studentsin

thosefacultiesaremoreempoweredandinfluentialthanstudentsenrolledinother

programs.IfNAITweretoimplementacampuswidepolicythatenforcedstudent

evaluations,thenNAITwouldhaveanofficialwaytomonitortheperformancesoftheir

instructorsfrominsidetheclassroom.Furtherresearchwillbeneededtodetermineif

theseevaluationswouldhaveaneffectontheperformanceoftheirinstructors.


51/89

48

ReferencesAlliance, O. U. (2010, August). What Students Want. Retrieved from Ontario Undergraduate Student

Alliance: http://www.ousa.ca/dev/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/What-Students-Want-Ontario-

Student-Survey.pdf

Hartman, K. B. (2013). What Ratemyprofessors.com Reveals About How and Why Students Evaluate

Their Professors : A Glimpse Into the Student Mind-Set. . Retrieved from Business Source

Complete: http://web.ebscohost.com.libezproxy.nait.ca/ehost/detail/detail?sid=8e602660-

472b-4047-bbbe-

a663accddf76@sessionmgr104&vid=2&resultId=1&theDisplayFormat=CitationAndFullText&Ret

urnUrl=%252fehost%252fresults%252fresultlist%253fsid%253d8e602660-472b-4047-bbb


52/89

i

Appendices

Time Log

Belowisatimelogfromthedurationofthereport.Eachresearchmemberhadtheirownsectiontowriteandgetreviewed

byalltheotherresearchersinthegroup.Thetotalamountoftimeittooktheresearcherstocompletethereportwas30

hours.Thetablesbelowrepresenttheoverallaccomplishmentofthemeetingincludinghowmanygroupmemberswere

presentandthereasonstowhysomecouldnotmakethemeeting,thelengthofthemeetingandthemainpurposeofwhy

theresearchershadtomeet.Thelogbook’spurposewastokeeparecordofthemilestonesofeachphaseoftheproject

toensureenoughtimewasspentoneachsectionofthereportwithouttakingawayfromothersectionsthatneededtobe

completedinatimelymatter.


53/89

9/18/13 9/20/13 9/24/13 10/10/13 10/28/13 10/30/13 11/1/13 11/4/13 11/6/13 11/7/13 11

1hr30mins 1hr 1hr 1hr30mins 45mins 20mins 25mins 1hr30mins 1hr30mins 2hours 2h

ALL ALL ALL ALL MOST ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL AL

N/A N/A N/A N/A Cindy was

not present,

had a family

emergency

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/

First

Meeting

Figuring

out

objectives

for project

Brainstorming

questions for

survey

Finished

survey with

coding still

needed

Making a

game plan

Making a

game

plan

Making a

game

plan

Data Matrix Data Matrix Data

Matrix

Da

m

Group

Charter

Objectives Parts of the

survey

completed

Coding of

the survey

Handing out

surveys in

groups

Handing

out

surveys in

groups

Finished

handing

out

surveys

Inputting

Data

Inputting

Data

Inputting

Data

In

Da

None None None None None None Cindy

was an

hour late

to the

groups

handing

out

surveys

None None None St

La

ea

wh

Ke

an

Ric

sta

fin

co


54/89


55/89

11/11/13 11/13/13 11/15/13 11/18/13 11/20/13 11/22/13 11/25/13 11/27/13 11/29/13

1hr30mins 1hr30mins 1hr30mins 1hr30mins 1hr30mins 1hr30mins 1hr30mins 1hr30mins 4hr30min

ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL ALL for fir

(1hr30min

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Steve LeBhad to lea

1hr30min

came bac

class till 12

Steven La

at 10:40 to

class.

Dividing work

between all

group

members

Working on

methodology

parts

Working on

methodology

parts

Working

together

(Methodology

and other

parts)

Working

together to

finish off parts

in

methodology

Review and

correction

of work

material

Review and

correction of

work material

Review,

Corrections

and

PowerPoint

Review,

Correctio

PowerPoi

Parts ofMethodology Parts ofMethodology Parts ofMethodology Methodologydone, and

other parts

such as

Executive

Summary

Some graphsand data

analysis with

interpretations

Presentationof findings

along with

more

graphs

Appendix,Limitations,

Conclusion &

Recommendation

Review andChanges to

material on

hand

Review anchanges,

with most

PowerPoi

None None None None None None None None Richard st

12, Cindy

Kelsey sta

12:30


56/89

Date 11/30/13 12/1/13

Length of Meeting No meeting, each individual was doing work ontheir own.

No meeting, each individual was doing work on th

own.

Group Members Present ALL ALL

Members Absent and Reason Given N/A N/A

Reason for meeting Ensuring final compilation of all material Ensuring final compilation of all material

What was accomplished Sampling Issues and Executive Summary redone Time log completion along with all materialcompiled and finished for handing in. PowerPoint

in final stages of completion

Other Comments None None


57/89

vi

S

t u d e n t S u r v e y

Blank Questionnaire

This questionnaire is being conducted by students in the JR Shaw School of Business for the course MARK267

Marketing Research. The purpose of this questionnaire is to give the students hands-on experience in designing,

implementing and summarizing the results of a survey. All information will be confidential and anonymous and

will only be used for the purposes of compiling a summary report. This summary report will be submitted to the

course instructor for evaluation and may be submitted to a client as preliminary research. At no time will any

identifying information (such as name or address) be gathered. You may skip any question or withdraw from the

survey at any time without consequences. You must be 18 years old or older to participate. All surveys will be

destroyed upon completion of the study. Any concerns regarding the use of the information being gathered can be

addressed to the instructor, Jennifer Cherneski by calling 780- 471-7033.

I agree to participate in the survey. Yes No

The purpose of this survey is to better understand how students evaluate their instructors

1. What program are you currently taking at NAIT? Animal Studies Building

Construction &

Design

Business &

Administrative

Engineering &

Applied Sciences

Environmental

Management

Health & Safety Hospitality &

Culinary Arts

IT & Electronics

Mechanical &

Industrial

Media & Design Recreation &

Outdoors

Trades

Upgrading

2. What year are you currently in at NAIT? 1

st Year 2

nd Year 3

rd Year 4

th Year+

3. What is important to you while at NAIT? (Check all that apply) Size of classes Instructors Tuition Quality of instructors

Recreational

Activities

Overall pricing of

consumer goods

Other (Please Specify)____________

4. On a scale of 1 – 4 (with 4 being most satisfied) how satisfied are you with your instructors? 1 2 3 4

5. Which of the following factors do you consider while evaluating your instructors? (Check all that apply) Age Gender Class size Grade received in

program

Knowledgeable Accessible/Availability Other (Please Specify) ____________


58/89

vii

6. Have you ever been on RateMyProfessor.com? If no, skip to question #11 Yes No

7. When do you typically use RateMyProfessor.com? Before starting the class During the class After the class

8. Did RateMyProfessor.com affect how you evaluate your instructor? Yes No

9. Did you agree or disagree with your findings on RateMyProfessor.com? Agree Disagree

10. Would you recommend RateMyProfessor.com as an accurate representation of your instructors? Explain Yes No

11. Did you receive any opinions about your instructors by word of mouth? Yes No

12. Did you agree or disagree with your findings by word of mouth? Agree Disagree

13. Have you had the chance to in-class evaluate your instructors? If no, skip to question #18 Yes No

14. Did you think it was a fair evaluation? Yes No

15. Do you think your evaluation was taken into consideration? Yes No

16. Did all your instructors pass out an evaluation? Yes No

17. If your in-class evaluation was taken into consideration by your institution, would you be more likely to fill itout? Yes No

18. Male or Female? Male Female


59/89

viii

19. Age Range 18-21 22-25 26-29 30+

20. Income Range $0-$10,000 $10,001-$15,000 $15,001-$25,000 $25,001-$60,000

$60,001+

21. How do you pay for your education? (Check all that apply) Student Loans Parents/Relatives Grants Scholarships

Accessible/Availability Other (Please Specify) ____________


60/89

ix

S

t u d e n t S u r v e y

Coded Questionnaire

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. Your time is valued and very much appreciated!

This questionnaire is being conducted by students in the JR Shaw School of Business for the course MARK267

Marketing Research. The purpose of this questionnaire is to give the students hands-on experience in designing,implementing and summarizing the results of a survey. All information will be confidential and anonymous and

will only be used for the purposes of compiling a summary report. This summary report will be submitted to the

course instructor for evaluation and may be submitted to a client as preliminary research. At no time will any

identifying information (such as name or address) be gathered. You may skip any question or withdraw from the

survey at any time without consequences. You must be 18 years old or older to participate. All surveys will be

destroyed upon completion of the study. Any concerns regarding the use of the information being gathered can be

addressed to the instructor, Jennifer Cherneski by calling 780- 471-7033.

I agree to participate in the survey. Yes No

The purpose of this survey is to better understand how students evaluate their instructors

22. What program are you currently taking at NAIT? V1

Animal Studies

[1]

Building

Construction &

Design [2]

Business &

Administrative [3]

Engineering &

Applied Sciences

[4]

Environmental

Management [5]

Health & Safety

[6]

Hospitality &

Culinary Arts [7]

IT & Electronics

[8]

Mechanical &

Industrial [9]

Media & Design

[10]

Recreation &

Outdoors [11]

Trades [12]

Upgrading [13]

23. What year are you currently in at NAIT? V2 1

st Year [1] 2

nd Year [2] 3

rd Year [3] 4

th Year+ [4]

24. What is important to you while at NAIT? (Check all that apply) Size of classes V3 Instructors V4 Tuition V5 Quality of instructors

V6

Recreational

Activities V7

Overall pricing of

consumer goods V8

Other V9 (Please Specify)____________ V10 (See

List)

25. On a scale of 1 – 4 (with 4 being most satisfied) how satisfied are you with your instructors? V11 1 [1] 2 [2] 3 [3] 4 [4]


61/89


62/89

xi

37. Did all your instructors pass out an evaluation? V31 Yes [1] No [2]

38. If your in-class evaluation was taken into consideration by your institution, would you be more likely to fill itout? V32

Yes [1] No [2]

39. Male or Female? V33 Male [1] Female [2]

40. Age Range V34 18-21 [1] 22-25 [2] 26-29 [3] 30+ [4]

41. Income Range V35 $0-$10,000 [1] $10,001-$15,000 [2] $15,001-$25,000 [3] $25,001-$60,000 [4]

$60,001+ [5]

42. How do you pay for your education? (Check all that apply) Student Loans V36 Parents/Relatives

V37

Grants V38 Scholarships V39

Accessible/Availability

OMITTED

Other V40 (Please Specify) ____________

V41 (See List)

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey. Your time is valued and very much appreciated!


63/89

xii

Data Matrix

Belowistherawcompilationofallthedatareceivedwhichhasbeeninputtedintoan

ExcelSpreadsheetforthesolepurposeofusingstatisticalformulasbytheresearchers

inordertogatherresultsfromthesurveytocreatetables,chartsandgraphsinorderto

fullyanalyzeandinterpret.

Theexcelspreadsheethelpswithcountingofcertainvariablesusedtoidentifycertain

answerstoquestionsinorderforageneralsumtotalofthedataorfortheuseofamore

in-depth,cross-comparisonoftwo,threeormoresetsofdatausingCOUNTIFfor

countingandCOUNTIFSformulasforcross-comparing.Theuseoftheseformulas

helpedtheresearcherswiththebulkofthedataanalysisinwhichthepredetermined

calculationsinordertofigurethesetotalsoutcanbeusedallwithintheapplication.

EachvariableintheDataMatrixbelowhadacorrespondinglettertobeinputtedintothe

formulatogeneratethedesiredresults.


64/89


65/89

xiv

V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14

12 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

12 3 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 1

12 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1

12 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

12 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1

12 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

12 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

12 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

12 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

12 3 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1

12 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 4 0 0 0

9 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

9 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

9 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0

8 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

8 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

8 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

8 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 08 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

8 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1

3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

3 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1

3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

3 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0

3 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 3 0 0 03 4 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0

3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

3 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1

3 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 13 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1

3 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0

3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0

3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 0

3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0

3 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 1

3 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0


66/89


67/89


68/89


69/89


70/89

xix

V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V28

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

1 1 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2

0 1 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1

0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 20 1 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 1 1

1 0 1 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 0 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 0 1 1 10 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 2

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0

1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0

0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 1

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 0 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 10 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2

1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1


71/89


72/89

xx

V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V28

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

0 0 1 1 4 1 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 2

1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1

0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1

0 1 0 1 4 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 7 2 0 1

1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 21 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 8 1 1 2

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 9 2 0 0

0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 10 2 0 2

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 0

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 0 2 0 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2

0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 2 2 0 1 2 2

1 0 1 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 1 2 1

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 20 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1

1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 1 2

0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2

1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 2 2 2

1 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 1

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 20 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 0

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1

0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2

1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 0 1 1 2

0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1


73/89

xxi

V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V28

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2

0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2

0 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2

0 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 2

1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0

0 1 1 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 12 1 2 2

1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

1 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 0 1 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

0 1 1 0 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 2 1 2


74/89


75/89

xxiv

V29 V30 V31 V32 V33 V34 V35 V36 V37 V38 V39 V40 V41

0 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 2

1 2 2 1 1 3 5 1 1 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 1 1 0 2

0 0 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 2 1 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 4 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

2 2 2 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 2 4 5 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 0 1 2

1 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 2 1 1 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0

2 2 1 1 2 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 2 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 21 2 2 1 2 3 4 0 2 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

2 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 1 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 2 3 4 1 0 1 0 0 0

1 1 2 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2

2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 2 4 4 1 0 0 0 0 0


76/89


77/89

xxv

V29 V30 V31 V32 V33 V34 V35 V36 V37 V38 V39 V40 V41

0 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 2 0 1 2 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

2 2 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

1 1 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 2 2 1 2 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 1 1 1 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 1 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

2 2 2 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 0

2 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

2 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0

2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0

2 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0

1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

1 2 2 1 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0

1 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 2 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0


78/89

xxvi

V29 V30 V31 V32 V33 V34 V35 V36 V37 V38 V39 V40 V41

0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

1 1 1 1 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 1 2

2 1 2 1 2 3 2 1 0 1 1 0 0

2 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0

2 1 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0


79/89

xxvii

V1 1= Animal Studies 2= Construction 3=Business

4=Engineering 5= Environmental Management 6= Health and

Safety

7= Hospitality & Culinary

8=IT&

Electronics

9= Mechanical & Industrial 10=Media & Design 11=Recreation &

Outdoors

12=Trades 13=Upgrading

V2 1= 1st Year 2= 2nd Year 3= 3rd Year 4= 4+ Years

V3 1 = Answered 0 = Not Answered


V5 1 = Answered 0 = Not AnsweredV6 1 = Answered 0 = Not Answered




V10 See List 0 = Not Answered 1= Parking

V11 1 = 1 2 = 2 3 = 3 4 = 4








V19 See List 0 = Not Answered

V20 1 = Yes 2 = No

V21 1 = Before Starting Class 2 = During the Class 3 = After Class

V22 1 = Yes 2 = No

V23 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

V24 1 = Yes 2 = No

V25 See List 0 = Not Answered

V26 1 = Yes 2 = No

V27 1 = Agree 2 = Disagree

V28 1 = Yes 2 = No

V29 1 = Yes 2 = No

V30 1 = Yes 2 = No

V31 1 = Yes 2 = No

V32 1 = Yes 2 = No

V33 1 = Male 2 = Female

V34 1 = 18-21 2 = 22 - 25 3 = 26 - 29 4 = 30+

V35 1 = $0-$10,000 2= $10,001 -

$15,000

3=$15,001 - $25,000




V39 1 =

Documents

Student Survey Research Report