Student centered marketing education

STUDENT CENTERED MARKETING EDUCATION

THROUGH OPEN LEARNING RESOURCES AND WEB 2.0

TOOLS

Rosalyn Rufer, SUNY Empire State CollegeHope Adams, SUNY Empire State College

AMA Winter Educator’s Conference February 2012

Changing Pedagogies

Yet “segmentation” is difficult to comprehend

Lesser comprehension of segmentation than traditional classroom

Traditional Classrooms◦ Provide for Faculty –

Student synchronous interactions

◦ Smart-tools allow for electronic enhancements such as YouTube videos

◦ Ideal for student-to-students interactions including small group discussions

On-line learning platforms◦ Provides for flexible

pedagogy in terms of time and place (Sadler-Smith & Smith, 2004)

◦ Reaches a more diverse population

◦ Can integrate open learning resources into learning environment

◦ Interaction typically more asynchronous

Increasingly important for firms to follow a marketing orientation (Day 2011)

Often the first step is to understand customer buying behaviors

One way to manage this information is through a segmentation strategy

However students confuse segmentation with target marketing

Segmentation

Success in the Traditional Classroom

Connecting the Dots: understanding the process

First the connection between the mix and the target market

Textbooks are organized first discussing customer buying behaviors, then segmentation

Students do not see the connection between the chapters

Discussion begins with association between ways to segment and customer buying behavior

1. Divide the class into homogeneous groups

2. Show Wal-Mart Dukes Commercial

3. Ask who is the target market, what is the message

4. Results - Each group interprets differently: understanding segmentation

Deciding how to segment1. Identifying determinant attributes (relevant

market boundaries)2. List ways to segment based on these attributes3. Pick one way4. Check list for “good” segments5. If good, then stop if not continue segmenting

the segments6. Identify buying behaviors for each segment

Select target market (s) and positioning strategy

Understanding the connection between segmentation and target marketing

How to replicate process in an on-line environment?

Improving On-line Pedagogy

What We Know about on-line learning environments

What needs to happen to improve student learning outcomes

Cognitive Process of Learning is Related to Learning Styles (Felder & Silverman 1988)

On-line management learning platforms tend to be linear in nature

Emphasize Self-Directed learning (Belasen & Rufer, 2007)

Need to match learning style with pedagogy(Felder & Silverman 1998, Adams & Rufer 2012)

Improve on-line learning platforms using Web 2.0 technologies

Pedagogy:• Reading• Approximately 35% of students

with a grade of B or better based on readings alone

• Commonly confused target marketing with segmentation

Added narrated power point• According to Felder (1988), sensors

respond better to verbal re-enforcement.

• 50% of Students earned a grade of B or better

Improving Student Learning



Added Webinar and You Tube Video• “students preferred

dependent and collaborative learning methods to autonomous methods” (Sadler-Smith & Smith 2004, p404)

• 65% of student earned a grade of B or Better


Average increased from 68% to 84%Pass rate from 50% to 65%

Since 1.88>1.7 sufficient evidence to reject the null that the means are equal.

Power Point

A

WebinarF 09

B

WebinarSp 10C

n 6 14 16

Average 68.6 84 82

St.Dev 9.3 6.1 7

Hypothesis mA=mB m c =mB

mA=m c

t 1.88 .43 1.6

df 18 28 20

t critical 1.7 1.7 1.7 (.05)1.3 (.10)


Add virtual classroom through second life• cognitive learning and

elements that address the visual, auditory, and kinesthetic learner (Graf, Liu, Kinshuk, &Yang, 2009)

• 90 to 100% pass with grade of B or better


Pass rate increased from 65% to up to 100%

Averages increased from 84 to 90

Since 1.85>1.7 sufficient evidence to reject the null that the means are equal

WebinarSp 10

A

SL Sp 10

B

SLF10

C

n 169 12

Average 8283 90

St. Dev 73 3.5

hypothesis m A =mB

m c =mB

mA=m c

t 1.85 .85 3.25

df 23 19 16

t critical 1.7 1.7 1.7

Combining data from 2006-2011

With larger sample size, data is statistically significant to reject the null hypothesis

Modifying pedagogy improved student learning

Power Point

A

Webinar

B

Second Life

C

n 12 29 31

mean 33.7 41.9 44.3

St.Dev. 8.9 6.6 3.6

hypothesis

mA=mB m c =mB

mA=m c

t 2.9 1.8 4.0

df 39 58 41

t critical 1.7 1.7 1.7m

ean

pass

ing%

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

power ptwebinars.l.

What is Second Life? 3-D virtual world, created

by Linden Labs in 2003

Objects and environments created by residents

i.e. Avatars – 3D representation of yourself

Free except need Linden dollars if want to own land, or engage in commercial offerings.

Immersive Learning Experiences

1. Benefits of Narrated Power Point Visual and Auditory Learning2. Benefits of Webinar Visual and Auditory Learning Collaborative Learning Experience through

discussion3. Benefits of Second Life Visual, Auditory, and Kinesthetic Learning Application and Reflection of Learning Experience Second Life Replicates Pedagogy from Traditional

Classroom

Lessons Learned

Limitations and Future Research

Some Limitations with Technology

Can this experience be applied in different settings?

Graphics need to meet the current Second Life requirements

Gender not always obvious

Students require meet and greet session prior to classroom lecture

Building of rooms require sound proofing

Can breakout rooms in Webinar replicate reflective learning process?

Does aesthetics improve the learning environment

Does the student’s technology readiness affect the results

Does this process have similar results with less complex topics?

Belasen, Alan T. & Rufer, Rosalyn. (2007). “Building a competency-based MBA from the ground up: Curriculum design and program delivery.” The Academy of Management, Proceedings 2007 Philadelphia

Day, George S.(2011) “Closing the Marketing Capabilities Gap” Journal of Marketing, Jul2011, Vol. 75 Issue 4, p183-195

Felder, Richard M., & Silverman, Linda K. (1988). “Learning styles and teaching styles in engineering education” Engr. Education, 78(7), 674-681.

Graf, Sabine, Liu, T., Kinshuk, Chen, N., &Yang, S. (2009). “Learning styles and cognitive traits – their relationship and its benefits in web-based education systems” Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1280-1289.

Rufer, Rosalyn , & Adams, Ruifang. Hope (2012). “Adapting Three-Dimensional-Virtual World to Reach Diverse Learners in an MBA Program” Handbook of Research on Practices and Outcomes in Virtual Worlds and Environments IGI Global, Hersey PA ISBN13: 978-1-60960-762-3

Sadler-Smith, Eugene, & Smith, Peter J. (2004). “Strategies for accommodating individuals’ styles and preferences in flexible learning programmes” British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 395-412.

References