1.0 The management decision problem of Extreme Exposure
The management decision problem that Extreme Exposure Rock Climbing faces is that of competition from Kyle. The major statement of this research is to identify the kind of products that Extreme Exposure should provide in order to ward off competition from Kyle. Therefore, the market research question of this study is: What products and services should Extreme Exposure provide to customers to increase demand and keep off competition from Kyle. The rationale of this study is based on the fact that Extreme exposure faces competition from Kyle which is offering additional services to its customers such as certification programs. Kyle annual membership program also offer lower fees than the one offered by Extreme Exposure. Kyle is also providing outdoor experiences which Extreme exposure does not have. In addition, it provides a 60 feet rock climbing experience while Extreme exposure provides 50 feet rock climbing experience. Therefore research is needed to help Extreme Exposure know which features, products and experiences that they will they incorporate in order to remain competitive. Therefore the two research objectives of this study are:
- What programs makes Extreme Exposure customers come to the company because they are unique?
- What new programs and experiences do customers want?
2.0 Research methodology
There are three types of research methodologies that can be used in marketing research investigation. They include quantitative research method, quantitative research method and mixed methods. The qualitative research methods assess non quantifiable phenomena such as emotions, opinions and attitudes. The quantitative research assesses verifiable phenomena using numbers and facts (Koul, 2009). Mixed research methods combine the two methods which are quantitative and qualitative. This study will use mixed methods to investigate the research questions. Quantitative research method will mostly assist in identifying facts regarding the products offered by the competitors. This research also establish which product is more competitive than the other hence the need to use numbers and quantity to determine whether Extreme Exposure products were superior or better than the ones that are to be offered by Kyle. In addition, the methods will be effective in identifying whether the customers will be receptive to the new products offered by the competition or will prefer to continue enjoying services provided by Extreme Exposure. However, the research will also use qualitative methods to identify the reasons why the customers would prefer to use a different product. This is because according to Morgan and Smircich (2010) qualitative research methods allow the researcher to obtain explanations and reasons behind the participants’ responses and reactions.
Sampling
There are several sampling strategies that can be used in an investigation which are random sampling and the stratified sampling. According to Koul (2009), random sampling entails selection of the research participants in non predictable manner or haphazardly. The stratified sampling entails selection of participants by identifying participants based on particular characteristics. This research will use stratified sampling because this research focuses on collecting data from participants. The stratified sampling selects participants with defined characteristics. In this study, the researcher selected participants who were customers of Extreme Experience. The participants had to have been involved in rock climbing experience so that they can effectively share their explanations or what they would want from a rock climbing experience.
Data collection
The data was collected by issuing out questionnaires to the participants. The questions had to be close ended for quantitative research and open ended for qualitative research (Pickard, 2007). The researcher had to wait for customers of Extreme Experience at the venue to request them to participate in the research. Once the participants accepted to participate, the researcher asked the participant to sign consent form and to answer the research questions as honestly as possible. The research instrument was self administered by the researcher in this study.
3. A one-page sample of a data collection instrument
Answer the following questions by ticking the most appropriate response
Part A: Quantitative questions
Table 1: A sample of data collection instruments
| Items | 1=Strongly disagree | 2= Disagree | 3= Neutral | 4= Agree | Strongly agree |
| You would want Extreme Exposure to have outdoor events | |||||
| You would want Extreme exposure to have 60feet rocks | |||||
| You would be interested in a rock climbing certification | |||||
| You would pay more to have an outdoor rock climbing experience | |||||
| You are satisfied with Extreme Exposure Rock climbing |
Part B: Qualitative question
What would you like to be improved in Extreme Exposure rock climbing experiences?
4. Limitations of your research design
The major challenge is that mixed research methods take a lot time and resources. Koul (2009) noted that analysing content from many participants is usually difficult which comprises the quality of results obtained through mixed research methods. To overcome this challenge this research narrowed down questions that would be answered by qualitative methods to one question.
Part B
Independent sample t-test results
From the study, it was evident that there were some elements which had significant differences between the local students and the international students. For instance, on the first item in the questionnaire of unit materials and whether they enabled the students to learn. The study noted that there was significant difference between local and international student’s perception of the unit materials and the influence they had on their understanding of the unit. This is because p-value was 0.003 which was lesser than 0.05. It is important to note that p-value which was lesser than 0.05 indicated that there statistical difference was significant while p-value that was higher than 0.05 indicated that there was no significant difference between the variables.
On whether there was significant difference between the international students and local students concerning whether the unit materials would help them acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. The study identified that the p-value was 0.002 which was lesser than 0.05 indicating that the difference was statistically significant.
On whether there was significant difference between the international and local students in regard to the effect of how learning methods affected their learning, the p-value was 0.021 which was lesser than 0.05 thus indicating that the statistical difference was significant.
On whether there was statistical difference between the international students and local students’ perception of the topic and what students wanted to learn. The study identified that the p value was 0.058 which was slightly higher than 0.05. This indicated that there was no significant difference between the two items.
On if there was statistical difference between the international students and local students need for assessments that were related to the task, the study identified that p value was 0.214 which was higher than 0.05. This indicated that there was no statistical difference between the international students and local students concerning their perceptions on assessments.
On whether there were significant differences in expectations of the international students and local students concerning the guidance criteria, the study found that the p value was 0.030 which was lower than 0.05 thus indicating that there was statistical difference between the two items.
Concerning whether there was any statistical difference between the international and local students understanding of the requirements of the assessment program, the research found that p value was 0.900 which was higher than 0.05. This implied that there was no statistical difference between international students and local students understanding of requirement of the assessment program.
On if there were differences between how the international and local students perceived resources given to them as helpful to their learning, the p value was 0.133 which was higher than 0.05 indicating that there was no significant difference between the perceptions of the two groups of students.
On whether there were differences between the two groups on how they perceived the feedback they provided and whether it would be used to improve the unit, the p-value was 0.002 which was less than 0.05 indicating there the difference was significant.
Concerning whether there was a significant difference between how the two groups perceived the importance of the unit, the p-value was 0.404 which was above 0.05.this meant that there were no statistical differences between the international and local students perception of the importance of the unit.
On if there was significant differences between how the two groups perceived the assistance of the teaching staff in helping them understand the expectations of the unit, the o value was 0.954 which was above 0.05. This implied that the differences were not statistically significant.
On whether there were differences in how international and local students perceived the teaching staff ability to create a learning atmosphere, the p value was 0.338 which was less than 0.05. This meant that the there was no difference between the two groups perception of the teaching staff’s capability to create a learning atmosphere.
On if there were significant differences between the groups’ perception of the teaching staff’s capacity to be friendly and helpful to the students, the p value was 0.871 which was above 0.05 and it implied that the differences between the international and local students perception of teaching staff’s capacity to be friendly were not statistically significant.
Concerning whether there were differences between the international student and local students perception of the teaching staff genuine interests in their learning, the study identified that the p value was 0.530 and it was above 0.05 indicating that there were no significant differences between the two groups.
On if there were statistical differences between international and local students perception regarding whether the teaching staff provided helpful feedback, the p-value was 0.881 which was above 0.05 indicating that the differences between the two groups was not statistically significant.
On whether the there were differences in how the international students and local students perceived the teaching staff ability to develop knowledge and understanding of the skills the p value was 0.512 which was above 0.05. This meant that the difference between the two groups of students in their perception of tutors capabilities to develop their skills and knowledge was not statistically significant.
On whether there were differences in how the two groups perceived the teacher use of aids and a resource in improving their learning, the p value was 0.01 which was lower than 0.05 indicating that the difference between the two groups of students was significant in regard to how they perceived teaching aids.
On whether there were differences how the international students and local students perceived the assessments ability to help them learn, the study identified that the p-value was 0.064 which was above 0.05 implying that the differences between the two groups of students was not statistically significant.
On whether there were differences between how the international students and local students perceived the units’ importance to them in future, the p value was 0.64 which was above 0.05 thus indicating that the difference in perception of the importance of the unit to the students was not significant.
Figure 1: Independent Sample T test
Analysis of variance (ANOVA)
On whether there are any statistical differences between the unit material and the year degree started the findings identified that the p value was 0.00 which was lower than 0.05 which is the level of statistical significance. This implied that there was a significant difference between the year that the degree started and how the students perceived the unit materials used in the unit.
On whether there were the significant differences between the year started degree and the students’ perception of their role of unit materials in acquisition of knowledge and skills. The p-value was 0.00 which was lower than 0.005 and it demonstrated that there was significant difference between the two items.
In regard to whether there was significant difference between year degrees started and if the students considered the teaching methods help to them, the study identified that the p value was 0.00 which was less than 0.05 indicating that there was significant difference between the year started and the perception that the students had regarding the teaching methods and their role in helping the students to learn.
On whether there were significant differences between the year degree started and the students’ perception of topic and content of the unit. The study identified that the p value was 0.000 which implied that the difference between the two items was significant.
Similarly the items regarding assessment of tasks and the guidelines criteria all had a p value of 0.00 which implied that there was a significant difference between the year started and the students’ perception of the assessment and assessment criteria guidelines.
However, concerning whether there was a significant difference between year degree started and the students’ ability to understand the requirements of the program, the p value was 0.470 which was above 0.05 and this implied that there difference between the two groups was not significant.
On whether there was a statistical difference between the year degree stated and the students’ perception of the role of unit resources to help them learn, the p value was 0.394 which was above 0.05. This implied that there was no significant difference between the year degree started and the student’s perception of the unit resources in helping them to learn.
On the significant differences between the year degree started and the feedback from the students, the study identified that the p value was 0.387 which was above 0.05. This implied that there were no significant differences between the year degree started and the perception that the students had towards the feedback provided by the tutors.
Figure 2: ANOVA analysis
Bivariate correlation matrix to identify any STRONG and significant associations
There were several strong correlations between the research items. The correlation was deemed to be strong if it was above 0.5 while it was weak if it was below 0.5.
Based on this, the correlation between unit materials and all the other items was strong because it was 1. This indicated that there was string correlations between the unit materials and assessments gives as well as the students overall ranking of the unit.
There was also a strong correlation between unit, materials provided and how the students perceived the role of unit materials in knowledge acquisition as the correlation was value was 0.851 which was above 0.5 and depicted strong positive relationship between the two items.
On the items which had the weakest association based on the Bivariate correlation matrix, there was negative correlations between the topic’s contents and the teaching staff capability to make the students understand what they were expected to learn in the unit.
References
Koul, L. (2009) Methodology of educational research. Noida: Vikas Publishing House.
Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (2010) ‘The Case of Qualitative Research,’ Academy of Management Review, 5(1), pp. 491-500.
Pickard, A. J. (2007) Research Methods in Information. London: Facet Publishing.
writingscamreport 