Methods

Document Sample
Methods Powered By Docstoc
					UW-L’s Alternative printing system Options




         BUS 230 Summer 2008
                Team 5:
            Brandon Harris
          Charity Pradiptarini
             Megan Rowe
              Anne Walz

        Client: Dave Faulkner, ITS
             June 13th, 2008
Table of Contents
Managerial Summary .......................................................................................................... 3
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 5
Methods .............................................................................................................................. 8
Table 1: Students Opinions ................................................................................................. 9
Table 2: Students behaviors on printing ........................................................................... 11
Table 3: Students’ knowledge of on campus printing ...................................................... 12
Table 4: Demographics ..................................................................................................... 12
Results ............................................................................................................................... 13
Graph 1.............................................................................................................................. 13
Graph 2.............................................................................................................................. 14
Graph 3.............................................................................................................................. 15
Graph 4.............................................................................................................................. 15
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................... 16
Table 6: Printing Option Preference ................................................................................. 16
Graph 5.............................................................................................................................. 17
Summary and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 20
Closing Comments:........................................................................................................... 21
Appendix A: Pretest Result ............................................................................................... 22
Appendix B: Summary questionnaire ............................................................................... 23
Appendix C: ....................................................................................................................... 27




                                                                    2
Managerial Summary
  I. Objectives and Methodology
         i.    The purpose of this project was to obtain opinions from UW-L students
               about the current printing privileges on campus, analyze the collected
               data, and present the findings to the ITS Management who will be
               implementing an updated printing system.
        ii.    This study examined primary data collected from students through an
               electronic survey which was sent to their school email account. The
               survey queried the students on their usage of the printing facilities on
               campus, and it explored their opinions of alternative printing solutions.
        iii.   Of the nearly 8,000 students at UW-L, a random sample of 1,000 email
               addresses was drawn using SPSS. The survey was then emailed to this
               1,000 student sample. Due to historically low response rates,
               oversampling was employed to achieve a target rate of 15% or 150
               responses. 135 surveys were completed which gave sufficient data for
               analysis.
        iv.    Select Survey compiled the responses as they were submitted which
               were later transferred to SPSS for statistical analysis.
   II. Findings

         i.    The first objective of this study was to identify students’ preference on
               the alternative printing options. The study found that 25.83% of
               respondents preferred to have the print release stations option, and only
               20% of the respondents chose the page quota option. The finding was
               different with the hypothesis which predicted that students would favor
               the page quota rather than the print release stations as the alternative
               printing option.
        ii.    The second objective was to determine the number one type of materials
               printed on campus. The study found that the amount of pages printed for


                                             3
           class related materials was higher than the amount printed for non class
           materials. It confirmed the hypothesis that printing class related
           materials is the number one use of campus printers.
    iii.   The third objective of the study was to identify students’ awareness of
           the costs associated with the current printing system. 40% of
           respondents realized how expensive the current printing system was. The
           finding agreed with the hypothesis which predicted that the proportion
           of students who realize how expensive the current printing system is low.
    iv.    The fourth objective was to distinguish students’ impression on whether
           the current printing system was free. The result was 63% of respondents
           thought that the current printing service on campus was free, and it
           proved the hypothesis that the proportion of students who think that
           printing on campus is free is high.


III. Conclusions and Recommendations
     i.    Amid the societal wave of “going green” and “reducing the human carbon
           footprint,” the information acquired through this research project shows
           that UW-L students are still heavily reliant on printing. Over 95% of
           students were strongly opposed to eliminating printing on campus
           entirely, and the majority of students were opposed to any deviation
           from the current unrestricted policy. The choices most favored were the
           implementation of print release stations which would not restrict the
           amount students could print, but it would make printing a more
           conscious activity, and the implementation of a printing quota per
           student with a charge per page after exceeding the quota. The print
           release stations would eliminate forgotten print jobs since a student
           would have to physically go to a printer in order for the job to be
           processed. The quota system might also be effective, but may have a




                                         4
               larger implementation cost. These options are certainly a step in the right
               direction, and they could possibly greatly reduce printing waste.
         ii.   Students claim that the printing they do is class related. This is
               reasonable since many students do not have laptops, yet many
               professors use Power Point presentations as the framework for their
               lectures. Perhaps UW-L should encourage more students to bring laptops
               to class, so students could take notes electronically on the slides which
               would eliminate a great deal of printing. Similarly, if more professors
               utilized D2L for electronic submission of assignments, students wouldn’t
               be forced to print assignments and term papers.
        iii.   Students seem to be unaware of the costs incurred through the current
               printing system. A large majority are under the impression that printing is
               free. A free good is often taken for granted and easily wasted. Adding a
               direct cost element to printing by forcing students to manually release
               print jobs, or adding scarcity to printing by restricting the amount of
               pages available to students will encourage students to consciously
               consider whether or not printing is necessary or frivolous.

Introduction

       “Free printing” is a term used loosely on the UW-L campus where students are

allowed to use the university computers to print an unlimited number of pages.

Students actually pay for these services with their Student Technology Fee. This fee is

designed to cover the cost of all technology resources provided to the students.

Unfortunately, free printing has led to high printing costs, which means that there are

fewer funds remaining to support other forms of technology on campus. According to

the UW-L Information Technology Services (ITS) department, a large proportion of the

technology budget, $70,000, is allocated to printing costs such as paper, toner, and

                                             5
maintenance (D. Faulkner, personal interview, May 28, 2008). A reduction in printing

usage and wasteful printing could permit the budget savings to be used for new

computers in the labs, new laptops for use in the library, or enhanced technology in

UW-L classrooms.

       There are numerous alternative printing systems that could be implemented at

UW-L to reduce the amount of money spent by ITS on paper, toner, and printer

maintenance. The options range from the current extreme of unlimited printing to the

extreme of entirely discontinuing printing services on campus. Less extreme options

include a page quota system where students are allotted a fixed number of print pages

per semester or year; print release stations where students must physically go to the

printer to release the print job; reduction of the portion of the technology fee

earmarked for printing and implementing a pay-to-print system; maintaining the

technology fee at its current level, and implementing a pay-to-print system, but using

the technology freed budget resources to provide better overall technology support; or

requiring students to supply the paper for printing on campus while ITS provides only

the toner and printers. ITS will be implementing one of the aforementioned systems,

and since students will be providing the funding, it is important to know their

preferences for the different options.

   This project determines student opinion about the possible options ITS might

implement to reduce UW-L’s printing costs. The study also examines students’

awareness of the existing problem, their current printing habits, and the extent to which

a new printing system will affect their use of printers. An electronic survey of randomly


                                           6
chosen UW-L students will be used to collect the data. The results of this study will be

submitted to ITS to aid in their decision of the most effective printing system to adapt.

       The study tests the following hypotheses:

        Students prefer to have an annual page quota and pay for pages that exceed the

         quota.

             o Other Universities have implemented this method, and they have had

                  positive results, both in paper waste reduction and in student approval.

        The proportion of students who think printing on campus is free is high.

             o University tours promote the “free printing” benefit to possible future

                  students. The cost is embedded in students’ bill so it probably often goes

                  unnoticed.

        The number one use of campus printers is for class related printing.

             o Many professors offer PowerPoint presentations, and since few students

                  bring laptops to class, they print the slides for class instead. Professors

                  that require written assignments usually ask for hard copies of the work

                  rather than offering electronic submission.

        The proportion of students who realize how expensive the current printing

         system is low.

             o The amount of waste generated by student printing leads shows that

                  students are unaware of the inherent cost of printing. Additionally,

                  students do not have a frame of reference as to what high volume

                  printing materials cost.


                                               7
       The key results of this study are that 63% of students believe that campus

printing is free. Students were also asked to estimate printing expenditures on campus

in order to measure whether or not they realized how expensive printing is for ITS. The

category with the correct dollar amount was the category that was selected most often.

It was selected by 40% of the sample but that is still relatively low.   Along with those

results, 25.83% of students felt that the print release station option was the best

solution to the problem at hand. The printing option with the worst reviews was

eliminating printing on campus with 95.8% of students in opposition. It was also found

that students print more class related materials than non-class.


Methods
     The purpose of this project was to determine student opinion about alternative

options that could be implemented to reduce UW-L’s printing cost. The study also

examined students’ awareness of the existing problem as well as their behavior in terms

of printing habits. To achieve this goal, UW-L students who were enrolled in the spring

2008 semester were surveyed on their opinions of the printing issue. The primary data

were collected from a sample of the target population with a questionnaire designed by

Brandon Harris, Charity Pradiptarini, Megan Rowe, Anne Walz, and the UW-L

Information Technology Services Department. The survey asked 20 questions that

measured the necessary variables to test the hypotheses discussed above.

       The questionnaire was administered by the use of an electronic survey sent to

respondents via e-mail. Some problems associated with electronic survey are non-

response and self selection bias. The response rate expected was the, historically, 15-


                                            8
25% for BUS 230 studies. By over-sampling 1000 students, the final sample goal using a

15% response rate was in 150 responses. A sample of this size was expected to provide

sufficient responses to evaluate the target population’s opinions. SPSS 15.0 was used to

select a simple random sample of 1000 UW-L students. The sample was drawn from a

sampling frame provided by the Office of Records and Registration. It contained the

email addresses of all undergraduate students enrolled at UW-L for the spring 2008

semester. Several circumstances may have produced a low response rate, such as

students not having accessed their campus email account, students not using their

account over the summer, or students not checking their email over weekends, the

period over which the survey was administered.

       One of the objectives of the study was to evaluate the students’ opinions of the

alternative printing options that ITS has under consideration. Table 1 summarizes the

variables that measured the students’ opinions toward the alternative options.


                              Table 1: Students Opinions

Variable Label                Operational Definition         Response Labels
Page quota                    Measure of respondents’           1- Oppose
                              support for given                 2-
                              alternative printing options      3-
                                                                4-
                                                                5- Favor
Release station                                                 1- Oppose
                                                                2-
                                                                3-
                                                                4-
                                                                5- Favor

Reduce fee/pay to print                                         1- Oppose
                                                                2-


                                           9
                                                                   3-
                                                                   4-
                                                                   5- Favor

Keep fee/pay to print                                              1- Oppose
                                                                   2-
                                                                   3-
                                                                   4-
                                                                   5- Favor

Supply own paper                                                   1- Oppose
                                                                   2-
                                                                   3-
                                                                   4-
                                                                   5- Favor

No printing                                                        1- Oppose
                                                                   2-
                                                                   3-
                                                                   4-
                                                                   5- Favor

Page’s quota                  Measure of respondents’          1-    200
                              opinion on the number of         2-    400
                              pages that can be printed        3-    600
                              per year if page quota           4-    800
                              system is implemented
 Free printing                Measure of students’             1- yes
                              impression on whether            0- no
                              campus printing is free




       Another objective considers how UW-L students currently use campus printers.

Table 2 summarizes the variables used to evaluate this behavior.




                                          10
                         Table 2: Students behaviors on printing

Variable Label                 Operational Definition           Response Labels
Printer usage                  Measure of whether                 1- Yes
                               respondents’ ever used             0- No
                               printers on campus
Printing frequency             Measure of how many times           Open ended
                               respondents use printers on
                               campus per average week

Class materials                Measure of the number of            1-   0-10
                               the pages of class materials        2-   11-20
                               that respondents print on           3-   21-30
                               campus per average week             4-   >30
Non class materials            Measure of the number of            1-   0-10
                               the pages number of non             2-   11-20
                               class materials that                3-   21-30
                               respondents print on                4-   >30
                               campus per average week
Printing places                Measures which computer             1-   Murphy Library
                               labs that respondents use to        2-   Wing Technology
                               print                               3-   Wimberly Hall
                                                                   4-   Cartwright Center
Printer usage after printing   Measure of respondents              1-   Print the same
services are not “free”        printing usage if they have to      2-   Print less
                               pay to print                        3-   Stop printing

Computer labs usage            Measure of whether                  1- Yes
                               respondents will continue to        0- No
                               use computer labs on
                               campus after printing
                               services are discontinued
computer classrooms usage      Measure of whether                  1- Yes
                               respondents ever had class          0- No
                               in GCA computer classroom
Printer usage in classrooms    Measure of whether                  1- Yes
                               respondents ever used the           0- No
                               printer when they had class
                               in GCA computer classroom




                                           11
       Another objective of this study was to determine what students know about the

current campus printing situation. Table 3 lists the variables used to measure students’

knowledge.


                   Table 3: Students’ knowledge of on campus printing

Variable Label                Operational Definition       Response Labels
Pages estimation              Measure of respondents’         1- <1
                              estimate of 2007 fiscal year    2- 1-1.9
                              paper usage on campus (in       3- 2 -2.9
                              millions)                       4- >3
Printers’ expenses            Measure of respondents’         1- <$25,000
                              estimate of 2007 fiscal year    2- $25,001-$50,000
                              printers’ expend on campus      3- $50,001-$75,000
                                                              4- >$75,000
Computer classroom            Measure of whether              1- Yes
printing                      respondents’ agree if           0- No
                              printing capabilities in GCA
                              computer classrooms
                              monitored under the same
                              system


       Table 4 reviews variables that measure the students’ demographic information.


                                 Table 4: Demographics

Variable Label                Operational Definition         Response Labels
College enrolled              Measure of respondents’           1- College of Business
                              college enrolled                     Administration
                                                                2- College of Liberal Arts
                                                                3- College of Science and
                                                                   Health
Class ranking                 Measure of respondents’           1- Sophomore
                              class ranking                     2- Junior
                                                                3- Senior
                                                                4- Other
Age                           Measure of respondents’           1- <18
                              age                               2- 18-20

                                           12
                                                                                         3-   21-23
                                                                                         4-   24-26
                                                                                         5-   >26
   Gender                                              Measure of respondents’           0-   Male
                                                       gender                            1-   Female
   Area Residency                                      Measure of respondents’           0-   No
                                                       area of residency                 1-   Yes


                     The data were complied in Microsoft Excel and analyzed with the SPSS 15.0

   statistical package. The analyses include confidence interval estimates for means and

   proportions, one sample t tests, comparison of means, one-way ANOVA. The results of

   the analyses appear in the following section.


   Results
                     The focus of the study was to examine the printing opinions and behaviors of

   University of Wisconsin-La Crosse undergraduate students. The survey demographics

   included: 39 males, 80 females, 40 of students living on campus, 79 off campus, ages

   range from 18+, students from all three schools, College of Business Administration,

   College of Liberal Arts, and College of Science and Health, students from levels

                   Graph 1
                                                             sophomore to Senior as well students who fall into
                       Campus Printing?
                                                             an other category. This category would include
          100.0%




           80.0%                                             students who are seeking a second degree,
Percent




           60.0%
                                                             students who have graduated, and continuing
                                               93.3%
           40.0%




           20.0%
                                                             education students.
                        6.7%

           0.0%
                         no                     yes                 It was found that a majority, 93%, of UW-L
                               Printer Usage


                                                             students print using campus facilities (see graph 1).



                                                                   13
                  When analyzing the results, student’s place of residency, whether or not the student

                  lived on or off campus, was taken into consideration. It was found that it did not matter

                  whether the student lived on campus or not as far as printing habits are concerned. An

                  Independent Sample T Test was run to come to this conclusion. Using a P-value of .803

                                                                             and 90% confidence there was not a
                         Graph 2
                   Percent of Students Who Believe Campus Printing is Free   significant difference between the two areas

          60.0%                                                              of residency (see appendix C).

                                                                                    Sixty three percent of students believe
Percent




          40.0%



                                                                63.3%
                                                                             that printing on campus is free. (see graph 2).
          20.0%
                                 36.7%

                                                                             Using a 95% Confidence Interval the upper
          0.0%
                                    no                           yes
                                              Free Printing                  and lower bounds of the proportion of

                  students who do print on campus are 55% and 72% (see appendix C). This was one of

                  the opinions researched in the study. After examining other student opinions about

                  campus printing, it was found that 40% (see graph 3) of them believed that ITS supplied

                  between 2 and 2.9 million pieces of paper. The figure supplied during the 2007-08

                  school year was 2.9 million (D. Faulkner, personal interview, May 28, 2008). 35% of

                  students believed that ITS spent between $50,001-$75,000 on printing materials: paper,

                  toner, and machine repair (see graph 4). The actual amount spent by ITS also falls

                  between these figures, $58,000 (D. Faulkner, personal interview, May 28, 2008). .

                  After compiling these results, it can be said that around 35% of students have a realistic

                  idea about ITS’ expenditure on printing materials.




                                                                              14
                    Graph 3                                                                    Graph 4
                                                                                               Students' Estimate of Printing Expenses
                        Students' Page Estimate for Campus

                                                                                    40.0%
           50.0%




           40.0%
                                                                                    30.0%




           30.0%




                                                                          Percent
 Percent




                                                                                    20.0%                                     39.7%
                                                                                                                                             37.2%
                                                 44.6%
           20.0%                                             39.7%



                                                                                    10.0%                   20.7%
           10.0%

                   2.5%                                                                       2.5%
                                  13.2%


           0.0%                                                                     0.0%
                   <1              1-1.9           2-2.9      >3                            <$25,000     $25,001-$50,000   $50,001-$75,000   >$75,000
                                      PageEstimation                                                            PrinterExpenses




                   When analyzing student printing habits, it was found that the mean number of

times a student printed during the average week is 2.714. Using a 95% confidence

interval it can be assumed (with 95% confidence) that the sample population’s mean

number of times printed during the average week falls between 2.329 and 3.099 (see

appendix C). The median number of class and non class pages students printed during

an average week was also analyzed. They were found to be, using Median for Group

Data, 15.736 pages of class materials and 5.450 for non-class materials (see appendix C).

The location students printed at the most, 76%, was Murphy library either in the labs or

in the library itself. The next most popular place was Wing Technology building with

47% of students printing there. To determine if 76% was significantly higher than 47%, a

Paired Sample Test was run comparing the two sites’ percentages. The test proved that

with 95% confidence it can be said that the 76% users of Murphy was significantly

higher than the 47% users of Wing Technology. (P-value = .0351)(see appendix C).

Since Murphy was significantly higher than wing, the second most used location, it was

assumed to be higher than the rest of the locations. When analyzing the results




                                                                     15
Cartwright was the least used place being used by only 15% of the respondents (see

table 5).


                               Table 5: Descriptive Statistics

                                        Minimu Maximu                         Std.
                             N            m      m               Mean       Deviation
        Murphy                   135          0     1               .76           .431
        Wing                     135          0     1               .47           .501
        Wimberly                 135          0     1               .33           .470
        Cartwright               135          0     1               .15           .357
        Valid N
                                 135
        (listwise)




        The overall purpose of this study was to research student’s preference for or

against a number of different printing options that could be implemented on UW-L’s

campus in replace of the current system. After the results of the survey were compiled

the option that came out on top was the print release stations with a mean response of

2.86 on a scale of 1-oppose to 5-favor (see table 6).


                            Table 6: Printing Option Preference
                                            Minimu Maximu                       Std.
                                  N           m      m             Mean       Deviation
    Print Release Station             120         1     5            2.86          1.610
    Page Quota                        120         1     5            2.71          1.552
    Keep Fee/Pay to
                                      120          1        5        1.93          1.193
    Print
    Supply Own Paper                  120          1        5        1.88          1.149
    Reduce Fee/Pay to
                                      120          1        5        1.53           .978
    Print
    No Printing                       117          1        3        1.08           .375
    Valid N (list wise)               117




                                              16
The option that came in second was the page quota option with a 2.71 mean. A paired

sample test was used to determine if these two numbers are significantly different.

After running the test it was found that the two numbers are not significantly different

based on 95% confidence and a P-value of .473. Since it was found that print release

stations and page quota were not significantly different the mean for the third place

option, keeping the current fee and implementing pay to print 1.93, was compared to

the print release station mean to see if a significant difference could be found there.

The same paired sample test was used to determine if there was significance. With 95%

confidence it was determined that there a highly significant different between the two

means. A P-value of .000 was used (see appendix C).
                                                                                                          Graph 5
       Another aspect of the study was to                           Percent of Students Who Have Use Computer Classrooms


                                                            60.0%


analyze student’s responses to the questions
                                                            50.0%




about printer uses in classrooms equipped                   40.0%
                                                  Percent




with a printer. Sixty percent of students have              30.0%                                              60.0%



                                                            20.0%               40.0%

had class in a printer equipped classroom
                                                            10.0%




with and upper and lower bound of 51% and                   0.0%
                                                                                  no                               yes
                                                                                       computer classrooms usage


69% (see graph 5) (see appendix C). Of that 60% who have used such classroom 62%,

with an upper and lower bound of 50% and 74%, have used the printer available to

them (see appendix C). When asked if the printers in the classrooms should be

monitored along with other campus printing locations 61%, 52% and 70% are the upper

and lower bounds, of students felt that they should be monitored. All of the above

proportions were found using 95% confidence intervals (see appendix C).


                                            17
Discussion
       The proportion of students who think that the printing service on campus is free

is high. The study found that 63% of respondents think that the printing is free. It might

be due to the fact that students only see the total amount of their bill, and they do not

really pay attention to their billing detail.

        The study also shows that only 44.6% of respondents were aware of the amount

spent on paper to provide unlimited printing on campus. And only 39.7% of the

respondents have a realistic idea on the current printing expenditure on campus. These

conditions may be due to the fact that students are unaware on the amount of waste

from their printing that leads to the high expense of printing materials. It might also be

caused by the fact that students do not have a frame of reference as to what the high

volume of printing materials cost. This result proved the hypothesis that the proportion

of students who are aware of the current printing system expenditure is low.

        The study also found that the mean number of times students printed during an

average week was 2.714. It also found that students printed class related materials (with

a median of 15.7 pages/week) more than non-class related materials (with a median of

5.45 pages/week). Many professors have their lecture notes on power point slides, and

some professors also require their students to submit a hard copy of their assignment

rather than just submit it as an electronic file. These conditions might lead to the higher

usage of campus printers and the number of class related materials printed by students.

The study supports the hypothesis that students are printing more class materials verses

non-class materials.



                                                18
       According to the study’s results, Murphy Library computer lab and the library

reference area (76% of respondents) and Wing Technology computer lab (47% of

respondents) was the top two of the computer labs that students used the most. It also

found that Cartwright computer lab was the least “popular” computer lab on campus.

This might be due to the fact that Murphy Library’s location is in the middle of the

campus, surrounded by most of the other academic buildings (Wimberly Hall, Cowley

Hall, and Center for the Arts). The Wing Technology Lab’s location is also strategically

located. It is found next to Graff Main Hall which is also one of the academic buildings

on campus. This assumption was supported with the fact that students usually go to the

nearest computer labs to save their time. The “unpopularity” of the Cartwright Lab

might be due to its location, or else perhaps students are unaware of the Cartwright

Lab’s existence.

       The study found that the print release station was one of the top alternative

printing option with a mean of 2.86 (from a scale 1-5, 1 was being oppose and 5 was

being favor). Beside that, the study found that page quota also the top alternative

printing option with the mean of 2.71 (from a scale 1-5, one being oppose and five was

being favor). From the survey result, almost all students opposed all of the printing

option that were offered; but from the mean of these two options, it was shown that

students felt almost neutral (3 was being neutral) toward this two printing options. But

it was difficult to define which one of these two options were the most favorite option,

because there were no statistical different between these two numbers. These two

options became the top two preferable option because with these options students still


                                          19
have the “free” printing services. In addition, with the print release station option, they

still have the unlimited number of pages to print. Since these two numbers were not

statistically different, the study could not conclude whether the hypothesis that

students prefer to have pages quota as the alternative option were proven or not.

       The study also examined whether students ever had class in one of the computer

classrooms. The result was 60% of respondents have had class in the computer

classrooms and 62% of them use printers that were provided. It also found that 61% of

respondents prefer to have printers on those classrooms were monitored under the

same system. The marginally significant number of students who ever used the printer

in those classrooms may be due to the fact that when a professor used the computer

classroom, usually they were doing a project that would require students to print some

materials.


Summary and Recommendations

       We set out to find the alternative printing policy which would help reduce waste

and cost while keeping UW-L students satisfied with the services ITS provides. We

queried a sample of students on their behaviors, preferences, and opinions about the

current printing policy on campus. Analysis of the collected data shows that students

are heavily reliant on printing, and almost all students use the printers on campus. Since

there was opposition to every option offered, it is apparent that students do not want

to change from the current unlimited policy. However, something needs to be done to

lower costs regardless of the students’ resistance to change. According to the students,


                                            20
the policy that would assume the least resistance would be implementing print release

stations or a quota system with charges which could be added to a student’s bill for

exceeding the quota. The implementation of one of these policies would help to reduce

excess printing usage and costs while accommodating students’ preferences.



Closing Comments:
       In the future, if UW-L’s ITS Department decides to conduct further studies on

this topic, it is recommended that they gather data from a larger sample size. A change

in surveying techniques may help to reach more UW-L students which would give a

more accurate picture of student opinions. One way to do this would be to implement a

telephone interview as well as the e-mailed version of the questionnaire. Follow-up

e-mails would also help to push students to submit their responses. Increasing the time

period for data collection may also be beneficial to increasing the sample size. The

current study was conducted during the summer session so reaching students played a

large role in our small sample size. It is recommended that a future study be conducted

during the regular academic year when all students are at UW-L and are more than

likely accessing their e-mail accounts.




                                           21
Appendix A: Pretest Result
      The pretest was distributed to four classmates from another group and to

Professor Sherony. This pretest was designed to make sure that the questionnaire was

easy to understand and that there were no grammatical errors. From this pretest result,

the team decided to add some more questions that would be useful for the study. The

team also reorganized the questionnaire’s design and made some other minor changes

due to suggestions given.




                                          22
Appendix B: Summary questionnaire

                          UW-L Campus Printing Questionnaire

We are students from the University of Wisconsin- La Crosse conducting a survey for our
business research class. The purpose of this survey is to determine student opinion
about alternative options that can be implemented to reduce UW-L’s printing costs. The
study also examines students’ awareness of the existing problem as well as their
behavior in terms of printing habits. All of your answers will be kept confidential and
the survey will only take a few moments of your time. If you have any questions or
concerns about this survey, feel free to contact Professor Keith Sherony at
sherony.keit@uwlax.edu.

1. Have you ever printed materials in the computer labs on campus?
      1- Yes :126
      0- No : 9
      If you answered no, please skip to question #6

2. How often do you use the labs on campus for printing materials during the average
   week?
      Open-ended number
             1: 22Students
             2: 25Students
             3: 24 Students
             4: 13 Students
             5: 14 Students
             6: 3 Students
             7: 4 Students
             10: 3 Students
             .25: 1 Student
             Missing: 17 Students

3. At which labs do you print? (select all that apply)
      1- Murphy Library :102
      2- Wing Technology :64
      3- Wimberly Hall     : 44
      4- Cartwright        :20
        Missing : 17

4. How many pages of class related materials do you print during the average week in
   campus labs?
      1- 0 – 10  : 40


                                            23
       2- 11 – 20   : 38
       3- 21 – 30 :29
       4- > 30      : 13
       Missing : 15

5. How many pages of non-class related materials do you print during the average
   week in campus labs?
      1- 0 – 10     : 111
      2- 11 – 20    :7
      3- 21 – 30 : 1
      4- > 30      :2
      Missing : 14

6. Estimate how many pages (in millions) were printed in the campus labs during the
   2007 fiscal year.
       1- less than 1 : 3
       2- 1 to 1.9    : 16
       3- 2 to 2.9    : 54
       4- 3 or more : 48
       Missing : 14

7. Estimate how much was spent on paper, toner, and printer maintenance for the
   campus labs during the 2007 fiscal year?
        1- less than $25,000      :3
        2- $25,001 to $50,000 : 25
        3- $50,001 to $75,000 : 48
        4- Greater than $75,000 : 45
       Missing : 14
8. Is it your impression that printing on campus is currently free to students?
                 1- Yes : 76
                 0- No      : 45
                 Missing : 14
9. The ITS Department will be implementing a new printing system and will use the
   data obtained from this survey to aid in their decision.

             Please rate your support for the following alternative printing system
          options:

              Page quota (a maximum number of pages that students can print on
              campus per semester) with a per page charge when quota is exceeded
                     Oppose 1 (41) 2 (19) 3 (18) 4 (18) 5 (24) Favor




                                          24
               Print release stations (you must go to another computer to release the
               print job)
                       Oppose 1 (38) 2 (19) 3 (16) 4 (16) 5 (31) Favor

               Reduction of technology fee and implement a pay-to-print system
               (students would be charged for each page that they print)
                      Oppose 1 (84) 2 (19) 3 (9) 4 (5) 5 (3) Favor

               Keep the current technology fee, implement the pay-to-print system, and
               use the extra fee money to improve technology support on campus
                      Oppose 1 (62) 2 (22) 3 (21) 4 (7) 5 (6) Favor

               Students supply their own printing paper (students will be expected to
               bring their own printing paper to the labs to be loaded into the printers
               when they want to print materials)
                       Oppose 1 (66) 2 (18) 3 (21) 4 (12) 5 (3) Favor

               Eliminate printing in the campus labs
                      Oppose 1 (114) 2 (1) 3 (4) 4 (0)           5 (0) Favor

               Missing : 15

10. If the page quota system is implemented, what do you feel would be a reasonable
    number of pages for students to be allowed to print per year?
         1- 200 :10
         2- 400 : 33
         3- 600 : 37
         4- 800 : 40
         Missing : 15

11. How will your printing habits change if you have to pay to print?
      1- Print the same : 30
      2- Print less          : 62
      3- Stop printing         : 28
      Missing : 15

12. If printing services are discontinued in the labs, would you still use the labs on
    campus?
         1- Yes : 40
         0- No : 80
         Missing : 15
13. Have you ever had class in one of the GCA computer classrooms?
         1- Yes : 72


                                             25
       0- No : 48
       Missing : 15
            If you answered yes, please answer question #13
            If no, go to question #14

14. Did you use the printer in that classroom?
        1- Yes : 45
        0- No : 27                 Missing : 63
15. When the new printing system is implemented, do you think the printing
    capabilities in GCA computer classrooms should be monitored under the same
    system as in the labs?
        1- Yes : 71
        0- No : 46
        Missing : 18

16. In which college are you enrolled?
       1- College of Business Administration : 42
       2- College of Liberal Arts           : 34
       3- College of Science and Health      : 43
       Missing : 16

17. What will be your class ranking when fall 2008 classes begin?
      1- Sophomore : 21
      2- Junior         : 31
      3- Senior         : 46
      4- Other           : 21
      Missing : 16

18. What is your age?
        1-18-20      : 49
        2- 21-23      : 64
        3- 24-26      :2
        4- >26       :3
        Missing : 17
19. Did you live on campus during the 2007-08 school year?
        1- Yes : 40
        0- No : 79
        Missing : 16

20. What gender are you?
     1- Male     : 39
     0- Female : 80
     Missing : 16


                                          26
Appendix C:

Survey Demographics:
       The following are frequency table based on results from the demographic
questions on the survey.

Gender-
          Statistics

Gender
 N   Valid                119
     Missing               16

                                   Gender

                       Frequenc                      Valid       Cumulative
                           y        Percent         Percent       Percent
Valid   Male                  39        28.9              32.8         32.8
        Female                80        59.3              67.2        100.0
        Total                119        88.1            100.0
Missing System                16        11.9
Total                        135       100.0

Residency-
         Statistics

Area Residence
 N    Valid               135
      Missing               0

                           Area Residence

            Frequenc                         Valid    Cumulative
                y            Percent        Percent    Percent
Valid yes          40            29.6            29.6       29.6
      no           95            70.4            70.4      100.0
      Total       135          100.0            100.0




                                               27
Age-
          Statistics

Age
 N Valid                118
    Missing              17

                                     Age

                       Frequenc                        Valid          Cumulative
                           y         Percent          Percent          Percent
 Valid
                               3           2.2                2.5               2.5
         >26
         24-26                  2         1.5               1.7                 4.2
         21-23                 64        47.4              54.2                58.5
         18-20                 49        36.3              41.5               100.0
         Total                118        87.4             100.0
 Missing System                17        12.6
 Total                        135       100.0

College-
       Statistics

CollegeEnrolled
 N     Valid               119
       Missing              16

                                     CollegeEnrolled

                                    Frequenc                         Valid       Cumulative
                                        y         Percent           Percent       Percent
 Valid   College of Science
                                            43         31.9              36.1          36.1
         and Health
         College of Liberal
                                            34         25.2              28.6          64.7
         Arts
         College of Business
                                            42         31.1              35.3         100.0
         Administration
         Total                             119         88.1            100.0
 Missing System                             16         11.9
 Total                                     135        100.0

Class Level-


                                                 28
          Statistics

ClassRanking
 N    Valid            119
      Missing           16


                                ClassRanking

                                                                     Cumulative
                            Frequency    Percent Valid Percent        Percent
Valid      Other                   21        15.6         17.6             17.6
           Senior                  46        34.1         38.7             56.3
           Junior                  31        23.0         26.1             82.4
           Sophomore               21        15.6         17.6            100.0
           Total                  119        88.1        100.0
Missing    System                  16        11.9
Total                             135       100.0

        An Independent Sample T Test was used to compare residency and campus
printing the results are below.

                               Group Statistics

                                                                        Std.
                Area                                      Std.         Error
                Residence           N          Mean     Deviation      Mean
Printer         yes                     40        .93         .267        .042
Usage           no                      95        .94         .245        .025




                                             29
                               Independent Samples Test

                      Levene's
                      Test for
                     Equality of
                     Variances                      t-test for Equality of Means
                                                                                        95%
                                                                                     Confidence
                                                                                   Interval of the
                                                   Sig.                              Difference
                                                   (2-     Mean     Std. Error
                       F    Sig.    t      df    tailed) Difference Difference Upper Lower
Printer Equal
                             -
Usage variances .248 .619         133               .803       -.012        .047    -.106    .082
                          .250
        assumed
        Equal
        variances            -
                               67.954               .810       -.012        .049    -.110    .086
        not               .241
        assumed

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
Ho: σ2on campus = σ2off campus
Ha: σ2on campus ≠ σ2off campus
Sig. = .619
.619 > .10
Fail to reject Ho resulting in equal variances assumed.

Ho: µon campus = µoff campus
Ha: µon campus ≠ µoff campus two tailed test
Sig. = .803
.803 > .10
Fail to reject Ho.

        A Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances was run first. It was found that equal
variances can be assumed based on a sig. of .619. With 90% confidence it can be
assumed they are equal. Once the variances were found to be equal a hypothesis could
be run to find whether printing habits were significantly different for students who live
on campus compared to those who live off campus. Using a sig. of .803 it can be said
that with 90 % confidence that the proportion of students who live on campus is not
different from the proportion of students who live off campus.




                                            30
      This confidence interval table shows the number of students who believe that
campus printing is free.


                             Case Processing Summary

                                              Cases
                      Valid                   Missing                        Total
                 N        Percent           N      Percent              N        Percent
Free
                     120         88.9%        15         11.1%              135      100.0%
Printing


                                   Descriptives

                                                                            Std.
                                                          Statistic         Error
Free         Mean                                               .63            .044
Printing     95% Confidence Lower Bound                         .55
             Interval for       Upper Bound
                                                                  .72
             Mean
             5% Trimmed Mean                                   .65
             Median                                           1.00
             Variance                                         .234
             Std. Deviation                                   .484
             Minimum                                             0
             Maximum                                             1
             Range                                               1
             Interquartile Range                                 1
             Skewness                                        -.560                .221
             Kurtosis                                       -1.715                .438

      This confidence interval table shows the mean number of times students print
on campus facilities during the average week.

                                  Case Processing Summary

                                                    Cases
                         Valid                      Missing                     Total
                       N     Percent              N      Percent              N     Percent
Printing
                           132      97.8%            3           2.2%             135    100.0%
Frequency


                                              31
                                     Descriptives

                                                                        Std.
                                                          Statistic    Error
Printing               Mean                                 2.7140     .19474
Frequency              95% Confidence Lower Bound           2.3288
                       Interval for       Upper Bound
                                                            3.0993
                       Mean
                       5% Trimmed Mean                      2.5341
                       Median                               2.0000
                       Variance                              5.006
                       Std. Deviation                      2.23738
                       Minimum                                  .00
                       Maximum                                 10.0
                       Range                                 10.00
                       Interquartile Range                     3.00
                       Skewness                              1.050        .211
                       Kurtosis                              1.237        .419

        The below table are the frequency tables for class materials printed weekly.

          Statistics

ClassMaterial
 N    Valid                  120
      Missing                 15

                               ClassMaterial

                       Frequenc                 Valid    Cumulative
                           y       Percent     Percent    Percent
Valid      >30                13        9.6         10.8       10.8
           21-30              29       21.5         24.2       35.0
           11-20              38       28.1         31.7       66.7
           0-10               40       29.6         33.3      100.0
           Total             120       88.9        100.0
Missin     System
                             15       11.1
g
Total                       135      100.0



                                               32
                                                                   120
                            n
                                -cfp                                  -40
      Med = Bl +(           2
                                       )i      Med = 11 +(          2
                                                                            )9  15.736
                                fm                                   38

Bl       =     lower bound of class containing the median = 11
n        =     sample size = 120
cfp      =     cumulative frequency of all classes preceding the class containing the
         median = 40
fm       =     number of observations in the class containing the median = 38
i        =     width of the interval containing the median = 20-11 = 9

Total answers = 120
120/2=60
60 falls in the 11-20 pages group

         Below are the frequency tables for non class materials printed weekly.

             Statistics

NonClassMaterials
 N   Valid                      121
     Missing                     14

                                   NonClassMaterials

                                                         Valid        Cumulative
                           Frequency        Percent     Percent        Percent
 Valid        >30                  2             1.5           1.7            1.7
              21-30                1              .7            .8            2.5
              11-20                7             5.2           5.8            8.3
              0-10               111            82.2          91.7         100.0
              Total              121            89.6        100.0
 Missing      System              14            10.4
 Total                           135           100.0


                       n                                    121
                           -cfp                                -0
Med = Bl +(            2
                                  )i        Med = 0 +(       2
                                                                     )10  5.450
                           fm                                111


Bl       =        lower bound of class containing the median = 0
n        =        sample size = 121

                                                   33
cfp      =     cumulative frequency of all classes preceding the class containing the
         median = 0
fm       =     number of observations in the class containing the median = 111
i        =     width of the interval containing the median = 10-0 = 10

Total answers = 121
121/2=60.5
60.5 falls in the 0-10 pages group

       The following tables show what percent of students print at the available
locations on campus. Also the tables used to run a Paired Sample are below.


                       Descriptive Statistics

                                     Minimu Maximu                          Std.
                       N               m      m               Mean        Deviation
Murphy                     135             0     1               .76            .431
Wing                       135             0     1               .47            .501
Wimberly                   135             0     1               .33            .470
Cartwright                 135             0     1               .15            .357
Valid N
                           135
(listwise)




                      Paired Samples Statistics

                                                                          Std. Error
                        Mean                  N          Std. Deviation     Mean
Pair 1     Murphy           .76                   135              .431         .037
           Wing             .47                   135              .501         .043

                 Paired Samples Correlations

                                           Correlatio
                                 N             n           Sig.
Pair 1 Murphy &
                                     135          .160       .063
       Wing




                                                   34
                                          Paired Samples Test

                                                                                         Sig. (2-
                                Paired Differences                                df      tailed)
                                                95% Confidence                                 Std.
                                                 Interval of the                               Err
                                        Std.       Difference                                   or
                              Std.      Error                                       Std.       Me
                   Mean     Deviation Mean Upper Lower                  t        Deviation      an
Pair Murphy -
                     .281         .607     .052      .178      .385    5.392      134         .000
1    Wing

Ho: Um = Uw
Ha: Um > Uw 1 tailed test
P-value = .063/2 = .0315
Reject Ho .0315 < .05

        To determine whether or not there was a significant difference between the
percent of students who print at Murphy and the percent that at Wing Technology
Building a hypotheses test was run. Using a sig. of .063 and a P-value of .0315 since a
one tailed test was used Ho can be rejected with 95% confidence.

       In the tables below the statistical results of student’s opinions about the
alternative printing options are below.

                                 Descriptive Statistics

                                      Minimu Maximu                       Std.
                            N           m      m              Mean      Deviation
Print Release Station           120         1     5             2.86         1.610
Page Quota                      120         1     5             2.71         1.552
Keep Fee/Pay to
                                120         1             5     1.93           1.193
Print
Supply Own Paper                120         1             5     1.88           1.149
Reduce Fee/Pay to
                                120         1             5     1.53            .978
Print
No Printing                     117         1             3     1.08            .375
Valid N (listwise)              117




                                            35
                          Paired Samples Test

                                                                       Sig. (2-
                          Paired Differences                      df tailed)
                                         95% Confidence                      St
                                          Interval of the                    d.
                                            Difference                       Er
                                                                             ro
                                                                              r
                                 Std.                              Std.      M
                       Std.      Error                            Deviati ea
                Mean Deviation   Mean    Upper     Lower     t      on        n
Pair Print
1    Release
     Station -
                 1.325   1.937    .177     .975    1.675    7.495 119     .000
     Reduce
     Fee/Pay to
     Print
Pair Print
2    Release
     Station -
                  .925   2.250    .205     .518    1.332    4.504 119     .000
     Keep
     Fee/Pay to
     Print
Pair Print
3    Release
     Station -    .983   1.852    .169     .649    1.318    5.818 119     .000
     Supply
     Own Paper
Pair Print
4    Release
                 1.761   1.664    .154    1.456    2.065 11.443 116       .000
     Station -
     No Printing
Pair Reduce
5    Fee/Pay to
     Print -
                 -.400   1.520    .139     -.675    -.125 -2.883 119      .005
     Keep
     Fee/Pay to
     Print
Pair Reduce
6    Fee/Pay to
                 -.342   1.553    .142     -.622    -.061 -2.410 119      .017
     Print -
     Supply


                                   36
     Own Paper

Pair Reduce
7    Fee/Pay to
                   .444    .951   .088    .270    .619   5.056 116   .000
     Print - No
     Printing
Pair Keep
8    Fee/Pay to
     Print -       .058   1.662   .152   -.242    .359    .385 119   .701
     Supply
     Own Paper
Pair Keep
9    Fee/Pay to
                   .838   1.189   .110    .620   1.055   7.622 116   .000
     Print - No
     Printing
Pair Supply
10 Own Paper
                   .812   1.210   .112    .590   1.034   7.258 116   .000
     - No
     Printing
Pair Page
11 Quota -
     Print        -.150   2.281   .208   -.562    .262   -.720 119   .473
     Release
     Station
Pair Page
12 Quota -
     Reduce       1.175   1.570   .143    .891   1.459   8.198 119   .000
     Fee/Pay to
     Print
Pair Page
13 Quota -
     Keep          .775   1.836   .168    .443   1.107   4.625 119   .000
     Fee/Pay to
     Print
Pair Page
14 Quota -
                   .833   1.876   .171    .494   1.172   4.867 119   .000
     Supply
     Own Paper
Pair Page
15 Quota - No     1.607   1.575   .146   1.318   1.895 11.032 116    .000
     Printing




                                  37
Ho: µpr = µpq
Ha: µpr ≠ µpq two tailed test
Sig. = .473
Max possible α = .05
.473 > .05
Fail to reject Ho.

Ho: µpr = µfee w/pay
Ha: µpr ≠ µfee w/pay two tailed test
Sig. = .000
Max possible α = .05
.000 < .05
Reject Ho.

         A Paired Samples Test was run to determine if there was a significant difference
between the mean response to print release stations and page quota. With a sig.
of .473 it can be said with 95% confidence that there is not a significant difference
between the two alternative options. Since a significant difference was not found the
same test was run to compare print release stations and fee with pay to print. With a
sig. of .000 and a max α .05 it can be proven with 95% confidence that there was a
highly significant difference between print release stations and fee with pay to print.

        This confidence interval table shows the proportion of students who have had a
class in a computer classroom.

                                  Case Processing Summary

                                                   Cases
                             Valid                 Missing                Total
                        N        Percent         N      Percent      N        Percent
computer
classrooms                  120     88.9%          15     11.1%          135   100.0%
usage




                                            38
                                  Descriptives

                                                                        Std.
                                                          Statistic     Error
computer           Mean                                         .60        .045
classrooms         95% Confidence Lower Bound                   .51
usage              Interval for       Upper Bound
                                                               .69
                   Mean
                   5% Trimmed Mean                             .61
                   Median                                     1.00
                   Variance                                   .242
                   Std. Deviation                             .492
                   Minimum                                       0
                   Maximum                                       1
                   Range                                         1
                   Interquartile Range                           1
                   Skewness                                  -.413        .221
                   Kurtosis                                 -1.860        .438


        This confidence interval table shows the proportion of students who have used a
printer that was in a computer classroom.

                            Case Processing Summary

                                           Cases
                     Valid                 Missing                Total
                   N     Percent         N      Percent         N     Percent
Printer Usage
in                    71      52.6%         64      47.4%         135     100.0%
Classrooms




                                          39
                                Descriptives

                                                                  Std.
                                                      Statistic   Error
Printer Usage Mean                                          .62      .058
in            95% Confidence Lower Bound                    .50
Classrooms    Interval for       Upper Bound
                                                           .74
              Mean
              5% Trimmed Mean                              .63
              Median                                      1.00
              Variance                                    .239
              Std. Deviation                              .489
              Minimum                                        0
              Maximum                                        1
              Range                                          1
              Interquartile Range                            1
              Skewness                                   -.504       .285
              Kurtosis                                  -1.798       .563


        This confidence interval table shows the proportion of students who feel that
the printers in computer classroom feel that they should be regulated along with other
campus printing facilities.



                               Case Processing Summary

                                                 Cases
                         Valid                   Missing             Total
                       N     Percent           N      Percent      N     Percent
Computer
classroom                116     85.9%           19     14.1%        135    100.0%
printing




                                          40
                         Descriptives

                                                         Std.
                                             Statistic   Error
Computer    Mean                                   .61      .045
classroom   95% Confidence Lower Bound             .52
printing    Interval for       Upper Bound
                                                  .70
            Mean
            5% Trimmed Mean                       .62
            Median                               1.00
            Variance                             .240
            Std. Deviation                       .489
            Minimum                                 0
            Maximum                                 1
            Range                                   1
            Interquartile Range                     1
            Skewness                            -.466      .225
            Kurtosis                           -1.814      .446




                                 41

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:8/26/2011
language:English
pages:41