Exploring the Effects of Encouraging Student Performance With Text Assignment Reminders

Abstract

We explore the use of text message reminders to improve student performance. The effectiveness of text messaging reminders is examined by comparing two large sections of a course where students focused on personal branding. One section received deadline reminders by email, while the other section received opt-in text reminders. The results of the study provide empirical support that text reminders are positively related to assignments turned in on time, perceived task mastery orientation, perceived confidence with course material, and overall performance in the class. In addition, a description of how the text service can be employed in a marketing course is provided.

Keywords

text message reminders encouraging student performance task mastery perceived competence mobile

Marketing professors strive to prepare students to be effective performers in the workplace (Robideaux & Good, 2001). This approach requires teaching students both knowledge and skills needed in the business world (Bicen & Laverie, 2009; Hunt & Laverie, 2004; Madhavaram & Laverie, 2010). In addition, faculty work to motivate students to perform to the best of their abilities (Wetsch, 2015). Faculty employ different techniques in classes to help students perform well. One approach is to facilitate students with timely assignment submission. Ackerman and Gross (2005) found that faculty could reduce student procrastination by designing interesting assignments with clear instructions. We propose another method to encourage students to submit assignments on time and to follow syllabus directions using assignment text message reminders. These reminders can help students meet course learning objectives and assure competency. Text messages have been found to be effective in health care to promote positive changes in patient behavior (Buller, Borland, Bettinghaus, Shane, & Zimmerman, 2014; Sharifi et al., 2013). Texts have also been found to be an effective way to enhance communication with students from college/university administration and to support students’ transitions to the university (Harley, Winn, Pemberton, & Wilcox, 2007). Since this method has proved to be effective in other contexts, can it improve student performance in the classroom?

For pedagogical tools to be effective, students need to be interested in completing them and understand instructions and deadlines (Ackerman & Gross, 2005). Students who fail to meet course deadlines frequently email their instructors for policy exceptions or extended deadlines so that the late or missed assignments do not affect final course grades, which can add significantly to faculty workloads (Curtis, Lundquist, Templer, & Misra, 2013); this back and forth typically takes multiple emails, shifting the faculty member’s attention away from teaching and scholarly research and reducing assignment effectiveness. While Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are designed to assist students with meeting deadlines through features like calendars and email course announcements, the reality is that this technology does not eliminate missed deadlines and the associated cascade of emails with each deadline. Email messages to students are one way to remind students about upcoming assignment deadlines; however, researchers have found that students ignore email (Carnevale, 2006), and the authors posit that students often neglect emails directly from instructors or those originated by the LMS.

In this research, we compare the outcomes and student perceptions of learning in two large sections of a face-to-face business professionalism course. The course was deemed a good choice for this test as students in introductory courses often need more help in keeping up with deadlines (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) and taking a professional approach to their duties as students. For this class, students concentrated on marketing and branding themselves as business professionals, and the assignments were directly related to their professionalism. These self-marketing skills can be beneficial to students throughout their careers (McCorkle, Alexander, & Diriker, 1992). To test the effectiveness of the communication mode with the students and the influence of this communication on outcome variables, we used email and text messages. One section received deadline reminders by email, while the other section received opt-in, privacy compliant, text reminders 24 hours before deadlines. The results were compared to corroborate if using alternate methods of reminders, using delivery preferred by today’s students, affect student outcomes and improve timely submission of assignments.

We explore how using text messaging affects on-time assignment completion, perceived task mastery orientation, perceived confidence, perceived job search preparation, and course performance. In the next section, we examine traditional communication methods with students. We consider how communication is changing with the predominance of mobile devices. Next, we discuss how text reminders can be used in an undergraduate course. Then, we develop our hypotheses and test them. The article concludes with a discussion of implications for theory and practice, limitations, and future research.

Communication With Students

The importance of good communication between faculty and students has been one of the principles of high-quality education for some time (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Communication is important to examine in today’s environment as college students today are digital natives. College students have grown up surrounded by technology, and our educational system was not designed to teach this kind of student (Prensky, 2001). Sarkar, Ford, and Manzo (2017) found that digital natives are more likely to prefer delivery to mobile devices. So, with that in mind, consider how we most frequently communicate with students with the LMS when we are not in class. These systems, such as Blackboard, Sakai, Moodle, and Canvas, were designed with the goal of facilitating instructional delivery and improving student outcomes (McCabe & Meuter, 2011; Naveh, Tubin, & Pliskin, 2010). However, research indicates that students often feel that these technology resources lack effectiveness in enhancing learning. Specifically, when considering the seven principles of good practice for undergraduate education, students did not perceive that the use of LMS helped them emphasize the time-on-task instructor feedback (McCabe & Meuter, 2011). Research has demonstrated that when instructors emphasize time-on-task, there is a positive correlation with high performance; students tend to perform better because spending more time on an assignment enhances the quality of the work produced (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). These systems typically have a calendar functionality and the ability to contact students, either within a “messages” or “announcement” section or directly to the student’s university email (Blackboard Inc., 2017; Instructure, 2017; Sakai, 2017). While this form of communication may have been effective early on in the use of LMS tools, it can be argued that this effectiveness has waned. Today’s students, who are native speakers of the digital language, are much more likely to communicate on mobile devices (Prensky, 2012).

Marketing educators have explored different technological approaches to be more effective in communicating with students. Sprague and Dahl (2010) investigated personal response systems and found that clickers were beneficial to learning, especially to students who struggle with learning. Rinaldo, Laverie, Tapp, and Humphrey (2013) found that using Twitter was an effective way to engage with students and get them more involved in course material. McBane (2015) used technology to increase feedback to students through the use of barcodes. Clarke and Flaherty (2002) argue that marketing educators are “challenged to leverage and extend the benefits of mobility—ubiquity, localization, personalization, and convenience” (p. 67). Based on past research and the benefits and prevalence of mobile communication, exploring how to employ mobile devices for teaching and learning may be worthwhile for marketing educators to consider.¹

Outside of class, faculty and students often communicate via email. Email communication between faculty and students can be beneficial, but it also has drawbacks. While productive email exchanges have been shown to deepen faculty–student relationships (and is tied to higher course evaluations; Sheer & Fung, 2007), the immediacy of response and availability is a contributing factor (Wilson & Taylor, 2001). The time constraints placed on all faculty members makes immediacy of reply a challenge. Tenure-track faculty must balance the demands of teaching-related communication with research productivity, while non–tenure-track faculty, particularly adjunct faculty, frequently balance a higher number of courses and students per course (Cosman, 2014). These constraints may act as impediments to immediate response to student inquiries. Not surprisingly, email has been shown to be a significant source of stress for faculty members (Jerejian, Reid, & Rees, 2013). Across many industries, email overload is a phenomenon that reduces productivity and increases stress (Hole, 2008; Reinke & Chamorro-Premuzic, 2014; Sumecki, Chipulu, & Ojiako, 2011). To mitigate this email overload, some faculty encourage students to attend office hours versus sending emails (Jackson & Knupsky, 2015), which serves to focus the student–faculty interaction in set hours. This more-focused faculty access may reduce immediacy of response and corresponding student satisfaction with the course.

The complexity of communicating with students does not lie solely with faculty. With myriad digital stimuli, attention is fractured for university students (Junco, 2014). A recent Microsoft study indicates that the proliferation of digital technology has reduced the average human attention span to 8 seconds, while goldfish have an attention span of 9 seconds (Microsoft Canada, 2015). In an environment where students attempt to manage competing stimuli from texts, social media, email, and other digital sources, simultaneously moving away from more traditional paper-based sources such as syllabi, success in meeting course deadlines can be troublesome. Alternatives to email have emerged (Alton, 2017). University students have embraced and become heavy users of text messaging (also known as mobile short message services, or SMS). Experian cites that smartphone users aged 18 to 24 years send 2,022 texts per month on average (Experian Marketing Services, 2013), while email usage for college students has been estimated at 6 minutes per day (Junco, 2013). These two competing and opposing digital trends create challenges in communicating with students outside of the classroom. With students allocating so little time for emails and potentially receiving many emails from each course in which they are enrolled, essential email reminders from faculty may get lost in the clutter or ignored.

To effectively reach these digital natives with the goal of achieving learning objectives, it makes sense to communicate with them in the ways they are most accustomed, leading to more positive outcomes for both student and faculty member. Texting is a primary communication vehicle for this group, and they spend more than 220 minutes a day on their mobile device (Statista, 2017). Indeed, more than 90% actively engage with their phones during class time, and a small but significant percentage even reported cell phone usage while taking exams (Tindell & Bohlander, 2012). In 2018, 67% of students use their phones for coursework (Zimmerman, 2018). Text messaging is identified as one of the most immediate forms of communication, with 90% of text messages read within 3 minutes (Tolentino, 2015). The average delay for an email to be read is 6.5 hours across all students (Zinevych, 2014). Before the widespread adoption of mobile devices, the majority of students preferred receiving course-related updates via email (Salaway, Caruso, & Nelson, 2007); however, other studies have indicated that students’ preferences for communication modes have evolved (McCabe & Meuter, 2011). Researchers in digital communications have described a battle for the mobile phone lock screen, the image seen when individuals wake their phones, where push messages from apps and personal messages aggregate (Newman, 2016). This research indicates that text messages are the most common notifications allowed, followed by those from social networks (Newman, 2016).

Logically, it can be argued that communicating deadlines and information on how to successfully complete assignments to students using opt-in text messaging, one of the most popular forms of communication for this demographic, is one way to help students avoid missed deadlines (already communicated in the syllabus, LMS, and/or email). Thus, in this study, we sought to determine if communication via a newer and more generally preferred method of communication leads to better performance in the course along with improved perceptions of self-confidence and task-mastery.

On-Time Assignment Completion

Logically, it can be argued that communicating deadlines and information on how to successfully complete the assignment to students using opt-in text messaging, one of the most popular forms of communication for this demographic, is one way to avoid missed deadlines (which is communicated in the syllabus, LMS, and/or email). On-time assignment completion is defined as the number of assignments submitted correctly through the LMS and by the deadline specified in the syllabus. As mobile is the preferred method of communication by digital natives (Sarkar et al., 2017), we expect that students receiving text course reminders/instruction will benefit from the message and will be more compliant with the assignment deadline requirements. Text messages can be a way to build synergy with students to encourage the students to improve their performance (Laverie, 2006). Thus, we predict the following:

Hypothesis 1: Students receiving text message course reminders will submit more assignments on time than students receiving email reminders.

Perceived Task Mastery Orientation

It is beneficial for students to develop a task mastery orientation so that they learn to focus on the process of learning rather than the outcome (Bicen & Laverie, 2009; Selingo & Simon, 2017). This mastery is an essential skill for students who want to be successful in the business world. Employers look for outgoing, driven candidates who want to keep learning. This orientation toward learning positively influences perceived task mastery orientation. The learning environment has a positive impact on students’ task mastery orientation (Bicen & Laverie, 2009). To cultivate task mastery orientation in students, the instructor can employ text messages that encourage students to focus on doing the assignments correctly (Hammer, 2000). The learning activities are applicable to the business world and the future of the students, and this helps the student focus on skill improvement (Karns, 2005). So students who use the text messages to focus on the task at hand will master the skills needed to complete the assignments well. Since we believe students will use the text message reminders with assignment information more than the email reminders, we believe they will develop a task mastery orientation.

Hypothesis 2: Students receiving text message course reminders will report higher perceived task mastery orientation than students receiving email reminders.

Perceived Confidence

Recruiters seek out students who are cognitively and technological competent (Bicen & Laverie, 2009). Marketing educators can assist in this process by challenging student’s competencies. To develop these skills, marketing educators can assist in using technology in a way that helps students perform well and on deadline. In a learning environment where information provided to students is salient, it is expected that there is a change in perceived confidence; students feel that they are in control of their destiny (Deci, 1975). Activities that facilitate goal setting and self-direction enhance perceived confidence (DeCharms, 1976; Gallo, 2011, 2012). These efforts will be most effective if they are delivered in a modality that is well-received by students, and the text messages will be positively related to perceived confidence. Thus, we posit the following:

Hypothesis 3: Students receiving text message course reminders will report higher perceived confidence than students receiving email reminders.

Perceived Job Search Preparation

For students, effective completion of the “marketing myself” and “branding myself” assignments will help them think about and begin to prepare for the job search. These learning experiences were designed to get the students thinking about the career they aspire to and what they would need to do to prepare for that career while in business school. For example, designing a personal branding website will give preparation for the job search process. Thus, these students will feel better prepared for their professional position search. Based on preferred communication mode (text messages), we expect that students who receive the text messages will perceive the assignments to be more related to their search preparation.

Hypothesis 4: Students receiving text message course reminders will report higher contribution to perceived job search preparation from the course than students receiving email reminders.

Course Performance

Communication in the style preferred by most college students will likely make the communication more effective. Positive feedback will influence their perceptions about their ability to be successful in the course (Bicen & Laverie, 2009). Thus, we argue students receiving text messages will be more likely to pay attention to the information because it helps the student remember upcoming deadlines, which may enhance performance in the course. If the text message displayed on the mobile phone’s home screen reminds students of the assignment, procrastination may be avoided, which has been shown to have a negative effect on learning (Ackerman & Gross, 2005). Students who start the assignment sooner are likely to perform better as there is no substitute for the time spent on assignment (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Furthermore, Ackerman and Gross (2005) found that this type of reminding is perceived as useful. Conversely, students who receive course-related reminders solely by email may ignore or not see these messages, which would not have any positive effect on student behavior or outcomes in the learning experience. A primary way educators measure performance is by the grade earned in a course, and this measure typically takes into account the quality of work as it relates to specific learning objectives. If students are reminded of upcoming assignments and spend the time to complete these assignments, favorable grades are anticipated for those who act on the reminder. Therefore, we predict that text reminders of assignment information will increase students’ performance compared with those who are reminded via email.

Hypothesis 5: Students receiving text message reminders will perform better in the course than students receiving email reminders.

Method

This study was conducted in a business professionalism course focusing on online personal branding and self-marketing at a large, southern public university required for all students majoring in business. The composition of the course included mostly first-year students, some sophomores, and transfer students. For many students, this was their first course in business. Throughout the semester, students had several key deliverables: a professional résumé, which was reviewed and critiqued twice by the college’s career center; a personal website with a short biography using the about.me personal brand platform; and a complete LinkedIn profile. Assessments were completed using precommunicated rubrics measuring the quality of submitted assignments. In past experience teaching this course, the authors experienced a significant increase in communication from students when they missed assignment deadlines. As a result, this research was designed to determine which method can reduce assignment-related emails and help students achieve learning objectives through assignment completion in a timely manner.

Two sections of this course, both taught by the same instructor, were selected for this study. Student mix of grade level did not differ by class. While students in the control group were not given the option for text reminders, students in the section identified for the manipulation were encouraged to sign up for course assignment reminders via text message. More than 75% of the students who could opt in to text reminders did. A message about deadline reminders and instruction details via text was included in the syllabus and explained during the introductory class session. Students were instructed to text the course name to a phone number, which opted-in these students to receive these assignment reminders with instructions. The service used for the course is called Remind, and it allows the instructor to write, schedule, and distribute text reminders to students in the course. The service is free to both students and faculty, with no subscription required. Faculty cannot see the contact information of students participating in the service, and students cannot engage in direct texts with faculty. Additionally, just as students opt in to the service, students can opt out at any time. The service is Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) compliant as the instructor does not share any personally identifiable information. The service is heavily used in K-12 education in the United States, so many students had used this service previously, which facilitated adoption. Both sections received the same email reminders as the primary goal was to improve student performance and the research was secondary to this goal.

The section that received email reminders followed precisely the same syllabus and course assignment reminders. Emails were sent from the university’s LMS. To mirror the style and length of text messages, email reminders received by the control section were kept short and did not contain additional information. Reminders through both channels included the deadline (day and date), assignment, and how to submit (typically via Blackboard LMS). Day and time were controlled as both emails and texts were sent at the same time. See Figure 1 for the web-based interface to create and schedule text reminders and a sample reminder message.

Figure 1.

Text reminder instructor tool and sample reminder.

Data Collection and Sampling

Employing a quasi-experimental design using two sections of the course, one section received opt-in text reminders, while the other received email reminders. After all assignments were submitted, a voluntary survey seeking views on the course was administered to students. The survey was administered via Qualtrics and communicated to students in the LMS and in class. A 1-week period was established for the collection of data, and the survey was closed at the end of the period. Except for grade and on time assignments, the measures were assessed on a 7-point Likert-type rating scale anchored by 7 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree. Nominal extra credit was offered if students completed the survey. The credit could help round a final grade but made no significant impact on the final grade otherwise. The present research measures respondents who opted-in for the research and either received text reminders (n = 127) or email reminders (n = 114).

The survey was positioned as a feedback mechanism for students to share their views on the course, assignments, and the personal development they gained from the course. The section receiving text reminders had 229 enrolled students and 127 respondents (56% response rate), with 52% female and an average age of 20.7 years. The section receiving email reminders had 206 students and 114 respondents (56%), with 45% female and an average age of 20.14 years. In total, 241 students completed the survey. Grades as a measure of course performance included in our results are only for the students who completed the survey as only these students opted to participate in the research, based on the institution’s human protection board guidance.

Several outcomes were assessed to determine the impact of text reminders. First, we assessed on-time assignment completion, as this is expected to reduce student questions regarding assignment submission. To measure on-time assignment completion, the number of assignments submitted correctly through the LMS and by the deadline specified in the syllabus was measured from 0 to 6 (an index of the number of assignments submitted). If a student completed all assignments on time, they scored a 6, while students who did not submit any assignments scored a 0, with most students falling somewhere in the middle. As students in prior semesters did not submit all assignments, this measure was considered a critical outcome for this research.

The task mastery orientation scale and perceived confidence scales from Bicen and Laverie (2009) were used as they have performed well in past research. The job search preparation scale used by Rinaldo et al. (2013) is employed , and the scale has performed well in past research. The course performance measure was based on the final grade in the course, a commonly used assessment of learning and assignments closely tied to learning objectives. This measure was the sum total of grades for all assignments, including a professional résumé, a personal website with a short biography using the about.me personal brand platform, a complete LinkedIn, and attendance, and the maximum possible was 200. One of the authors was the instructor for both course sections; however, all the grading was done with rigorous rubrics by highly trained teaching assistants who were blind to the conditions.

Thus, the survey measures both measures of assignment and course success along with other constructs related to personal development and achievement in the course. Table 1 includes the scale items, item–total correlations, and reliability.

Table 1.

Key Constructs and Items.

Construct	Authors	Items	Item–total correlation	α
Perceived task mastery orientation	Bicen and Laverie (2009)	1. I felt successful in this class when I acquired new knowledge regarding personal branding.	.79	.85
		2. I felt successful in this class when I learned from my mistakes with personal branding.	.76
		3. I want to learn and understand as much as possible from this course about personal branding.	.73
		4. I prefer work that is challenging so that I can learn many new things.	.53
		5. To me, comprehending how to do personal branding is more important than the grade I get.	.57
Perceived confidence	Bicen and Laverie (2009)	1. I feel confident in doing the personal branding activities in class.	.85	.95
		2. I feel confident doing the personal branding assignments on individual assignments.	.89
		3. I feel confident using personal branding in the real world.	.89
Perceived job search preparation	Rinaldo et al. 2013	1. I plan to use my personal branding knowledge when I search for jobs.	.69	.94
		2. I plan to discuss my personal branding work in interviews.	.72
		3. I think personal branding will help me get a job.	.82
		4. I think personal branding is something I’ll need to know when I have a job.	.80
		5. Personal branding has made me a better job candidate.	.80

Results

Descriptive statistics are offered first, followed by the differences across the sections for the control variables and the hypotheses with Cohen’s d as we compared the two groups. The correlation matrix appears in Table 2 to show the relationship among the constructs. Please note many of the variables are control variables, so we did not hypothesize correlations among the variables. Construct means and standard deviations, by construct, appear in Table 3. Strong and moderate correlations are depicted in bold, following Dancey and Reidy’s (2004) interpretation of Pearson correlation coefficients and significance testing.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Constructs Tested.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. On-time assignment completion	1.00
2. Perceived task mastery orientation	.04	1.00
3. Perceived confidence	.10	.60	1.00
4. Perceived job search preparation	.14	.74	.52	1.00
5. Course performance	.89	.08	.12	.15	1.00
6. Technology adoption	−.05	.17	.22	.08	−.02	1.00
7. Playfulness	−.01	.18	.20	.16	−.01	.24	1.00
8. Social desirability	−.01	.32	.33	.31	.03	.13	.09	1.00
9. Achievement orientation	.02	.16	.10	.17	.07	.16	.27	.15	1.00
10. Narcissism	.07	.16	.19	.06	.07	.22	.07	.08	.19	1.00

Note. Text reminder condition n = 127; email reminder condition n = 114. Significant correlations are bolded.

Table 3.

Means and Standard Deviations for Text and Control Conditions.

Construct	Text condition		Control condition		p	Cohen’s d
Construct	M	SD	M	SD	p	Cohen’s d
On-time assignment completion	5.60	0.70	5.34	0.76	.006	.36
Perceived task mastery orientation	5.65	0.94	5.37	1.16	.018	.27
Perceived confidence	5.80	0.95	5.56	1.12	.033	.02
Perceived job search preparation	5.64	1.10	5.51	1.15	.180	.12
Course performance	178.68	16.01	169.00	20.70	.001	.53

Note. n = 127 for text condition. n = 114 for control condition.

Controls

To ensure that the two classes were similar in composition, scales designed to measure personality traits that could affect the outcome were embedded in the survey. Technology adoption, playfulness, social desirability, achievement orientation, and narcissism were tested. There was no significant difference between the two classes on these measures.

For early adoption of technology, as measured by an adaptation of the innovativeness scale (Goldsmith & Hofacker, 1991), there was no significant difference between the two groups (4.43 vs. 4.25 mean) with p = .13 (t[237] = 1.10, Cohen’s d = .14). Playfulness, used to assess propensity to become engaged with technology (Moon & Kim, 2001), also showed little difference between classes: the text group with 4.76 mean versus 4.62 for the email group with p = .135 (t[237] = 1.10, Cohen’s d = .16). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that neither group had a higher engagement with technology that might influence the results. Social desirability (using the scale from Crowne & Marlow, 1960) yielded similar results (5.30 vs. 5.12 means), p = .95 (t[237] = 1.69, Cohen’s d = .21). Achievement orientation was tested using the scale from Herche (1994), and no significant difference exists (4.75 vs. 4.48 mean), p = .94 (t[237] = 1.58, Cohen’s d = .20). Narcissism was measured with the scale from Ames, Rose, and Anderson (2006). Narcissism was checked as a method to determine motivation to manage impressions on the survey. The means were 4.43 versus 42.27, p = .89 (t[239] = 1.27, Cohen’s d = .17). Thus, the two sections measured similarly on scales that would possibly indicate they may want to answer the survey to be viewed favorably.

On-Time Assignment Completion

As a key requirement of the course was to submit assignments professionally, the number of assignments successfully submitted was tracked. These included two résumé submissions, a complete and professional LinkedIn profile, a personal website, professional headshot taken by the college’s career services department, and completion of credits in the research pool for the college. An index consisted of the total number of assignments was compared between the two sections. An average of 5.6 assignments was submitted per student for the section receiving text messages, while an average of 5.3 assignments were submitted per student for the section receiving email reminders. This finding was significant at p = .006 (t[236] = 2.68, Cohen’s d = .36), which corroborates that students who received text reminders were more likely to submit assignments in a timely manner than those receiving emailed reminders. Thus, Hypothesis 1 is supported.

Perceived Task Mastery Orientation

Students were also asked about perceived task mastery orientation associated with the assignments in the class. Again, the section that received text messages demonstrated greater perception of task mastery orientation than the section receiving traditional emails to their campus email account. The results were significant at p = .018 (t[236] = 2.10, Cohen’s d = .27) and support Hypothesis 2.

Perceived Confidence

Consistent with perceived task mastery orientation, students receiving texts alerts associated with assignments exhibited greater perceived confidence compared with those not receiving alerts by text. The results were significant at p = .033 (t[237] = 1.85, Cohen’s d = .02). Thus, students who were reminded via text message exhibited more confidence than those not enrolled in the service, which supports Hypothesis 3.

The students who received text reminders of deadlines reported greater confidence in the material. In this case, the course was designed to teach professional behaviors, including crafting a professional résumé, designing a robust and detailed LinkedIn profile, and other key professional deliverables. As we are building students’ confidence and courage in their search for their first jobs or internships, a minor change in course messaging, such as sending deadline reminders, demonstrates an effect by channel.

Perceived Job Search Preparation

Career preparation and effective job searching through personal branding was a consistent theme in the course through the semester. Students who opted-in to the text reminders were compared with students using only email reminders, and no significant difference existed in perceived job search preparation, at p = .180 (t[237] = 0.90, Cohen’s d = .12). This finding indicates that both classes saw similar contributions to their perceived job search preparation, regardless of the communication format received. While this finding does not corroborate Hypothesis 4, it makes sense that the delivery method of reminders would not change the core impact of the course.

Course Performance

Course performance, as measured by grade earned in the course, was based on a set number of total points possible. This total included both assignments and attendance, and the maximum possible was 200. As with the other analyses, a classical test of hypotheses was undertaken using a t test, Cohen’s d employed to describe the magnitude of the differences between the two different reminder delivery formats. This difference was significant at p < .001 (t[236] = 4.06, Cohen’s d = 0.53), so Hypothesis 5 is supported.

Discussion

Deadlines, submission method, and quality of work are all critical to success in the course described here. Faculty often look for ways to increase student success. With university-aged students being heavy consumers of mobile technology and messaging, a FERPA-compliant reminder system for courses is a good fit. A common theme in the course used in this study, prior to the implementation of this system, was that students do not check email often, which reduces success in the class. This proposed solution offsets this challenge and increases student outcomes. Two critical measures of success showed improvement for students enrolled in text message reminders: course performance and the number of assignments submitted on time. Stronger positive outcomes in perceived confidence and task were noted by the students receiving text reminders, while both classes reported similar contribution to job search preparation.

Referring back to the initial review of motivations for exploring this research, assignments submitted correctly and on time likely do not generate emails requiring faculty response (allowing the faculty to focus on teaching and research instead of grade or deadline leniency requests). Furthermore, it supports the learning objectives for the course through assignments being completed, which improves by simply scheduling reminders via text.

Students who signed up for text alerts reported greater perceptions of their abilities (perceived task mastery orientation and perceived confidence) in the class versus students who received email reminders. While the tasks in both sections of the course were identical, students receiving text reminders felt they had greater mastery of individual parts of the class. As we encourage students to engage with marketing topics that will inspire passion throughout their careers, perceived task mastery orientation can be enhanced by shifting communication mode from traditional email to mobile.

These findings imply that students who received text messages performed better in the overall course grade than students who received equivalent reminders through email. While no part of the course changed between groups, the method of communicating reminders influenced both student perceptions of their own success (task mastery orientation and confidence) and success in the course (grade and number of assignments turned in on time). As assignments are designed to support mastery of learning objectives, completing more assignments well is a goal faculty hold for students. Text reminders hold promise in supporting this aim.

For faculty, this is a free and easy-to-use solution that many students are already familiar with. While text messages cannot replace quality instruction or work that students put toward their educational outcomes, favorable outcomes were noted in these large sections. Not surprisingly, the biggest challenge encountered during the implementation of this program was getting students to read the email announcing the program. Once students were made aware of the program, feedback was that their high schools had used the Remind tool. In fact, 94% of surveyed students who subscribed to the text reminders described them as useful in the course, while 76% indicated that they are more likely to read a text message about the course than an email.

This solution can be implemented quite easily and is effective in both large- and small-enrollment sections. Messages can be prescheduled, meaning they can be drafted when the syllabus is created and scheduled for timely distribution. College support services, such as advising and career placement, can also use this service to remind students about deadlines such as registration or upcoming events. This type of service is also being used to nurture and ensure the matriculation of new first-year students to reduce enrollment wash (Diluna, 2017). As the content creation tool can be accessed from the web, instructor knowledge or expertise in mobile technology is not required for faculty who seek to improve learning objectives achieved through course assignments. This solution provides a viable method to cut through the digital clutter competing for students’ attention.

Implications for Theory

This research adds new insight into the ways that course performance (both in scores and in assignment submissions) can be improved by simply changing the method of delivery of assignment reminders. Our findings support Ackerman and Gross (2005) in that efforts to help timely submission are beneficial to students. We also build on the research of Rinaldo et al. (2013) and McBane (2015) in digital communications in the modern marketing classroom by corroborating that fresher, more direct communications methods perform better with tech-savvy contemporary college students. Merely changing the method of delivery influences perceived task mastery orientation and perceived confidence, which are two positive outcomes in the marketing classroom.

Implications for Practice

As stated previously, this new style of one-way communication with students is easy to implement and is compliant with federal privacy laws that govern the data of our students. If faculty wish to have greater clarity on deadlines and reduce the number of postdeadline email negotiations that span over multiple emails (resulting in more time spent away from course preparation and research), then this tactic also provides a simple way to reduce the added volume of emails. As marketing educators, we need to realize that our students are digital natives and effective communication with students may be more beneficial if it takes place in modes that students use. Students viewed this practice as a supportive offering designed for their success, which has been demonstrated to be a positive factor in course satisfaction and postcourse ratings (Sheer & Fung, 2007). These reminders were deemed appropriate as this course was the first business class for many students and the reminders were used to set clear expectations for the students. Arguably, this level of reminder might not be appropriate for a senior capstone course. In the business school and specifically in marketing courses, we strive to develop skills and knowledge that are important in the marketplace. One could argue that these reminders do not force students to rely on their own self-organization or the reminders can be used to teach self-organization. This is an interesting point to consider as Bacon (2017) finds that marketing knowledge is not as important as signaling to the market. Signals to the market that students have valuable skills are important (Weiss, 1995), and self-organization is an important skill. Do these frequent reminders lessen the signal? This should be explored in future research.

Additionally, because many students have used this service in K-12, the setup was a simple, painless rollout with minimal troubleshooting required by faculty members. The audience for this technology is typically tech-savvy digital natives with smartphones and comfortable in the use of text messages. Comments from students indicated that they read email sporadically, but any message delivered to the lock screen would be read. Thus, with minimal efforts, deadlines reminders can be scheduled in the Remind tool, and students view this as a demonstration of a faculty member’s care for their success. In turn, the faculty member receives fewer emails, and more assignments are turned in on time and correctly. As this finding is likely to generalize to other subjects and disciplines, this improvement in submission will improve grades, demonstrating achievement of learning objectives tied to those assignments that had reminders.

Limitations and Future Research

First, the participants in the text message condition could opt-in to receive the reminders, but participants in the email condition all received email reminders. This does not necessarily mean that either group read the delivered messages. Similarly, only students who opted to participate in the research were included in success measures like grades and submissions submitted, based on guidance from the institution’s human subjects protection group. In a perfect study, both groups would opt in, and measures of success would be included from both groups. Second, a third condition where nobody received assignment reminders would have been valuable. This case was not feasible as the researcher wanted to improve performance in the course. As a control condition would likely not improve performance for these large sections, this was not undertaken. Also, as the secondary initial goal of the innovation was to reduce emails associated with missed assignments, risking students missing assignments in a large section was not something the faculty member’s productivity could bear. Third, the sample consisted of multiple business majors, while the topic was focused on career development and self-marketing. While a sample of just marketing students would be helpful to understand if they differ from the larger population of business students, time and the structure of the course made this prohibitive. We consider this to be a viable area of future research. Additionally, we recommend testing the difference between different marketing courses that have a varying level of technology in the curriculum, such as sales management and digital marketing. It may be that the findings hold across courses with varying amounts of digital technology, but testing would be needed to corroborate.

While our response rates are reasonable for a marketing survey, non-response bias is still a factor. It could be that our respondents are different from other respondents in a meaningful way and this may especially be a problem in student surveys. Bacon, Johnson, and Stewart (2016) found that a higher response rate on student evaluation of teachers was positively related to lower ratings for teachers who were usually highly rated teachers and to higher ratings for teachers that were ordinarily low-rated teachers. When response rates are low, it is often the highly engaged students who fill out the evaluations. So, a relatively high response rate, 50%, may mean that the results are coming from both highly motivated students and unmotivated students. Future research should explore whether text reminders vary in effectiveness across various types of students.

We focus on two observable measures of success, assignments submitted on time and grade, which would naturally have a very strong correlation (r = .89). As students submit more assignments, it is hoped that the evaluation of these assignments would be positive. While this correlation exists, it is not a perfect correlation. While some students may turn in assignments, the quality of the submissions may vary. Students may fail to review the assignment instructions or rubric and miss key assignment requirements, which was observed in cases when an assignment was submitted on time and correctly but scored poorly. In future research, coding and analyzing the issues that result in students earning poor grades despite on time assignment submission. As this was not investigated or tracked, we consider it a limitation of the present research.

Finally, some faculty may disagree with providing additional reminders and assistance as business students are supposed to be responsible professionals in training. While this is indeed a valid argument, the professor of the two large sections set the standard at no late or incorrectly submitted assignments; this sets a firm standard on delivery. However, he implemented text reminders to attempt to improve performance and reclaim time that was lost to the whirling tornado of pleading emails that came in after each deadline. This simple tactic improved performance, demonstrated empathy to the students while remaining strict on deliverables, and reclaimed many lost hours in the semester. It is up to each faculty member to determine how much self-reliance to expect from students, but the ability to significantly reduce email volume and statistically demonstrate significant improvements in course performance may outweigh any initial hesitation.

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.

Notes

References

Ackerman

D. S.

Gross

B. L.

(2005). My instructor made me do it: Task characteristics of procrastination. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 5-13. doi:10.1177/0273475304273842

Alton

(2017). Phone calls, texts or email? Here’s how millennials prefer to communicate. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/larryalton/2017/05/11/how-do-millennials-prefer-to-communicate/#3a15a8e86d6f

Ames

D. R.

Rose

Anderson

C. P.

(2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440-450.

Bacon

D. R.

(2017). Revisiting the relationship between marketing education and marketing career success. Journal of Marketing Education, 39, 109-123. doi:10.1177/0273475317710061

Bacon

D. R.

Johnson

C. J.

Stewart

K. A.

(2016). Nonresponse bias in student evaluations of teaching. Marketing Education Review, 26, 93-104. doi:10.1080/10528008.2016.1166442

Bicen

Laverie

D. A.

(2009). Group-based assessment as a dynamic approach to marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 96-108. doi:10.1177/0273475309334037

Blackboard Inc. (2017). Blackboard: Education Technology & Services. Retrieved from http://uk.blackboard.com/

Buller

D. B.

Borland

Bettinghaus

E. P.

Shane

J. S.

Zimmerman

D. E.

(2014). Randomized trial of smartphone mobile application compared to text messaging to support smoking cessation. Telemedecine Journal and E-health, 20, 206-214. doi:10.1089/tmj.2013.0169

Carnevale

(2006). E-mail is for old people: As students ignore their campus accounts, colleges try new ways of communicating. Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(7), 27-31.

10.

Chickering

Gamson

Z. F.

(1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-6.

11.

Clarke

Flaherty

T. B.

(2002). mLearning: Using wireless technology to enhance marketing education. Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 67-78. doi:10.1080/10528008.2002.11488801

12.

Cosman

(2014, February). Universities are cutting tenured faculty while they load up on “non-academic” administrators. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/02/universities-are-cutting-tenured-faculty-while-they-load-non-academic-administrators/357858/

13.

Crowne

D. P.

Marlowe

(1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354. doi: 10.1037/h0047358.

14.

Curtis

Lundquist

Templer

Misra

(2013). Eaten by e-mail. Retrieved from https://www.aaup.org/article/eaten-e-mail#.Wx053y_MyXE

15.

Dancey

Reidy

(2004). Statistics without maths for psychology: Using SPSS for Windows. London, England: Prentice Hall.

16.

DeCharms

(1976). Enhancing motivation: Change in the classroom. New York, NY: Irvington.

17.

Deci

E. L.

(1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum.

18.

Diluna

(2017). College students now receiving text message reminders to show up. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/college-game-plan/college-students-now-receiving-text-message-reminders-show-n762871

19.

Experian Marketing Services. (2013). The 2013 Digital Marketer. Boston, MA: Author.

20.

Gallo

(2011, April 29). How to build confidence. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/04/how-to-build-confidence

21.

Gallo

(2012, November 29). How to master a new skill. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2012/11/how-to-master-a-new-skill

22.

Goldsmith

R. E.

Hofacker

C. F.

(1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19, 209-221. doi:10.1007/BF02726497

23.

Hammer

L. O.

(2000). The additive effects of semistructured classroom activities on student learning: An application of classroom-based experiential learning techniques. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 25-34.

24.

Harley

Winn

Pemberton

Wilcox

(2007). Using texts to support students’ transitions to university. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 229-241.

25.

Herche

(1994). Measuring social values: A multi-item adaptation to the list of values (MILOV). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.

26.

Hole

J. D.

(2008). Email overload in academia (Thesis). Rochester, NY: Rochester Institute of Technology. Accessed from https://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses/484

27.

Hunt

S. D.

Laverie

D. A.

(2004). Experiential learning and the Hunt-Vitell theory of ethics: Teaching marketing ethics by integrating theory and practice. Marketing Education Review, 14(3), 1-14. doi:10.1080/10528008.2004.11488874

28.

Instructure. (2017). Learning management system Canvas by Instructure. Retrieved from https://www.canvaslms.com/?lead_source_description=instructure.com_

29.

Jackson

L. E.

Knupsky

(2015). “Weaning off of email”: Encouraging students to use office hours over email to contact professors. College Teaching, 63, 183-184. doi:10.1080/87567555.2015.1052724

30.

Jerejian

A. C. M.

Reid

Rees

C. S.

(2013). The contribution of email volume, email management strategies and propensity to worry in predicting email stress among academics. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 991-996. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.037

31.

Junco

(2013). Comparing actual and self-reported measures of Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 626-631. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.007

32.

Junco

(2014). iSpy: Seeing what students really do online. Learning, Media and Technology, 39, 75-89. doi:10.1080/17439884.2013.771782

33.

Karns

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

34.

Laverie

(2006). In-class active cooperative learning: A way to build knowledge and skills in marketing courses, Marketing Education Review, 16(2), 59-76.

35.

Madhavaram

Laverie

D. A.

(2010). Developing pedagogical competence: Issues and implications for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 197-213. doi:10.1177/0273475309360162

36.

McBane

D. A.

(2015). Using technology to increase feedback when grading assignments. Marketing Education Review, 6, 45-58.

37.

McCabe

D. B.

Meuter

M. L.

(2011). A student view of technology in the classroom: Does it enhance the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education? Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 149-159. doi:10.1177/0273475311410847

38.

McCorkle

D. E.

Alexander

J. F.

Diriker

M. F.

(1992). Developing self-marketing skills for student career success. Journal of Marketing Education, 14, 57-67. doi:10.1177/027347539201400108

39.

Microsoft Canada. (2015). Attention spans. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Author. Retrieved from http://advertising.microsoft.com/en/cl/31966/how-does-digital-affect-canadian-attention-spans

40.

Moon

Kim

(2001). Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web context. Information & Management, 38, 217-230.

41.

Naveh

Tubin

Pliskin

(2010). Student LMS use and satisfaction in academic institutions: The organizational perspective. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 127-133. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.02.004

42.

Newman

(2016). News alerts and the battle for the lockscreen. Oxford, England: Reuters Institute.

43.

Prensky

(2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. doi:10.1108/10748120110424816.

44.

Prensky

(2012). Brain gain: Technology for digital wisdom. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

45.

Reinke

Chamorro-Premuzic

(2014). When email use gets out of control: Understanding the relationship between personality and email overload and their impact on burnout and work engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 502-509.

46.

Rinaldo

S. B.

Laverie

D. A.

Tapp

Humphrey

W. F.

Jr. (2013). The benefits of social media in marketing cognitive flexibility hypertext. Journal for the Advancement of Marketing Education, 21, 16-26.

47.

Robideaux

D. R.

Good

D. J.

(2001). Developing a Marketing Evaluative Measurement (MEM) System for assessing content knowledge. Marketing Education Review, 11(1), 7-14. doi:10.1080/10528008.2001.11488726

48.

Sakai. (2017). Sakai. Retrieved from https://www.sakaiproject.org/

49.

Salaway

Caruso

Nelson

(2007). The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, 2007 (Research study Vol. 6). Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved from https://library.educause.edu/-/media/files/library/2007/9/ers0706w-pdf.pdf

50.

Sarkar

Ford

Manzo

(2017). Engaging digital natives through social learning. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 15(2), 1-4.

51.

Selingo

J. J.

Simon

(2017). The future of your career depends on lifelong learning. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/schoolboard/2017/10/09/the-future-of-your-career-depends-on-lifelong-learning/

52.

Sharifi

Dryden

E. M.

Horan

C. M.

Price

Marshall

Hackler

. . . Traveras

E. M.

(2013). Leveraging text messaging and mobile technology to support pediatric obesity-related behavior change: A qualitative study using parent focus groups and interviews. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(12), e272.

53.

Sheer

V. C.

Fung

T. K.

(2007). Can email communication enhance professor–student relationship and student evaluation of professor? Some empirical evidence. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, 289-306. doi:10.2190/EC.37.3.d

54.

Sprague

E. W.

Dahl

D. W.

(2010). Learning to click: An evaluation of the personal response system clicker technology in introductory marketing courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 93-103. doi:10.1177/0273475309344806

55.

Statista. (2017). Daily time spent on mobile by Millennial internet users worldwide from 2012 to 2017 (in minutes). Retrieved from https://www.statista.com/statistics/283138/millennials-daily-mobile-usage

56.

Sumecki

Chipulu

Ojiako

(2011). Email overload: Exploring the moderating role of the perception of email as a “business critical” tool. International Journal of Information Management, 31, 407-414. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.12.008

57.

Tindell

D. R.

Bohlander

R. W.

(2012). The use and abuse of cell phones and text messaging in the classroom: A survey of college students. College Teaching, 60, 1-9. doi:10.1080/87567555.2011.604802

58.

Tolentino

(2015). SMS vs. push notification vs. email: When should your app use what? Retrieved from https://thenextweb.com/future-of-communications/2015/02/09/sms-vs-push-vs-email/

59.

Weiss

(1995). Human capital vs. signalling explanations of wages. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9, 133-154. doi:10.1257/jep.9.4.133

60.

Wetsch

L. R.

(2015). Using peer benchmarking to improve student motivation, effort and performance. Marketing Education Review, 19, 89-93. doi:10.1080/10528008.2009.11489065

61.

Wilson

J. H.

Taylor

K. W.

(2001). Professor immediacy as behaviors associated with liking students. Teaching of Psychology, 28, 136-138. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_14

62.

Zimmerman

(2018). More students rely on mobile devices to complete online classes. Retrieved from https://edtechmagazine.com/higher/article/2018/07/more-students-rely-mobile-devices-complete-online-classes

63.

Zinevych

(2014). E-mail vs. SMS vs. push notifications: Which is more effective? Retrieved http://publ.com/blog/2014/09/29/e-mail-vs-sms-vs-push-notifications-which-is-more-effective/