Using Experiential Learning in Marketing Communication
Course
∗
Václav Švec, Tereza Kadeřábková
Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic
The aim of this research presented in this paper is to explore the students’ understanding and evaluation of results achieved by completing a course focused on experiential learning through live case studies in comparison with learning through mini-case studies with the support of multimedia class tools. The specific aims of the article are to verify the benefits of experiential learning to the students in the area of marketing communication and to find out which competencies were developed by used teaching approaches. Used methods are questionnaire, group discussion (for sets of competencies), non-parametric statistical hypothesis tests. It has been statistically proven that usage of live case studies has better impact on students than mini cases/projects teaching.
Keywords: cognitivism, experiential learning, case-based learning, mini cases, live cases
Introduction
Society in general, and companies in particular, demand not only knowledge but also new skills and abilities (e.g., teamwork skills, communication skills, familiarity with information and communication technologies, adaptability to changing problems) that are not adequately dealt with in conventional approaches to learning (Camarero, Rodriguez, & San Jose, 2009). Teaching methods that have been considered as “tried and true” are no longer working with today’s active learners (Matulich, Haytko, & Papp, 2008). Student learning, rather than teaching, is becoming the defining element of the instructor’s role (Elam & Spotts, 2004). Active teaching methods can be also seen as a “hook” that enables to engage the students in the classroom and to motivate them to follow the teacher through this process (Hackbert, 2006). Development of educational methods moved from the traditional beginning with behaviorism to theories emerging in the sixties—cognitivism, constructivism and humanism as a framework for experiential learning theory (Learning Theories Knowledgebase, 2010). For this research was the starting framework of the experiential learning theory. Cognitivism has affected educational theory by emphasizing the role of the teacher in terms of the
∗ This paper is an output of project No. MSM6046070904—Information and knowledge support of strategic management,
supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth, and Sports of the Czech Republic.
Václav Švec, Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague.
Tereza Kadeřábková, Lecturer, Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Management, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Václav Švec, Kamycka 129, 16521 Prague, Czech Republic. E-mail: [email protected].
USING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN MARKETING COMMUNICATION COURSE
1140
instructor’s effectiveness of presentation of instructional material in a manner that facilitates students’ learning (e.g., helping students to review and connect previous learning on a topic before moving to new ideas about that topic, helping students understand the material by organizing it effectively, understanding differences in students’ learning styles, etc.) (Ormrod, 2007). Rogers distinguished two types of learning: cognitive (meaningless) and experiential (significant). The key to the distinction is that experiential learning addresses the needs and wants of the learner. Rogers lists these qualities of experiential learning: personal involvement, self-initiated, evaluated by learner, and pervasive effects on learners (Rogers & Freiberg, 1994).
Experiential Learning Theory
There are many different experiential learning models that use cycles with varying numbers of stages (three, four, five, or six). However, the number of stages (all of which are common) does not matter, while what is important is that the phases of experiencing (doing), reflection and applying are present. It is also important to note that the stages of reflection and application are what make experiential learning different and more powerful than the models commonly referred to as “learn-by-doing” or “hands-on-learning” (Proudman, 1992). Kolb stated that learning is the process whereby knowledge is created through the transformation of experience. He also developed four components of the experiential learning cycle: concrete experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Kolb, 1984). The cycle begins with an experience that the student has had, followed by an opportunity to reflect on that experience. Then students may conceptualize and draw conclusions about what they experienced and observed, leading to future actions in which the students experiment with different behaviors. This begins the cycle anew as students have new experiences based on their experimentation (Oxendine, Robinson, & Willson, 2007).
Experiential learning has been often thought of an activity-based learning or even internships—practical experience (Christ, 1999). One of the most significant benefits of experiential exercises is that they enhance learning by increasing student involvement in the learning process (Bobbitt, Inks, Kemp, & Mayo, 2000). To sum up, experiential learning activities increase student learning and motivation, and help students to integrate marketing theory and real-world practice, as well as improve important skills such as critical thinking and communication skills (Camarero, Rodriguez, & San Jose, 2009). In a marketing context, several authors have evidenced the advantages of merging traditional classroom learning methods with experiential learning methods such as team-projects combining several courses (Bobbitt et al., 2000), case-based courses (Blackmon, Hong, & Choi, 2007), classroom projects (Camarero, Rodriguez, & San Jose, 2009), semi-structured classroom activities (Hamer, 2000), and live cases (Elam & Spotts, 2004).
Case-Based Learning Through Mini Cases and Live Cases
Using a case-based approach engages students in discussion of specific situations, typically real-world examples. This method is learner-centered, and involves intense interaction between the participants. Case-based learning focuses on the building of knowledge and the group works together to examine the case (Centre for Teaching and Learning, 2010). Even if the case has to be written in narrative form and demonstrate the contextualization and specificity of case, to provide well-written content for cases is not sufficient for successful case-based learning (Blackmon, Hong, & Choi, 2007). The key to the case method are discussions that enable
students to analyze, propose solutions, solve problems or make decisions (Barnes, Christensen, & Hansen, 1987). The instructor’s role is that of a facilitator and the students collaboratively address problems from a perspective that requires analysis. Much of case-based learning involves learners striving to resolve questions that have no single right answer (Centre for Teaching and Learning, 2010). In the analysed course, there were two methods used—the method of mini cases and live cases. The first method—mini cases may be used in a wide variety of settings. These are short, often only a paragraph or two long, describing a situation or dilemma. Designed to be used in a single class meeting, their content is usually tightly focused. Useful for introducing and grounding a new topic in lecture, for pre-assessing student knowledge, for helping students apply concepts, for introducing practical applications in lab settings, or as a pre-activity exercise designed to make the work more meaningful (Waterman & Stanley, 2005). The second method, a blend of experiential learning and the case method, is the use of a live case approach to teaching. By the live cases, the problem or issue has not been resolved and the company is seeking input from the students to assist them in making a management decision. In other words, everything is happening now (Simkins, 2001). Simkins believes that the live case method requires the student to apply even deeper intellectual thinking and as a result, achieve greater wisdom—more so than other pedagogical techniques (Simkins, 2001). This type of deep knowledge is necessary for the student to achieve exceptional performance, not only in the classroom, but also in one’s career. The main disadvantage to using the live case method in the classroom is the amount of time it involves both for the student, the instructor, and the company. This project required minimal one-half of the semester (Simkins, 2001).
Context
The Marketing Communication Course did last for 13 weeks. The course were attended by 150 students and was divided to classes with case study and project teaching and classes with live cases. Figure 1 shows the timeline of the course.
The course has been divided into six different classes as shown in Figure 1: Online Advertising, Press Relations, Events, Integrated Communication, Product Advertisement and Communication Mix. As Figure 1 shows, the only class using mini cases and project teaching was Communication Mix. The other classes were using live case study teaching and approach.
Students were allowed to decide which class they want to attend in the beginning of course with purpose to increase their motivation in classroom. The separately lectures of marketing communications theory were common for all classes.
Research Data and Methodology
Aim of the research presented in this paper is to explore the students’ development in a course focused on learning through live case studies in comparison with learning through mini cases and projects. The specific aims of the article are:
y To verify the benefits of action learning to the students in the area of marketing communication; y To find out which competencies were developed by used teaching approaches.
For this purpose, four hypotheses were formulated:
H0-1: There is not a statistically significant difference in students capture between the classes with mini cases/projects teaching and classes with live case studies.
USING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN MARKETING COMMUNICATION COURSE
1142
H0-2: There is not a statistically significant difference in studying results between the classes with mini cases/projects teaching and classes with live case studies.
H0-3: There is not a statistically significant difference in development of marketing communication skills between the classes with mini cases/projects teaching and classes with live case studies.
H0-4: There is not a statistically significant difference in development of observed competencies between the classes with mini cases/projects teaching and classes with live case studies.
Used methods included questionnaire, group discussion (for sets of competencies), non-parametrical statistical testing (Mann-Whitney test).
Figure 1. Orientation of marketing communication course’s classes.
Results
One hundred and thirty respondents did answer the questionnaire but three questionnaires did have to be excluded because of inadequate completion. The answers were divided into two groups according to type of teaching (group variable). The frequency did not drop until 26 answers in any of group. The respondent’s distribution within attended classes is shown in Figure 2.
Students capture in subject is shown in Figure 3. The scale means 1 is the highest capturing, 5 means the lowest.
Ordinal (categorical) variables are used in both samples—for statistical confirmation of H0-2 has been chosen non-parametric statistical testing method of Mann-Whitney test. The criterion p = 0.0005. The H0-1 can be rejected. There is statistically significant difference in students capture between the classes with project/mini cases teaching and classes with live case studies.
Studyin 2: very good There a been chosen ng results of s d, 3: good, 4:
are used ordin n Mann-Whit 2 47% 3 13% 1 Real ca 3 58% 4 4% Live case s students are sh failed). Figure Figure 4 nal (categorial tney test. The
32 3 % 4 1% 5 1%
ase studies teac
1 4% 2 34 % studies teachin hown in Figu Figure 2. Res e 3. Students ca 4. Studying resu l) variables in e criterion p = 13 1 8% ching 2 4% g
ure 4. The scal
spondent’s distri
apture in both typ
ults for both teac
n both samples = 0.682 which 25 21 4 le used in this ibution. pes of teaching. ching approache s therefore sta h means H0 10 3 38% 4 4% 5 8% Mini cases/ 3 56% 4 8% Mini cases s case means es. atistical confir cannot be rej 26 1 15% 2 35% 5 % /projects teach 1 12% % s/projects stud marks (1: exc rmation of H0 ected. As sho % ing 2 24% ies teaching cellent, 0-2 has own in
USING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN MARKETING COMMUNICATION COURSE
1144
Figure 4, there is no statistically significant difference in studying results coming from method of class teaching, i.e., live case studies teaching and mini cases/projects teaching.
The set of observed competencies and their development is shown in Figure 5. Students did record shift in their competencies at the beginning and at the end of course on scale 0-4, where 0 means no shift and 4 the significant shift.
Competencies had been tested separately in two independent samples. For finding statistically significant differences were used the non-parametric statistical hypothesis tests (Mann-Whitney test). There is no statistically significant difference in developing marketing communication competency between mini cases/project and live case studies teaching (p = 0.09 > 0.05).
Figure 5. Evaluation of competencies for both teaching approaches.
The competencies with statistically significant difference are: y Creativity (p = 0.001 < 0.05);
y Relationship building (p = 0.03 < 0.05); y Dispute settlement (p = 0.012 < 0.05); y Quality decision (p = 0.031 < 0.05).
Conclusion
Teaching with live case studies in marketing communication is comparable with mini cases/projects approach in the criterion of marketing communication skills level. Therefore is possible to say that this method is applicable.
It has been statistically proven that usage of live case studies has better impact on students capturing for
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Focus on results Creativity Perspectivity learning by doing Introspection Critical thinking Activity organizing
Cope with uncertainties
Troubleshooting Quality decision In time decision Planning Teambuilding Relationship building Dispute settlement Leadership Deputation Information transmitting Presentation of views Written communication
Busieness issues orientation Marketing communication
skills
subject than mini cases/projects teaching. These results are in agreement with Hackbert’s statement that live case studies teaching methods can be also seen as a “hook” that enables to engage the students in the classroom and to motivate them to follow the teacher through this process (Hackbert, 2006).
Camarero, Rodriguez and San Jose stated that experiential learning activities increase student learning and motivation, and help students to integrate marketing theory and real-world practice, as well as improve important skills such as critical thinking and communication skills (Camarero, Rodriguez, & San Jose, 2009). Our research also proved significant development of creativity, decision-making, dispute settlement and relationship building through the experiential learning activities.
References
Barnes, L. B., Christensen, C. R., & Hansen, A. J. (1987). Teaching and the case method: Text, cases, and readings. Boston: Harward Business School Press.
Blackmon, M., Hong, Y., & Choi, I. (2007). Case-based learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching,
and technology. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Bobbitt, M. L., Inks, S. K., Kemp, K. J., & Mayo, D. T. (2000). Integrating marketing courses to enhance team-based experiential
learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 15-24.
Camarero, C., Rodriguez, J., & San Jose, R. (2009). A comparison of the learning effectiveness of live cases and classroom projects. The higher education academy.
Christ, W. G. (1999). Leadership in times of change: A handbook for communications and media administrators. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..
Elam, E. L. R., & Spotts, H. E. (2004). Achieving marketing curriculum integration: A live case study approach. Journal of
Marketing Education, 26, 50-65.
Hackbert, P. H. (2006). Integrating active learning and cases in undergraduate entrepreneurship classes across the curriculum. United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Hamer, L. O. (2000). The additive effects of semistructured classroom activities on student learning: An application of classroom-based experiential learning techniques. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1), 25-34.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc..
Learning Theories Knowledgebase. (2010). Learning theories—Knowledgebase and webliography. Retrieved April 29, 2010, from http://www.learning-theories.com/
Matulich, E., Haytko, D. L., & Papp, R. (2008). Continuous improvement through teaching innovations: A requirement for today’s learners. Marketing Education Review, 18, 1-7
Ormrod, J. E. (2007). Human learning. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Oxendine, C., Robinson, J., & Willson, G. (2007). Experiential learning. In M. Orey (Ed.), Emerging perspectives on learning, Proudman, B. (1992). Experiential education as emotionally-engaged learning. Journal of Experiential Education, 15, Ontario. Queen University Centre for Teaching and Learning. (2010). Good practice: Inquiry based learning. Retrieved March 15, 2011,
from http://www.queensu.ca/ctl/goodpractice/inquiry/index.html
Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Simkins, B. J. (2001). An innovative approach to teaching finance: Using live cases in the case course. Social Science Research Network.
Teaching, and technology. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/
Waterman, M., & Stanley, E. (2005). Case format variations. Case based learning in your clases. Retrieved April 21, 2011, from http://cstl-csm.semo.edu/waterman/cbl/caseformats.html
