Group 1 20.docx

Group 1
20
Investigation of a Tutoring Program
Prepared for Mr. Troy Place
By
IME316
November 30, 2012
Table of Contents
List of
Illustrations.............................................................................
..............................................3
Executive
Summary.................................................................................
........................................4
Introduction............................................................................
..........................................................5
Purpose............................................................................... ....
.............................................5
Procedure................................................................................

.............................................5
Limitations..............................................................................
.............................................6
Report
Format....................................................................................
..................................7
Discussion
Section....................................................................................
.......................................7
Determining the Demographics of R
espondents.................................................................7
Generalizing the Demand
and Supply for a Tutoring
Program...........................................8Analyzing Majors
vs. Demand and
Supply.........................................................................9
Analyzing Class Standing
vs. Demand and
Supply..........................................................12
Analyzing Respondent
GPA vs. Demand and
Supply......................................................14
Considering Wages
and Costs of a Tutoring
Program......................................................15
Identifying Tutoring
Service Locations, Times, and
Duration..........................................16
Conclusions.............................................................................
.......................................................17
Recommendations....................................................................
......................................................19
Appendix A: Tutoring Program
Questionnaire..........................................................................
...21

List of Illustrations
Table 1: Respondents’ Majors at
CEAS......................................................................................
...
8
Table 2: Respondents’ Majors vs.
Demand..................................................................................
10
Table 3: Respondents’ Majors vs.
Supply....................................................................................
11
Figure 1:
Respondents’ Class Standings vs.
Demand....................................................................12
Figure 2: Respondents’ Class Standings vs.
Supply......................................................................13
Figure 3: Respondents’ GPAs vs.
Demand...................................................................................
14
Figure 4: Respondents’ GPAs vs.
Supply....................................................................................
.15
Executive Summary
Western Michigan University’s chapter of Alpha Pi Mu (APM),
a national industrial engineering honor fraternity, has indicated
that they are considering the establishment of a tutoring
program at the College of Engineering and Applied Sciences
(CEAS). To aid in their investigation, our group chose to
conduct a survey analysis that focused on determining the
specifics of initiating such a program.
After analyzing 100 surveys, we found that the percentage of
students wanting to have a tutor and the percentage of students
willing to tutor were both above 50%, and of those, 88% would
use the services at least 4 times per semester. This reveals that

there is an adequate demand and supply for the program.
Moreover, approximately half of
the surveyed majors had a majority of students interested in a
tutoring program (both wanting a tutor and willing to tutor).
Therefore, we recommend that APM pursue the initiation of the
tutoring program, extending the services to all majors within the
CEAS.
The data collected supports targeting underclassmen and
students with lower grade point averages (GPAs) for those
wanting a tutor in specific classes. Also, u
pperclassmen and students with higher GPAs should be sought
out to become tutors within the program. Thus, APM should
focus their advertising efforts accordingly.
From the responses, we recommend
APM charge $10 per hour to each tutee and pay each tutor $8.50
in order to return a 15% profit. Analyses further suggested that
tutoring sessions be conducted at both Parkview (CEAS) and
main campus, with the majority being held in Parkview’s study
lounges and classrooms, as requested by 55% of respondents.
More tutoring sessions should be scheduled for time slots after
4pm than morning or afternoon sessions. Finally, these sessions
should last one hour each, as indicated by 71% of respondents.
Introduction
Purpose:
The purpose of this assignment is to form conclusions based on
an analysis of responses to distributed questionnaires. A group
member, serving as the acting secretary of Alpha Pi Mu
(APM), a national industrial engineering honor fraternity,
indicated that APM is considering the establishment of a
tutoring program. As all four group members will attest,
courses within Western Michigan University’s College of
Engineering and Applied Sciences (CEAS) can be very rigorous

and demanding. With this in mind, our group chose to
investigate the initiation of a tutoring program, specifically
focusing on the following:
· Demand of students wanting such a service
· Supply of students interested in becoming tutors
· The general range of majors interested
· Charge for tutoring services and wages for tutors
· Tutoring service time, location, and duration.
The following parts of our introduction provide a brief
description of the procedure, the limitations, and the format of
our report.
Procedure:
To begin
our investigation, we had to develop a questionnaire and
distribute copies to students in the CEAS. Collectively, we
developed a survey questionnaire around the concerns of APM.
We broke down APM’s major concerns into several specific
questions listed on the questionnaire (see Appendix A). We
handed out our questionnaires in a manner to try to get a
representative sample of all CEAS majors and class standings.
Questionnaires were distributed to students in the CEAS
computer lab in hopes of obtaining the insights of
upperclassmen and to IME1420 students to reflect
underclassmen. Additionally, we went to different study
lounges to get opinions from a variety of majors.
Once the questionnaires were gathered, we tallied responses
using an online data collection tool. During this time, we found
that many questionnaires were completed incorrectly, and thus,
were discarded. Given this, one-hundred surveys were still used
in the analyses. Because 100 samples were used, the given

percentages are equal to the number of respondents at any given
percentage. Lastly, we formed appropriate conclusions and
recommendations for APM based
on these findings from the 100 surveys.
Limitations:
In conducting this survey, there were a few limitations that we
had to compensate for when analyzing the data that we collected
. First, since the list of majors that we provided was not
exhaustive, eight respondent majors were written in as “other”
and thus may be underrepresented. Also, out of the thirteen
categories given, there are seven majors with three or less
responses, which do not have a significant bearing within the
study.
Another hindrance that we encountered was when students gave
multiple responses to questionnaire questions 7, 8, and 9. These
surveys were discarded from data tabulation. To prevent this in
the future, these questions could have a note to instruct
surveyors to only mark one answer.
We planned to attain a representative sample of all class
standings. However, this was not accomplished; we only had
30% underclassmen to 70% upperclassmen. Assuming that
more upperclassmen would be willing to tutor than
underclassmen, the data gathered could reflect higher values for
this area. Similarly, we may have underrepresented values for
wanting a tutor.
Report Format:
The remainder of this report provides a discussion that analyzes
the respondents’ questionnaires and the subsequent conclusions
and recommendations based on these analyses. With respect to
the purpose of this report, the discussion section is broken down
into seven themed subsections as follows:
· Subsection 1: Determining the Demographics of Respondents

·
Subsection 2: Generalizing the Demand and Supply for a
Tutoring Program
· Subsection 3: Analyzing Majors vs. Demand and Supply
· Subsection 4: Analyzing Class Standing vs. Demand and
Supply
· Subsection 5: Analyzing Respondent GPA vs. Demand and
Supply
· Subsection 6: Considering Wages and Costs of a Tutoring
Program
· Subsection 7: Identifying Tutoring Service Locations, Times,
and Duration.
Discussion Section
Determining the Demographics of Respondents
Within the CEAS, we obtained 100 surveys that can be
categorized by gender, class standing, major, and grade point
average (GPA) based on questions 1 through 4 of the
questionnaire. Of the 100 surveys collected, 78 respondents
were male and 22 were female. This is expected due to the high
ratio of men to women within the CEAS. The class standing
distribution consisted of 12 freshmen, 18 sophomores, 31
juniors, 31 seniors and 8 graduate students. As described in the
limitations section, we do have an abundance of upperclassmen
compared to underclassmen. To improve the study, a better
distribution should be gathered.
The distribution of majors for the one hundred respondents can
be seen in Table 1. From this table, we can see that the majors
with the most responses were mechanical and aeronautical
engineering, electrical and computer engineering, civil and
construction engineering, and industrial engineering.

Altogether, seven majors had 3 or less respondents. Again, as
mentioned in the limitations section, the study could be
improved by gathering a more representative sample from each
major.
Majors
Percentage
Mechanical & Aeronautical Engineering
26
Electrical & Computer Engineering
21
Civil & Construction Engineering
15
Industrial Engineering
13
Other
8
Chemical Engineering
7
Computer Science
3
Engineering Management Technology
3
Imaging
2
Industrial Design
1
Manufacturing Engineering
1
Materials Science & Engineering
0
Paper Engineering
0

Table 1: Respondents’ Majors at CEAS
When analyzing the respondents’
GPAs, we found that 4% of the students had a GPA within the
range of less than 2.0 on a 4.0 scale, 8% were in the 2.01 to 2.5
range, 26% were in the 2.51 to 3.0 range, 40% were in the 3.01
to 3.5 range, and 22% were in the 3.51 to 4.0 range.
Cumulatively, this shows that 88% of the surveyed students had
GPAs which fell into the range of 2.51 to 4.0. Also, the overall
GPAs tend to follow a skewed left normal distribution with a
mode of 3.01 to 3.5 representing a letter grade of B to BA. This
seems like a good distribution for CEAS students.
Generalizing the Demand and Supply for a Tutoring Program
In order to justify implementing a tutoring service, we first
needed to determine if there was a large enough demand for
tutors, and also if there would be an adequate supply of students
willing to serve as tutors. These levels of demand and supply
were investigated based on both the amount of students
interested in participating in such a service, as well as the
amount of times they would utilize the services each semester.
After tabulating the 100 questionnaires, specifically focusing on
questions 5 and 5a, we found that 56 students responded “yes”
to wanting a tutor for one or more of their classes. When these
56 students were asked the number of times they would use a
tutor each semester, the replies were as follows: 7 responses for
1 to 3 times, 21 for 4 to 8 times, 19 for 9 to 12 times, 2 for 13
to 15 times, and 7 for more than 15 times.
Using questions 6 and 6a, when asked if they would be willing
to tutor students in chosen classes, 51 students responded “yes.”
Again, we asked these 51 students how many times each
semester they would be willing to tutor. We found the students’
responses to be as follows: 6 responses for 1 to 3 times, 23 for 4
to 8 times, 12 for 9 to 12 times, 3 for 13 to 15 times, and 7 for

more than 15 times.
The amount of students wanting to have a tutor and the amount
of students willing to tutor were both above 50%. Moreover, of
those interested in a tutoring service (both wanting a tutor and
willing to tutor), 88% would use the services at least 4 times
per semester. From these responses, we have concluded that
there is both a large enough demand and supply for a tutoring
service. Therefore, based on general supply and demand values,
a tutoring program would be a worthwhile project for
APM.Analyzing Majors vs. Demand and Supply
Another aspect of the tutoring program that we wanted to
investigate was the practicality of extending the tutoring
services to all CEAS majors. Although APM is a fraternity for
industrial engineers, the tutoring program could be designed as
a service for all engineering majors if there were adequate
demand and supply. In order to study this correlation of majors
to demand and supply, we analyzed data from questions 3, 5 and
6 of our questionnaire.
The number and respective percentages of students wanting a
tutor, categorized by their major, are shown in Table 2. As
shown, more than 50% of the students surveyed within each of
the following majors responded that they would like to have a
tutor in one of more of their classes: civil and construction
engineering, computer science, electrical and computer
engineering, engineering management technology, imaging,
industrial engineering, and those included in other majors. Of
the six categories with less than 50%, four majors (industrial
design, manufacturing engineering, materials science and
engineering, and paper engineering) had only one or no surveys
retrieved from their major. Therefore, these majors do not
represent an adequate population of the students within these
categories.

Major
Total # Responses in Each Major
Wanting a Tutor
NOT Wanting a Tutor
# Students
% Students
# Students
% Students
7
2
28.6%
5
71.4%
Civil and Construction Engineering
15
8
53.3%
7
46.7%
Computer Science
3
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
Electrical and Computer Engineering
21
13
61.9%
8
38.1%
3

2
66.7%
1
33.3%
Imaging
2
2
100.0%
0
0.0%
Industrial Design
1
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
13
9
69.2%
4
30.8%
1
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
Materials Science and Engineering
0
0
N/A
0
N/A
Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering
26

12
46.2%
14
53.8%
Paper Engineering
0
0
N/A
0
N/A
Other
8
6
75.0%
2
25.0%
Total:
100
56
44
Table 2: Respondents’ Majors vs. Demand
In addition, Table 3 is provided below for the number and
percentages of students whom are willing to tutor students in
classes of their choice, again categorized by major. This table
shows that at least half of the students surveyed in the
following majors are willing to tutor students for the tutoring
program: computer science, electrical and computer
engineering, engineering management technology, industrial
design, industrial engineering, and mechanical engineering.
Again, four of the seven categories with less than 50% interest
had only one or no surveys retrieved from their major, which
does not sufficiently represent the population.

Major
Total # Responses in Each Major
Willing to Tutor
NOT Willing to Tutor
# Students
% Students
# Students
% Students
7
3
42.9%
4
57.1%
Civil and Construction Engineering
15
4
26.7%
11
73.3%
Computer Science
3
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
Electrical and Computer Engineering
21
12
57.1%
9
42.9%

3
2
66.7%
1
33.3%
Imaging
2
1
50.0%
1
50.0%
Industrial Design
1
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
13
9
69.2%
4
30.8%
1
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
Materials Science and Engineering
0
0
N/A
0
N/A
Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering

26
16
61.5%
10
38.5%
Paper Engineering
0
0
N/A
0
N/A
Other
8
2
25.0%
6
75.0%
Total:
100
51
49
Table 3: Respondents’ Majors vs. Supply
Because approximately half of the surveyed majors had a
majority of students interested in a tutoring program (both
wanting a tutor and willing to tutor), we recommend that APM
extend the services to all majors. According to the current data,
it appears that there would be ample participation from majors
outside of industrial engineering for the tutoring program.
However, seven of the thirteen majors surveyed received three
or less responses. In order to obtain more accurate results, we
recommend that more surveys be distributed in order to obtain a
better representation of each major.Analyzing Class Standing
vs. Demand and Supply

To get an idea of what classes wanted to participate in a
tutoring service, we correlated respondent class standing to
their want for a tutor and willingness to become a tutor. This
requires questionnaire question 2 to be compared with both
questions 5 and 6. Figures 1 and 2, shown below, break down
this correlation by percentage (“yes”/ “no”) within each class.
Looking at Fig. 1, we see that the percentage of “yes” answers
for wanting a tutor exceed that of “no” answers in four out of
the five given class standings. The only class standing that did
not have this tendency was seniors. The gap between freshmen,
sophomores, and graduate students display a trend of
significantly larger “yes” responses than “no” responses.
Class Standing vs. Percentage Wanting a Tutor
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
GradSeniorJuniorSophomoreFreshman
Class Standing
Percentage of Class
Yes
No
Figure 1: Respondents’ Class Standings vs. Demand
Referring to Fig. 2, we can see that only graduate students and

seniors had a greater percentage of “yes” than “no” responses
for willing to become tutors. It can also be stated that
freshmen, sophomores, and juniors all had about the same
percentages for their willingness to become tutors, with a “yes”
response of approximately 45%.
Class Standing vs. Percentage Willing to Become a Tutor
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
GradSeniorJuniorSophomoreFreshman
Class Standing
Percentage of Class
Yes
No
Figure 2: Respondents’ Class Standings vs. Supply
The results obtained from correlating class standing to the
demand and supply of a tutoring service generally matched our
underlying assumption. That is, a majority of freshmen,
sophomores, juniors and graduate students would want a tutor
for one or more of their classes. Many classes at the CEAS are
challenging, regardless of the grade level, and consequently all
class standings realize the benefit of having a tutor to help.
This is especially the case for freshmen and sophomores, as
they are adjusting to new collegiate demands.
On the other hand, greater majorities of upper-level students,
including graduate students and seniors, are willing to become
tutors. This was expected because as students advance in their
studies, they have a greater knowledge base and are therefore

more willing to help out others in their struggle. Overall, this
data suggests that APM should focus on advertising to graduate
students and seniors to become tutors, while all majors, but
specifically underclassmen, should be targeted for tutor
offerings.
Analyzing Respondent GPA vs. Demand and Supply
In addition to identifying general supply and demand totals, we
chose to correlate these totals by the respondents’ GPA to
investigate any trends. Respondent answers to question 4 were
plotted against their answers “yes” or “no” to both questions 5
and 6, as shown Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, respectively.
Cumulatively, 88% of respondents
fell into the range of GPA’s from 2.51 to 4.0 covering the GPA
divisions of 2.51-2.5, 2.51-3.0, and 3.51-4.0. Looking at this
range in Fig. 3, we can see a declining trend in yes responses as
GPA increases. In the lower end of this range (2.51-3.0), the
responses for “yes” of wanting a tutor significantly outweigh
responses of “no.” Referencing Fig. 4, we can see that in the
higher end of the described range (3.51-4.0), there are more
“yes” responses for willing to tutor than “no” responses.
Moreover, looking at the extreme 4% of respondents falling in
the division of <2.00 GPA, we see that all respondents want a
tutor and only 1 out of 4 respondents is willing to become a
tutor.
Respondent GPA vs. Number Wanting to Have a Tutor (Yes/No)
0
5
10
15
20
25
<22.01-2.52.51-3.03.01-3.53.51-4.0
Respondent GPA (4.0 scale)

Number of Respondents
Yes
No
Figure 3: Respondents’ GPAs vs. Demand
Respondent GPA vs. Number Willing to Tutor (Yes/No)
0
5
10
15
20
25
<22.01-2.52.51-3.03.01-3.53.51-4.0
Respondent GPA (4.0 scale)
Number of Respondents
Yes
No
Figure 4: Respondents’ GPAs vs. Supply
Analyzing the graphs, we did find some slight correlations
between wanting a tutor and willingness to tutor. In general,
those wanting to receive a tutor had lower GPAs than those not
wanting a tutor. Similarly, those willing to become tutors had
higher GPA scores than those students not interested in
becoming tutors. This makes sense, in that students with higher
GPAs would be more capable of aiding other students because
grades generally reflect performance in classes and knowledge
of class topics. Students with lower GPAs, on the other hand,
may be struggling in classes and looking for additional help
from a tutoring service to boost their grades. Based on these
findings, we recommend that APM suggest that teachers inform
their students of the tutoring service. Specifically, those
students with lower GPAs could be advised to obtain a tutor,

and those with higher GPAs could be advised to become tutors.
Considering Wages and Costs of a Tutoring Program
In order to decide how much APM would need to charge each
tutee and pay each tutor, questions 5b and 6b were developed on
the questionnaire. These questions ask those respondents either
wanting a tutor or willing to tutor what the highest cost they
would be willing to pay per hour for a tutor and the lowest
amount they would be willing to tutor for per hour,
respectively.
These responses were tallied by cumulative frequency with the
following results. 19 of the 56 respondents (34%) interested in
having a tutor would pay less than $7 per hour. 33 respondents
(59%) were willing to pay $7-10, 3 (5%) for $11-14, and 1 (2%)
for $15-20. Of the 51 respondents willing to become a tutor, 5
(10%) were willing to tutor for less than $7 per hour, 35 (69%)
for $7-10, 9 (18%) for $11-14, and 2 (3%) for $15-20.
It can be seen from the data that the majority of respondents felt
that both the tutoring wage and cost should be set to $7-10 per
hour. However, it should be noted that tutoring fees should
exceed tutor wages since APM will be retaining a portion of
these fees for fundraising and service scheduling/advertising
costs. Given this, we would recommend that APM charge $10
per hour to each tutee and pay each tutor $8.50. This would be
equivalent to a 15% profit for APM for each hour of tutoring
completed.
Identifying Tutoring Service Locations, Times, and Duration
Given that the supply and demand were great enough to start a
tutoring program, it would be important to identify the location,
time, and duration of the tutoring sessions. Such questions
were included in our survey with questions 7, 8, and 9,
respectively. The results are described below.

Overall, we found that for a location, 30% of the 100
respondents wished for the tutoring to take place in a Parkview
(CEAS’s) study lounge, followed by a Parkview classroom
(25%), the Waldo Library (21%), the Bernhard Center (15%),
and Parkview’s computer lab (9%). Cumulatively, nearly two-
thirds of respondents wished to have tutoring at Parkview,
whereas one-third wanted it to occur on main campus either at
the Bernhard Center or at the Waldo Library. If the proper
demand and supply exist, it would be beneficial to have tutoring
in both locations. The greatest request for a tutoring location
was the study lounges at Parkview. However, almost a quarter
of students wanted the tutoring to take place in a Parkview
classroom, which would call for special arrangements to be
made to reserve a classroom. Moreover, tutors and tutees might
find that the study lounges are too busy, which would push for a
classroom reservation. If the service takes off, then classrooms
and availability times should be further considered.
For the tutoring time of day, we found that only 9% wanted the
8am to 12pm time slot, 20% wanted 12pm to 4pm, 43% wanted
4pm to 8pm, and 28% wanted 8pm to 12am. This infers that
most respondents want evening or night sessions more so than
morning or afternoon sessions. This can probably be linked to
the fact that most students work or attend class during the day
and are freer in the evenings. Therefore, APM will likely have
to schedule more tutoring time slots for evening or night
sessions than morning or afternoon sessions.
Lastly, for the length of each tutoring session, most respondents
wanted them to last for 1 hour (71%), whereas 17% wanted 1.5-
hour sessions, 9% wanted 2-hour sessions, and only 3% wanted
half-hour sessions. Given the great number of people who
wanted the sessions to last for one-hour, we feel that this should
be a standard time for all sessions with circumstantial
exceptions.

Conclusions
In conclusion, we, in conjunction
with Alpha Pi Mu (APM), were able to appropriately conduct a
survey analysis to investigate the initiation of a tutoring service
at Western Michigan University’s College of Engineering and
Applied Sciences (CEAS). One-hundred surveys were used in
the analyses of this report. The most represented majors were
mechanical and aeronautical engineering, electrical and
computer engineering, civil and construction engineering, and
industrial engineering. Seven majors had three or less
respondents, which present an inadequate proportion.
Similarly, we had hoped to get an even distribution for class
standings; however, we only accumulated 30% underclassmen
and 70% upperclassmen for the analyses. Of those surveyed,
88% had GPAs which fell into the range of 2.51 to 4.0, with a
mode of 3.01 to 3.5 representing a letter grade of B to BA.
Overall, our main investigation goal was to establish the
demand and supply for a tutoring program. We found that the
percentage of students wanting to have a tutor and the
percentage of students willing to tutor were both above 50%,
and of those, 88% would use the services at least 4 times per
semester. This reveals that there is an adequate demand and
supply for the program. Moreover, approximately half of the
surveyed majors had a majority of students interested in a
tutoring program (both wanting a tutor and willing to tutor).
This tells us that there is a large range of majors interested in
the tutoring service.
We also found that the majority of freshmen, sophomores,
juniors and graduate students want a tutor for one or more of
their classes. On the other hand, greater majorities of upper-
level students, including graduate students and seniors, are
willing to become tutors. In addition, those wanting to receive

a tutor had lower GPAs than those not wanting a tutor.
Similarly, those willing to become tutors had higher GPA scores
than those students not interested in becoming tutors.
We also wanted to investigate the cost, wage, location, time,
and duration of tutoring sessions. We found that the majority of
respondents felt that both the tutoring wage and cost should be
set to $7-10 per hour. Additionally, nearly two-thirds of
respondents wished to have tutoring at Parkview (CEAS),
whereas one-third wanted it to occur on main campus either at
the Bernhard Center or at the Waldo Library. The greatest
request for a tutoring location was for the study lounges at
Parkview. Respondents also wanted evening or night sessions
more so than morning or afternoon sessions. Lastly, 71% of
respondents wanted sessions to last for 1 hour.
Recommendations
Based on the data conclusions, we have formed several
recommendations for Alpha Pi Mu regarding the initiation of a
tutoring service, which are as follows:
· Begin a tutoring program, as supported by general supply and
demand responses
· Extend the services to all majors within CEAS
· Target underclassmen as students wanting tutors; whereas,
upperclassmen should be targeted for students willing to
become tutors
· Suggest that teachers inform their students of the tutoring
service. Specifically, those students with lower GPAs could be
advised to obtain a tutor, and those with higher GPAs could be
advised to become tutors
· Charge $10 per hour to each tutee and pay each tutor $8.50 to

return a 15% profit
· Conduct tutoring sessions at both Parkview (CEAS) and main
campus. The majority of sessions should be held in Parkview’s
study lounges and classrooms, but also consider the Waldo
Library and the Bernhard Center for main campus venues
· Schedule tutoring session time slots for evening (4pm to 8pm)
or night (8pm to 12am) more so than morning (8am to12pm) or
afternoon (12pm to 4pm)
· Make standard session time one hour.
Although 100 samples were taken to make these
recommendations, there were several underlying facts that can
skew our results. We found there to be an under representation
in several majors as well as in class standings, and therefore
suggest more questionnaires be distributed to gather more
accurate results. Additionally, many surveys were discarded
due to the fact that they gave multiple responses to
questionnaire questions 7, 8, and 9. To prevent this in the
future, these questions could have a note to instruct respondents
to only mark one answer.
Appendix A: Tutoring Program Questionnaire
Please do NOT write your name on this questionnaire. The
results of this questionnaire will be used for analysis in a
survey project in IME3160, in conjunction with Alpha Pi Mu, to
investigate the initiation of a tutoring program at Western
Michigan University. Please check the appropriate answer to
each question.
1. Gender:

2. What
3. What is your major?
Science
_____________________
-2.5
- - -4.0
5. Would you like to have a tutor for one or more of your
classes?
a. If yes, how many times would you use a tutor each semester?
-3

-8
-12
-15
b. If yes, what is the highest price you would be willing to pay
for a tutor (per hour)?
-$10
-14
-$19
6. Would you like to tutor students in classes of your choice?
a. If yes, how many times would you be willing to tutor each
semester?
-3
-8

-12
-15
b. If yes, what is the lowest price you would be willing to tutor
for (per hour)?
-$10
-14
-$19
*If you answered yes to either question 5 or 6, then please
answer 7 thru 9.
7. Where would you like the tutoring to take place?
8. What time of day would you like tutoring to take place?
-12pm

-4pm
-8pm
-12am
9. How long should each tutoring session last?
�See Appendix. This section covers questions 1-4.
�This section covers questions 5a and 6a.
�This section analyzes question 3 against questions 5a and 6a.
�This section is question 2 against 5a and 6a.
�Question 4 against 5a and 6a
�Questions 5b and 6b
�Questions 7-9

�Make sure to capitalize the major words in titles. Don’t
capitalize articles, state of being verbs, or prepositions.
�If it’s not a table, call it a figure.
�Make sure that your executive summary is like a paper within
the paper. It must have a purpose, possibly a hypothesis (what
your group hoped to find) a description of your group’s methods
for gathering data, Conclusions/ results, and recommendations.
�Their 2nd paragraph provides methods and major findings.
�Paragraph 3 is results/ conclusions
�The final E.Summary paragraph is for recommendations.
�This expands on the purpose touched upon in the E. Summary.
For that reason, different people should write the Introduction
and Executive Summary.
�This goes in-depth about your methods whereas the E.
Summary only touches on them. This only has to be one
paragraph.
�Please use size 12 font and double space all the way through,
even before and after headings an visuals. You must also use
the same typeface (Times New Roman, Ariel, Calibri) all the

way through.
�Discuss anything that went wrong . This only has to be one
paragraph.
�This paragraph’s purpose is to give the reader a good idea
about the nature of the content to come. You should forecast the
sections to come, but you do not need a bulleted list to do that.
�Ina report like this, demographics of your respondents is
always discussed first.
�Your body sections should follow this formula: Section title,
first paragraph reports the raw data, provide a table or figure to
condense the information, then analyze what theinformation
means, what it shows, and/or why the data is important to your
study.
�This formula for body sections can be done with two
paragraphs and one table or graph, at a minimum.
�This section has the raw data and the analysis, but it has no
visual. Appropriately, the next section has the raw data, the
analysis, and 2 visuals.
�In this section, they report the raw data, analyzed some of it,
provided two visuals, then they analyze a little more of it (what
the data means/why it is important, what it shows and/or how it
is important to the study)

�We are back to the standard formula for survey reports: raw
data, visual translation, and analysis. It’s just that they have 2
visuals here instead of the usual one.
�Again, this gives raw data and analyzes, but there’s no visual.
This is perfectly fine since they gave two visuals in the section
before.
�The Conclusions paragraph is a summary of the purpose and,
more importantly, findings in the body. Be very thorough here,
but keep in mind that this can be done in one or two paragraphs.
�You may not have this many recommendations. Five to seven
is a good amount.
�Always use a complete sentence before the colon and bulleted
list.
_1226078380.xls
ExportGenderWhat is your class standing?What is your
major?What is your current GPA?Would you like to have a tutor
for one or more of your classes?If you answered yes to question
6, how many times would you use a tutor each semester?If you
answered yes to question 6, what is the highest price you would
be willing to pay per hour for a tutor?Would you like to tutor
students in classes of your choice?If you answered yes to
question 9, how many times would you be willing to tutor each
semester?If you answered yes to question 9, what is the lowest

price you would be willing to tutor for per hour?Where would
you like the tutoring to take place?What time of day would you
like tutoring to take place?How long should each tutoring
session last?DatetimeMaleGradComputer Science3.01-
3.5NoNo11/7/06 12:48MaleSeniorCivil & Construction
Engineering2.51-3.0NoNo11/7/06 12:48FemaleJuniorChemical
Engineering3.01-3.5Yes1 to 3<$7NoBernhard Center12pm
to4pm1 hours11/7/06 12:56FemaleGradElectrical & Computer
Engineering3.51-4.0Yes1 to 3<$7Yes9 to 12$11-
$14Library12pm to4pm1 hours11/7/06 12:57FemaleSeniorCivil
& Construction Engineering2.51-3.0Yes9 to 12$7-$10Yes4 to
8$7-$10Parkview Study Lounge8pm to 12am1 hours11/7/06
12:58MaleSophomoreCivil & Construction Engineering3.01-
3.5Yes4 to 8<$7NoParkview Classroom8pm to 12am1
hours11/7/06 12:59FemaleGradElectrical & Computer
Engineering3.51-4.0NoYes1 to 3$7-$10Parkview Classroom8am
to 12pm1 hours11/7/06 13:00MaleSeniorManufacturing
Engineering2.01-2.5NoNo11/7/06 13:00MaleSeniorCivil &
Construction Engineering2.51-3.0NoNo11/7/06
13:01MaleJuniorChemical Engineering3.51-4.0Yes4 to
8<$7Yes9 to 12$7-$10Library12pm to4pm1 hours11/7/06
13:03MaleJuniorCivil & Construction Engineering2.51-3.0Yes9
to 12$11-$14NoParkview Classroom12pm to4pm1 hours11/7/06
13:03MaleJuniorCivil & Construction Engineering3.01-
3.5NoNo11/7/06 13:04MaleJuniorCivil & Construction
Engineering3.01-3.5NoNo11/7/06 13:04MaleGradElectrical &
Computer Engineering3.51-4.0Yes9 to 12$7-$10NoParkview
Classroom8pm to 12am1 hours11/7/06
13:05MaleSeniorElectrical & Computer Engineering2.51-
3.0NoYes9 to 12<$7Parkview Classroom4pm to 8pm1
hours11/7/06 13:06FemaleSeniorImaging2.01-2.5Yes>15$7-
$10Yes>15$15-$20Parkview Computer Lab4pm to 8pm1
hours11/7/06 13:07MaleSeniorCivil & Construction
Engineering2.51-3.0NoNo11/7/06 13:08MaleSeniorIndustrial
Engineering3.51-4.0NoNo11/7/06 18:28MaleSeniorIndustrial
Engineering3.01-3.5NoYes4 to 8$7-$10Parkview Classroom4pm

to 8pm1 hours11/7/06 18:31FemaleSeniorIndustrial
Engineering3.51-4.0Yes0$7-$10Yes>15$11-$14Parkview
Classroom4pm to 8pm1 hours11/7/06 18:32MaleGradIndustrial
Engineering3.01-3.5NoYes4 to 8<$7Parkview Study Lounge8am
to 12pm1 hours11/7/06 18:33FemaleJuniorMechanical &
Aeronautical Engineering3.51-4.0Yes1 to 3$7-$10Yes4 to 8$7-
$10Parkview Classroom8am to 12pm1 hours11/7/06
18:36MaleSeniorCivil & Construction Engineering3.01-
3.5NoNo11/7/06 18:36MaleSeniorMechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering3.01-3.5NoNo11/7/06 18:36MaleJuniorChemical
Engineering3.51-4.0NoYes4 to 8$7-$10Bernhard Center4pm to
8pm1 hours11/7/06 18:37FemaleJuniorChemical
Engineering3.51-4.0NoYes>15$7-$10Parkview Study
Lounge4pm to 8pm1 hours11/7/06 18:38MaleSeniorElectrical &
Computer Engineering3.01-3.5NoYes>15$7-$10Library8pm to
12am1.5 hours11/7/06 18:39FemaleGradComputer Science3.51-
4.0Yes>15$7-$10Yes>15$7-$10Parkview Study Lounge12pm
to4pm1 hours11/7/06 18:39MaleGradComputer Science3.51-
4.0Yes9 to 12<$7Yes9 to 12<$7Parkview Computer Lab12pm
to4pm1.5 hours11/7/06 18:40FemaleJuniorMechanical &
Aeronautical Engineering3.01-3.5NoYes1 to 3$7-$10Parkview
Study Lounge12pm to4pm1 hours11/7/06
18:40FemaleGradElectrical & Computer Engineering3.01-
3.5Yes4 to 8$7-$10Yes9 to 12$7-$10Parkview Classroom4pm to
8pm1 hours11/8/06 11:49MaleSophomoreMechanical &
Aeronautical Engineering2.01-2.5Yes1 to 3<$7Yes1 to
3<$7Bernhard Center8pm to 12am1 hours11/8/06
11:50MaleFreshmanCivil & Construction Engineering2.51-
3.0Yes>15<$7NoBernhard Center4pm to 8pm1 hours11/8/06
11:50FemaleJuniorElectrical & Computer Engineering2.01-
2.5Yes9 to 12$7-$10Yes4 to 8$11-$14Library12pm to4pm1
hours11/8/06 11:51FemaleSophomoreElectrical & Computer
Engineering2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8<$7NoParkview Study
Lounge12pm to4pm0.5 hours11/8/06 11:52MaleJuniorElectrical
& Computer Engineering2.51-3.0Yes9 to 12$7-$10Yes4 to 8$7-
$10Parkview Classroom4pm to 8pm1.5 hours11/8/06

11:53MaleJuniorIndustrial Engineering3.51-4.0Yes9 to 12$7-
$10Yes9 to 12$7-$10Parkview Classroom8pm to 12am1.5
hours11/8/06 11:54MaleFreshmanMechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering3.01-3.5NoNo11/8/06 11:55FemaleSeniorOther3.01-
3.5Yes9 to 12$7-$10NoParkview Computer Lab8pm to 12am2
hours11/8/06 11:56FemaleSophomoreIndustrial
Engineering2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8$7-$10Yes9 to 12$11-
$14Parkview Classroom8pm to 12am2 hours11/8/06
11:57MaleFreshmanOther2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8<$7Yes4 to 8$7-
$10Parkview Computer Lab4pm to 8pm1 hours11/8/06
11:58MaleFreshmanMechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering3.01-3.5Yes4 to 8$7-$10Yes13 to15$7-$10Bernhard
Center8pm to 12am2 hours11/8/06 11:58MaleJuniorElectrical &
Computer Engineering2.51-3.0NoNo11/8/06
Engineering2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8<$7Yes4 to 8$7-$10Parkview
Computer Lab12pm to4pm1 hours11/8/06
12:00MaleFreshmanOther2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8$7-$10NoBernhard
Center8pm to 12am1 hours11/8/06
Engineering2.01-2.5NoYes1 to 3$7-$10Parkview Computer
Lab4pm to 8pm2 hours11/8/06 12:02MaleJuniorOther3.01-
3.5NoNo11/8/06 12:03MaleSophomoreElectrical & Computer
Engineering<2Yes4 to 8$7-$10NoLibrary4pm to 8pm1
hours11/8/06 12:03MaleSeniorOther2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8$7-
$10Yes4 to 8$7-$10Parkview Study Lounge8am to 12pm1
hours11/8/06 12:04FemaleSeniorIndustrial Engineering3.01-
3.5Yes>15$7-$10Yes>15$7-$10Library8pm to 12am1.5
hours11/8/06 12:08MaleJuniorMechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering3.51-4.0NoYes4 to 8$7-$10Library4pm to 8pm1
hours11/8/06 23:00MaleJuniorMechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering3.51-4.0NoYes9 to 12$15-$20Parkview Study
Lounge4pm to 8pm1 hours11/8/06 23:03MaleJuniorIndustrial
Engineering2.51-3.0Yes9 to 12<$7NoLibrary8pm to 12am1.5
hours11/8/06 23:04MaleSeniorIndustrial Engineering2.01-
2.5Yes9 to 12$7-$10Yes4 to 8$11-$14Parkview Study

Lounge4pm to 8pm1.5 hours11/8/06
23:05MaleJuniorMechanical & Aeronautical Engineering3.51-
4.0Yes>15$7-$10NoLibrary8am to 12pm1 hours11/8/06
23:06MaleSophomoreElectrical & Computer Engineering2.51-
3.0Yes9 to 12<$7NoParkview Classroom4pm to 8pm1
hours11/8/06 23:08MaleSophomoreMechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering3.51-4.0NoYes13 to15$7-$10Parkview Study
Lounge8pm to 12am1 hours11/8/06
23:08MaleFreshmanImaging3.51-4.0Yes9 to 12$7-
$10NoBernhard Center4pm to 8pm1 hours11/8/06
23:10MaleJuniorIndustrial Engineering3.51-4.0NoYes1 to 3$11-
$14Parkview Study Lounge4pm to 8pm1 hours11/8/06
23:10MaleSophomoreElectrical & Computer Engineering3.01-
3.5Yes4 to 8$7-$10Yes4 to 8$7-$10Parkview Classroom4pm to
8pm1.5 hours11/8/06 23:11FemaleSeniorMechanical &
Aeronautical Engineering3.01-3.5Yes1 to 3$7-$10Yes1 to 3$7-
$10Parkview Study Lounge8am to 12pm1 hours11/9/06
11:57MaleSophomoreMechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering2.01-2.5Yes4 to 8$7-$10NoBernhard Center8pm to
12am2 hours11/9/06 11:58FemaleSeniorMechanical &
Aeronautical Engineering3.51-4.0NoYes9 to 12$7-$10Parkview
Study Lounge4pm to 8pm1 hours11/9/06
11:59MaleSeniorMechanical & Aeronautical Engineering3.51-
4.0NoYes4 to 8$7-$10Library8pm to 12am1 hours11/9/06
12:00MaleSeniorMechanical & Aeronautical Engineering3.51-
4.0Yes9 to 12<$7NoParkview Study Lounge4pm to 8pm1
hours11/9/06 12:02MaleSeniorCivil & Construction
Engineering3.01-3.5NoNo11/9/06 12:02MaleJuniorCivil &
Construction Engineering3.01-3.5Yes13 to15<$7Yes9 to
12<$7Parkview Study Lounge4pm to 8pm2 hours11/9/06
12:04MaleSeniorElectrical & Computer Engineering3.01-
3.5NoYes4 to 8$11-$14Parkview Study Lounge4pm to 8pm1.5
hours11/9/06 12:05MaleSeniorElectrical & Computer
$10Parkview Classroom8pm to 12am2 hours11/9/06

3.0NoNo11/9/06 12:07MaleSeniorChemical Engineering3.01-
3.5NoNo11/9/06 12:09MaleJuniorChemical Engineering3.01-
3.5NoNo11/9/06 12:09MaleJuniorChemical Engineering3.01-
3.5NoNo11/9/06 12:10MaleJuniorOther3.01-3.5Yes4 to
8<$7NoLibrary8pm to 12am1 hours11/9/06
12:44MaleJuniorIndustrial Engineering2.51-3.0Yes9 to 12$7-
$10NoParkview Classroom8am to 12pm1 hours11/9/06
20:28MaleSeniorIndustrial Design2.01-2.5NoNo11/9/06
Engineering3.01-3.5Yes>15$7-$10Yes4 to 8$7-$10Library4pm
to 8pm1 hours11/9/06 20:30MaleFreshmanCivil & Construction
Engineering2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8$15-$20NoParkview Study
Lounge4pm to 8pm0.5 hours11/9/06
3.5Yes13 to15$7-$10Yes4 to 8$7-$10Bernhard Center8pm to
12am1 hours11/9/06 20:33MaleSophomoreCivil & Construction
Engineering2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8<$7Yes4 to 8$7-$10Parkview
Classroom4pm to 8pm1 hours11/9/06
3.0Yes9 to 12<$7NoLibrary4pm to 8pm1 hours11/9/06
Engineering3.51-4.0NoNo11/9/06 20:36MaleSeniorMechanical
& Aeronautical Engineering2.51-3.0NoYes4 to 8$11-
$14Bernhard Center8pm to 12am1 hours11/9/06
Engineering3.01-3.5Yes4 to 8$7-$10NoLibrary4pm to 8pm1.5
hours11/9/06 20:38MaleJuniorElectrical & Computer
Engineering3.01-3.5NoNo11/9/06
Engineering3.01-3.5NoNo11/9/06
Engineering3.01-3.5NoYes4 to 8$11-$14Bernhard Center12pm
to4pm1 hours11/9/06 20:41MaleSophomoreElectrical &
Computer Engineering3.01-3.5NoNo11/9/06
20:42MaleJuniorElectrical & Computer Engineering<2Yes4 to
8$11-$14NoParkview Study Lounge12pm to4pm1 hours11/9/06

20:43MaleSophomoreOther2.51-3.0Yes4 to 8$7-
$10NoLibrary12pm to4pm1.5 hours11/9/06
20:45MaleSophomoreEngineering Management
Technology<2Yes>15$11-$14NoParkview Study Lounge4pm to
8pm1.5 hours11/9/06 20:46MaleSeniorElectrical & Computer
Engineering3.01-3.5NoNo11/9/06 20:52MaleSeniorElectrical &
Computer Engineering2.51-3.0Yes9 to 12$7-$10Yes4 to 8$7-
$10Parkview Classroom4pm to 8pm1 hours11/9/06
20:53MaleFreshmanOther3.01-3.5NoNo11/10/06
11:23FemaleSeniorElectrical & Computer Engineering3.01-
3.5Yes9 to 12$7-$10Yes13 to15$7-$10Parkview Classroom4pm
to 8pm1 hours11/10/06 11:23FemaleSeniorIndustrial
$10Parkview Computer Lab8pm to 12am1 hours11/10/06
11:25MaleJuniorCivil & Construction Engineering<2Yes4 to
8$7-$10Yes4 to 8$7-$10Parkview Study Lounge12pm to4pm1.5
hours11/10/06 11:29FemaleSophomoreEngineering Management
Technology3.01-3.5NoYes4 to 8$7-$10Library4pm to 8pm1
hours11/10/06 11:32FemaleJuniorIndustrial Engineering3.01-
3.5Yes1 to 3<$7NoParkview Study Lounge12pm to4pm1
hours11/10/06 11:32MaleSophomoreEngineering Management
Technology3.01-3.5Yes4 to 8<$7Yes>15$7-$10Parkview Study
Lounge8pm to 12am1 hours11/10/06 11:34
GenderSurvey #GenderIf MaleIf
Female1Male102Male103Female014Female015Female016Male1
07Female018Male109Male1010Male1011Male1012Male1013Ma
le1014Male1015Male1016Female0117Male1018Male1019Male1
020Female0121Male1022Female0123Male1024Male1025Male1
026Female0127Male1028Female0129Male1030Female0131Fem
ale0132Male1033Male1034Female0135Female0136Male1037Ma
le1038Male1039Female0140Female0141Male1042Male1043Mal
e1044Male1045Male1046Male1047Male1048Male1049Male105
0Female0151Male1052Male1053Male1054Male1055Male1056M
ale1057Male1058Male1059Male1060Male1061Female0162Male
1063Female0164Male1065Male1066Male1067Male1068Male10
69Male1070Male1071Male1072Male1073Male1074Male1075M

ale1076Male1077Male1078Male1079Male1080Male1081Male10
82Male1083Male1084Male1085Male1086Male1087Male1088M
ale1089Male1090Male1091Male1092Male1093Male1094Male10
95Female0196Female0197Male1098Female0199Female01100M
ale10Male'sFemale'sSum7822
Gender
Gender
Number of Students
Male's vs. Female's
MajorsSurvey #What is your major?Chemical EngineeringCivil
& Construction EngineeringComputer ScienceElectrical &
Computer EngineeringEngineering Management
TechnologyImagingIndustrial DesignIndustrial
EngineeringManufacturing EngineeringMaterials Science &
EngineeringMechanical & Aeronautical EngineeringPaper
EngineeringOther1Computer Science001000000000002Civil &
Construction Engineering01000000000003Chemical
Engineering10000000000004Electrical & Computer
Engineering00010000000005Civil & Construction
Engineering00010000000008Manufacturing
Engineering010000000000010Chemical
Engineering000100000000016Imaging000001000000017Civil &
Construction Engineering010000000000018Industrial
Engineering000000010000019Industrial
Engineering000000010000022Mechanical & Aeronautical

Engineering000100000000028Computer
Science001000000000029Computer
Science001000000000030Mechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering000000000010039Other000000000000140Industrial
Engineering000000010000041Other000000000000142Mechanic
al & Aeronautical Engineering000000000010043Electrical &
Computer Engineering000100000000044Mechanical &
Aeronautical
Engineering000000000010045Other000000000000146Mechanic
al & Aeronautical
Engineering000000000010047Other000000000000148Electrical
& Computer
Engineering000000000010058Imaging000001000000059Industri
al Engineering000000010000060Electrical & Computer

Design000000100000077Mechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering000100000000090Other000000000000191Engineeri
ng Management Technology000010000000092Electrical &
Computer Engineering000100000000093Electrical & Computer
Engineering000100000000094Other000000000000195Electrical
& Computer Engineering000100000000096Industrial
Engineering010000000000098Engineering Management
Technology000010000000099Industrial
Engineering0000000100000100Engineering Management
Technology0000100000000Chemical EngineeringCivil &

Construction EngineeringComputer ScienceElectrical &
Computer EngineeringEngineering Management
TechnologyImagingIndustrial DesignIndustrial
EngineeringManufacturing EngineeringMaterials Science &
EngineeringMechanical & Aeronautical EngineeringPaper
EngineeringOtherSum71532132113102608Total Number of
Surveys100
Majors
Majors
Number of Students
Majors
All good graphsMajorsPercentageMechanical & Aeronautical
Engineering26Electrical & Computer Engineering21Civil &
Construction Engineering15Industrial
Engineering13Other8Chemical Engineering7Computer
Science3Engineering Management
Technology3Imaging2Industrial Design1Manufacturing
Engineering1Materials Science & Engineering0Paper
Engineering0MajorsPercentageChemical Engineering7Civil &
Construction Engineering15Computer Science3Electrical &
Computer Engineering21Engineering Management
Technology3Imaging2Industrial Design1Industrial
Engineering13Manufacturing Engineering1Materials Science &
Engineering26Other8Paper Engineering0
All good graphs
Majors
Percentage
Majors at College of Engineering and Applied Science
Class StandingSurvey #What is your class
standing?FreshmanSophomoreJuniorSeniorGrad
Student1Grad000012Senior000103Junior001004Grad000015Sen
ior000106Sophomore010007Grad000018Senior000109Senior00
01010Junior0010011Junior0010012Junior0010013Junior001001
4Grad0000115Senior0001016Senior0001017Senior0001018Seni
or0001019Senior0001020Senior0001021Grad0000122Junior001

0023Senior0001024Senior0001025Junior0010026Junior0010027
Senior0001028Grad0000129Grad0000130Junior0010031Grad00
00132Sophomore0100033Freshman1000034Junior0010035Soph
omore0100036Junior0010037Junior0010038Freshman1000039S
enior0001040Sophomore0100041Freshman1000042Freshman10
00043Junior0010044Freshman1000045Freshman1000046Freshm
an1000047Junior0010048Sophomore0100049Senior0001050Sen
ior0001051Junior0010052Junior0010053Junior0010054Senior00
01055Junior0010056Sophomore0100057Sophomore0100058Fres
hman1000059Junior0010060Sophomore0100061Senior0001062
Sophomore0100063Senior0001064Senior0001065Senior000106
6Senior0001067Junior0010068Senior0001069Senior0001070Jun
ior0010071Senior0001072Junior0010073Junior0010074Junior00
10075Junior0010076Senior0001077Sophomore0100078Freshma
n1000079Junior0010080Sophomore0100081Junior0010082Soph
omore0100083Senior0001084Sophomore0100085Junior0010086
Freshman1000087Freshman1000088Sophomore0100089Junior0
010090Sophomore0100091Sophomore0100092Senior0001093Se
nior0001094Freshman1000095Senior0001096Senior0001097Jun
ior0010098Sophomore0100099Junior00100100Sophomore01000
FreshmanSophomoreJuniorSeniorGrad121831318Total100
Class Standing00000
Class Status
Number of Students
Class Standing
Gender vs. Have a tutorSurvey #GenderWould you like to have
a tutor for one or more of your classes?Male and YesMale and
NoFemale and YesFemale and
No1MaleNo01002MaleNo01003FemaleYes00104FemaleYes001
05FemaleYes00106MaleYes10007FemaleNo00018MaleNo01009
MaleNo010010MaleYes100011MaleYes100012MaleNo010013M
aleNo010014MaleYes100015MaleNo010016FemaleYes001017
MaleNo010018MaleNo010019MaleNo010020FemaleYes001021
MaleNo010022FemaleYes001023MaleNo010024MaleNo010025
MaleNo010026FemaleNo000127MaleNo010028FemaleYes0010
29MaleYes100030FemaleNo000131FemaleYes001032MaleYes1

00033MaleYes100034FemaleYes001035FemaleYes001036Male
Yes100037MaleYes100038MaleNo010039FemaleYes001040Fe
maleYes001041MaleYes100042MaleYes100043MaleNo010044
MaleYes100045MaleYes100046MaleNo010047MaleNo010048M
aleYes100049MaleYes100050FemaleYes001051MaleNo010052
MaleNo010053MaleYes100054MaleYes100055MaleYes100056
MaleYes100057MaleNo010058MaleYes100059MaleNo010060M
aleYes100061FemaleYes001062MaleYes100063FemaleNo00016
4MaleNo010065MaleYes100066MaleNo010067MaleYes100068
MaleNo010069MaleYes100070MaleNo010071MaleNo010072M
aleNo010073MaleNo010074MaleYes100075MaleYes100076Mal
eNo010077MaleYes100078MaleYes100079MaleYes100080Male
Yes100081MaleYes100082MaleNo010083MaleNo010084MaleY
es100085MaleNo010086MaleNo010087MaleNo010088MaleNo0
10089MaleYes100090MaleYes100091MaleYes100092MaleNo01
0093MaleYes100094MaleNo010095FemaleYes001096FemaleYe
s001097MaleYes100098FemaleNo000199FemaleYes0010100Ma
leYes1000MaleFemaleYesNoYesNoSum3939175
Gender vs. Have a tutor0000
Number of Students
Gender vs. Having a Tutor
Gender vs. Wanting to TutorSurvey #GenderWould you like to
tutor students in classes of your choice?Male and YesMale and
NoFemale and YesFemale and
No1MaleNo01002MaleNo01003FemaleNo00014FemaleYes0010
5FemaleYes00106MaleNo01007FemaleYes00108MaleNo01009
MaleNo010010MaleYes100011MaleNo010012MaleNo010013M
aleNo010014MaleNo010015MaleYes100016FemaleYes001017
MaleNo010018MaleNo010019MaleYes100020FemaleYes00102
1MaleYes100022FemaleYes001023MaleNo010024MaleNo0100
25MaleYes100026FemaleYes001027MaleYes100028FemaleYes
001029MaleYes100030FemaleYes001031FemaleYes001032Mal
eYes100033MaleNo010034FemaleYes001035FemaleNo000136
MaleYes100037MaleYes100038MaleNo010039FemaleNo00014
0FemaleYes001041MaleYes100042MaleYes100043MaleNo0100
44MaleYes100045MaleNo010046MaleYes100047MaleNo01004

8MaleNo010049MaleYes100050FemaleYes001051MaleYes1000
52MaleYes100053MaleNo010054MaleYes100055MaleNo01005
6MaleNo010057MaleYes100058MaleNo010059MaleYes100060
MaleYes100061FemaleYes001062MaleNo010063FemaleYes001
064MaleYes100065MaleNo010066MaleNo010067MaleYes1000
68MaleYes100069MaleYes100070MaleNo010071MaleNo01007
2MaleNo010073MaleNo010074MaleNo010075MaleNo010076M
aleNo010077MaleYes100078MaleNo010079MaleYes100080Mal
eYes100081MaleNo010082MaleNo010083MaleYes100084Male
No010085MaleNo010086MaleNo010087MaleYes100088MaleNo
010089MaleNo010090MaleNo010091MaleNo010092MaleNo010
093MaleYes100094MaleNo010095FemaleYes001096FemaleYes
001097MaleYes100098FemaleYes001099FemaleNo0001100Mal
eYes1000MaleFemaleYesNoYesNoSum3345184Total100
Gender vs. Wanting to Tutor0000
Number of Students
Gender vs. Wanting to be a tutor
IEE 3160: Rubric for Formal Survey Analysis Report (Due 21
April)
Based on the Work Planned delegations listed on your progress
reports, I might grade one or all teammates’ work separately.
Regardless, your team should have an editor who tries to
smooth things out as well as time allows.
Format
· Proper headings for each section
· Double spacing throughout – no extra spacing between
paragraphs or headings!
· Size 12 font, Times New Roman
· Does not mix typeface styles
· Pages numbered in upper right-hand corner
· Properly formatted supplement (questionnaire and any other
appendix you might need)

Content
· Title page
· Table of contents (titles match section headings in text)
· Table of figures (titles match titles of visuals in text)
· Executive summary (with all proper parts, as noted on sample
paper in your wmich e-mail inbox)
· Introduction with four appropriate sections (as shown on
sample paper)
· Body with demographics analysis
· Body sections that provide 1) raw data, 2) visuals that
show/compare data 3) analysis, comparisons, insight and
interpretation [if needed] of the data
· Conclusions
· Recommendations
· Questionnaire included as Appendix A
· At least 14 pages long for groups of 4 (Try to keep it below
twenty pp. total. The total for writing goes from Executive
Summary through Recommendations and can include up to three
visuals per section, as long as the visual or table is about ¼
page large: about the same size as the tables in the sample.)
Tables count as visuals, but use an array of visual types. You
may use side-by side visuals.
· All group members must complete at least 3.5 pages. (Your
3.5 pages could include up to a page of visuals.) If the same
person writes the Introduction and Executive Summary, that
should add up to 2.5 pages and will suffice for the length
requirement.
Style (There is a “cap.” of -2 for the following errors.)
· Effective word choice (diction)
· Effective sentence structure
· Variation in sentence lengths

· Proper use of transitions
· Technical terms defined
Grammar and Mechanics (There is a “cap.” of -2 for the
following errors.)
· Punctuation and typos -.5
· Grammar and spelling errors -1
· Fragments and run-ons -1
Title Page
Table of Contents
List of Illustrations
Executive Summary
Introduction
Purpose
Possible Sections:
Procedure
Limitations
Report Format
Discussion Section
Everybody’s parts
Possible Section Ideas:
Determining Demographics of Respondents
Generalizing Demand for Online Homework Platform
GPA and Demand
Cost and Demand
Conclusions

Recommendations
WMU Online Homework
Platform Survey
Neal Benson, Lucas Essenburg, Henri Cousino,
Mohammed Boshlibi, and Azam Albiebi
Introduction: Purpose
● Online homework services are increasingly relied upon by
professors
● Teachers do not use the same services
○ This can be a disadvantage for students:
■ Multiple accounts
■ Redundant fees
■ Wasted time learning different formats
● Study developed to determine:
○ Is there interest in a proprietary WMU homework system?
○ Do students think the platform would be successful?
○ If successful, would students be willing to pay for it?
Introduction: Procedure
● Determined 1 page paper survey would

be most effective in short timeline
● Distributed at WMU College of
Engineering
● 50 students surveyed
● Questions were developed to establish
correlations between demographics,
experience/satisfaction and cost
Overview: Limitations and Analysis
● Azam will categorize the demographics of the survey
○ Offers insight on the breadth of the survey and determines its
limitations
● Mohammed determines the level of student online homework
experience
○ Surveying levels of experience will assist the development of
a successful platform
● Henri makes comparisons between homework platform
preference and cost
○ Important to realize if preference is biased by additional costs
● Lucas determines overall respondent opinion levels

○ Further action could be dependent on a positive result
Raw Data: Demographics
● What is your major?
○ Electrical Engineering “35 students”
○ Mechanical Engineering “10 students”
○ Civil Engineering
○ Industrial Engineering “1 student”
○ Chemical Engineering
○ Computer Engineering “1 student”
○ Aerospace Engineering
○ Engineering Management “3 students”
● What is your GPA?
○ <1.00
○ 1.01 - 1.5
○ 1.51 - 2.00
○ 2..01 - 2.50
○ 2.51 - 3.00 “17 students”
○ 3.01 - 3.50 “19 students”
○ 3.51 - 4.00 “14 students”

● What is your status?
○ Freshmen
○ Sophomore
○ Junior “27 students“
○ Senior “23 students”
○ Graduate
○ Doctoral
Demographic Analysis
● Limited majors and student stats could cause a misleading
result.
○ because it could be that student in other majors think that
they need online homework in
their class more than the other majors.
● Limited student stats could affect the answers for this survey.
○ we have got just seniors and joiners and I believe that this
could be affecting the answers for
the student about online homework because it will be something
know for them, or
something they did not get used to it from the beginning.
1.Raw Data: Online Homework Experience
A 100% of respondents said (yes) for Q#4 which is :

Have you ever used online homework services like Mcgraw-
Hill: Connect or
person: Mastering Engineering?
50 Students said ‘’YES’’
No one at all said ‘’NO’’
How satisfied with the online homework platform(s) that you
used? (Q5)
● 7 (13)
● 8 (9)
● 9 (2)
● 4 (6)
● 5 (7)
● 6 (4)
● 1 Not Satisfied (6)
● 2 (No one)
● 3 (2)
● 10 Satisfied (1)
In general, do you think online homework is beneficial for
students? (Q12)

•Yes ‘’ 31 Students’’ •No ‘’19 Students’’
Online Homework Experience Analysis
-Comparing between students who are ‘Satisfied’ and ‘Not
Satisfied’ (Q5)
We made the survey from 1 which is not satisfied to 10 which is
satisfied and we had a response for all
of them except #2, and 13 of students said #7 which is almost
satisfied and the other was between 4-8.
Almost more than a half of 50 students who did the survey are
satisfied with their online homework, and
only 6 students choose #1 which is totally not satisfied.
-Do you think online homework is beneficial for students?
(Q12)
31 Students said it is really beneficial, and 19 of them said it is
not. So it obvious to see that the
students are confused even though they have all experienced
online homework.
Raw Data: Preference and Cost
● Comparing preference of online homework to beneficiality of
online homework.
● In general, do you prefer online based homework? (Q7)
○ Yes: 22
○ No: 28

● In general, do you think online homework is beneficial for
students? (Q12)
○ Yes: 31
○ No: 19
Note: 50 total student responses
Visual: Preference and Cost
Analysis: Preference and Cost
● One would expect questions 6 and 12 to correlate very
closely.
○ This was not the case according to the data.
● The majority of people found online homework beneficial
while the majority
did not prefer it.
● It is possible that online homework is more difficult so it
takes longer
causing less people to prefer it.
● Money spent on online homework and preference of online
homework.
● On average, how much have you spent per semester on third
party homework platforms? (Q6)

○ 0 - 10 Dollars: 0 Students
● In general, do you prefer online based homework? (Q7)
○ Yes: 22
○ No: 28
● When comparing questions 6 and 7:
○ It seems that there is a trend on the upper and lower ends.
○ The median shows contradicting data.
○ Maybe the specific online homework services that cost 50 -
150 are not as useful as
those at other costs.
● Money spent on online homework and beneficiality of online
homework.
● On average, how much have you spent per semester on third
party homework platforms? (Q6)

● In general, do you think online homework is beneficial for
students? (Q12)
○ Yes: 31
○ No: 19
● When comparing questions 6 and 12:
○ Trend is similar to 6 and 7 where the middle 50 - 150 shows
different data.
○ Online homework services costing 50 - 150 dollars tend to not
be as beneficial as
those programs costing 10 - 50 dollars or 150 - 300 dollars.
Raw Data: WMU Online Platform Opinions

WMU Online Platform Opinions Visuals
WMU Online Platform Opinions Analysis
● Question 8 dislapyed a normal distribution that would be
expected
○ Staunch people that despise online homework
○ Gaussian type distribution showing outliers at the high and
low bounds
■ Average around 6.5
Raw Data and Visual: WMU Online Platform
Opinions
● Do You Think This Platform Would Be Used By Your
Instructors? (Q9)
○ Yes: 31
○ No: 19
● Many people had little faith in their professors
● Others saw that it would be used since 100% of respondents
have dealt with
online HW

● When comparing questions 8 and 9, correlations were found
○ Average response of 8 if respondent answered yes to 9
■ 6.9-fairly high faith in success
○ Average response of 8 if respondent answered no to 9
■ 4.6-fairly low faith in success
○ Professors must use it for it to be successful
Opinions
● Do You Think WMU Could Develop an Online Homework
Platform? (Q10)
○ Yes: 37
○ No: 13
● Overall, respondents had faith in WMU to develop this in
house
○ This is despite some of the comments about the University
that we heard from some
dissenting respondents
● When comparing questions 8 and 10, correlations were also
found
○ Average response of 8 if respondent answered yes to 10

■ 6.8-fairly high faith in success
○ Average response of 8 if respondent answered no to 10
■ 3.8-fairly low faith in success
○ This is fairly obvious-a respondent must think that WMU can
develop it in order for it to be
successful
Opinions
● How Much Would You Spend on This WMU Homework
Platform? (Q11)
○ 0-10: 22
○ 10-30: 9
○ 30-50: 10
○ 50-70: 6
○ 70-90: 3
○ >90: 0
WMU Online Platform Opinions Analysis cont.
● Question 11 was answered the way that we had envisioned
○ The higher the cost, the less likely people would be willing to
pay it
● When comparing questions 6 and 11 some slight correlations
between the

cost spent previously on online HW and what they would pay to
WMU
○ It was assumed that as the previous cost paid increased,
willingness to pay more to WMU
would go down
○ People that want to pay less now have paid all ranged in the
past
○ However, as willingness to pay more increases, previous cost
was higher
■ But the prices that they were willing to pay were still lower
than previous cost
Summary
● Experience of students
○ Majority of respondents:
■ Positive experience with online homework platforms
■ Believe online homework is beneficial to students
● There is not a strong association between cost of platform and
preference/benefit
● Opinion of students
○ Majority of respondents:
■ Believe that instructors would use platform and that WMU

could develop a successful
platform, but that overall success of the platform could be
weak.
Conclusions and Recommendations
● Overall students had a positive online homework experience.
They believe it is
beneficial for students and that a WMU platform would be fairly
successful.
● However, demographic limitations should be considered
○ 90% of all respondents were EE or ME majors
○ 100% of respondents were Juniors or Seniors
● The fact that we did this survey on student in parkview
campus only might
have an affect on the answers.
● In my opinion and based on this survey online homework can
be helpful in a
lot class.
Additional Recommendations
● Our group recommends expanding the survey campus wide to
solidify results
● Survey teachers

○ Considered finding out why / why they don’t use existing
online homework platforms
○ Reference E-Learning to determine services that could be
combined or improved upon
● Seek out opinions of other universities with similar systems
● Develop feasibility study to forecast labor requirements, cost,
timeline,
implementation, etc.
● Consider forming a committee of teachers, student
representatives and
developers

Group 1 20.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Group 1 20.docx

Similar to Group 1 20.docx (20)

More from whittemorelucilla

More from whittemorelucilla (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Group 1 20.docx