apa 5th edition templatecjbe.jesuitbusinessschools.com/resources/246.doc · web viewadditionally,...

A Review of Experiential Activities in the Marketing Classroom:Self-Marketing Plans, Community-based Learning & Client-based Projects (Oh My!)

AuthorChristina McCale, Instructor

Regis University

14th Annual World ForumColleagues in Jesuit Business Education

International Association of Jesuit Business SchoolsBusiness and Education in an Era of Globalization:

The Jesuit PositionJuly 20-23, 2008

INTRODUCTIONSelecting experiential activities for most faculty has usually been a bit like traveling down the yellow

brick road towards the hoped for “perfect fit” of the right activities for the right class – or what one might liken to finding Oz. However, unlike Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion, it’s not always intuitive as to which activity students need, much less how they will benefit from each activity. Further complicating matters, little substantive data exists in the literature to demonstrate the outcomes, skill enhancement and career benefits for each type of activity.

Of course, it’s important to pick the right activity for the right class for many reasons, not the least of which is career preparation. Employers have often stated that graduating marketing majors do not have the requisite skills to be successful, entry-level professionals. This is not a new complaint. In the mid-70s, Mintzberg (1976) described how education had to change to meet the needs of business more effectively. “Greater use should be made of the powerful new skill-development techniques which are experiential and creative in nature… Educators need to put students into situations… where they can practice managerial skills, not only interpersonal but also informational and decisional.” (p. 53) The importance of business relevance in academia (Porter & McKibbon, 1988), coupled with an increasingly challenging job market (McCorkle, Alexander, Reardon, & Kling, 2003) magnifies the importance for students to be better prepared for the marketplace. Today, students must not only possess the requisite marketing-related skills but also certain supporting skills such as communications abilities and problem-solving aptitude in order to be successful as an entry-level employee (McCorkle, Alexander, Reardon, & Kling, 2003).

Researchers have focused on a few, key, supporting skills today’s business managers continually state are the most important to an entry-level employee’s career success which are, according to employers, missing from the educational landscape. The abilities most commonly valued among employers include: communication and interpersonal skills (Scott & Frontczak, 1996; Floyd & Gordon, 1998) and problem-solving skills or critical thinking abilities (Ray & Stallard, 1994; Floyd & Gordon, 1998). Additionally, McCorkle, et al (1999) included computer/technology skills, presentation skills, leadership skills, job search skills, teamwork skills, multicultural skills, and creative/innovator skills.

These supporting skill sets would not typically be thought of as skills that can be enhanced by students’ marketing courses. However, the literature shows that students’ skills can be enhanced through experiential learning activities, (Bobbitt, Inks, Kemp, & Mayo, 2000)such as through the projects discussed in this article: Client-based projects, Self-Marketing plans, and Community-based learning projects..

The inclusion of experiential learning activities such as Self-Marketing plans, client-based projects or Community-based learning activities can meet the needs of several constituencies: first, it can assist faculty in educating students about the core marketing concepts being reviewed in class. Second, the project can help students provide evidence of the specific skill sets that employers/researchers say are critical to employment success. Lastly, employers would ultimately receive better prepared, more street-ready employees for the workforce.

This article provides evidence of the benefits a traditional-aged undergraduate marketing student derives from completing experiential activities in marketing classes. Client-based projects, Self-Marketing plans and Community-based learning projects were implemented and evaluated over a series of five semesters. In general, the research shows that what educators have always intuitively believed about the benefits of experiential learning can be supported. Students find benefit and value in completing such projects both in personal satisfaction as well as professional development of the key supporting skills employers indicate are not only needed in today’s graduates. Lastly, completing such experiential activities not only provides practical experience, but reinforces the key marketing concepts covered in marketing classes, thus aiding in learning as encouraged by AACSB.

LITERATURE REVIEWExperiential Learning’s Role and Relevance in Education

Experiential learning could not be more important in today’s employment marketplace. While academics may successfully educate students in the academic theories of their various disciplines, they are not, according to the research, preparing business students with the skill sets needed to ‘hit the ground running’ successfully in an entry-level job upon graduation. (Lamb, Jr, Shipp, & Moncrief III, 1995) If students are

lacking in specific support skill areas, Lamb, Shipp and Moncrief (1995) state that the development of these support skills should be just as important to marketing education as the acquisition of marketing knowledge. Alam echoes this sentiment through a quoted a speech by a Coopers and Lybrand executive who states, “[e]mployers have problems not with the knowledge content of marketing graduates, but the level of transferable skills which they possess….because they lack the practical approach… to understand… the application of basic marketing concepts and principles in real life situations.” (1998: 246)

The literature points to several reasons why experiential learning activities are so vital to the undergraduate marketing classroom. The first is what employers expect of their new recruits. Employers highly value communication skills (Floyd & Gordon, 1998), interpersonal skills (Scott & Frontczak, 1996), and problem-solving skills or critical thinking abilities (Ray & Stallard, 1994). Each is a translatable skill that can be applied in a variety of situations and industries. Thus, faculty members ideally should align their course requirements to teach students these skills in tangible ways. (Pritchard, et al., 2004)

The job climate is a second factor contributing to this project’s critical nature. While jobs may have been plentiful several years ago, Pritchard, et al. (2004) point to the drastic changes in the job market ranging from the constant state of change to off-shoring and outsourcing, and the increasing complexity in the job hunt itself. Students must learn the skills necessary to effectively market themselves in an increasingly competitive job market.

The last factor contributing to the project’s critical nature is the student population. Not surprising to many parents and educators, many students often wait too long to begin their job hunt process (typically their senior year). Students often excuse the lack of attention to managing their career entry due to lack of time, or the false belief that good jobs are waiting for college graduates. Students also often overestimate their entry-level expectations, and underestimate the amount of time and effort it may take to find a fulfilling job. (Smith, 2004; Taylor, 2003; Clark, 2005; McCorkle, et al, 2003; McCorkle, Alexander, & Diriker, 1992) By accumulating experiences throughout college, undoubtedly students will not only have ample opportunities to practices the skills that employers say are important but also develop a more complete Self-Marketing effort to ease them into career entry.

The Self-Marketing Plan: Literature OverviewOne such experiential learning activity discussed on a limited basis in the literature can (and will for the

purposes of this article) be loosely referred to as the Self-Marketing Plan project. The literature refers to this project by many names and has taken many forms, falling on a spectrum of level of formality/involvement.

In a rare instance, marketing oneself is addressed at a less formal level, predominantly in small group discussion, but used to illustrate the core concepts of the course (in this case, Principles of Marketing) (Kramer, 1988). In the mid-range of the continuum, the topic is in many instances embedded in an existing course, typically a marketing or business communications course, and takes the form of a final project, portfolio, or series of documents that supplement and complement the main course curriculum. Some examples include the Job Search Project (Noll, 1995), a final project in the Business Communications course; a “Career Planning Lab” as a component of a Managerial Communications course (May, 2005); the Resume and Professional Action Plan Preparation Program, which is embedded in the principles of finance course (Pritchard, et al., 2004); and a marketing plan for the individual student, embedded in the Principles of Marketing course (McCorkle, Alexander & Diriker, 1992; McCorkle, et al., 2003; Smith, 2004). At the other end of the spectrum is a unique, non-credit four-year course called “The Business Profession” and is required of all business majors. (Clark, 2005)

Further, of the few articles that discuss Self-Marketing Plans or similar programs in-depth, three are more reflective in design -- a “how to” approach for implementing similar activities in the classroom. While some articles do have empirical data associated with them, the presented scope of the information gathered is quite limited. Data as a whole tends to be confined to single class evaluations with limited discussion.

Client-Based Learning LiteratureOne common experiential activity in popular practice today is the client-based project. The literature

refers to this project in a number ways: as live cases and consulting projects most often. While a client-based project could in theory be done in almost any marketing course, it’s most often seen in upper level courses such

Consciousness AwarenessApplication of theory Hands-on

Community-Based Learning:

ObserveInterview

Service Learning: Direct

ServiceAdvocacyConsultancyCB

Research

as marketing research and marketing management. (Maher & Hughner, 2005; Corbin, 2002; Elam & Spotts, 2004)

While numerous articles have been written about these types of projects, few go into specific detail about the project: often the articles are written more as a how-to approach with little substantive analysis for what students gain from said projects. The rare exceptions do exist. However, the few studies that do measure elements are typically very limited in scope as to what they do measure. For example: Karnes’ research (1993; 2005) provides a rare glimpse of how undergraduate students not only prefer certain experiential learning activities but also how effective they are, based on challenge and connection to the real world. While this is extraordinarily valuable, it does not measure what skills or knowledge students gain. While Maher and Hughner’s study (2005) provides an excellent comparison of student preferences between client-based projects and simulations, it measured if the students felt they had learned more – but not what they learned. Corbin’s study (2002), while larger than the others, focuses predominantly on the students’ key learnings of group management and teaming – certainly critical skills as per employers – but solely limited to this set of skills. Lastly, Elam and Spotts’ study (2004) does address soft skills and benefits to the student, it does not address whether the project reinforced or aided in the understanding of marketing content.

Employers’ needs for college graduates to graduate street ready -- that is, prepared to be able to work professionally -- is perhaps the biggest reason to include such projects in coursework. The abilities most commonly valued among employers include: communication skills, interpersonal, and problem-solving skills or critical thinking abilities. These are the key, translatable skills that can be applied in a variety of situations and industries. Thus, faculty members should align their skills and course requirements to teach students these skills in tangible ways. (Pritchard, et al, 2004)

Community-Based Learning LiteratureThe terms Service Learning (SL) and Community-Based Learning (CBL) are frequently debated, both in

regard to name and meaning (Furco, 1996, p. 9; Eyler & Giles, 1999, p. 3; Mooney & Edwards, 2001, 181; Crews, 2002, p. vii). Service Learning Centers can vary dramatically from college to college, each with its own strengths, staff constraints and resources. Here the terms are defined as they functionally serve at one university, not with the intention of proposing definitive conceptualizations of SL and CBL but rather to be useful in understanding curricular inclusion and student development.

Standing within Catholic and Jesuit traditions, SL and CBL at one specific university are specific in terms of intended outcomes and principle focus. With SL and CBL, the goal therefore, is not simply to experience and gain a deeper understanding of the voices of the marginalized in society, but rather, to learn about and gain the tools through which the inequitable systems and structures of society can be challenged and changed. They also serve to connect the dots between what the students are learning in the classroom and what is happening in the community.

Figure 1: Comparison between Community-Based Learning and Service Learning

Service Learning, at the authors’ given university, is different from Community-Based Learning. See Figure 1 for a comparison of these two experiential activities. Typically, Service Learning refers to getting students out of the classroom and into the community to achieve established learning goals by leveraging community assets to meet expressed community needs.

The term Community-Based Learning refers to education that incorporates experiential assignments intended to ground student learning in the context and content of what they encounter in particular community settings. This type of education aims to intensify student learning in a particular content area. These assignments generally focus around conducting observations, interviews, or surveys in the local community, then reflecting heavily on their process and outcome. Shor (1994) refers to it as a type of:

empowering education,” CBL “adapts the subject matter and learning process to the students so as to develop critical dimensions missing from their knowledge and speech…to marry critical thought to everyday life by examining daily themes, social issues, and academic lore (p. 44).

CBL assignments, in conjunction with appropriate reflection prior to undertaking the activities (pre-flective), strive to transform the consciousness of those involved. Properly implemented, CBL allows for introspection, self-awareness, and personal responsibility, impacting learners’ beliefs, attitudes, and ultimately, behaviors. Reflective components are key to this process, as “understand[ing] the significance of what we see, hear, and touch” is vital to learning (Dewey, 1963, p. 68). Figure 2 provides a descriptive model for the approach used in CBL activities.

Rather than the sometimes self-commending attitude that more charity-based service learning can at times evoke in students, CBL directly impels students to explore and perhaps challenge elements of the dominant culture that they might otherwise take for granted, while also perceiving their own complex location within systems of power and privilege. . Whereas SL opportunities generally offer more of an opportunity to build relationship and to focus on one topic in-depth, CBL assignments are more ideal for survey-type or introductory level courses that aim to provide students with a greater breadth of topics and that aim to develop creative, critical, and socially justice-focused thinking. CBL exercises also provide a strong foundation for students who may later undertake more in-depth SL projects in future classes (Mooney & Edwards, 2001, p. 190).

Figure 2: Descriptive Community-Based Learning Model

This type of learning is not neutral and does indeed carry with it a bent toward a social justice education for the whole person. Just as Jakubowski (2003) claims involvement as the most effective strategy she’s seen “for engaging students in a process of teaching and learning about diversity and social justice” (p. 24) so do we,

Content Coverage (traditional classroom work)

“Preflective” phase: review activity descriptions, preliminary class discussion

Participate in Activities

Reflection and independent writing

Classroom discussion & “what can we learn from this?”

Reflection: how does this learning influence how we “ought to live?”

Learning continues and builds on previously gained knowledge.

in the Jesuit tradition, agree. Through merging cognitive, experiential, and effective learning in SL and CBL, universities and colleges can recognize:

Tomorrow’s “whole person” cannot be whole without an educated awareness of society and culture with which to contribute socially, generously, in the real world. Tomorrow’s whole person must have, in brief, a well-educated solidarity…When the heart is touched by direct experience, the mind may be challenged to change. Personal involvement with innocent suffering, with the injustice others suffer, is the catalyst for solidarity which then gives rise to intellectual inquiry and moral reflection. (Kolvenbach, 2000, p. 8)

WORKING TOGETHER: FACULTY AND STAFFFor the Community-based learning and Self-Marketing plan activities, a partnership between the faculty

member in the classroom and the appropriate staff (service learning for Community-based learning; career services and academic internship office for the Self-Marketing plan) is critical to the success of such an endeavor. The partnership can be a creative collaboration, spring-boarding a number of ideas, access to resources, and connections to community resources that either individual working independently would not develop. For example, as with the Community-based learning activities, being able to provide students a myriad of activity choices – accommodating those who may be campus-bound, time-hampered or vehicle challenged – allows students to “own” their experiences, and yet at the same time not be at a disadvantage to those who may have more resources than others.

To be successful, faculty and staff share ideas regarding objectives, activities, key themes to highlight and how the activity will be placed in the curriculum. Planning can not be overstated or reiterated too many times; planning and coordination between/among the various groups the students will interact with is critical for student success and positive word of mouth among fellow students.

RESEARCH DESIGNA series of descriptive studies portraying the benefits undergraduate marketing students derive from

completing experiential learning activities – specifically client-based projects, Self-Marketing plans and Community-based learning activities – were implemented in response to the following research questions: What benefits, skills and knowledge do students gain from project completion? Can these activities prepare students for career entry? And are there differences among these questions when considering gender, work experience, volunteer experience and if the student has previously experienced skill enhancing academic projects?

After a trial semester had been implemented, 50-item, web-based surveys were made available to traditional undergraduate students who had just completed marketing management, marketing research, services marketing, or principles of marketing courses and had included one of the discussed experiential activities at the end of Fall Semester 2006.

Table 1: Survey TotalsActivity Marketing

ManagementMarketing Research

Principles of Marketing

Services Marketing

Community-based Learning

26 0 129 27

Self-Marketing Plans

0 0 191 0

Client-based Projects

50 26 0 0

Questions were organized into basic categories: benefits, skills applied/developed, marketing content, and career preparation to gather data to either support or reject the preceding hypotheses and were, kept fairly consistent except in instances to reflect the course name or activity experienced. A Likert scale was used with anchors ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Demographic data and information regarding

the student’s amount of work experience (paid, unpaid and classroom projects) were gathered. Four open-ended questions were provided to allow students to elaborate on their experiences.

CLASSROOM METHODOLOGYFor the Self-Marketing plan and Client-based projects the students were provided an overview of the

project as part of the course syllabus review at the beginning of the term. Guidelines, sources and suggestions were also developed and provided by the authors to help guide the students through their research. As the semester progressed, the instructor would connect the theories being discussed in class to what was expected of the students for their marketing plans. Specifically, for the Self-Marketing plans, students were reminded of upcoming activities on campus that were applicable to completing the final project as well as Career Services visits. Additionally, for both the Client-based project as well as the Self-Marketing plans, several “work days” or “roll-up your sleeves” sessions were developed in which students could bring rough drafts of the various sections of their Self-Marketing Plans to ask procedural or development questions of the instructor. Additionally, the instructor was available during office hours and additional office times by appointment to meet with teams for the Client-based project or individuals for their Self-Marketing plans.

The Community-based learning projects, due to their very nature, worked differently. During the 15 week semester, students were asked to complete one CBL exercises from each of the unit areas that directly correlated to the text book. A variety of CBL options were available in each of the units, giving students a breadth of opportunities from which to choose in order to focus their learning. Copies of the CBL activity lists were provided in both the syllabus at the beginning of the semester and the instructor’s online classroom. Students were expected to reflect through dialog and writing on these exercises and to bring their learning into class discussions on a regular basis. Analytical reflection was vital to the success of this process because, as Mooney and Edwards (2001) and others stress, “the greater prevalence of structured reflection in service learning makes students more likely to apply critical thinking, synthesize information from classroom and community settings, and examine structural/institutional antecedents of social issues…” (p. 188; Eyler & Giles, 1999, 207).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

ReliabilityCronbach’s Alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the survey instrument, which

resulted .964 for the Client-based projects; a .961 for the Community-based learning activities and a .962 for the Self-Marketing plan projects, thus determining the survey instrument was reliable.

DemographicsAccording to school records 46% of the student population is male with 54% being female.

Additionally, 19% of the student body is of an ethnicity other than White/Caucasian. Below are the demographics gathered for each of the experiential learning activities. What can be determined is that typically, the responding group did not entirely reflect the university’s student population. Typically, the classes were more ethnically diverse, and tending to skew male. That said, however, students were not required to answer any demographic information and were allowed to check multiple responses in terms of ethnicity and course of study, therefore, totals may not add up to 100.

Table 2: DemographicsClient-based project Community-based

learningSelf-Marketing plans

Gender (M/F) 42.7% / 43.9% 45.9% / 36.6% 55.3% / 38.7% 80.6% White/non-Hispanic;12.2% Hispanic; 6% as “Other.” 1.2% African American;

74.2% White/non-Hispanic;14.6% Hispanic; 4.9% Other;3.4% as Asian;2.9% African American;

74.3% White/non-Hispanic;8.4% Hispanic; 4.3% African American; 5.8% as Asian; 7.2% as “Other.”

Class Year 83% seniors; 3.7% juniors;6.1% No answer

35.1% seniors; 46.8% as juniors;4.4% sophomores; 2.9% No answer

17.8% seniors; 69.1% juniors; 10.5% sophomores; 1.6% No answer

Majors 40% Marketing majors; 12% Communication Arts majors; 12% double majors in Marketing and Management.

20.4% Business Administration majors; 16.2% Marketing majors;10.5% Accounting majors; 9.9% Finance majors; 7.9% Communication Arts;4.2% Management majors;

Are Working? 81.6% 73.2% 91.1%Employment tenure

Average: 29.83 mos;27.6% reported 4+ yrs

Average: 29 mos,18% reported 4+ yrs.

Range: 1 month - 10 yrsAverage: just over 2 yrs

Number of hours working

Range: 5-80 hrs wkly Average: 2235% report working 30+ hours weekly

Range: 5-50 hrs wklyAverage: 22 hrs21% report working 30+ hours weekly.

Range: 4-80 hrs wkly Average: 24 hrs 39% report working 30+ hours weekly.

Have unpaid work experience?

53.7% 45.9% 60.2%

Unpaid work tenure

Average: 9.45 mo9.7% reported working 24+ months6.1% report working 48+ months.

Average: 9.6 months. 8.7% reported working 24+ months3% report working 48+ months.

Average: 12 months

Number of hours working

Range: 1-40 hrs wklyAverage: 9.4511.8% report working 20+ hours weekly

Range: 1-50 hrs wkly Average: 5.76, 6% report working 20+ hours weekly

Range 1-40 hours weekly with an average of 6.76 much as one might expect in an internship situation, for instance.

Have Academic projects that enhanced skill sets

75.6% 49.8% 54.5%

Hypothesis 1 Grouping: Gender-based differencesHypothesis Group 1a revolves around gender differences: does one gender prefer or receive different

benefits from completing the various experiential activities. A t-test was performed to compare the means between the two groups (men and women) at both the question level as well as a composite level to support or reject Hypothesis 1.

Table 3: Hypothesis 1a Gender and BenefitsClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-

based LearningSelf-Marketing

Plans

Benefits Gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDValuable learning experience Male 4.59 .657 3.83 .872 4.39 .860 Female 4.75*

* .439 3.91 .968 4.28 .852

Enjoyed completing the assignment Male 3.97 .923 3.59 1.086 3.81 1.136 Female 4.03 1.207 3.53 1.178 3.77 1.149

Learned mkt strategy better than by reading in text

Male 4.37 .843 3.92 .912 4.07 .953

Female 4.72* .454 4.01 .937 4.12 1.033Assignment is effective means of learning mkt strategy

Male 4.29 .667 3.87 .820 4.143 .9449

Female 4.69 .525 4.05 .905 4.123 .9992More valuable than completing a Community-based Learning Assignment

Male4.51 .781 --- --- --- ---

Female 4.58 .649 --- --- --- ---More valuable than completing a case study

Male 4.43 .698 --- --- --- ---

Female 4.53 .609 --- --- --- ---Rather completed mkt plan Male --- --- 3.40 1.370 3.381 1.3755 Female --- --- 3.59 1.242 3.000 1.4712More complete self mkt effort Male --- --- 3.55 1.215 4.14 .903 Female --- --- 3.76 .898 4.36 .786More valuable than completing a simulation

Male 4.34 .938 --- --- --- ---

Female 4.61 .599 --- --- --- ---Gained skill sets by working with "real" client

Male 4.40 .812 --- --- --- ---

Female 4.78* .422 --- --- --- ---Will have influence on career choice Male 3.94 .938 3.71 1.022 3.85 1.007 Female 4.25 .874 3.78 1.174 4.14 1.102Assignment gives edge in job mkt Male --- --- 4.02 .990 --- ---

Female --- --- 4.32 .760 --- ---Required greater effort than other semester projects

Male 4.54 .741 3.54 1.094 4.26 1.019

Female 4.69 .525 3.30 1.155 4.58 .662Recommend for other semesters Male 4.34 .802 3.76 1.152 4.12 .978 Female 4.64 .683 3.68 1.243 4.12 1.059

*95% confidence level **90% confidence level

On the surface, students appeared to respond quite strongly to the benefits of the client-based project. Ninety-six percent of students either agreed or strongly agreed that this assignment was a valuable learning experience; 95% stated that the project required more effort than other semester projects, with 93% agreed/strongly agreeing that the skills they gained would be valuable to their future career performance by working with a “real” client. However, the t-tests reveal a different level of information. Females appeared to respond more favorably of the client-based activity, however, three were found to be statistically significantly different than their male counterparts. Women responded more strongly that they felt that they had gained skill sets by working with a “real” client, felt they had learned marketing strategy better through the client experience rather than through a text, and that overall the client-based project was a valuable learning experience. Further, a composite mean for the benefits statements was created and an additional t-test completed to determine if, as a composite score, there were any differences between men and women. There was not. Therefore, H1a was partially supported for the Client-based projects. However, in terms of the Community-based learning activities as well as the Self-Marketing plans, neither gender’s means, nor the composite scores, indicated statistically significant preferences. Therefore, H1a for the Community-based learning projects and Self-Marketing plans could not be supported.

Hypothesis 1b stated that there would be differences between how men and women value their various experiential activities in the area of employer-requested skill set development. At face value, there were strong favorable responses to the project particularly in the Client-based project means. However, while females who had completed Client-based projects seemed to respond more favorably that they did indeed see improvement in their own skill sets, only one skill, project management, significantly different from the males (95% confidence interval).

Table 4: Hypothesis 1b Gender and SkillsClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-based

LearningSelf-Marketing Plans

Skill Sets Gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDWriting skills Male 3.83 .707 3.59 .909 3.54 1.010 Female 4.17 .697 3.39 1.012 3.49 1.219Critical thinking skills Male 4.17 .664 3.82 .842 3.86 .945 Female 4.47 .560 3.69 1.052 3.72 1.141Information technology skills Male 4.06 .873 3.65 .947 3.75 1.081 Female 4.11 .820 3.51 1.010 3.65 1.243Communications skills Male 4.06 .765 3.50 1.003 3.76 .936 Female 4.44 .652 3.36 1.074 3.76 1.214Project Management skills Male 4.31 .676 3.66 1.043 4.10 .929 Female 4.72* .454 3.56 1.068 3.92 1.258Teamwork skills Male 4.09 .919 2.80 1.308 --- --- Female 4.58 .554 2.80 1.208 --- ---Leadership skills Male 4.17 .664 3.00 1.287 --- --- Female 4.58 .604 2.85 1.312 --- ---Conflict resolution skills Male 3.89 .900 3.12 1.217 --- --- Female 4.61 .599 3.08 1.136 --- ---Presentation skills Male 4.00 .767 3.10 1.320 --- --- Female 4.44 .695 3.01 1.380 --- ---Managing clients Male 4.09 .951 --- --- --- --- Female 4.67 .535 --- --- --- ---

*95% confidence level**90% confidence level

A composite score was also calculated for the skills section and t-tested for the students who had completed Client-based projects, Community-based learning and Self-Marketing plan. No statistical significances between the men’s and women’s composite scores for any of the activities, nor at the question-level for Community-based learning and Self-Marketing plan students. Therefore, H1b was partially supported for Client-based projects, but not supported for Community-based learning activities and Self-Marketing plans.

Hypothesis 1c stated that there would be differences between how men and women valued their experiential activities in the area of career preparation. Client-based project students’ responses to the career preparation section were strong. And while in the majority of instances, women appeared to respond more favorably in terms of career preparation and enhancement, none of the indicators proved to be significantly different from males’ responses in any of the activities. Further, a composite score was created and t-tested to determine if there was a difference between men’s and women’s scored at a composite level. There was not. Therefore, hypothesis 1c was not supported for any of the three activities.

Table 5: Hypothesis 1c Gender and Career PreparationClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-based

LearningSelf-Marketing

Plans

Gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDI learned about myself Male 3.83 1.098 3.30 1.056 3.98 1.009 Female 4.11 1.090 3.24 1.089 4.18 .970Set Career Goals Male 3.77 .808 3.13 1.109 4.10 .970 Female 4.19 .920 2.97 1.185 4.39 .825Think about career goals and plans earlier than I might normally

Male 4.09 .818 3.24 1.155 4.22 .940

Female 4.03 .971 3.15 1.238 4.36 .885I am more confident in my knowledge about marketing

Male 4.09 .919 3.73 1.049 4.20 .870

Female 4.50 .609 3.89 .953 4.35 .730Can describe skills learned from project to potential employer

Male 4.23 .731 3.61 .986 --- ---

Female 4.64 .543 3.37 1.206 --- ---Increased industry knowledge Male --- --- --- --- 4.19 .856 Female --- --- --- --- 4.26 .980Increased company knowledge Male --- --- --- --- 4.22 .920 Female --- --- --- --- 4.32 .862Increased salary knowledge Male --- --- --- --- 4.13 .910 Female --- --- --- --- 4.32 .813Have edge in career by completing Male --- --- --- --- 4.10 .894 Female --- --- --- --- 4.34 .816Increased occupation knowledge Male --- --- --- --- 4.17 .837 Female --- --- --- --- 4.35 .867Good example of skill sets Male 4.11 .676 --- --- 4.03 .965

Female 4.53 .696 --- --- 4.31 .890Project will make me more marketable to future employers

Male 4.11 .867 3.62 1.069 4.07 .923

Female 4.53 .696 3.43 1.176 4.26 1.008Proud to show future employers Male 4.14 .879 3.93 1.103

Female 4.56 .607 3.95 1.157*95% confidence level **90% confidence level

Hypothesis 1d stated that there would be differences between how men and women value client-based projects in the area of marketing class content. The majority of the marketing management students saw the connection between marketing content area topics and the client-based activity they completed. In the majority of instances, females responded more strongly than their male counterparts, that client-based projects reinforced their marketing content knowledge. Only one item, marketing’s role in the organization, as rated by women was statistically significant. None of the marketing research content items were found to be statistically significant. No statistically significant differences were found between men and women at the question level or at the composite score level for either the Community-based learning students or the Self-Marketing plan students. Therefore, H1d was partially supported for Client-based project students, but not supported for either Community-based learning or Self-Marketing plan students.

Table 6: Hypothesis 1d Gender and Marketing ContentClient-based

projectsCommunity-


Plans

Gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDSWOT Analysis Male 4.10 .831 3.53 1.207 4.26 .832 Female 4.46 .779 3.57 1.221 4.28 .944Target Marketing Male 4.38 .740 3.90 .974 4.22 .877 Female 4.58 .584 4.01 .979 4.38 .696Positioning Male 4.19 .750 3.84 .976 4.12 .906 Female 4.50 .659 3.92 1.024 4.36 .713Product Concepts Male 4.38 .590 3.96 .994 4.07 .963 Female 4.38 .711 3.96 1.006 4.24 .888Pricing Concepts Male 4.05 .921 3.99 .933 4.09 .972 Female 4.42 .654 3.97 1.013 4.24 .857Place Concepts Male 4.33 .796 3.96 .926 4.12 .885 Female 4.46 .588 4.01 1.033 4.24 .841Marketing Concepts Male 4.48 .750 4.07 .975 4.20 .924 Female 4.58 .504 4.09 1.036 4.39 .841Segmentation Male 4.38 .669 3.80 .957 4.12 .895 Female 4.58 .584 3.97 1.013 4.28 .750Marketing Strategy Male 4.52 .680 3.98 .961 4.25 .918 Female 4.75 .442 3.96 1.108 4.41 .826Developing Marketing Plans Male 4.43 .676 3.64 1.181 4.25 .907 Female 4.71 .464 3.73 1.178 4.38 .855Integrated Marketing Communications Male 4.19 .680 3.76 1.094 4.10 .894 Female 4.54 .588 3.80 1.103 4.20 .906Mkt's role in organization Male 4.38 .740 3.91 1.023 4.12 .928 Female 4.67** .482 3.93 1.031 4.26 .861Relationship with other departments Male 4.29 .717 3.85 1.093 4.05 .994 Female 4.54 .588 3.87 1.095 4.27 .865Ethical Issues in Mkt Male 4.05 .740 3.85 1.145 3.81 1.110 Female 4.54 .658 3.85 1.268 4.12 .979


Client-based projects

Community-based Learning

Self-Marketing Plans

Marketing Research Content Gender Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDMkt Research Process Male 4.50 .519 --- --- Female 4.67 .492 --- ---Problem Statements Male 4.07 .829 --- --- Female 4.50 .674 --- ---Secondary Data Male 4.43 .852 --- --- Female 4.33 .778 --- ---Questionnaire Design Male 4.29 .726 --- --- Female 4.75 .452 --- ---Survey Sample Male 4.36 .633 --- --- Female 4.67 .492 --- ---Research Report Male 4.14 .864 --- --- Female 4.58 .515 --- ---Study Design Male 4.29 .825 --- --- Female 4.83 .389 --- ---Appropriate Research Methods Male 4.21 .975 --- --- Female 4.42 .515 --- ---Role of Mkt Research Male 4.21 .699 --- --- Female 4.83 .389 --- ---


Conclusions from Hypothesis Group 1:Hypothesis Group 1 stated that there would be differences between men and women’s perceptions of

their learning through the various experiential activities they participated in; that men (or women) would find greater value in terms of career preparation, benefits, skill improvement, and marketing content reinforcement having completed their semester project.

While there were differences in how men and women’s perceptions of benefits from the client based project, there were not statistically different results between men and women’s perceptions in the self marketing plan and community based learning projects.

Table 7: Hypothesis Group 1 Results Client-based

ProjectsCommunity-


PlansHypothesis Dependent

VariableResults Results Results

1a Benefits Partially Supported

Not supported Not supported

1b Skills Partially Supported

Not Supported Not Supported

1c Career Preparation

Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported

1d Marketing Content

Partially Supported


Hypothesis 2 Grouping: Employment-based differencesGroup 2 involved employment-based differences among students and their experiences with client-based

projects. Does work experience influence how a student experiences and what benefits they gain from a client-based project? Therefore, Hypothesis 2a stated that there would be differences between employed and non-employed students and how they valued each of the experiential activities in the area of benefits. A t-test was performed to compare the means between the two groups (employed versus non-employed students) at both the question-level as well as a composite score to support or reject the hypothesis for Client-based projects, Community-based learning as well as Self-Marketing plans..

Table 8: Hypothesis 2a Employed and BenefitsClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-


Plans

BenefitsEmployed Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Valuable learning experience* Yes 4.69 .499 3.83 .873 4.34 .863 No 4.45 .820 4.07 .998 4.15 .801Enjoyed completing the assignment Yes 3.98 1.079 3.50 1.094 3.77 1.142 No 4.08 .900 4.00 1.095 3.69 1.032Learned mkt strategy better than by reading in text

Yes 4.61 .636 3.93 .901 4.07 .995

No 4.08 .900 4.19 .910 4.31 .480Assignment is effective means of learning mkt strategy

Yes 4.52 .620 3.93 .852 4.150 .9648

No 4.33 .651 4.10 .908 3.769 .5991More valuable than completing a Community-based Learning Assignment

Yes4.53 .740

--- --- --- ---

No 4.58 .515 --- --- --- ---Rather completed mkt plan Yes --- --- 3.48 1.257 3.218 1.4299 No --- --- 3.65 1.518 3.077 1.0377More valuable than completing a case study

Yes 4.47 .695 --- --- --- ---

No 4.42 .515 --- --- --- ---More valuable than completing a simulation

Yes 4.44 .822 --- --- --- ---

No 4.67 .492 --- --- --- ---Gained skill sets by working with "real" client

Yes 4.65 .603 --- --- --- ---

No 4.25 .866 --- --- --- ---Will have influence on career choice Yes 4.13 .877 3.71 1.077 3.97 1.061 No 3.83 1.030 4.00 1.145 4.00 .816More complete self mkt effort Yes --- --- 3.67 1.020 4.21 .871 No --- --- 3.61 1.358 4.46 .660Assignment gives edge in job mkt Yes --- --- 2.96 1.168 4.16 .911 No --- --- 3.30 1.179 4.00 .913Required greater effort than other semester projects

Yes 4.60 .639 3.35 1.108 4.39 .910

No 4.67 .651 3.81 1.078 4.54 .660Recommend for other semesters Yes 4.48 .763 3.69 1.158 4.09 1.033 No 4.50 .674 4.00 1.238 4.17 .577


At face value, the t-tests seemed to indicate that students who are not employed enjoyed working on the client-based project, felt it was a more valuable type of experience than other common experiential learning types and seemed more willing to recommend the project for future class use than working students. However, only one item’s results were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval: working students responded more strongly to the statement that “completing the client-based project was a valuable learning experience” than non-working students. No such significant differences were found for Community-based learning students nor for the Self-Marketing plan students. Further, none of the calculated composite scores found differences between the employed and non-working student groups. Therefore, hypothesis 2a was partially supported for Client-based projects, but not supported for either Community-based learning or the Self-Marketing plan students.

Hypothesis 2b suggested that there would be differences between how employed/non-employed students valued each of the experiential activities in the area of employer-requested skill set development.

Table 9: Hypothesis 2b Employed and SkillsClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-


Plans

Skill Sets Employed Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDWriting skills Yes 4.02 .735 3.46 .953 3.49 1.100 No 3.58 .793 3.68 .871 3.85 .801Critical thinking skills Yes 4.35 .630 3.73 .932 3.79 1.046 No 3.83 .835 4.00 .816 3.92 .641Information technology skills Yes 4.13 .799 3.55 .969 3.71 1.153 No 3.67 .985 3.81 .946 3.85 .801Communications skills Yes 4.27 .728 3.40 1.003 3.76 1.059 No 4.00 .739 3.84 1.098 3.54 .877Project Management skills Yes 4.58 .560 3.58 1.038 4.03 1.053 No 4.08 .793 3.90 1.044 3.62 1.193Teamwork skills** Yes 4.39 .710 2.71 1.213 --- --- No 3.92 1.084 3.35 1.404 --- ---Leadership skills Yes 4.40 .613 2.81 1.282 --- --- No 4.08 .900 3.65 1.170 --- ---Conflict resolution skills Yes 4.34 .745 3.03 1.176 --- --- No 3.67 1.073 3.60 .968 --- ---Presentation skills Yes 4.26 .723 2.95 1.299 --- --- No 4.08 .900 3.74 1.264 --- ---Managing clients** Yes 4.47 .671 --- --- --- --- No 3.92 1.240 --- --- --- ---


As a whole, working students responded more favorably that they felt they had improved their skill sets through the client-based project (teamwork and managing client skills – both at the 90% confidence level). Is it feasible that because these students are in the workplace, and therefore, have the ability to see what skills are needed and observe those skills in themselves that they responded so favorably? This trend, however, does not hold true for either the composite scores, or the t-tests for the other two activities. Therefore, hypothesis 2b was only partially supported for the Client-based projects, but not supported for either the Community-based learning activities or Self-Marketing plans.

Hypothesis 2c posited that there would be differences between employed and non-employed students and how they valued their experiential activities the area of career preparation. In terms of career preparation benefits, there were no statistically significant differences between those students who work and those who do

not for any of the activities. However, at face value, there does seem to be a difference: working students did seem to respond more favorably that the client-based projects and Self-Marketing plans did seem to enhance their career preparation. Non-working students, however, felt more strongly about the Community-based learning activities – but again, not of any statistically significant difference. Further, none of the composite scores for any of the activities showed any statistically significant differences between the composite scores for employed and non-employed students. Therefore, hypothesis 2c was not supported.

Table 10: Hypothesis 2c Work Experience and Career PreparationClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-


Plans

Employed Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDI learned about myself Yes 4.05 1.078 3.17 1.083 4.05 .999 No 3.50 1.000 3.68 .979 4.00 .816Set Career Goals Yes 4.08 .795 2.98 1.102 4.22 .926 No 3.42 1.084 3.48 1.180 4.08 .760Think about career goals & plans earlier than I might normally

Yes4.15 .865 3.10 1.143 4.28 .916

No 3.58 .900 3.65 1.199 4.23 .725I am more confident in my knowledge about marketing

Yes 4.39 .686 3.77 .984 4.26 .831

No 3.83 1.115 3.94 1.063 4.08 .862Increased industry knowledge Yes --- --- --- --- 4.24 .893 No --- --- --- --- 3.92 1.038Increased company knowledge Yes --- --- --- --- 4.27 .894 No --- --- --- --- 4.23 .832Increased salary knowledge Yes --- --- --- --- 4.23 .876

No --- --- --- --- 4.23 .725Good example of skill sets Yes 4.37 .683 --- --- 4.13 .965 No 4.00 .853 --- --- 4.15 .689Proud to show future employers

Yes 4.37 .773 --- --- 3.91 1.144

No 4.17 .835 --- --- 4.00 .816I can describe the skills learned from this project to a potential employer

Yes4.47 .620 3.42 1.095 --- ---

No 4.08 .900 3.87 .991 --- ---Project will make me more marketable to future employers

Yes 4.39 .776 3.43 1.089 4.13 .974

No 4.00 .853 4.00 1.033 4.23 .832*95% confidence level **90% confidence level

Hypothesis 2d stated that there would be differences between employed and non-employed students and how they valued their various experiential activities in the area of marketing class content.

Table 11: Hypothesis 2d Employed Students and Marketing ContentClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-


Projects Marketing Content Employed Mean SD Mean SD Mean SDSWOT Analysis Yes 4.34 .745 3.51 1.191 4.26 .886 No 3.80 1.033 3.77 1.334 4.38 .650Target Marketing Yes 4.58 .552 3.92 .952 4.28 .809 No 3.90 .876 4.13 .991 4.31 .751Positioning Yes 4.34 .708 3.84 .990 4.22 .841 No 4.30 .675 4.00 1.000 4.15 .689Product Concepts Yes 4.37 .633 3.96 .968 4.14 .942 No 4.30 .675 3.97 1.048 3.92 .760Pricing Concepts Yes 4.24 .786 3.97 .951 4.14 .929 No 4.20 .789 4.03 .983 4.23 .725Place Concepts Yes 4.37 .675 3.98 .952 4.17 .863 No 4.40 .699 4.00 1.000 4.08 .862Marketing Concepts Yes 4.63 .541 4.07 .994 4.27 .901 No 4.10 .738 4.13 .957 4.38 .650Segmentation Yes 4.53 .557 3.87 .953 4.19 .828 No 4.10 .876 3.94 1.031 4.15 .801Marketing Strategy* Yes 4.71 .460 3.96 .962 4.31 .884 No 4.20 .919 4.00 1.183 4.38 .650Developing Marketing Plans Yes 4.61 .547 3.67 1.144 4.29 .893 No 4.40 .699 3.84 1.214 4.46 .519Integrated Mkt Communications Yes 4.37 .633 3.79 1.034 4.14 .898 No 4.30 .675 3.77 1.283 4.15 .801Mkt's role in organization Yes 4.63 .541 3.93 .928 4.18 .907 No 4.00 .816 3.90 1.300 4.08 .641Relationship with other depts* Yes 4.50 .558 3.90 .988 4.13 .956 No 4.00 .943 3.73 1.437 4.15 .801Ethical Issues in Mkt Yes 4.29 .732 3.83 1.153 3.92 1.056 No 4.10 .876 3.90 1.322 4.15 .987Mkt Research Process Yes 4.58 .504 --- --- --- --- No 4.50 .707 --- --- --- ---Problem Statements Yes 4.29 .751 --- --- --- --- No 4.00 1.414 --- --- --- ---Secondary Data Yes 4.38 .824 --- --- --- --- No 4.50 .707 --- --- --- ---Questionnaire Design Yes 4.50 .659 --- --- --- --- No 4.50 .707 --- --- --- ---Survey Sample Yes 4.50 .590 --- --- --- --- No 4.50 .707 --- --- --- ---Research Report Yes 4.38 .770 --- --- --- --- No 4.00 .000 --- --- --- ---Study Design Yes 4.54 .721 --- --- --- --- No 4.50 .707 --- --- --- ---Appropriate Research Methods Yes 4.29 .806 --- --- --- --- No 4.50 .707 --- --- --- ---Role of Mkt Research Yes 4.50 .659 --- --- --- --- No 4.50 .707 --- --- --- ---


Overall, working students seemed to draw a more clear connection between the marketing concepts provided in the courses, and the client-based projects they completed. In two instances, “marketing strategy” and “marketing’s relationship with other departments within the organization,” these strong responses were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval. But while there were significant differences found among the Client-based project students based on employment, no such differences were found with the Community-based learning students or the Self-Marketing plan students at either the question or composite level. Therefore, hypothesis 2d was partially supported for the Client-based projects but not supported for the other activities.

Conclusions from Hypothesis 2:Hypothesis 2 stated that there would be differences in how working students versus unemployed

students perceived their learning through the their various experiential activities; that working students would find greater value in terms of career preparation, benefits, skill improvement, and marketing content reinforcement having completed the client-based project than their non-working colleagues.

As a whole, client based project scores tended to be higher, followed by self marketing plans. While working undergraduates responded more strongly to the client-based project and self marketing plans, non-working undergraduates seemed to respond better to the community based learning projects. The stereotype of a college student whose main focus is to go to school and perhaps minimally work has influenced how many faculty teach. Presuming that their traditional undergraduates lack life skills or work experience, faculty may forego drawing students’ real world work experiences into the class discussion to help illustrate the theories. However, with the number of employed, traditional undergraduates as well as the amount of hours many of these students are working, faculty must find ways to connect undergraduates’ working lives with their academic experiences, much as they would with their non-traditional adult students.

This raises a question: do unemployed students possibly crave such work experiences? Such relevance in the classroom? Did their scores, while not being statistically significant, reinforce the Kolb’s theory that students must be able to put the theories into practice? Further investigation into this theory might be appropriate.

Table 12: Hypothesis Group 2 Project ResultsClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-


PlanHypothesis Dependent

VariableResults Results Results


Not Supported Not supported

2b Skills Partially Supported


2c Career Preparation

Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported

2d Marketing Content

Partially Supported


Hypothesis 3 Grouping: Volunteering differencesGroup 3 posed the question if students who have volunteered or acted in an unpaid capacity, such as an

internship, would benefit differently or have different preferences based on their experiential learning activities. Hypothesis 3a then asked if there would be differences between students who have volunteer or who have unpaid -experience and those who do not, and how the students valued their various projects. A t-test was performed to compare the means between the two groups (students with volunteer or other unpaid work experience) to support or reject Hypothesis 3a.

Table 13: Hypothesis 3a Unpaid Work Experience and BenefitsClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-


Plans

BenefitsUnpaid Work Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Valuable learning experience Yes 4.65 .529 3.95 .817 4.28 .913 No 4.64 .621 3.82 .970 4.40 .763Enjoyed completing the assignment Yes 4.02 1.06

7 3.65 1.119 3.79 1.140

No 4.07 .900 3.54 1.063 3.74 1.126Learned mkt strategy better than by reading in text

Yes 4.50 .731 3.97 .890 3.95 1.050

No 4.54 .693 3.99 .904 4.31 .781Assignment is effective means of learning mkt strategy

Yes 4.50 .665 3.93 .833 4.009 1.0262

No 4.43 .573 4.02 .869 4.306 .7807Rather completed mkt plan Yes --- --- 3.61 1.175 3.174 1.482

4 No --- --- 3.43 1.416 3.264 1.278

1Assignment will influence career Yes --- --- 3.76 1.047 3.96 1.063 No --- --- 3.75 1.146 4.00 1.021More complete self mkt effort Yes --- --- 3.81 .942 4.17 .837 No --- --- 3.51 1.213 4.33 .888Assignment gives edge in job mkt Yes --- --- 3.15 1.164 4.04 .931 No --- --- 2.85 1.184 4.32 .853More valuable than completing a Community-based Learning Assignment*

Yes4.39 .813 --- --- --- ---

No 4.79 .418 --- --- --- ---More valuable than completing a case study

Yes 4.36 .718 --- --- --- ---

No 4.61 .567 --- --- --- ---More valuable than completing a simulation

Yes 4.50 .629 --- --- --- ---

No 4.39 .994 --- --- --- ---Gained skill sets by working with "real" client

Yes 4.57 .661 --- --- --- ---

No 4.61 .685 --- --- --- ---Required greater effort than other semester projects

Yes 4.59 .658 3.41 1.076 4.42 .805

No 4.61 .629 3.46 1.151 4.36 1.025Recommend for other semesters Yes 4.43 .759 3.83 1.123 4.09 1.031 No 4.57 .742 3.70 1.176 4.11 .979


Those students who do not volunteer or participate in unpaid work such as internships seemed to respond more strongly to the client-based projects’ overall benefits. However, and of particular note, one item was statistically significant: students who do not volunteer or participate in internships responded more strongly that the client-based project was more valuable to them than Community-based learning activities (95% confidence interval). Additional research might be warranted to determine if students have a negative

perception about Community-based learning/service learning or volunteerism in that they see “nothing in it for them.” Is it feasible students do not make the connection that they can garner career relevant skills in such situations? A composite score was also created of the benefits responses and t-tested to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups; there, however, was not. Therefore, hypothesis 3a was only partially supported for the Client-based projects. However, there was no statistically significant difference for the Self-marketing plan or Community-based learning activities between those who volunteer and don’t volunteer at either the question or composite score level. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a could not be supported for the Community-based learning activities or the Self-marketing plan.

Hypothesis 3b explored the concept that there would be differences between those with unpaid work experience and how they might gain different employer-requested skills than their non-volunteering counterparts. Students who do not volunteer seemed to respond more strongly that they improved their skill sets – more so than volunteering students – for all the activities. However, none of these findings proved to be statistically significant. Further, a composite score was also created of the skills responses and t-tested to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups; there, again, was not. Therefore, hypothesis 3b was not supported for any of the activities.

Table 14: Hypothesis 3b Unpaid Experience and Employer SkillsClient-based

ProjectCommunity-based

LearningSelf-Marketing

Plan

Unpaid Work Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Writing Skills Yes 4.00 .747 3.38 .974 3.48 1.063 No 3.82 .772 3.64 .878 3.58 1.123Critical Thinking Skills

Yes 4.25 .651 3.65 .981 3.72 1.048

No 4.25 .752 3.92 .829 3.92 .975Information Technology

Yes 3.95 .834 3.56 1.005 3.63 1.165

No 4.14 .848 3.66 .928 3.85 1.070Communications Yes 4.14 .765 3.51 1.114 3.71 1.058 No 4.32 .670 3.42 .912 3.79 1.034Project Management Yes 4.48 .628 3.67 1.041 4.01 1.030 No 4.50 .638 3.59 1.036 4.00 1.126Teamwork Yes 4.30 .795 2.68 1.346 --- --- No 4.29 .810 2.99 1.174 --- ---Leadership Yes 4.32 .639 2.81 1.386 --- --- No 4.39 .737 3.10 1.165 --- ---Conflict Resolution Yes 4.14 .852 3.01 1.247 --- --- No 4.32 .819 3.27 1.060 --- ---Presentation Yes 4.11 .754 3.00 1.391 --- --- No 4.36 .731 3.18 1.251 --- ---


Hypothesis 3c asked if there would be differences between students with/without volunteer experience and how they value their experiential activities in the area of career preparation. While no statistically significant findings arose out of this particular set of questions, two observations are noteworthy in the Client-based project means. The first set of indicators were responded to more favorably by those who did not volunteer. So, is it feasible that non-volunteering students gained valuable insight about themselves, grew more confident in their knowledge and were put on the path towards a career – more so than their counterparts who do volunteer? The surface level data would certainly seem to indicate so. Conversely, the second half of the indicators resonated more with the volunteering students; students who volunteered responded more favorably

that the felt the client-based project made them more marketable, would be a good example of their skills and that they would be proud to show their reports to potential employers. Is it because these students are already out in the marketplace experiencing real life situations that they realize the value of such activities? Further, it also appears that at least at surface level the students who do not volunteer seemed to respond more strongly to the Self-marketing plan. That said, none of the items were statistically significant at either the individual question level or the composite score. Therefore, H3c could not be supported for any of the experiential activities.

Table 15: Hypothesis 3c Unpaid Experience Career PreparationClient Based

ProjectsCommunity Based

LearningSelf Marketing

Plans

Unpaid Work Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

I learned about myself Yes 3.86 1.153 3.18 1.154 4.00 .982 No 4.11 .956 3.34 1.003 4.13 .992Set Career Goals Yes 3.93 .818 3.06 1.105 4.17 .891 No 4.04 .962 3.07 1.166 4.28 .953Think about career goals and plans earlier than I might normally

Yes 4.05 .834 3.20 1.241 4.20 .890

No 4.07 .979 3.18 1.101 4.40 .914Increased industry knowledge Yes --- --- --- --- 4.15 .910 No --- --- --- --- 4.33 .888Increased company knowledge Yes --- --- --- --- 4.17 .888 No --- --- --- --- 4.43 .869Increased salary knowledge Yes --- --- --- --- 4.19 .837

No --- --- --- --- 4.29 .911Have edge in career by completing Yes --- --- --- --- 4.10 .882 No --- --- --- --- 4.35 .808Increased occupation knowledge Yes --- --- --- --- 4.15 .840 No --- --- --- --- 4.40 .833I am more confident in my knowledge about marketing

Yes 4.25 .751 3.82 1.005 4.17 .826

No 4.36 .870 3.80 .997 4.38 .830I can describe the skills learned from this project to a potential employer

Yes 4.39 .722 3.47 1.152 --- ---

No 4.43 .634 3.54 1.028 --- ---Project will make me more marketable to future employers

Yes 4.34 .805 3.50 1.162 4.03 .959

No 4.32 .772 3.59 1.025 4.32 .947*95% confidence level **90% confidence level

Hypothesis 3d stated there would be differences between students with unpaid work experience and those with out and how each group saw class content reinforced in the projects. A t-test was conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences. In this instance, those students who do not volunteer seemed to value the connection and reinforcement of the course content with the client-based activities and Community-based learning activities than their volunteering counterparts. However, none of these findings were statistically significant. A composite score was then created for both the marketing management content as well as the marketing research content and then t-tested to determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups; there, however, was not. Therefore, hypothesis 3d was not supported for any of the activities.

Conclusions from Hypothesis 3:Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be differences in how volunteers versus those students who did not

volunteer perceived their learning through the projects; that volunteers (or non-volunteers) would find greater value in terms of career preparation, benefits, skill improvement, and marketing content reinforcement having completed the projects.

The results demonstrated that volunteering or unpaid work experience had virtually no influence on students’ responses to any of the surveys. That said, further investigation might be warranted into this area as Generation Y continues to lead the resurgence of volunteering in the US. Non-volunteering students may gain more insight about themselves, grow more confident in their knowledge and set out on the path towards a career – perhaps more so than their counterparts who do volunteer. In many cases, non-volunteering students did rate the items more highly. Thus, it may be that non-volunteering students do derive more value than their volunteering counterparts as they, perhaps, no not have as much organizational or community exposure to help them develop these various skill sets or level of depth of understanding of how the world or organizations work. Further research should be done to understand the influence of volunteerism on students’ perspectives about their academic experiences.

Table 16: Hypothesis Group 3 ResultsClient-based

ProjectsCommunity-


PlansHypothesis Dependent Variable Results Results Results


Not Supported Not supported

3b Skills Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported3c Career Preparation Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported3d Marketing Content Not Supported Not Supported Not Supported

Hypothesis 4 Grouping: Difference in Marketing ClassesGroup 4 posed the hypothesis that students in different marketing courses would experience the

Community-based learning projects differently and therefore, have different benefits.Hypothesis 4a then sought to understand the differences between students in different marketing courses

and how they perceive their learning from the Community-based learning projects. MANOVA was conducted to determine the differences between students in each class to support or reject Hypothesis 4a. Principles of marketing students seemed to respond more strongly to the Community-based learning activities more so than Services Marketing students, and particularly more strongly than Marketing Management students. Overall, Principles of Marketing students rated the various benefits statements more highly than their Marketing Management and Services Marketing counterparts, however a few statements were statistically significantly different:

Principles students enjoyed completing the Community-based learning activities more so than their marketing management counterparts. (90% confidence level)

Principles students felt the assignment would influence their career choices more so than either of the other groups of students. (95% confidence level)

Principles students felt the activities helped them move towards a more complete Self-Marketing effort than the other groups of students. (95% confidence level)

Principles students more strongly recommended using the Community-based learning activities in future classes than their marketing management counterparts. (95% confidence level)

Therefore, hypothesis 4a was partially supported. Principles students seemed to experience more benefits from the Community-based learning projects than their marketing management counterparts, and somewhat more so than their services marketing counterparts.

Hypothesis 4b posited that there would be differences in the skill enhancements from the Community-based learning activities different marketing courses. There were only slight differences in how the three groups

of students rated how the Community-based learning activities helped them improve their career skill sets. Therefore, H4b was not supported.

Hypothesis 4c posed that there would be differences between students in different marketing courses and their level of career preparation through the Community-based project. While overall, principles of marketing students seemed to rate the various career preparation benefits more strongly than their other class colleagues, only one statement, “I felt more confident in my knowledge of marketing as a result of completing the project” was statistically different (95% confidence level) than the marketing management students. Therefore, hypothesis 4c was only partially supported.

Hypothesis 4d stated that there would be differences between students in different marketing courses and their level of marketing content reinforcement through the Community-based learning projects. In numerous cases principles students stated they perceived they learned key marketing concepts through the Community-based learning activity more strongly than their marketing management or services marketing counterparts (95% confidence level).

Table 17: Marketing Content Course ComparisonConcept Marketing Management Services Marketing

Pricing Place Promotions Segmentation Strategy IMC Marketing’s Role in the Organization

Marketing’s Relationship with Other Departments

Ethical Issues in Marketing

Table 18: Hypothesis 4 Grouping ResultsHypothesis Dependent Variable Results

4 Benefits Partially Supported4a Skills Not Supported4b Career Preparation Partially Supported4c Marketing Content Supported

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS Clearly, no one experiential learning activity can provide benefits to all students, nor is activity

appropriate in all situations. This study hoped to uncover what undergraduate marketing students gained from some of the most popularly referenced forms of experiential learning activities found in the marketing literature. While some research had been done about various characteristics of these activities, none to date has incorporated perceived benefits, skills developed, marketing content reinforced and career preparation in one study.

From the research, it appears that female undergraduate marketing students appear to derive more perceived benefits from the Client-based project in the tested areas than do their male counterparts as a whole – particularly in the marketing research course. This is not to say that males can or don’t benefit – but certainly one area of study might be to more closely examine male participation in experiential learning to understand more about their perceptions. While there certainly are differences between male and female responses, such as in the skills section, the remaining question is why? Is it because males perceive that they are already entering the courses as seniors with “adequate” skills for the marketplace (thus implying they are blissfully ignorant of employers’ perceptions of traditional undergraduates)? Is it due to a self-efficacy difference between males and females? Is it because females are more honest in their responses whereas males still find a need to maintain an

image of competence –even when anonymity is evident? The existing survey does not address any of these issues, but would certainly be worth considering for future studies.

Further, is this set of experiences with experiential learning unique to marketing classes? What are the gender differences (if any) when one studies a similar cap-stone, client-based project in a different discipline, such as accounting or management? Would there be similar results? Another area of study to consider is to further explore the correlation between work experience, gender and the responses on the survey. Perhaps the males who responded lower than the females have more work experience and already feel they are “prepared?” Lastly, it would be wise to further compare the responses found here in this study to how students react to other forms of experiential learning, such as internships, self-marketing plans, simulations or Community-based learning.

A less clear result came from the Self-Marketing plans and Community-based learning activities. While none of the hypotheses were entirely supported, based on the mean scores, clearly students are deriving perceived benefits from the experience. The very lack of differences among these common groupings (employment, volunteerism, and gender) may indicate the very ubiquitous beneficial nature of the Self-Marketing plan itself: that all students, regardless of gender, previous work history, unpaid work experience or skill-enhancing academic projects, can and do benefit from the Self-Marketing plan.

The determination then is what the instructor wishes to accomplish. All four key areas, general benefits, career preparation, employment-related skill enhancement and marketing content reinforcement were accomplished with all the activities – just not statistically significant differences between the stated independent variables. Therefore, if faculty members are looking to improve their students’ preparation for career entry while reinforcing marketing content, the Self-Marketing plan could be a strong experiential activity for them to include. The Community-based learning projects clearly were more strongly recommended for the entry level courses, as well as for more specialized marketing electives like Services Marketing where there might be no other “competing” activity. A Community-based learning project, based on qualitative comments from the survey, seems to pale by comparison to an activity such as the Client-based project.

Picking the right experiential activities is never as simple as what is observed in the Wizard of Oz. There is no great and all powerful Oz to give professors exactly the right solution they need to ensure student growth, skill improvement or content reinforcement. However, just as there were lessons Dorothy and her compatriots learned along the yellow brick road, so too are there lessons faculty can keep in mind as they design their next class.

Faculty must closely coordinate with staff for the appropriate activities. Plan early and repeated visits by campus resources who can support the activities the students will be completing, such as how to do business/industry research, locate salary data. Publicize appropriate Career Services workshops that also support classroom requirements, such as networking and resume writing sessions and employer panels designed to help students understand their “target market”.

Intentionally connect textbook content to the project. Use in-class discussions in appropriate sections to support the final project and make the connection to the core concepts of marketing, such as segmentation, targeting, positioning, strategy, promotions, etc.

Determine desired goals. In addition to marketing content, faculty can impart other skills such as time management, writing and research skills, depending on the faculty’s planned goals or objectives. If feasible find multiple ways to reinforce similar goals/skills.

Reinforce what students are learning. Students often do not understand why time management or “simple” communication skills such as interviewing or report writing are important in the workplace. They often do not understand why the ability to research salary data or information about an industry could serve them later in their early careers. Faculty must help students connect the dots between the classroom and future requisite business skills.

ReferencesAbernethy, A., & Lett III, W. (2005). You are fired! A method to control and saction free riding in group assignments.

Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 47-54. Alam, I. 1998. An experiential learning approach to undergraduate marketing education American Marketing Association

Conference Proceedings, 9, 246-255.Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International. (2003) Eligibility procedures and

standards for business accreditation. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International. Retrieved Feb 27, 2008 from http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp.

Bloom, B. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay.Bobbit, L. M., Inks, S.A., Kemp, K.J. & Mayo, D.T. (2000). Integrating marketing courses to enhance team-based

experiential learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1). 15-24.Capell, P. (2002). Seniors in the job market can expect high hurdles. College Journal from the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.collegejournal.com/jobhunting/searchstrategies/200111001-capell.html.Clark, K. (2006, October 24). College tuition keeps rising [Electronic version]. US News & World Report.Clark, T. 2005. The business profession: a mandatory, noncredit, co-curricular career preparation program for

undergraduate business majors. Business Communication Quarterly, 68, 271-289.Corbin, S. (2002). Improving group collaboration and student teams' understanding of responsibility through a three

phased classroom assessment technique. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 2 (Summer), 37-49. Corporation for National & Community Service (2006) College students helping America. Retrieved February 22, 2008

from www.nationalservice.govCrews, R.J. (2002). Higher Education Service-Learning Sourcebook. Westport: Oryx Press.Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and Education. New York: Collier. (Originally published in 1938).Eastman, J., & Allen, R. (1999) Assessing a marketing program: One department’s journey. Marketing Education Review

9(2) 7-14. Elam, E., & Spotts, H. (2004) Achieving marketing curriculum integration: a live case study approach. Journal of

Marketing Education 26(1), 50-65.Ellis, S., & Kruglanski, A. (1992) Self as an epistemic authority: effects on experiential and instructional learning. Social

Cognition 10(4) 357-375. Erikson, T. (2003) Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences among potential entrepreneurs. Journal of

Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1) 106-112.Eyler, J. & Giles, D.E. (1999). Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Floyd, C.J., & Gordon, M.E. (1998). What skills are important? A comparison of employer, student and staff perceptions.

Journal of Marketing Education, 20(2). 103-109. Furco, A. (1996). “Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education.” Jakubowski, L.M. (2003). Beyond Book Learning: Cultivating the Pedagogy of Experience through Field Trips. The

Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 24-33.Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty productivity (ASHE-

ERIC Higher Education Report #4 ed.). Washington DC: George Washington University, School of Educational and Human Development.

Hansen, R. (2006) Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of Education for Business, 82(1) 11-19.

Hernandez, S. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: cooperative structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 73-85.

Kaenzig, R., Hyatt, E., & Anderson, S. (2007) Gender differences in college of business educational experiences. Journal of Education for Business, 83(2), 95-100.

Kalenkoski, C., & Pabilonia, S. (2005). Parental transfers, student achievement and the labor supply of college students (BLS Working Paper 387). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Karnes, G. (1993). Marketing student perceptions of learning activities: structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 15(1), 3-10.

Karnes, G. (2005). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: structure, preferences and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 163-171.

Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: NJ: Prentice Hall.

http://www.nationalservice.gov/

Kolvenbach, Rev. Peter-Hans, S.J. “The Service of Faith and the Promotion of Justice in American Jesuit Higher Education.” Commitment to Justice in Jesuit Higher Education Conference. Santa Clara University, San Jose. 6 October 2000.

Kramer, H. 1988. Applying marketing strategy and personal value analysis to career planning: an experiential approach. Journal of Marketing Education, 10, 69-73.

Lamb, Jr, C. W., Shipp, S. H., & Moncrief III, W. C. 1995. Integrating skills and content knowledge into the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 17, 10-19.

Leclair, D., & Stottinger, B. (1999). Using an intensive living case in graduate marketing coures: experiences from an international project. Marketing Education Review, 9(3), 31-40.

Lincoln, D. (2006). Student authored cases: Combining benefits of traditional and live case methods of instruction. Marketing Education Review, 16(1), 1-7.

Lopez, T., & Lee, R. (2005). Five principles for workable client-based projects: Lessons from the trenches. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 172-188.

Maher, J., & Hughner, R. (2005). Experiential marketing projects: sudent perceptions of live case and simulation methods. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 7(Winter), 1-10.

May, G. 2005. Incorporating a career planning lab into a managerial communications course. Business Communication Quarterly, 68, 345-357.

McCorkle, D. E., Alexander, J. F., & Diriker, M. F. 1992. Developing self-marketing skills for student career success. Journal of Marketing Education, 14, 57-67.

McCorkle, D.E. Alexander, J.F., Reardon, J. & Kling, N.D. (2003). Developing self-marketing skills: are marketing students prepared for the job search? Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 196-207.

McCorkle, D., Reardon, J., Alexander, J., Kling, N., Harris, R., & Iyer, V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students, group projects and teamwork: the good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 106-117.

Mintzberg, H. (1976). Planning on the left side and managing on the right. Harvard Business Review, 54(4), 49-53.Mooney, L.A., & Edwards, B. (2001). Experiential Learning in Sociology: Service Learning and Other Community-Based

Learning Initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29(2), 181-194.Nicholson, C., Barnett, S., & Dascher, P. (2005). Curriculum assessment in marketing programs: Current status and

examination of AACSB core standards at the program level. Marketing Education Review 15(2) 13-26. Noll, C. 1995. Collaborating with the career planning and placement center in the job-search project. Business

Communication Quarterly, 58, 53-55.Porter, L.W., & McKibbon, L.E. (1988). Business education and development: drift or thrust into the 21st century. New

York: McGraw-Hill.Pritchard, R., Potter, G., & Saccucci, M. (2004). The selection of a business major: elements influencing student choice

and implications for outcomes assessment. Journal of Education for Business 79(3), 152-156.Rassuli, A., & Manzer, J. (2005). "Teach us to learn:" Multivariate analysis of perception of success in team learning.

Journal of Education for Business, 81(1), 21-27. Ray, C.M & Stallard, J.J. (1994). Criteria for business graduates’ employment: human resource managers’ perceptions.

Journal of Education for Business, 69(3).Riggert, S., Boyle, M., Petrosko, J., Ash, D., & Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student employment and higher education:

Empiricism and contradiction. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 63-92. Scott, J.D. & Frontczak, N.T. (1996). Ad executives grade new grads: The final exam that counts. Journal of Advertising

Research, 36(2), 40-47. Shavelson, R., & Bolus, R. (1982) Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology,

74(1) 3-17.Shor, Ira. (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Slavin, R. (89-90). Research in cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-55. Smith, K. 2004. Implementing the “Marketing You” project in large sections of principles of marketing. Journal of

Marketing Education, 26, 123-136.Stone, R., & Bailey, R. (2007) Team conflict self-efficacy and outcome expectancy of business students. Journal of

Education for Business, 82(6) 258-266.Taylor, K. (2003). Marketing yourself in the competitive job market: an innovative course preparing undergraduates for

marketing careers. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 97-107. Young, M., Klemz, B., & Murphy, W. (2003). Enhancing learning outcomes: The effects of instructional technology,

learning styles, instructional methods and student behavior. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2) 130-142.Zlotkowski, E. (1996) Opportunity for all: Linking service-learning and business education. Journal of Business Ethics,

15(1) 5-19.

apa 5th edition templatecjbe.jesuitbusinessschools.com/resources/246.doc · web viewadditionally,...

Documents