student centered marketing education
Post on 22-Nov-2014
338 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
Improving Student Learning
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
Improving Student Learning
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)
Improving Student Learning
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
Improving Student Learning
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
top related