MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3165105165 · doi:10.1108/et-02-2021-0038

Teaching marketing to non-marketing majors: tools to enhance their engagement and academic performance

2021· article· en· W3165105165 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducation + Training · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicManagement and Marketing Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriginalityExtant taxonMarketing scienceMarketingStructural equation modelingMarketing managementMarketing researchMarketing mixPsychologyStudent engagementRelationship marketingMathematics educationComputer scienceBusinessCreativitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose While there has been a significant amount of work involving marketing education, it is unclear how faculty members can increase the engagement and achievement of non-subject specialists. Accordingly, guided by Bloom's Taxonomy, this current study examines the ways that academics can teach marketing to non-marketing undergraduate majors, with a focus on enhancing their engagement and academic performance. Design/methodology/approach Survey responses (and related archival information) were collected from 181 non-marketing majors in the United Kingdom (studying marketing modules as part of their undergraduate degrees). Such data passed a series of key robustness checks. The hypothesized and control paths were tested via covariance-based structural equation modeling. In addition, 20 semi-structured interviews were used to explore the underlying issues behind the statistical results. Findings Two variables were positive drivers of engaging non-marketing students, namely, discussion-oriented interactions and relating marketing to non-marketing subjects. However, integrating theory with practice produced a negative, but non-significant relationship with engaging non-marketing students. In turn, engaging non-marketing students yielded a positive and significant association with academic performance. The follow-up interviews suggested that to best-engage non-marketing majors, educators should consider hosting guest speakers (e.g. owner-managers) to demonstrate how their university-level studies are applicable to “real-world” subject contexts, like sports management and engineering when they graduate. Originality/value This current article strengthens the extant literature by identifying some actionable tools that can be employed to enhance the engagement and academic performance of non-subject specialists. This is important, since faculty members are under increased pressure to become effective teachers and facilitate student satisfaction (alongside their other duties, including research and administration). Hence, this paper assists such individuals to cope with the rapidly changing landscape of the higher education sector. In fact, Bloom's Taxonomy was a relevant pedagogical theory for unpacking how educators can teach marketing to non-marketing majors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it