Student Engagement and Marketing Classes

Abstract

A study is reported that investigates the goals underlying undergraduate students' engagement in their major classes, nonmajor classes, and in extracurricular activities. The qualitative study employs both focus groups and goal-mapping exercises. The results suggest that students tend to focus on utilitarian, attribute-level considerations mainly related to credentialing for purposes of employment. The results are considered from the perspectives of judgment and decision making, learning models, and the emerging service marketing perspective. These model considerations underscore an argument for moving toward models of education delivery focusing on value co-creation instead of the current emphasis on providing value to students. A series of recommendations are offered to help facilitate faculty efforts to increase course engagement, particularly in large-section course offerings. However, the authors ultimately conclude that student engagement with their course-related experiences will best be served in models of value co-creation by a focus on more than intellectual maturity in education. Specifically, an argument is presented for also targeting moral and motivational maturity. The practical and research implications of the study are presented and discussed.

Moving from Marketization to Marketing of Higher Education: The Co-Creation of Value in Higher Education

“…They argue that if student service quality perceptions, satisfaction judgments, and engagement practices are indeed unrelated to grades at the classroom level, then a question exists as to how well a focus on student satisfaction (and perceived relevance) actually engender student involvement in the value co-creation process in education delivery. (Note 5) Consistent with this argument, Taylor et al (2011b) present evidence that the goals underlying undergraduate marketing students' engagement with their educational experience tend to focus on utilitarian, attribute level considerations mainly related to credentialing for purposes of employment. Consequently, value perceptions based on goal achievement related to training and credentialing are more likely to occur under the marketized model of education.…”

“…The first reason involves the value perceived by students (and often other university stakeholders). Business students most often perceive the value associated with their education based upon their understanding of the relationship between delivered education and applicability to future job attainment and performance (Taylor, Hunter, Melton, & Goodwin, 2011b). The resulting implication is that unless students perceive value in educational pursuits they will be neither motivated to engage the process (Brophy, 1999; also see Bagozzi, Gurhan-Canli, & Priester, 2002 for a goal-theory perspective) nor satisfied with the outcome.…”

“…While all universities typically brag about their focus on critical (higher order) thinking-often in pursuit of life-long learning objectives-we have previously established the position that current university education systems in the US often neither (1) produces the highest possible level of intellectual growth, or (2) reflects efforts to ensure so through faculty evaluations. Continued pressures toward training models will arguably not change this outcome because they reinforce existing students' goals more related to short-term employment outcomes than long-term individual growth (Taylor et al, 2011b). The risk is for marketing education to become hostage to the serendipitous issues that hold the attention of marketing www.ccsenet.org/hes Higher Education Studies Vol.…”

Students' Attitudes toward a Group Coursework Protocol and Peer Assessment System

“…Additionally, our results suggest that the majority of our respondents experienced conflict, which indicates neutral or more negative attitudes towards the GCP&PAS across the board. These results reflect the negative impacts that group conflict can have, as highlighted in the literature (Taylor et al, 2011;Amato and Amato, 2005;Conway et al, 1993;Walker, 2002;Neu, 2012). Such results also suggest that marketing instructors should identify ways to address conflict experienced in teamwork (Chapman and Van Auken, 2001).…”

“…Group conflicts and student dissatisfaction may also arise due to various levels of motivational and moral maturity (Taylor et al, 2011), and incompatibility in personalities and communication styles (Amato and Amato, 2005). Workload management and diverse goals in relation to process, output quality and marks can also contribute to group conflicts (Conway et al, 1993;Walker, 2002).…”