Exploring the Divides Among Students,Educators,and Practitioners in the Use of Digital Media as a Pedagogical Tool

Abstract

Digital technologies pervade the higher education landscape as a way to build student engagement and enhance student learning and teaching. In practice, however, the ways in which these tools are implemented in marketing education appear to be ad hoc, rather than using a systematic approach to build engagement and provide students with the skill sets needed for 21st-century employment (including meta-skills, e.g., communication skills, critical thinking, technical skills in analytics, and understanding of connected consumer behavior). The research to date has built on the educator–student dyad. This article argues that an industry practitioner perspective also adds insight into how digital technology can rationally and purposefully be integrated into the marketing classroom. Using exploratory depth interviews with undergraduate students, educators, and industry practitioners, this article seeks to explore the emerging pedagogical challenges of representing these tripartite views in marketing module development and to provide recommendations for higher education institutions as to how best to do so.

Keywords

digital technology education marketing pedagogy marketing practice social media

Introduction

As the adoption of technology has increased in business school settings, marketing educators have been tasked with building student engagement in courses through the use of digital platforms and applications. They also need to theoretically convey the rapid evolution of the digital landscape from a critical perspective. In marketing modules, this careful balance of theoretical and conceptual underpinnings and practical relevance has generated seemingly never-ending tension (Abernethy & Padgett, 2011; Finch, Nadeau, & O’Reilly, 2013).

The fundamental purpose of a marketing education is open to debate, but the present authors build on marketing education’s ability to provide students with critical analytical skills and to enhance their market practice. Whether students are presented as “digital natives” (Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Prensky, 2001a; Williams, Crittenden, Keo, & McCarty, 2012), a “digital generation” (Buzzard, Crittenden, Crittenden, & McCarty, 2011), or existing practitioners in the digital landscape, the mission remains to provide students with a critical understanding of how digital technology is used within the marketing environment. A marketing education should also provide a transferable skill set that will enhance their employability and digital marketing practice.

Digital technology has affected the business environment, consumer behavior, society at large, and, in an educational sense, how we teach and how students expect to learn in the marketing classroom. A widespread diffusion of digital technologies such as Twitter, wikis, and Facebook groups into marketing modules has taken place (Buzzard et al., 2011; Lowe & Laffey, 2011). In the process, the intention has been to enhance learning; however, it could be argued that the resulting pedagogical enhancement has varied (Weyant & Gardner, 2011). Halverson (2011) suggests that academics must consider how social media can help students meet the learning objectives of the module rather than merely engaging in “tokenistic” use of technology for its own sake. Phillip and Garcia (2013, p. 316) urge a more cautious and deliberate approach to technology in an educational context. Indeed, their study critically highlights a tendency to “just add technology and stir,” indicating both the benefits and constraints of technology in the classroom. Furthermore, Celsi and Wolfinbarger (2002) characterize the shift in marketing education represented by the introduction of new technology as having evolved into a pedagogy of unique technological applications that can transform the classroom into a more current, active, and interactive learning environment.

We argue that this “technological pedagogy” has evolved again in the past decade and that the learning environment must be accompanied by an outward industry focus. Ensuring such a focus requires a more reflexive exploration of how technology has been used in marketing education, what students are gaining or not gaining from this pedagogical shift, and how it will enhance their marketing practice.

This article was borne out of an examination of a current digital marketing curriculum at a university in the United Kingdom and a desire to identify what lessons could be learned when a new digital marketing module is introduced at U.K. business schools in general. Based on a review of the relevant marketing education scholarship, the authors grappled with the tensions that arise when educators are harnessing digital technology to engage student learning, meet marketplace needs, and improve marketing practice.

In considering Harrigan and Hulbert’s (2011, p. 267) call for marketing educators to “stop for critical reflection of our marketing curriculums,” our study seeks to add to previous scholarly discussions that have focused on practitioners’ perspectives of marketing education (Finch et al., 2013; Harrigan & Hulbert, 2011). It also considers the views of educators, undergraduate students, and industry practitioners in addressing the apparent disconnect between the three regarding the use of technology in marketing education. Initially, we establish an overview of scholarship related to the division between theory and practice before moving on to undertake a review of the changing educational domain, with an emphasis on student engagement through technology. We then present the preliminary findings from the exploratory study organized around three emerging themes, before using the findings to identify areas for further research and to offer considerations for education practice.

Curriculum and Practice Divide

Marketing graduates often lack the skills needed for employment (Walker et al., 2009). Maintaining the link between marketing theory and marketing practice has therefore become even more important in module development. In his Harvard Business Review post, Bessen (2014) proposes that new technology is elevating the skill level needed for the workplace, but he also highlights that a skills gap has consequently emerged, with technical skills being of most concern.

Scholars have long examined the divide between marketing education and marketplace requirements (Arora & Stoner, 1992; Barr & McNeilly, 2002; Eberhardt, Moser, & McGee, 1997; Floyd & Gordon, 1998; Gray, Ottesen, Bell, Chapman, & Whiten, 2007; Gray, Peltier, & Schibrowsky, 2012; Hahs, 1999; Harrigan & Hulbert, 2011; Kelley & Gaedeke, 1990; O’Brien & Deans, 1995; Walker et al., 2009; Weyant & Gardner, 2011), yet this area of study still requires further research in the current marketing domain. As Finch et al. (2013) conclude, there is a gap between curriculum development and the practical needs of the marketplace. Furthermore, Gray et al. (2012) call for further research that addresses the changing business landscape and contemporary career development of students. This has to be balanced against delivering a marketing education that has rapidly evolved toward a pedagogy that is rich in engagement and strongly supported by digital technology (Buzzard et al., 2011; Lowe & Laffey, 2011; Williams et al., 2012; Young, Klemz, & Murphy, 2003).

Changing Pedagogical Landscape and Student Engagement

In seeking to redress the gap between the curriculum and the marketplace, understanding must be mapped against the current higher education context, since a paradigm shift has occurred in education from “teaching as instruction” to “student-centered learning” (Cole, 2009; Corrin, 2014; Jonassen, 1993; Ramsden, 1992; Taylor, Hunter, Melton, & Goodwin, 2011). This cooperative view of learning is positioned within the social constructivist paradigm and asserts that “learning occurs as individuals exercise, verify, solidify and improve their mental modes through discussion and information sharing” (Lin & Hsieh, 2001, p. 379). Cole (2009, p. 141) suggests that the advent of Web 2.0 technology presents higher education with an opportunity to go beyond the traditional delivery format to create a “personalised student centred learning environment” involving socially engaging tasks.

The use and growing importance of digital technologies form part of the wider growth strategies of many U.K. higher education institutions. Castells (1996) and Castells, Giroux, Freire, Willis, and Macedo (1999) argue that the technologization of education has marked a significant change in teaching and learning. This transformation of pedagogy has affected all aspects of course development, production, delivery, quality assurance, assessment, and validation (Hannon & D’Netto, 2007). In focusing on the micro use of digital technology such as wikis, blogs, and social media to complement and enhance marketing modules to build student engagement, the present authors question whether this use of digital technology to engage learning actually addresses practitioner demands of graduates or enhances market practice.

Various definitions of student engagement are offered in the literature. This article utilizes that of Kinzie and Gonyea (2009): the amount of time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activity. This is a definition that associates engagement with motivation. Taylor et al. (2011) state that marketing education has long recognized the importance of focusing on student engagement in teaching practice. They propose two approaches to student engagement in marketing classes: first, linking short-term (individual class related) current pedagogical activities more directly to students’ articulated goals and, second, undertaking longer-term pedagogical strategies to modify students’ goal hierarchies in order to generate attitudes encouraging engagement (Taylor et al., 2011).

In considering pedagogical practices, Taylor et al. (2011, p. 80) urge “coordinated and synergistic efforts” between faculty and university administration to enable greater student engagement. Such engagement arises from the joint efforts of the university as a “service provider” and the student as “exchange partner” (Taylor et al., 2011, p. 79). Taylor et al. (2011) further propose that marketing educators have to consider the interrelationships between students’ motivations, how they learn, and how they consume education. Taking a holistic perspective, the authors suggest that as students are generally extremely proficient at using social networking tools, communication with them should be through these platforms and, furthermore, these tools should be highlighted in the course syllabi (Taylor et al., 2011).

Specific Classroom Examples

In considering the impact of social media on student learning and engagement, Junco, Heiberger, and Loken (2011, p. 120) focus specifically on Twitter, asserting that it can be used to “engage students in ways that are important for their academic and psychosocial development.” Their U.S. study presents controlled experimental evidence that Twitter can be used in educationally relevant ways to increase student engagement. From an analysis of Twitter communications, they found that students and faculty were engaged in “the learning process in ways that transcended traditional classroom activities” (Junco et al., 2011, p. 119). However, they reflect that a limitation of Twitter usage is that its success appeared to be due to the disposition and effort of the faculty that monitored and participated in the interaction. This case highlights the successful integration of Twitter into a module that engaged students and mobilized the faculty into adopting a more active and participatory role.

Neumann and Hood (2009) explore the use of a wiki on student engagement in an Australian statistics class. The authors used it as one aspect of a blended learning approach to promote collaborative learning, and both positive and negative implications were identified from this use of technology on their module (Neumann & Hood, 2009). Their findings also suggest that student preferences toward participation varied widely. They detail that student engagement was enhanced by the use of the wiki but that student performance was not similarly affected, arguing that this may have resulted from a lack of explicit incentives offered through course assessment.

Cole’s (2009) case study highlights the failed use of a wiki to support student engagement in a third-year undergraduate module. Reflections on her case suggest that although students were seen as “digital natives,” institutional guidance on how to use the technology was necessary. Anxiety over peer review also discouraged a significant number of students from participating in the wiki. Overall, the students did not regard the use of the wiki as “fun.” Fun is determined by the end user, and she explains that the students did not view the use of popular social technology in the educational context as either enjoyable or useful (Cole, 2009). Cole (2009, p. 146) advises that “educationalists must be clear about the intended outcomes of the technology used. Curricula should be created that does not confuse technological interactivity with interactive learning.” Her case highlights the importance of pedagogical design and notes that it is necessary to offer support in order for students to be motivated and engaged in using technology in learning.

Potential lack of motivation with regard to online technology is similarly highlighted by Dennen (2008). She finds that “pedagogical lurking,” or temporary situational or topical lurking in a class context, may be a regular feature of online participation. It again emerges that online student silence may be related to a lack of confidence in sharing ideas, but students may engage in reading and reflecting on messages posted online to meet their own learning goals without actively participating. This is an important consideration when the use of digital media to improve student engagement is proposed.

Methodology

Our exploratory study focuses on the tripartite views of industry practitioners, educators, and undergraduate students. It therefore brings together student engagement, the achievement of learning outcomes, and industry expectations of marketing graduates. The study is based on the evaluation of an existing digital module that has been in operation for 2 years. The case study grew out of a need to understand perceptions of what a new digital marketing module should include as part of a wider marketing curriculum. The module was due to be implemented in the spring of 2015 at a U.K. business school, so the first author explored how an established digital module operated in practice. An evaluation of a second-year undergraduate digital marketing module was conducted from the viewpoints of educators, students, and industry practitioners as part of this exploration.

This exploratory study employs qualitative methods and purposeful sampling (Morgan, 2008). According to Patton (1990, p. 169), the power of purposeful sampling lies in “selecting information-rich cases for study in depth. Information-rich cases are those from which one can learn a great deal about issues of central importance to the purpose of the research.” This focus on data-rich cases was used in the study to unpack the phenomenon of interest and in selecting participants who were well placed to provide relevant, in-depth information from educator, industry practitioner, and undergraduate student perspectives (Table 1). In total, nine depth interviews were conducted in two U.K. cities. Educators were selected for interview based on their established academic careers and having previously developed and implemented a digital module at the university level. Industry practitioners were selected on the basis of working in the digital media landscape (agency, client side, and public relations) and for having responsibility for graduate recruitment. The student sample consisted of students who had previously undertaken study in a digital marketing module.

Table 1.

Respondent Characteristics.

Respondent	Occupation	Key characteristics
Fern	Academic	Experienced academic in U.K. context at both university and college level
Julie	Academic	Junior lecturer at U.K. university
Stephen	Academic	Assistant professor/senior lecturer in U.K. university
Brian	Industry practitioner	Experienced community manager at a midsize content marketing agency and responsible for graduate recruitment and supervision
Mark	Industry practitioner	Experienced head of social media for a multinational travel intermediary and responsible for graduate recruitment and development
Graeme	Industry practitioner	Experienced managing director of a small digital agency and responsible for graduate recruitment and development
Emily	Undergraduate student	Final-year undergraduate student with no previous digital marketing experience
Kathy	Undergraduate student	Final-year undergraduate student with limited digital marketing experience
Jack	Undergraduate student	Final-year undergraduate student with limited digital marketing experience

Exploratory Depth Interviews

Depth interviews were used in this research (Bryman & Bell, 2007; McCracken, 1988). The interviews were planned to be as natural and conversational as possible. The interviews lasted approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes each and focused on general topics of interest rather than using a set question-and-answer format. The interviews were arranged at times that suited the respondents and took place in locations that were convenient for them (in both locations: Colchester and Glasgow, United Kingdom). All interviews were transcribed and annotated with initial impressions and observations to crystallize the main emergent themes (Bryman & Bell, 2007). Interpretation and analysis involved multiple iterations of coding by each researcher, with the researchers repeatedly returning to the data to refine the thematic codes. Confidentiality was maintained throughout the case study in line with the university’s ethical guidelines.

Findings

This section details the findings from the depth interviews and is arranged around three emergent themes: pedagogical design, participation, and real-world applicability.

Pedagogical Design

Business schools are adept at addressing student needs, changing demographics, and the challenges generated by the complex relationships between practitioner technologies and pedagogies. However, these institutions are less able to meet changes in student expectations and industry requirements of marketing graduates, particularly when selecting the most appropriate technology to support and enhance learning in a rapidly changing digital landscape.

As a pedagogical tool, social media has been widely used to enhance learning and develop student engagement in marketing education (Cole, 2009; Corrin, 2014; Junco et al., 2011; Junco, Elavsky, & Heiberger, 2013; Neumann & Hood, 2009; Taylor et al., 2011; Weyant & Gardner, 2011; Williams et al., 2012). The specifically intended outcomes of the use of social media are not, however, always clearly stated. Peterson, Albaum, Munuera, and Cunningham (2002) warned:

One of the most striking, yet disturbing, observations is that, despite the vast number of studies that have been conducted in attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of various instructional technologies used in higher education, no definitive conclusion is possible as to whether instructional technology generally contributes positively to student learning. (p. 13)

Traditional forms of teaching and learning have evolved to reflect the advent of new communication technologies. The scholarship on this evolution focuses on student engagement and “learning the needs of the digital generation” (Chelliah & Clarke, 2011, p. 276). That said, the design of learning goals that accurately reflect new student behaviors and the potential learning opportunities brought about by emerging technologies represents a significant challenge for marketing educators (Anderson & Lawton, 2009; Williams et al., 2012). In building an understanding of these challenges through our educator sample, two recurring themes emerged: the purposeful technology usage and appropriate resources required.

Fern, an academic participant, describes the importance of considering why and how the technology is being used in the module and to question the resources involved:

I think that it is useful in the first instance to focus on content rather than teaching tools. At the end of the day you are trying to get them to think about digital marketing from an academic perspective and in a way they are already practitioners—they already know how to do it; what they don’t understand is what is going on behind it. In a way it isn’t as relevant, and they don’t need the push into using that technology. In a way you are trying to stop them doing it practically and to engage with the academic side. Also you have to question if it is the best use of your resources.

From this discussion, the viewpoint emerges that because many students already use social media in their personal lives, the role of the digital marketing module should be to impart a critical understanding of the business and social usage of tools such as Twitter rather than focusing on practical skill development. These concerns were reiterated by another academic participant, Stephen, who similarly asserted:

You are essentially trying to put the brakes on their use [of social media] and if you design an assignment or course based on their use and you encourage that, then they will potentially miss the academic merit and detract from the criticality.

The academics participating in this U.K. study suggest that, by using social media in marketing modules, the educator has to shift student perceptions of how and why it is being used. The respondents see their task as educators as being to build awareness of the theoretical constructs employed in its usage rather than encouraging further use without a clear academic purpose. The following question arises: Are social media being used as a platform to build engagement, with that clear purpose woven through the module development from the outset, or are they instead encouraging ad hoc use, from which students and educators see little tangible benefit in the educational setting? Hesitancy among the academics is also apparent regarding whether the necessary workload involved in ensuring the coherent use of social media within a module is overly resource intensive for the educator.

Concern about resources reflected concern about the institutional support needed for the educator in implementing the technology as well as the student support necessary to build confidence in using the technology. Julie suggests that integrating technology into her teaching was difficult due to the legalities and liability issue frameworks in using third party hosted sites outside of the university setting. She had used third-party sites as examples but could not establish university-branded Twitter accounts or hashtags. When asked whether technology helped student engagement with the module, she passionately replied: “If technology could be integrated properly it would be amazing. The students respond well to technology and they really believe that we should be doing more in this area.” Another participant, Fern, articulated a similar hesitancy arising from a lack of support:

It is not where my expertise lies, so I have always outsourced the technical elements. I needed help and resources from the department to support the students through it. I am not sure that sometimes the ideas match up with the resources available for you or the students.

With regard to using digital technology to complement her class teaching, she was also hesitant:

I would be nervous; there are legal and ethical issues to consider and I am not sure how much it helps the teaching. There is also no support for the amount of hours that it takes to monitor and organize a social media feed.

Fern’s responses demonstrate tentativeness regarding her ability to effectively use technology to meet the skills and needs of her students. While students are often reluctant to use social media in formal settings, educators are often hesitant to implement social media in the classroom because of a perceived lack of technical experience. Educators who are more technologically able may resolve the apparent discomfort between the theoretical and practical aspects of teaching digital education. At the very least, the educators highlight that support from the institution is necessary to ensure three things: first, that the technology is adequate; second, that its use is in line with university guidelines; and third, that there is clear merit from integrating digital technology into their teaching platforms.

Within this exploration, the introduction of digital technology, such as social media in the classroom, was not necessarily seen as a solution to student engagement. Instead, it was seen as a tool for integration into the learning environment, provided a clearly outlined purpose existed for its use in the module. Modules therefore need to be designed to move away from a purely practical understanding of digital technology in order to consider the critical understandings behind that practice as well.

Chelliah and Clarke (2011) note that technology by itself cannot change the nature of classroom instruction unless educators are able to evaluate and integrate the use of that technology into the curriculum. In line with this, the present authors suggest that in developing the marketing module around the learning outcomes, a distancing from the technology’s use might add clarity to the academic aims of the module.

Participation

The almost unlimited connectivity afforded by today’s plethora of communication and mobile communication technologies (including smartphones, tablets, and laptops) has changed the behavior of newer generations of students enrolled at universities (Chelliah & Clarke, 2011; Corrin, 2014; Williams et al., 2012). It is often assumed that because these “digital natives” work and study in technology-rich cultures and are accustomed to instantly accessing information and communicating with others in their everyday lives (Prensky, 2010), current educational practices must fail to meet their appetite for technology and that this must be taken into account in developing new education practices with which to engage them (Corrin, 2014; Prensky, 2001b; Tapscott, 1999; Williams et al., 2012).

In this vein, it was assumed by the educators in this research that social media should be used to complement lectures and classroom learning. One participant, Julie, explained that she had attempted to integrate a Twitter hashtag into the course to enable students to ask additional questions and engage with her network of practitioners and with one another, but her students were not receptive to this approach to extending their learning environment beyond lectures and tutorials. In her study, Dennen’s (2008) assumption was that student engagement was low because of a lack of student confidence; however, Lowe and Laffey (2011) argue that low engagement resulted because students were not convinced of its usefulness or relevance in the learning environment.

Corrin (2014) interestingly highlights the diversity and more nuanced understanding that is needed within the “digital native” grouping to achieve student engagement. Our study concurs with these findings and illuminates the view that integrating Twitter hashtags and discussions into modules may be a “good idea,” but that the approach ultimately fails due to the discomfort experienced by students from “sticking their neck out” by sharing their thoughts and answering questions in a public forum like Twitter. This is in line with Dennen (2008) who found that students lacked confidence in Twitter engagement in the educational setting, but we also find that as not all students are personally active on the medium this reduces engagement further. Our study builds on the notion that students only use technology with which they are comfortable and often avoid engaging with other technology (Kilian, Hennigs, & Langner, 2012; Lea & Jones, 2011). This means that they must be comfortable using the technology not only in personal situations but also within the learning environment. While many students may be proficient in using technology in their personal lives, they are not always willing or comfortable when using it in a more formal setting.

The lack of understanding about the motivations of students in using social media in the learning environment may place undue pressure on academics to teach practical skills in the classroom. One industry practitioner believes that academics must take lectures and learning to social networking sites—that is, to “where the students are” (Brian). However, not all students are active on all social networking sites, and they do not generally appear to be willing to use their social profiles for both educational and personal purposes (Correa, 2010; Williams et al., 2012). Similarly, Buzzard et al. (2011) believe that a mismatch exists between student and educator preferences regarding the use of contemporary digital tools in a learning environment. These authors caution that there is a possible “saturation point” for students who do not expect to have to use these tools for both personal and educational purposes.

In line with the ideas outlined above, our findings demonstrate that students do not want to invite lecturers into their social world but are willing to use social media for group communication, as:

normally, social media is used as a group function if there are group tasks to be completed, class meetings may be arranged and group members may stay in contact through Facebook, but we do not engage with our lecturers in social media. (John)

While our study adopts Kinzie and Gonyea’s (2009) definition of student engagement as being associated with motivation, we add that consideration of student engagement with social media should also include their confidence in using the media. We find that students who are more motivated about and comfortable with using social media in a learning environment will also use social media to collaborate with one another. For example, Kathy developed a Facebook study group to discuss and collaborate on their exam preparation, instead of using Facebook purely for arranging meetings. Ultimately, students themselves wish to define the amount of time and energy they devote to educationally purposeful activity via social media; moreover, they want to determine the mode and level of engagement as well as choosing with whom to engage. The answer to integrating social media into the learning environment does not appear to be as a complementary aspect to classroom learning, as had been previously thought, but, rather, to teach the practical application of digital marketing and social media.

Both practitioners and students in this study express the view that practical participation should be fundamental to syllabus design in social media and digital marketing courses: “Marketing education should focus on practical experience and transferrable skill learning . . . if there isn’t a marketing lecturer in the country who isn’t already including social media in the coursework, sack ‘em!” (Brian). While Emily added: “I do believe I learned a great deal from studying digital marketing, but I wish that I would have gained more practical knowledge instead of mostly theoretical.”

The research findings highlight the delicate balance between producing academically able graduates and those with vocational and practical experience. On the one hand, academic institutions must provide students with academic and theoretical knowledge about the real-world application of digital marketing strategies, but on the other hand, industry needs and the demand from students suggest that a strong vocational element must also be present in modules for them to truly have relevance. If problem-motivated learning and interactive learning through technology are integrated into module design, then any incompatibilities among academic teaching, industry needs, and student demand should decrease. Additionally, the perception that “the best graduates are the ones who taught themselves the practical skills” (Graeme) should change, through producing graduates able “to actively attempt to solve a problem by understanding it from start to finish” (Mark).

Crews and Stitt-Ghodes (2012) believe that the use of real business scenarios is an effective method to demonstrate how practitioners use social media. The findings of our study also suggest that students prefer to learn from case studies, listening to guest speakers, and being allowed to practice by doing. Kathy noted the importance of breaking down case studies and being able to apply theory in a new context, while Emily mentioned that she “very much liked how guest speakers were brought in to talk about real life and talk about digital marketing.”

However, it is important to emphasize that the idea that technology must be integrated into classroom teaching is not supported in our findings. The practitioners believed that instead of concentrating on the personal use of Twitter or Facebook, the use of case studies enables students to develop integrated thinking because brands and brand campaigns are present on multiple digital channels. Although Rinaldo, Tapp, and Laverie (2011) propose that Twitter can be used to enhance traditional educational goals and should be seen a powerful pedagogical tool that can aid student preparation for employment in a digitally powered world, our study questions whether its use in the marketing classroom serves to enhance student learning overall. Indeed, its deployment was seen as “tokenistic” in an educational setting and lacking clear benefits for students, the educator, or the employment potential of the student. Our findings suggest that the student cohort failed to engage with it fully and would have preferred a more practical orientation in the form of labs or industry speakers.

Real-World Applicability

The changing role of the university, now perceived as a “service provider,” and the student, now seen as a partner in an exchange, has brought new challenges for marketing educators (Taylor et al., 2011). The tension between the role and consumption of education and the preparation of students for employment is palpable in the case of digital marketing. The pedagogical design theme presented earlier in the findings has already alluded to the difficult balance between theoretical understanding of the marketing environment and the need to provide students with a meta-skill set that will aid their marketing practice.

From our industry exploration, the practitioners highlight that “real-world” applicability is one of the most important graduate competencies they seek. They further assert that universities are not producing work-ready students who possess relevant, up-to-date knowledge. Graeme believes that “there is a real opportunity to help inform teaching styles to reflect the constantly shifting state of marketing . . . it is vital that curricula are dynamic and adaptable.”

There is a perception that students are unable to take sufficient ownership of their learning within the educational setting. One example given is that more autonomy in their coursework in topic selection or industry selection might encourage students to develop their interests in digital marketing while simultaneously gaining a critical understanding. This aligns with D’Aloisio’s (2006) study, which finds that if students are made aware of the direct correlation between the skills they acquire in their learning and the transferability of those skills to business settings, they may be more motivated to actively participate in their education. In unpacking this with our student respondents, they highlighted their own heightened interest when guest industry speakers visited sessions, as they could see the real-world applicability of the work they were doing in the marketing domain. The students appeared to call for greater levels of real-world applicability and for the chance to work with external agencies to further their education and build relevant networks.

The practitioner viewpoint was that if students were able to work with external agencies then they would be better able to develop the meta-skills required by industry from graduates. These meta-skills include the ability to understand customer behaviors and digital customer journeys, to judge the points at which to engage with customers in social media, as well as gathering the technical skills required to create content and engage on social media. However, concerns are also expressed that some cultural learning styles and educational motivations would have an impact on the success of this strategy, due to the perception that some students will not participate in new forms of learning or work. Emily and Kathy both believe that not all students will be motivated to participate when there is no obvious incentive, particularly in some cultures. Graeme agrees that the best students are the ones who go beyond their coursework and learn through practice, but also concurs that not all students are motivated to become more active in the learning process.

One practitioner also notes that many students lacked critical understanding, to the point that they could not effectively discuss or provide knowledge regarding case studies not taught in class: “Students are failing to apply what they’ve learned to real-world examples outside what they are taught in the classroom” (Mark). The lack of practice and the often “tokenistic” integration of social media into the learning environment is seen as negatively affecting the critical ability of graduates to integrate multiple concepts and channels and to undertake creative problem solving. The practitioner viewpoint is therefore that theory and practice must be interrelated to produce confident graduates with relevant and applicable real-world experience.

This view is also accepted by the students themselves; indeed, all the students noted that while they found the course interesting, they had not learned the skills they required to be work ready. While it may be unreasonable to assume that one course would produce work-ready students, there is growing pressure from practitioners that students should be entering the work environment with increased levels of knowledge and practical skills.

From an educator perspective, Julie explains that for her, part of the digital module development lay within a wider department strategy, which was that the digital module would prepare students to be work ready. To meet this aim, she explains: “To better understand what the key skills practitioners would like students to have I conducted a lengthy consultation process with digital marketing businesses and recruiters. From here I determined what major topics should be covered.” This kind of industry engagement was not widespread across our respondents, but Julie details that it was decided that the balance of the module would be 75% practical and 25% theoretical, as a reflection of what the industry would want from a recent graduate and also that the university was focused in general on reflecting employability in its teaching approach. This highlights an institutional support for industry engagement in module development, an approach we that we support.

These findings accentuate the need to engage the digital generation of students in a learning environment that emphasizes the creation of a meta-skill set (involving communication, technical understanding, critical awareness, and collaboration) that is specifically designed to be beneficial to their future marketing practice and employability. By fostering a greater working relationship and improving reflexivity among students, educators, and industry, marketing modules can be developed that will address the gaps among these three viewpoints.

Limitations and Further Research

It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this research study. First, because it is an exploratory study, it used a convenience sample of nine participants. This sample could be widened in future studies to include a larger number of educators and industry practitioners and extended to a larger student cohort. The study is also U.K. based and was carried out in two locations: Colchester in southeastern England and Glasgow in western Scotland. The learning environment, cost of education, and learning motivation of students are likely to differ in other parts of the world.

Future studies should continue to explore the complexities of the learning environment and examine how best to build student participation in learning through social media. Factors such as the drivers and motivators of student participation with social media in the classroom environment should be explored in more depth to reveal more nuanced understandings. Further consideration is required of the extent to which the structure of teaching and learning can encourage student use of technology and of the support and training necessary to support this use. Future research should address the specific meta-skills desired in industry. It should also investigate how these desires can be addressed in marketing curricula and explore the best practice to actively involve industry in shaping the practical elements of the curricula.

Conclusions

In bridging the digital gaps among students, educators, and industry practitioners, higher educational institutions throughout the world are grappling with how best to accommodate new platforms of learning using digital technologies. However, in order for pedagogy to successfully use these technologies, teaching and learning need to be explored from the tripartite perspectives of the student, the educator, and the industry practitioner. This article addresses the pedagogical issues in the higher education domain arising as a result of the shift to “a technological pedagogy” (Celsi & Wolfinbarger, 2002, p. 70). In doing so, the study shows how to incorporate meaningful engagement with technology and explains how this can facilitate multiple ways of interacting with students and encourage students to interact with one another (Dixson, 2012).

One of the challenges of the current provision of education in the United Kingdom is identifying the best use of technology to build student engagement, with a specific focus on social media. The initial findings of this study highlight the need for cohesion between two factors: first, the use of technology and how it is embedded in module development and, second, a clear educational purpose and understanding of how it can build the meta-skill set desired for marketing graduates in industry. This research finds that the planning and development of the module in line with clear learning outcomes is key to its success, from the perspective of both students and educators. The findings provide insights into the use of technology and indicate that clear educational relevance has to be obvious to students for them to wish to engage with it. The study has also raised the issue of the labor involved in monitoring the use of technology in an educational setting and questioned whether this is the best use of time for educators.

This research adds to the educational scholarship of the past 15 years by highlighting the need for the technology to be appropriately built into the pedagogical design. Student participation cannot be assumed merely because it involves a platform with which they may already be personally familiar (Buzzard et al., 2011; Corrin, 2014; Williams et al., 2012). We warn that the gap between the expectation of student engagement in the social media landscape and the actual use of social media ingrained within a marketing module cannot be ignored. The research also significantly indicates that a marketing module needs to bring critical understanding to its digital content rather than relying on technology that students are already familiar with using. In module development, one implication of this is the need for a balance between critical content and practical skills, as we suggest that in the first instance it is important for the content to be engaging and for the technology to be used to supplement it, but not to replace critical skills.

Bridging the digital gap identified requires the digital generation of students to engage in the creation of a skill set that builds on their motivation to learn in the classroom and adds to their portfolio of skills for their marketing practice post-graduation. As Harrigan and Hulbert (2011, p. 269) warn: “Academics need to ensure that practice does not get any further ahead or of even further away from the marketing discipline than it already is.”

Our industry respondents already hold a perception that universities are failing both students and industry by neglecting to cover the technological and practical aspects of digital marketing and social media. We therefore argue for more educators who are comfortable with the practical technological elements of social media. Educators and practitioners should also have closer working relationships to ensure that marketing modules (especially digital marketing) build foundations with both a theoretical and practical relevance.

Finch et al. (2013) argue that for a marketing education to be competitive, it must be grounded in the development of a skill set that addresses industry needs. We therefore propose a process of renegotiating the relationship between educators and industry practitioners, thereby generating a cohesive situation that recognizes, values, and harnesses both sets of specific expertise. Educators and industry should work together to capitalize on this. Such a relationship would mark the beginning of a partnership to bridge the digital gaps among engagement, student learning, and marketing practice. Furthermore, by embedding practitioner knowledge into module development and delivery, we can further ensure that marketing graduates continue to contribute to marketing practice through receiving a relevant education.

Recommendations for higher education institutions require a pedagogy that is positioned to fulfill the needs of “digital natives” and that ensures the relevance of their institutions into the future. This article calls for a more reflective exploration of how technology has been used in marketing education; greater understanding of what students are gaining, or not gaining, from this pedagogical shift; and how it will enhance their marketing practice.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abernethy

A. M.

Padgett

(2011). A decade of scholarship in marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(3), 1-11.

Anderson

P. H.

Lawton

(2009). Simulations and cognitive learning: Developments, desires and future directions. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 193-216.

Arora

Stoner

(1992). The importance of skills of MBA students seeking marketing positions: An employers’ perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 14(2), 2-9.

Barr

T. F.

McNeilly

K. M.

(2002). The value of students’ classroom experiences from the eyes of the recruiter: Information, implications, and recommendations for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(2), 168-173.

Bessen

(2014, September 17). Workers don’t have the skills they need–and they know it. Harvard Business Review Blog. Retrieved from http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/09/workers-dont-have-the-skills-they-need-and-they-know-it/

Bryman

Bell

(2007). Business research methods. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Buzzard

Crittenden

V. L.

Crittenden

W. F.

McCarty

(2011). The use of digital technologies in the classroom: A teaching and learning perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 131-139.

Castells

(1996). The rise of the network society (Vol. 1). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Castells

Giroux

Freire

Willis

Macedo

(1999). Critical education in the new information age. London, England: Rowman & Littlefield.

10.

Celsi

R. L.

Wolfinbarger

(2002). Discontinuous classroom innovation: Waves of change for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 64-72.

11.

Chelliah

Clarke

(2011). Collaborative teaching and learning: Overcoming the digital divide? On the Horizon, 19(4), 276-285.

12.

Cole

(2009). Using wiki technology to support student engagement: Lessons from the trenches. Computers & Education, 52(1), 141-146.

13.

Correa

(2010). The participation divide among “online experts”: Experience, skills and psychological factors as predictors of college students’ web content creation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 71-92.

14.

Corrin

(2014). Examining digital natives: An investigation of university students’ engagement with technology (Doctoral dissertation). University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Retrieved from http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5128&context=theses

15.

Crews

T. B.

Stitt-Ghodes

W. L.

(2012). Incorporating Facebook and Twitter in a service-learning project in a business communication course. Business Communication Quarterly, 75(1), 76-79.

16.

D’Aloisio

(2006). Motivating students through awareness of the natural correlation between college learning and corporate work settings. College Teaching, 54, 225-230.

17.

Dennen

V. P.

(2008). Pedagogical lurking: Student engagement in non-posting discussion behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1624-1633.

18.

Dixson

M. D.

(2012). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 1-13.

19.

Eberhardt

B. J.

Moser

McGee

(1997). Business concerns regarding MBA education: Effects on recruiting. Journal of Education for Business, 72(5), 293-296.

20.

Finch

Nadeau

O’Reilly

(2013). The future of marketing education: A practitioner’s perspective. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(1), 54-67.

21.

Floyd

C. J.

Gordon

M. E.

(1998). What skills are most important? A comparison of employer, student, and staff perceptions. Journal of Marketing Education, 20(2), 103-109.

22.

Gray

B. J.

Ottesen

G. G.

Bell

Chapman

Whiten

(2007). What are the essential capabilities of marketers? A comparative study of managers’, academics’ and students’ perceptions. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(3), 271-295.

23.

Gray

D. M.

Peltier

J. W.

Schibrowsky

J. A.

(2012). The Journal of Marketing Education: Past, present, and future. Journal of Marketing Education, 34(3), 217-237.

24.

Hahs

D. L.

(1999). What have MBAs done for us lately? Journal of Education for Business, 74(4), 197-201.

25.

Halverson

E. R.

(2011). Do social networking technologies have a place in formal learning environments? On the Horizon, 19(1), 62-67.

26.

Hannon

D’Netto

(2007). Cultural diversity online: Student engagement with learning technologies. International Journal of Educational Management, 21(5), 418-432.

27.

Harrigan

Hulbert

(2011). How can marketing academics serve marketing practice? The new marketing DNA as a model for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(3), 253-272.

28.

Jonassen

D. H.

(1993). Thinking technology: Context is everything. Educational Technology, 31(6), 35-37.

29.

Junco

Elavsky

C. M.

Heiberger

(2013). Putting Twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273-287.

30.

Junco

Heiberger

Loken

(2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119-132.

31.

Kelley

C. A.

Gaedeke

R. M.

(1990). Student and employer evaluation of hiring criteria for entry-level marketing positions. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(3), 64-71.

32.

Kilian

Hennigs

Langner

(2012). Do millennials read books or blogs? Introducing a media usage typology of the Internet generation. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 29(2), 114-124.

33.

Kinzie

Gonyea

(2009). An introduction to the National Survey of Student Engagement. Paper presented at the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from http://cpr.iub.edu/uploads/NSSE%20Demonstration%20AIR%202009.pdf

34.

Lea

M. R.

Jones

(2011). Digital literacies in higher education: Exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 377-393.

35.

Lin

Hsieh

(2001). Web-based teaching and learner control: A research view. Computers and Education, 37, 377-386.

36.

Lowe

Laffey

(2011). Is Twitter for the birds? Using Twitter to enhance student learning in a marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 183-192.

37.

McCracken

(Ed.). (1988). The long interview (Vol. 13). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Morgan

(2008). Identity presentation: The construction of identity in asynchronous discussion. Qualitative Social Research, 9(3), 1-26.

39.

Neumann

D. L.

Hood

(2009). The effects of using a wiki on student engagement and learning of report writing skills in a university statistics course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(3), 382-398.

40.

O’Brien

E. M.

Deans

K. R.

(1995). The position of marketing education: A student versus employer perspective. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 13(2), 47-52.

41.

Patton

M. Q.

(1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

42.

Peterson

R. A.

Albaum

Munuera

J. L.

Cunningham

W. H.

(2002). Reflections on the use of instructional technologies in marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 7-17.

43.

Phillip

T. M.

Garcia

A. D.

(2013). The importance of still teaching the iGeneration: New technologies and the centrality of pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 83(2), 300-320.

44.

Prensky

(2001a). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 2-6.

45.

Prensky

(2001b). Digital natives, digital immigrants, Part II: Do they really think differently? On the Horizon, 9(6), 1-6.

46.

Prensky

(2010). Why YouTube matters. On the Horizon, 18(2), 124-131.

47.

Ramsden

(1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London, England: Routledge.

48.

Rinaldo

S. B.

Tapp

Laverie

D. A.

(2011). Learning by Tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 193-203.

49.

Tapscott

(1999). Educating the net generation. Educational Leadership, 56(5), 6-11.

50.

Taylor

S. A.

Hunter

G. L.

Melton

Goodwin

S. A.

(2011). Student engagement and marketing classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 73-92.

51.

Walker

Tsarenko

Wagstaff

Powell

Steel

Brace-Govan

(2009). The development of competent marketing professionals. Journal of Marketing Education, 31(3), 253-263.

52.

Weyant

L. E.

Gardner

(2011). Wikis and podcasts: An application in undergraduate management education. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15(3), 131-142.

53.

Williams

D. L.

Crittenden

V. L.

Keo

McCarty

(2012). The use of social media: An exploratory study of usage among digital natives. Journal of Public Affairs, 12(2), 127-136.

54.

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.