Constructs and Relationships of Edutainment Applications in Marketing Classes: How Edutainment Can be Utilized to Act as a Magnet for Choosing a Course?

Year 2010, Volume: 1 Issue: 2, 118 - 133, 01.06.2010

Metin Argan Necip Serdar Sever

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the constructs of edutainment applications and their relationships during marketing communication courses. A sample of 347 undergraduate students completed a 27-item questionnaire to gather research data. The confirmatory factor analysis revealed five valid constructs: Participation and interaction, perceived learning effects, drama and practice, instructor and classroom atmosphere, and story and material. These constructs were further analyzed by the structural equation modeling (SEM), which indicated that four of the constructs were found to be effective on the perception of learning. Instructor and classroom atmosphere was revealed to have a direct (mediating) impact on perceived learning, whereas other constructs had an indirect effect on perceived learning. It appears that the research findings would help tertiary institutions to develop more learner-centered approaches to learning, and will certainly help marketing individual courses at the micro level.

Keywords

Edutainment, Entertainment, Marketing Communication Education, Experiential Learning.

References

• Allred, C.R. & Swenson, M.J. (2006). Using technology to increase student preparation for and participation in marketing courses: The Random Selector Model. Marketing Education Review, 16(1), 15-21.
• Appleton-Knapp, S.L. & Krentler, K.A. (2006). Measuring student expectations and their effects on satisfaction: The importance of managing student expectations. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 254-264.
• Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equations models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.
• Bird, S.A. (2005). Language learning edutainment: mixing motives in digital resources. Regional Language Centre Journal, 36(3), 311-339.
• Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customer and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
• Bobbitt, 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.
• Bove, L.L. &Johnson, L.W. (2006). Customer loyalty to one service worker: Should it be discouraged. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 79-91.
• Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Beverly Hills: Sage.
• Buckingham, D. & Scanlon, M. (2002). Education, edutainment, and learning in the home, Cambridge: Open University Press, 2002.
• Child, D. (1970). The Essentials of factor analysis. London: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.
• Chin, W.W. (1998), Commentary: Issues and option on structural equation modeling, MIS Quarterly, 20(1), 7-16.
• Churchill, G.A. (1995). Marketing research. Fort Worth: The Dryden Press.
• Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1): 64-73.
• Clarke, B. (2008). Case and experiential learning methods. Marketing Education Review, 18(2), 54.
• Clarke, I., Flaherty, T.B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 169-77.
• Cowton, C. J. (1998). The use of secondary data in business ethics research. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(4), 423-434.
• Curran, J.M. & Rosen, D.E. (2006). Student attitudes toward college courses: An examination of influences and intentions. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(2), 135-148.
• Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J.H., & Platt, M.B. (2006). Nonvoluntary class participation in graduate discussion courses: Effects on grading cold calling. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 354-377.
• Egenfeldt-Nielsen, S. (2007). Third generation educational use of computer games. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 16(3), 263-281.
• Frontczak, N. T. and. Kelley, C. A. (2000). The editor’s corner: Special issue on experiential learning in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 3-4.
• Gefen, D., Straub, D. W., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the AIS, 4 (7), 1–78.
• Gerbing, D. W. & Anderson, J. C. (1988). ‘An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment’, Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186-192.
• Green, M. & McNeese, M. N. (2007). Using edutainment software to enhance online learning. International Journal on Elearning, 6(1), 5-16.
• Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.L., & Tatham, W.C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis with reading. NJ: Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
• Hu, L. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1−55.
• Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1998), Lisrel 8.20 and Prelis 2.20 for Windows, Chicago, Scientific Software.
• Kim, S. S., Lee, C.K., & Klenosky, D. B. (2003). The influence of push and pull factors at Korean national parks. Tourism Management, 24, 169-180.
• Klink, R..R. and Athaide, G.A. (2004). Implementing service learning in the principles of marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(2), 145-153.
• Kinney, T. (1995). Entertainment technology and tomorrow’s information services. Medford, NJ: Information Today for the American Society for Information Science.
• Lee, J., Graefe, A.R. & Burns, R.C. (2007). Examining the antecedents of destination loyalty in a forest setting. Leisure Sciences, 29, 463-481.
• Li, Y., Liu, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2006). The role of market and entrepreneurship orientation and internal control in the new product development activities of Chinese firms. Industrial Marketing Management, 35, 336-347.
• Longo, M. & Mura, M. (2007). A multidimensional measure of employees’ intangibles. A managerial implementation of the tool. Management Research News, 30(8), 548-569.
• Meehl, P.E. (1990), Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable, Psychological Reports, 66, 195-244.
• Moncrief, W. C. (1991). The use of sales management role play exercises. Marketing Education Review,1, 46-55.
• Nunn, C. E. (1996), discussion in the college classroom, triangulating observational and survey results. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(3), 243-266.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hall.
• Okan, Z. (2003). Edutainment: Is learning at risk? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(3), 255–264.
• Ozer, A., Kocak, A. & Celik, O. (2006). Determinants of market orientation in accounting firms. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(6), 591-607.
• Pearce, G. (2006).University student perceptions of the difference between educational drama and other types of educational experiences. Marketing Education Review, 16(2), 23-35.
• Schee, B.A.V. (2007). Setting the stage for active learning: an interactive marketing class activity. Marketing Education Review, 17(1), 63-67.
• Sojka, J.Z. & Fish, M.S.B. (2008). Brief in-class role plays: An experiential teaching tool targeted to generation y students. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 25-31.
• Solomon, M. R., Surprenant, C.F., Czepiel, J.A., & Gutman, E.G. (1985). A role theory perspective on dyadic interactions: The service encounter. Journal of Marketing, 49, 99-111.
• Soto-Acosta, P. & o-Cerdan, A.L.M. (2008). Analyzing e-business value creation from a resource- based perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 28, 49–60.
• Stapleton, R. J. & Murkison, G. (2001). Optimizing the fairness of student evaluations: A study of excellence, study production, learning production, and expected grades. Journal of Management Education, 25, 269-291.
• Tanner, J. F. J. & Chonko, L.B. (1992). Avoiding the guillotine effect after video-taping role plays. Marketing Education Review, 1, 37-41.
• Uslay, C. (2007). Case analyses with extensive student involvement: Management versus consultants case method (MCM). Marketing Education Review, 17(1), 21-27.
• Young, M.R., Klemz, B.R., & Murphy, J. 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.
• Wooldridge, B.R. (2008). Golden duck awards: An interactive game to facilitate class participation. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 15-17.
• Wooldridge, B.R. (2006). The power of perception: An active/experiential learning exercise for principles of marketing. Marketing Education Review, 16(2), 5-7.
• Zhang, J.J., Pennington, G.L., Connaughton, D.P., Braunstein, J.R., Ellis, M. H., Lam, E. T. C., & Williamson, D. (2003). Understanding women’s professional football game spectators: sociodemographics, game consumption, and entertainment options. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(4), 228-243.
• Correspondence: Necip Serdar Sever, Assistant Professor , Faculty of Communication Sciences,
• Anadolu University, Yunus Emre Campus, 26470, Eskisehir, Turkey