Instructors of marketing, or indeed any field, must heed the call for continuous improvement and .... emails and spent only 5,000 hours reading (Oblinger 2005).
Continuous Improvement through Teaching Innovations: A Requirement for Today’s Learners Erika Matulich, The University of Tampa Raymond Papp, The University of Tampa Diana L. Haytko, Missouri State University
Abstract Teaching methods that have been considered “tried and true” are no longer working with today’s active learners. Instructors of marketing, or indeed any field, must heed the call for continuous improvement and constant innovations in order to engage today’s students. This paper examines the learning needs of the “digital millennial” or “NetGen” learner and reviews possible teaching innovations that can best address those needs. Author Information Erika Matulich is an Associate Professor of Marketing in the John H. Sykes College of Business at the University of Tampa as well as the Program Director for the Masters in Science in Marketing. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and is also a Professional Certified Marketer. Raymond Papp is an Associate Professor of Information Technology Management in the John H. Sykes College of Business at the University of Tampa as well as the Associate Director for the Honors Program. He earned his Ph.D. in Information Management from Stevens Institute of Technology. Diana Haytko is an Associate Professor of Marketing at Missouri State University as well as the Director of the China Program. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
1
Continuous Improvement through Teaching Innovations: A Requirement for Today’s Learners “Personally, I’m always ready to learn, although I do not always like being taught.” -Winston Churchill Introduction Today’s instructors are finding that their “tried and true” teaching methods are no longer effectively reaching today’s students. Instruction must respond to students’ changing learning needs, and this response can be accomplished with continuous improvement through teaching innovations. This paper will first discuss new learning environments and the needs of today’s learners, and will then cover a variety of teaching innovations that can address those needs. “Us” versus “Them” Today’s Learners and Today’s Teachers Students currently in our classrooms comprise what is being called the “Digital Millennial Learner” or the “NetGen” learner. As we move deeper into the 21st century, the term “Digital Native” is being used to describe people who “are used to the instantaneity of hypertext, downloaded music, phones in their pockets, a library on their laptops, beamed conversations and instant messaging. They’ve been networked most or all of their lives” (Prensky 2001, p. 3). Unfortunately, these Digital Native learners are largely being taught by “our Digital Immigrant instructors, who speak an outdated language (that of the pre-digital age), [and] are struggling to teach a population that speaks an entirely new language” (Prensky 2001, p. 2). Howe and Strauss (2000) use seven descriptors of these Millennial Learners. First, they have been taught by their parents that they are “special.” When they enter the classroom, they want to feel equally special. Second, they are sheltered. Helicopter parents have been running their children’s lives for them, and when the children enter college, they are ill equipped to handle the consequences of a college environment (either in the classroom or outside of it). Third, despite the sheltered upbringing, they are confident that they can change the world. Fourth, these learners are socially oriented, and tend to work as part of teams. Fifth, they are achievers, but not in the ways that instructors think. Teachers expect students to achieve higher levels of learning outcomes, good performance in the classroom, and high grades. Students expect to achieve a meaningful experience, and a future job with guaranteed great pay. Sixth, these millennials feel stressed by the pressure to grow up, the pressure to perform, and the pressure to face the world. Finally, they like convention, i.e., to know exactly what to expect in any situation. They need checklists, formulas, and recipes, not only for learning, but also for life. Howe and Strauss (2000) conclude that this generation expects student-centered learning, which requires new learning environments and teaching innovations. Learning Environments and Learning Preferences The new learning environments for this Net Generation should be active, collaborative, experiential, team-based, and as self-paced as possible (Close, Dixit, Malhotra, 2005; Oblinger 2005; Twenge 2006). The NetGen student prefers to learn at his own pace. They like and are comfortable with an online environment for testing, lectures, and assignments. They are informal learners, preferring “any time, any place” learning to a traditional classroom. Class Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
2
time is most effective for these students when it involves interaction, demonstration, and social networking. NetGen students are visual and kinesthetic learners who prefer to experience the world through multimedia and not print. (Twenge 2005; Close, Dixit, Malhotra, 2005). This learning style is often problematic for faculty who prefer to learn by reading and listening to a lecture. It is this dramatic difference in learning preference that creates a disconnect between student and teacher. Table 1 highlights the generational differences and preferences (Oblinger 2005). Table 1 Generational Learning Preferences Differences
Baby Boomers
Generation X
Net Gen
TV generation Typewriters Telephone Memos Family focus
Video games PC Email CDs Individualist
Web Cell Phone IM MP3s Online Communities
To put the table in perspective, today’s 21-year old has spent 10,000 hours playing videogames, 20,000 hours watching TV, 10,000 hours talking on their cell phone, sent 250,000 emails and spent only 5,000 hours reading (Oblinger 2005). As a result of this exposure to a multimedia environment, their brains have developed to respond to such stimulation and they therefore process information differently than their professors, parents, and just about anyone older than them. Yet when they reach college, they are often asked to read copious amounts of material from textbooks, which they find boring and are unable to successfully process. This lack of learning directly impacts their view of the professor, the topic, and even the college environment itself. Information Processing Differences Today’s “Net Generation” processes information visually and learns much differently from their “baby boomer” or “Generation Y” professors (Mintu-Wimsatt, Ingram, Milward, & Russ, 2006). Their brains are “wired” differently than that of their professors, hence their development and experiences guide how they process information and experience the world. Table 2 illustrates several differences between students and faculty. Table 2 Student and Faculty Differences in Information Processing
Students
Faculty
Multitasking Pictures, Sound, Video Random Access Interactive and Networked Engaging Spontaneous
Single or Limited Tasks Text Linear, Logical, Sequential Independent and Individual Disciplines Deliberate
Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
3
While most faculty process information in a sequential or liner fashion, NetGen learners process information in a randomized or networked pattern, which allows them to build concept maps (see Figure 1). This seemingly random information processing alludes to the need for a variety of learning opportunities and methods. Figure 1 Mind Map of a Marketing Student
NetGen learners do not gain much of their knowledge in the classroom, but rather outside it after they have had a chance to reflect on the information (Cook & Swift, 2007). In fact, the average attention span of a NetGen student in only seven minutes (Oblinger, 2006). If students are asked to sit through a traditional 50-75 minute class that involves lecture only, they will, not surprisingly. “tune out” very quickly. It is important to use several pedagogical methods and vary the pace of learning. Breaking concepts into 10-minute “chunks” will help students retain material, but only if they have time to process the information interactively and have a chance to reflect on it.
Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
4
Overall, today’s students have several new types of learning preferences that may require classroom innovations. They prefer self-paced learning, engagement from and with their peers, real experiences, time to reflect, and find relevance in “things that matter” to them. In fact, they might even ask you to clarify “what’s in it for me?” (Close, Dixit, Malhotra, 2005; Cook & Swift, 2007; Oblinger 2006). Meeting New Learning Needs So how do we meet the needs of this new student generation? How can we make our classes more relevant and applicable? What teaching innovations can be applied to meet each learning need? The following section explores each learning preference of the digital millennial learner, and addresses what we as instructors can do to be more effective teachers. Student-Paced Learning One way to address the “any time, any place” learning environment is to embrace the online learning environment. Learning management systems (LMS) such as Blackboard™, Angel™, and Moodle™ make it easy to communicate with students 24-7. Students prefer accessibility of information on their terms (Close, Dixit, Malhotra, 2005; Cook & Swift, 2007). Most NetGen students do not even learn and/or study during the day, save for attending their classes. Most of their work is done between the hours of 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. Check your LMS student access statistics if you are not convinced. Because NetGen students prefer on-line environments for everything from lectures to assignments to homework to testing, faculty need to incorporate such learning into their courses (Lundgren 2003). Not only should you be posting all of your course materials online, you should also post them in portable formats. Can your lectures be downloaded to an iPod? Does your LMS offer an offline “backpack” so students can work on the site in an offline mode and then upload/download changes when online becomes available? Are the course materials you posted compatible with a wireless handheld device such as a PDA or cell phone? Class time should be used for interactivity, demonstration, and peer learning. It is a struggle for many teachers to put their lectures online, as they then feel “useless” in the classroom. However, online lectures free up your classroom for you to become a moderator of debates, discussions, presentations, and other interactive activities. There are many inexpensive ways to record your audio/video lectures, including ScreenCorder™, Camtasia™, Adobe CreativeSuite™, or Box Populi’s Podcast in a Box. Students report higher satisfaction with outof-class lectures, as they can watch or listen to them when they want and in time chunks suitable for their learning style. They like to “rewind” and repeat portions of these lectures – an option unavailable in a live classroom. For marketing and information systems classes in particular, students enjoy multimedia lectures online. Incorporate websites, advertisements, and video examples into your online format. Remember that these students learn visually. The physical environment in which students learn is also important. These “any time, any place” learners prefer informal learning spaces to more formalized ones. To this extent, they embrace and even demand a wireless environment where they can connect to the Internet and share information in the form of email, instant messaging, blogs, and the ability to just search for information on the web. Flexible classrooms with moveable chairs and even walls help to diminish the visual barriers and enable group interaction (Long, 2004; Skipton, Matulich, Papp & Stepro, 2006).
Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
5
Peer-to-Peer Learning The NetGen student also prefers group activities and collaborative projects. Why do you think they are always asking you if they can “work together” on an assignment? (Close, Dixit, Malhotra, 2005). They like to brainstorm and spend considerable time in on-line discussion boards and Blogs (web logs or journals) (Black 2007, Borja 2005, Krause 2005). In fact, some of the most popular learning environments today involve the use of Wikis (on-line editable web encyclopedias) and Blogs (McGee & Diaz 2007, Jakes 2006). This is a culture that is very social and thrives in on-line communities, and a presence in MySpace or Facebook is also a helpful tool (Aviles, Phillips, Rosenblatt, & Vargas 2005). Have your students create their own Wikis of marketing terms used in your particular course. Then provide an online quiz of those terms. Ask them to share websites, commercials, or YouTube videos that illustrate marketing principles, and have your students rate each others’ postings. Encourage them to write in journal blogs about their customer service experiences, international travels, website surfing, or shopping experiences. Again, ask other students to rate those postings, react to them in an online discussion format. Online discussions are also useful after reviewing online lectures. Have them create public e-portfolios of their marketing work for viewing by others. Think about asking your students to prepare several sides of a debate (Abhijit and Macchiette 2005) on a marketing topic (the consumer versus the corporate versus the societal perspective on marketing alcohol, for example). Let them draw playing cards or roll dice at the beginning of class to see which team they will represent. Have them compete in a quiz bowl to determine a winning team on marketing trivia. There are many ways to have collaborative learning experiences both inside and outside the classroom. For larger projects in the class, such as a marketing research survey, promotional plan, service analysis, or strategic marketing plan, put your students into groups. Just be sure that peer evaluations can be used to reduce the “free rider” effect of groups (Abernethy & Lett 2005, Brooks & Ammos 2003, Dommeyer 2007). Engagement and Experience To engage the NetGen learner, a course must incorporate multimedia as well as kinesthetic experiences. Students like simulations and role-playing scenarios, as they prefer to experience things from a realistic, practical standpoint. That’s part of the reason that they won’t listen to a lecture—they need to go out and experience it for themselves—sometimes despite the consequences. To cater to this learning style and preference, real world projects and tasks are excellent ways for them to gain legitimate experience and focus on the WIIFM mindset (Oblinger 2005). Marketing programs that require internships are also particularly valuable to students, as are field trips (Divine, Linrud, Miller, Wilson, Holton 2007). If at all possible, have your students perform marketing research projects, promotional plans, or marketing strategies for real-world clients who will see the final products. Live cases bring a sense of accomplishment to the student at the same time they are applying marketing concepts to a client who needs the help. If your course is case-based, have your students role-play the decision makers (Uslay 2007). If your students are completing an assignment, see if you can make it “real world” by having them evaluate a real-world firm’s pricing, distribution, or promotional strategy. Ask your students to engage in a retailing experience combined with customer servicing. Allow your students to re-brand an existing product. Let them develop a campaign for a politician, plan their own funeral (Butler 2007), or engage in a role-play sales competition (Widmier, Loe, & Selden 2007). Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
6
Gaming and simulations are also comfortable modes of learning for today’s students (Drea, Tripp, and Stuenkel 2005). Games have the true potential to excite students through competition, exploration, preparation, chance encounters, and the thrill of the unknown. Participating in games and simulations often result in a significant increase in student performance. Not surprisingly, students who play games and simulations perceive them to be fun and a useful learning activity. How can an entire class be interactive at the same time? One method involves engaging the students—often. Recall that most NetGen students have a 7-minute attention span and technologies like Audience Response System™ (AKA “clickers”) can be used to assess their comprehension, interest, and opinion (Baker, Matulich & Papp 2007). If they feel as if you care, they are more likely to be engaged and learn. They also like playing with “digital toys” like the clickers or the hand-held PDAs (McGorry 2006). Audience response systems can also be used for games, with automatic team or individual scoring. Reflection Students need time to digest the information they are processing. Your LMS is an excellent way to provide for reflection as online discussions can begin before the class session does and/or continue long after the class is over (Close, Dixit, Malhotra, 2005; Mintu-Wimsatt, Ingram, Milward, Russ, 2006). Blogs and Vlogs (video logs via cell phone or PDA) are also useful reflection tools. Remember, NetGen students learn by building concept maps and they may not “get it” in the classroom, but rather later on after they have reflected on it (Chen, 2005, EduCause 2005 Annual Conference, Peltier, J., A. Hay, and W. Drago 2005). Allow your students to build concept maps and turn them in for a grade and/or use them for study tools for exams. Matchware’s OpenMind™ allows concept maps to be built either from scratch by students for their own use or by instructors for their students. In fact, a traditional outline format can be created and then converted to a concept map. The product is also excellent for websites, presentations, and general note taking by students. Remember, this method of learning is what they prefer best—“show me and then get out of my way!” Because students need time to reflect, it is important to allow sufficient time between assignments or class days, and provide online opportunities for reflection that keep students engaged and on task. Things That Matter – What’s In It For Me? Students need to be “sold” on what you are making them do for a class, so be a marketer and sell! Students value skill-building with applications, so as you teach them how to use software, simulations, or other tools to complete an assignment, remind them to put that skill on their resume. Students particularly find real world projects to be useful resume builders; these projects can act as a substitute internship, and also have a tangible outcome an employer could see (e.g. a strategic marketing plan, survey analysis, or promotional strategy). Students often see even more value in doing these consulting projects for not-for-profit organizations as a way of serving the community. Being able to double-count a project both for volunteer service work and for marketing skills is more valuable to a student for their own internal motivations as well as their resume (McIntyre, Webb, and Hite 2005).
Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
7
Learner Expectations Students must be engaged using the three H’s: Head, Heart, and Hands. Most NetGen students do not question the instructor’s knowledge on the subject—to the contrary—they expect the instructor to be an expert in the topic (“head”) and be able to pass that knowledge on to them. NetGen students also need to feel that the instructor has a heart and cares for the students, including responsiveness and empathy for them and their problems. It also includes an enthusiasm for the topic and teaching in general. Finally, good teaching skills are necessary. Use of the “hands” to convey ideas at the right level, in a clear and systematic manner, which stimulates their interest and learning, is vital (Close, Dixit, Malhotra, 2005; Twenge, 2006). Today’s students expect to receive “new” forms of content that cater to their needs. However, it is important that an instructor reach a balance of “legacy” content and “future” content (Prensky 2001). “Legacy” content includes reading, writing, math, logic, and understanding the writings of the past – all of our “traditional” curriculum. It is of course still important, but it is from a different era. Some of it (such as logical thinking) will continue to be important, but some (perhaps calculations of price markups) will become less so. Table 3 illustrates how teachers should strike a balance between legacy and future styles of learning. Table 3 Balancing Teaching Delivery Methods Action Visual Social Process Speed Peer-to-peer
Reflection Text Individual Content Deliberation Peer review
“Future” content is largely technological. But this digital content also includes ethics, politics, sociology, and ideologies. This “Future” content is extremely interesting to today’s students. But how many Digital Immigrants are prepared to teach it? “As educators, we need to be thinking about how to teach both Legacy and Future content in the language of the Digital Natives. The first involves a major translation and change of methodology; the second involves all that PLUS new content and thinking. It’s not actually clear to me, which is harder – ‘learning new stuff’ or ‘learning new ways to do old stuff.’ I suspect it’s the latter” (Prensky 2001). Implementation and Innovation The NetGen learner is here to stay, and a new type of learner will be here tomorrow. As instructors, we need to acknowledge and adapt to new learning styles, lest they “tune us out” and find the material irrelevant. Today’s student is more technology savvy than ever before and their comfort with the digital environment presents some challenges for teachers who are often less than comfortable with this new paradigm. If you have not already done so, begin looking at your course delivery methods and incorporate some of the technologies and methods discussed. A key factor is finding multiple solutions for learning. Engage yourself in teaching blogs, read journal articles about marketing teaching innovations, and interact with peers at conferences to Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
8
exchange teaching ideas. Think about a single class that involves brainstorming, peer exchange, debate, concept mapping, case involvement, and an authentic project. The multidimensional approach is the path to success. There are several learning outcomes that remain over time such as communication skills, critical thinking, problem solving, and collaboration. The major change factor involves how these concepts and ideas are communicated to the students. College is the place to allow students to learn and explore new ideas and topics as they prepare for a future that has never been more uncertain, but also one that has never had as many possibilities. College teaching is a process of continuous improvement, not one of finding a single teaching method and staying with it forever, so you should also continue to engage and explore the possibilities in innovative marketing education. References Abernethy, Avery M. and William L. Lett III (2005), “You Are Fired! A Method to Control and Sanction Free Riding in Group Assignments,” Marketing Education Review, 15 (Spring), 47-54. Abhijit, Roy and Bart Macchiette (2005), “Debating the Issues: A Tool for Augmenting Critical Thinking Skills of Marketing Students,” Journal of Marketing Education. 27 (December), 264-277. Aviles, Kitzzy, Bill Phillips, Tim Rosenblatt, and Jessica Vargas, (2005), “If Higher Education Listened to ME,” EDUCAUSE Review. 40 (September/October), 16. Baker, Russ, Erika Matulich, and Raymond Papp (2007), “Teach Me In the Way I Learn: Education and the Internet Generation,” Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 4 (Winter), 27-32. Black, Lisa (2007), “Blogging Clicks with Educators,” Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, (January 24), 1. Borja, Richard (2005), “ 'Blogs' Catching On as Tool for Instruction,” Education Week, 25 (December); 1-2. Briggs, Linda L. (2007), “PodCasting on a Shoestring,” Campus Technology, (November 14), http://campustechnology.com/articles/52804/. Brooks, Charles M. and Janice L. Ammons (2003), “Free Riding in Group Projects and the Effects of Timing, Frequency, and Specificity of Criteria in Peer Assessments,” Journal of Education for Business, 78 (May/June), 268. Butler, Daniel D. (2007), “Planning Your Own Funeral: A Helpful Pedagogical Tool,” Marketing Education Review, 17 (Spring), 95-100. Chen, Helen L. (2005), “Reflection in an Always-on Learning Environment: Has It Been Turned Off?” (http://www.campus-technology.com/article.asp?id=11802) Close, Angeline G., Ashutosh Dixit, and Naresh K. Malhotra, (2005), “Chalkboards to Cybercourses: The Internet and Marketing Education,” Marketing Education Review, 15 (Spring), 81-94. Cook, Robert W. and Cathy O. Swift (2006), “The Pedagogical Efficacy of a Sales Management Simulation,” Marketing Education Review, 16 (Fall), 37-46. Divine, Richard L., JoAnn K. Linrud, Robert H. Miller, and J. Holton Wilson (2007), “Required Internship Programs in Marketing: Benefits, Challenges and Determinants of Fit,” Marketing Education Review, 17 (Summer), 45-52.
Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
9
Drea, John T., Carolyn Tripp, and Kathleen Stuenkel (2005), “An Assessment of the Effectiveness of an In-Class Game on Marketing Students' Perceptions and Learning Outcomes,” Marketing Education Review, 15 (Spring), 25-33. Dommeyer, Curt J. (2007), “Using the Diary Method to Deal with Social Loafers on the Group Project: Its Effects on Peer Evaluations, Group Behavior, and Attitudes,” Journal of Marketing Education, 29 (August), 175-187. EduCause 2005 Conference (http://www.educause.edu/e05). Eriksson, Lars Torsten and Amie M. Hauer (2004), “Mind Map Marketing: A Creative Approach in Developing Marketing Skills,” Journal of Marketing Education,26 (August), 174-188. Howe, Neil and William Strauss (2000), Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation, Knopf Publishing Group. Higdon, Jude (2005), “Teaching, Learning, and Other Uses for Wikis in Academia: All Users Are Not Necessarily Created Equal” Syllabus 2005 Conference, (http://www.campustechnology.com/news_article.asp?id=17502&typeid=156). Jakes, David (2006), “Wild about Wikis -- Tools For Taking Student and Teacher Collaboration To The Next Level,” Technology & Learning, 27 (August), 6. Krause, Steven D. (2005), “Blogs as a Tool for Teaching,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51 (June), B33. Long, Phillip D. (2004), “Learning Object Repositories, Digital Repositories, and the Reusable Life of Course Content” (http://www.campus-technology.com/article.asp?id=9258) Lundgren, Terry D. (2003), “Student Attitudes Toward Internet Courses: A Longitudinal Study,” The Journal of Computer Information Systems, (April 1) http://www.allbusiness.com/technology/internet-technology/1126450-1.html Matchware’s ScreenCorder, Mediator, and Openmind, www.matchware.com. McGee, Patricia and Veronica Diaz (2007), “Wikis and Podcasts and Blogs! Oh, My! What Is a Faculty Member Supposed to Do?” EDUCAUSE Review, 42 (September/October), 28. McGorry, Sue (2006), “Data in the Palm of Your Hand,” Marketing Education Review, 16 (Fall), 83-90. McIntyre, Faye S., Deborah J. Webb, and Robert E. Hite (2005), “Service Learning In The Marketing Curriculum: Faculty Views And Participation,” Marketing Education Review, 15 (Spring), 35-45. Mintu-Wimsatt, Alma, Kendra Ingram, Mary Anne Milward, and Coutney Russ (2006), “On Different Teaching Delivery Methods: What Happens To Instructor Course Evaluations?” Marketing Education Review, 16 (Fall), 49-57. Oblinger, Diana (2003), “Boomers, Gen-Xers & Millennials: Understanding the New Students” (http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0342.pdf). Peltier, James W., Amanda Hay, and William Drago (2005), “The Reflective Learning Continuum: Reflecting on Reflection,” Journal of Marketing Education, 27 (December), 250-264. Prensky, Marc (2001), Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, NCB University Press, 9 (October). 1-29. Skipton, Charles, Erika Matulich, Raymond Papp, and John Stepro (2006), “Moving from ‘Dumb’ to ‘Smart’ Classrooms,” Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 3 (Fall), 1928. Syllabus 2005 Conference (http://www.campus-technology.com/conferences/summer2005) Twenge, Jean M. (2006), Generation Me: Why Today's Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled--and More Miserable Than Ever Before. Free Press. Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
10
Turning Technologies (www.TurningTechnologies.com). Uslay, Can (2007), “Case Analyses With Extensive Student Involvement: Management versus Consultants Case Method (MCM),” Marketing Education Review, 17 (Spring), 21-27. Widmier, Scott, Terry W. Loe, and Gary Selden (2007), “Using Role-Play Competition to Teach Selling Skills and Teamwork,” Marketing Education Review, 17 (Spring), 69-78.
Matulich, Erika, Raymond Papp, and Diana Haytko (2008), “Continuous Improvement With Teaching Innovations: A Requirement For Today’s Learners.” Marketing Education Review, Spring, pp. 1-6.
11
