A Review of Experiential Activities in the Marketing Classroom:
Self-Marketing Plans, Community-based Learning & Client-based Projects (Oh My!)
Author
Christina McCale, Instructor
Regis University
14th Annual World Forum
Colleagues in Jesuit Business Education
International Association of Jesuit Business Schools
Business and Education in an Era of Globalization:
The Jesuit Position
July 20-23, 2008
INTRODUCTION
Selecting experiential activities for most faculty has usually been a bit like traveling down the yellow
brick road towards the hoped for “perfect fit” of the right activities for the right class – or what one might liken
to finding Oz. However, unlike Dorothy, the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly Lion, it’s not always
intuitive as to which activity students need, much less how they will benefit from each activity. Further
complicating matters, little substantive data exists in the literature to demonstrate the outcomes, skill
enhancement and career benefits for each type of activity.
Of course, it’s important to pick the right activity for the right class for many reasons, not the least of
which is career preparation. Employers have often stated that graduating marketing majors do not have the
requisite skills to be successful, entry-level professionals. This is not a new complaint. In the mid-70s,
Mintzberg (1976) described how education had to change to meet the needs of business more effectively.
“Greater use should be made of the powerful new skill-development techniques which are experiential and
creative in nature… Educators need to put students into situations… where they can practice managerial skills,
not only interpersonal but also informational and decisional.” (p. 53) The importance of business relevance in
academia (Porter & McKibbon, 1988), coupled with an increasingly challenging job market (McCorkle,
Alexander, Reardon, & Kling, 2003) magnifies the importance for students to be better prepared for the
marketplace. Today, students must not only possess the requisite marketing-related skills but also certain
supporting skills such as communications abilities and problem-solving aptitude in order to be successful as an
entry-level employee (McCorkle, Alexander, Reardon, & Kling, 2003).
Researchers have focused on a few, key, supporting skills today’s business managers continually state
are the most important to an entry-level employee’s career success which are, according to employers, missing
from the educational landscape. The abilities most commonly valued among employers include: communication
and interpersonal skills (Scott & Frontczak, 1996; Floyd & Gordon, 1998) and problem-solving skills or critical
thinking abilities (Ray & Stallard, 1994; Floyd & Gordon, 1998). Additionally, McCorkle, et al (1999) included
computer/technology skills, presentation skills, leadership skills, job search skills, teamwork skills,
multicultural skills, and creative/innovator skills.
These supporting skill sets would not typically be thought of as skills that can be enhanced by students’
marketing courses. However, the literature shows that students’ skills can be enhanced through experiential
learning activities, (Bobbitt, Inks, Kemp, & Mayo, 2000)such as through the projects discussed in this article:
Client-based projects, Self-Marketing plans, and Community-based learning projects..
The inclusion of experiential learning activities such as Self-Marketing plans, client-based projects or
Community-based learning activities can meet the needs of several constituencies: first, it can assist faculty in
educating students about the core marketing concepts being reviewed in class. Second, the project can help
students provide evidence of the specific skill sets that employers/researchers say are critical to employment
success. Lastly, employers would ultimately receive better prepared, more street-ready employees for the
workforce.
This article provides evidence of the benefits a traditional-aged undergraduate marketing student derives
from completing experiential activities in marketing classes. Client-based projects, Self-Marketing plans and
Community-based learning projects were implemented and evaluated over a series of five semesters. In
general, the research shows that what educators have always intuitively believed about the benefits of
experiential learning can be supported. Students find benefit and value in completing such projects both in
personal satisfaction as well as professional development of the key supporting skills employers indicate are not
only needed in today’s graduates. Lastly, completing such experiential activities not only provides practical
experience, but reinforces the key marketing concepts covered in marketing classes, thus aiding in learning as
encouraged by AACSB.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Experiential Learning’s Role and Relevance in Education
Experiential learning could not be more important in today’s employment marketplace. While
academics may successfully educate students in the academic theories of their various disciplines, they are not,
according to the research, preparing business students with the skill sets needed to ‘hit the ground running’
successfully in an entry-level job upon graduation. (Lamb, Jr, Shipp, & Moncrief III, 1995) If students are
lacking in specific support skill areas, Lamb, Shipp and Moncrief (1995) state that the development of these
support skills should be just as important to marketing education as the acquisition of marketing knowledge.
Alam echoes this sentiment through a quoted a speech by a Coopers and Lybrand executive who states,
“[e]mployers have problems not with the knowledge content of marketing graduates, but the level of
transferable skills which they possess….because they lack the practical approach… to understand… the
application of basic marketing concepts and principles in real life situations.” (1998: 246)
The literature points to several reasons why experiential learning activities are so vital to the
undergraduate marketing classroom. The first is what employers expect of their new recruits. Employers highly
value communication skills (Floyd & Gordon, 1998), interpersonal skills (Scott & Frontczak, 1996), and
problem-solving skills or critical thinking abilities (Ray & Stallard, 1994). Each is a translatable skill that can
be applied in a variety of situations and industries. Thus, faculty members ideally should align their course
requirements to teach students these skills in tangible ways. (Pritchard, et al., 2004)
The job climate is a second factor contributing to this project’s critical nature. While jobs may have been
plentiful several years ago, Pritchard, et al. (2004) point to the drastic changes in the job market ranging from
the constant state of change to off-shoring and outsourcing, and the increasing complexity in the job hunt itself.
Students must learn the skills necessary to effectively market themselves in an increasingly competitive job
market.
The last factor contributing to the project’s critical nature is the student population. Not surprising to
many parents and educators, many students often wait too long to begin their job hunt process (typically their
senior year). Students often excuse the lack of attention to managing their career entry due to lack of time, or
the false belief that good jobs are waiting for college graduates. Students also often overestimate their entrylevel expectations, and underestimate the amount of time and effort it may take to find a fulfilling job. (Smith,
2004; Taylor, 2003; Clark, 2005; McCorkle, et al, 2003; McCorkle, Alexander, & Diriker, 1992) By
accumulating experiences throughout college, undoubtedly students will not only have ample opportunities to
practices the skills that employers say are important but also develop a more complete Self-Marketing effort to
ease them into career entry.
The Self-Marketing Plan: Literature Overview
One such experiential learning activity discussed on a limited basis in the literature can (and will for the
purposes of this article) be loosely referred to as the Self-Marketing Plan project. The literature refers to this
project by many names and has taken many forms, falling on a spectrum of level of formality/involvement.
In a rare instance, marketing oneself is addressed at a less formal level, predominantly in small group
discussion, but used to illustrate the core concepts of the course (in this case, Principles of Marketing) (Kramer,
1988). In the mid-range of the continuum, the topic is in many instances embedded in an existing course,
typically a marketing or business communications course, and takes the form of a final project, portfolio, or
series of documents that supplement and complement the main course curriculum. Some examples include the
Job Search Project (Noll, 1995), a final project in the Business Communications course; a “Career Planning
Lab” as a component of a Managerial Communications course (May, 2005); the Resume and Professional
Action Plan Preparation Program, which is embedded in the principles of finance course (Pritchard, et al.,
2004); and a marketing plan for the individual student, embedded in the Principles of Marketing course
(McCorkle, Alexander & Diriker, 1992; McCorkle, et al., 2003; Smith, 2004). At the other end of the spectrum
is a unique, non-credit four-year course called “The Business Profession” and is required of all business majors.
(Clark, 2005)
Further, of the few articles that discuss Self-Marketing Plans or similar programs in-depth, three are
more reflective in design -- a “how to” approach for implementing similar activities in the classroom. While
some articles do have empirical data associated with them, the presented scope of the information gathered is
quite limited. Data as a whole tends to be confined to single class evaluations with limited discussion.
Client-Based Learning Literature
One common experiential activity in popular practice today is the client-based project. The literature
refers to this project in a number ways: as live cases and consulting projects most often. While a client-based
project could in theory be done in almost any marketing course, it’s most often seen in upper level courses such
as marketing research and marketing management. (Maher & Hughner, 2005; Corbin, 2002; Elam & Spotts,
2004)
While numerous articles have been written about these types of projects, few go into specific detail
about the project: often the articles are written more as a how-to approach with little substantive analysis for
what students gain from said projects. The rare exceptions do exist. However, the few studies that do measure
elements are typically very limited in scope as to what they do measure. For example: Karnes’ research (1993;
2005) provides a rare glimpse of how undergraduate students not only prefer certain experiential learning
activities but also how effective they are, based on challenge and connection to the real world. While this is
extraordinarily valuable, it does not measure what skills or knowledge students gain. While Maher and
Hughner’s study (2005) provides an excellent comparison of student preferences between client-based projects
and simulations, it measured if the students felt they had learned more – but not what they learned. Corbin’s
study (2002), while larger than the others, focuses predominantly on the students’ key learnings of group
management and teaming – certainly critical skills as per employers – but solely limited to this set of skills.
Lastly, Elam and Spotts’ study (2004) does address soft skills and benefits to the student, it does not address
whether the project reinforced or aided in the understanding of marketing content.
Employers’ needs for college graduates to graduate street ready -- that is, prepared to be able to work
professionally -- is perhaps the biggest reason to include such projects in coursework. The abilities most
commonly valued among employers include: communication skills, interpersonal, and problem-solving skills or
critical thinking abilities. These are the key, translatable skills that can be applied in a variety of situations and
industries. Thus, faculty members should align their skills and course requirements to teach students these skills
in tangible ways. (Pritchard, et al, 2004)
Community-Based Learning Literature
The terms Service Learning (SL) and Community-Based Learning (CBL) are frequently debated, both in
regard to name and meaning (Furco, 1996, p. 9; Eyler & Giles, 1999, p. 3; Mooney & Edwards, 2001, 181;
Crews, 2002, p. vii). Service Learning Centers can vary dramatically from college to college, each with its
own strengths, staff constraints and resources. Here the terms are defined as they functionally serve at one
university, not with the intention of proposing definitive conceptualizations of SL and CBL but rather to be
useful in understanding curricular inclusion and student development.
Standing within Catholic and Jesuit traditions, SL and CBL at one specific university are specific in
terms of intended outcomes and principle focus. With SL and CBL, the goal therefore, is not simply to
experience and gain a deeper understanding of the voices of the marginalized in society, but rather, to learn
about and gain the tools through which the inequitable systems and structures of society can be challenged and
changed. They also serve to connect the dots between what the students are learning in the classroom and what
is happening in the community.
Figure 1: Comparison between Community-Based Learning and Service Learning
Community-Based
Learning:
 Observe
 Interview
Service Learning:
 Direct Service
 Advocacy
 Consultancy
 CB Research
Consciousness Awareness
Application of theory Hands-on
Service Learning, at the authors’ given university, is different from Community-Based Learning. See
Figure 1 for a comparison of these two experiential activities. Typically, Service Learning refers to getting
students out of the classroom and into the community to achieve established learning goals by leveraging
community assets to meet expressed community needs.
The term Community-Based Learning refers to education that incorporates experiential assignments
intended to ground student learning in the context and content of what they encounter in particular community
settings. This type of education aims to intensify student learning in a particular content area. These
assignments generally focus around conducting observations, interviews, or surveys in the local community,
then reflecting heavily on their process and outcome. Shor (1994) refers to it as a type of:
empowering education,” CBL “adapts the subject matter and learning process to
the students so as to develop critical dimensions missing from their knowledge
and speech…to marry critical thought to everyday life by examining daily themes,
social issues, and academic lore (p. 44).
CBL assignments, in conjunction with appropriate reflection prior to undertaking the activities (preflective), strive to transform the consciousness of those involved. Properly implemented, CBL allows for
introspection, self-awareness, and personal responsibility, impacting learners’ beliefs, attitudes, and ultimately,
behaviors. Reflective components are key to this process, as “understand[ing] the significance of what we see,
hear, and touch” is vital to learning (Dewey, 1963, p. 68). Figure 2 provides a descriptive model for the
approach used in CBL activities.
Rather than the sometimes self-commending attitude that more charity-based service learning can at
times evoke in students, CBL directly impels students to explore and perhaps challenge elements of the
dominant culture that they might otherwise take for granted, while also perceiving their own complex location
within systems of power and privilege. . Whereas SL opportunities generally offer more of an opportunity to
build relationship and to focus on one topic in-depth, CBL assignments are more ideal for survey-type or
introductory level courses that aim to provide students with a greater breadth of topics and that aim to develop
creative, critical, and socially justice-focused thinking. CBL exercises also provide a strong foundation for
students who may later undertake more in-depth SL projects in future classes (Mooney & Edwards, 2001, p.
190).
Figure 2: Descriptive Community-Based Learning Model
Content Coverage
(traditional classroom work)
Learning continues and builds on
previously gained knowledge.
“Preflective” phase: review
activity descriptions, preliminary
class discussion
Reflection: how does this learning
influence how we “ought to live?”
Participate in Activities
Classroom discussion & “what can we
learn from this?”
Reflection and independent
writing
This type of learning is not neutral and does indeed carry with it a bent toward a social justice education
for the whole person. Just as Jakubowski (2003) claims involvement as the most effective strategy she’s seen
“for engaging students in a process of teaching and learning about diversity and social justice” (p. 24) so do we,
in the Jesuit tradition, agree. Through merging cognitive, experiential, and effective learning in SL and CBL,
universities and colleges can recognize:
Tomorrow’s “whole person” cannot be whole without an educated awareness of
society and culture with which to contribute socially, generously, in the real world.
Tomorrow’s whole person must have, in brief, a well-educated solidarity…When
the heart is touched by direct experience, the mind may be challenged to change.
Personal involvement with innocent suffering, with the injustice others suffer, is the
catalyst for solidarity which then gives rise to intellectual inquiry and moral
reflection. (Kolvenbach, 2000, p. 8)
WORKING TOGETHER: FACULTY AND STAFF
For the Community-based learning and Self-Marketing plan activities, a partnership between the faculty
member in the classroom and the appropriate staff (service learning for Community-based learning; career
services and academic internship office for the Self-Marketing plan) is critical to the success of such an
endeavor. The partnership can be a creative collaboration, spring-boarding a number of ideas, access to
resources, and connections to community resources that either individual working independently would not
develop. For example, as with the Community-based learning activities, being able to provide students a myriad
of activity choices – accommodating those who may be campus-bound, time-hampered or vehicle challenged –
allows students to “own” their experiences, and yet at the same time not be at a disadvantage to those who may
have more resources than others.
To be successful, faculty and staff share ideas regarding objectives, activities, key themes to highlight and
how the activity will be placed in the curriculum. Planning can not be overstated or reiterated too many times;
planning and coordination between/among the various groups the students will interact with is critical for
student success and positive word of mouth among fellow students.
RESEARCH DESIGN
A series of descriptive studies portraying the benefits undergraduate marketing students derive from
completing experiential learning activities – specifically client-based projects, Self-Marketing plans and
Community-based learning activities – were implemented in response to the following research questions: What
benefits, skills and knowledge do students gain from project completion? Can these activities prepare students
for career entry? And are there differences among these questions when considering gender, work experience,
volunteer experience and if the student has previously experienced skill enhancing academic projects?
After a trial semester had been implemented, 50-item, web-based surveys were made available to
traditional undergraduate students who had just completed marketing management, marketing research, services
marketing, or principles of marketing courses and had included one of the discussed experiential activities at the
end of Fall Semester 2006.
Table 1: Survey Totals
Activity
Marketing
Management
Community26
based Learning
Self-Marketing
0
Plans
Client-based
50
Projects
Marketing
Research
0
Principles of
Marketing
129
Services
Marketing
27
0
191
0
26
0
0
Questions were organized into basic categories: benefits, skills applied/developed, marketing content,
and career preparation to gather data to either support or reject the preceding hypotheses and were, kept fairly
consistent except in instances to reflect the course name or activity experienced. A Likert scale was used with
anchors ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Demographic data and information regarding
the student’s amount of work experience (paid, unpaid and classroom projects) were gathered. Four open-ended
questions were provided to allow students to elaborate on their experiences.
CLASSROOM METHODOLOGY
For the Self-Marketing plan and Client-based projects the students were provided an overview of the
project as part of the course syllabus review at the beginning of the term. Guidelines, sources and suggestions
were also developed and provided by the authors to help guide the students through their research. As the
semester progressed, the instructor would connect the theories being discussed in class to what was expected of
the students for their marketing plans. Specifically, for the Self-Marketing plans, students were reminded of
upcoming activities on campus that were applicable to completing the final project as well as Career Services
visits. Additionally, for both the Client-based project as well as the Self-Marketing plans, several “work days”
or “roll-up your sleeves” sessions were developed in which students could bring rough drafts of the various
sections of their Self-Marketing Plans to ask procedural or development questions of the instructor.
Additionally, the instructor was available during office hours and additional office times by appointment to
meet with teams for the Client-based project or individuals for their Self-Marketing plans.
The Community-based learning projects, due to their very nature, worked differently. During the 15
week semester, students were asked to complete one CBL exercises from each of the unit areas that directly
correlated to the text book. A variety of CBL options were available in each of the units, giving students a
breadth of opportunities from which to choose in order to focus their learning. Copies of the CBL activity lists
were provided in both the syllabus at the beginning of the semester and the instructor’s online classroom.
Students were expected to reflect through dialog and writing on these exercises and to bring their learning into
class discussions on a regular basis. Analytical reflection was vital to the success of this process because, as
Mooney and Edwards (2001) and others stress, “the greater prevalence of structured reflection in service
learning makes students more likely to apply critical thinking, synthesize information from classroom and
community settings, and examine structural/institutional antecedents of social issues…” (p. 188; Eyler & Giles,
1999, 207).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reliability
Cronbach’s Alpha was used to determine the internal consistency of the survey instrument, which
resulted .964 for the Client-based projects; a .961 for the Community-based learning activities and a .962 for the
Self-Marketing plan projects, thus determining the survey instrument was reliable.
Demographics
According to school records 46% of the student population is male with 54% being female.
Additionally, 19% of the student body is of an ethnicity other than White/Caucasian. Below are the
demographics gathered for each of the experiential learning activities. What can be determined is that typically,
the responding group did not entirely reflect the university’s student population. Typically, the classes were
more ethnically diverse, and tending to skew male. That said, however, students were not required to answer
any demographic information and were allowed to check multiple responses in terms of ethnicity and course of
study, therefore, totals may not add up to 100.
Table 2: Demographics
Client-based project
Gender (M/F)
42.7% / 43.9%
80.6% White/nonHispanic;
12.2% Hispanic;
6% as “Other.”
1.2% African American;
Class Year
83% seniors;
3.7% juniors;
6.1% No answer
Majors
40% Marketing majors;
12% Communication Arts
majors;
12% double majors in
Marketing and
Management.
Are Working?
Employment
tenure
Number of hours
working
Have unpaid work
experience?
Unpaid work
tenure
Number of hours
working
Have Academic
projects that
enhanced skill sets
Community-based
learning
45.9% / 36.6%
74.2% White/nonHispanic;
14.6% Hispanic;
4.9% Other;
3.4% as Asian;
2.9% African American;
Self-Marketing plans
55.3% / 38.7%
74.3% White/non-Hispanic;
8.4% Hispanic; 4.3%
African American;
5.8% as Asian;
7.2% as “Other.”
35.1% seniors;
46.8% as juniors;
4.4% sophomores;
2.9% No answer
17.8% seniors;
69.1% juniors;
10.5% sophomores; 1.6%
No answer
20.4% Business
Administration majors;
16.2% Marketing majors;
10.5% Accounting majors;
9.9% Finance majors;
7.9% Communication Arts;
4.2% Management majors;
81.6%
Average: 29.83 mos;
27.6% reported 4+ yrs
73.2%
Average: 29 mos,
18% reported 4+ yrs.
91.1%
Range: 1 month - 10 yrs
Average: just over 2 yrs
Range: 5-80 hrs wkly
Average: 22
35% report working 30+
hours weekly
Range: 5-50 hrs wkly
Average: 22 hrs
21% report working 30+
hours weekly.
Range: 4-80 hrs wkly
Average: 24 hrs
39% report working 30+
hours weekly.
53.7%
45.9%
60.2%
Average: 9.45 mo
9.7% reported working
24+ months
6.1% report working 48+
months.
Average: 9.6 months.
8.7% reported working
24+ months
3% report working 48+
months.
Average: 12 months
Range: 1-40 hrs wkly
Average: 9.45
11.8% report working
20+ hours weekly
Range: 1-50 hrs wkly
Average: 5.76,
6% report working 20+
hours weekly
Range 1-40 hours weekly
with an average of 6.76
much as one might expect in
an internship situation, for
instance.
75.6%
49.8%
54.5%
Hypothesis 1 Grouping: Gender-based differences
Hypothesis Group 1a revolves around gender differences: does one gender prefer or receive different
benefits from completing the various experiential activities. A t-test was performed to compare the means
between the two groups (men and women) at both the question level as well as a composite level to support or
reject Hypothesis 1.
Table 3: Hypothesis 1a Gender and Benefits
Client-based
Projects
Communitybased Learning
Self-Marketing
Plans
SD
.657
Mean
3.83
SD
.872
Mean
4.39
SD
.860
.439
3.91
.968
4.28
.852
.923
3.59
1.086
3.81
1.136
1.207
3.53
1.178
3.77
1.149
4.37
.843
3.92
.912
4.07
.953
Female
Male
4.72*
.454
4.01
.937
4.12
1.033
4.29
.667
3.87
.820
4.143
.9449
Female
Male
4.69
.525
4.05
.905
4.123
.9992
4.51
.781
---
---
---
---
Female
Male
4.58
.649
---
---
---
---
4.43
.698
---
---
---
---
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
4.53
---------
.609
---------
--3.40
3.59
3.55
3.76
--1.370
1.242
1.215
.898
--3.381
3.000
4.14
4.36
--1.3755
1.4712
.903
.786
4.34
.938
---
---
---
---
Female
4.61
.599
Gained skill sets by working with "real" Male
4.40
.812
client
Female
4.78*
.422
Will have influence on career choice
Male
3.94
.938
Female
4.25
.874
Assignment gives edge in job mkt
Male
----Female
----Required greater effort than other
Male
4.54
.741
semester projects
Female
4.69
.525
Recommend for other semesters
Male
4.34
.802
Female
4.64
.683
*95% confidence level
**90% confidence level
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
--3.71
3.78
4.02
4.32
--1.022
1.174
.990
.760
--3.85
4.14
-----
--1.007
1.102
-----
3.54
1.094
4.26
1.019
3.30
3.76
3.68
1.155
1.152
1.243
4.58
4.12
4.12
.662
.978
1.059
Benefits
Valuable learning experience
Enjoyed completing the assignment
Learned mkt strategy better than by
reading in text
Assignment is effective means of
learning mkt strategy
More valuable than completing a
Community-based Learning
Assignment
More valuable than completing a case
study
Rather completed mkt plan
More complete self mkt effort
More valuable than completing a
simulation
Gender Mean
Male
4.59
Female
4.75*
*
Male
3.97
Female
4.03
Male
On the surface, students appeared to respond quite strongly to the benefits of the client-based project.
Ninety-six percent of students either agreed or strongly agreed that this assignment was a valuable learning
experience; 95% stated that the project required more effort than other semester projects, with 93%
agreed/strongly agreeing that the skills they gained would be valuable to their future career performance by
working with a “real” client. However, the t-tests reveal a different level of information. Females appeared to
respond more favorably of the client-based activity, however, three were found to be statistically significantly
different than their male counterparts. Women responded more strongly that they felt that they had gained skill
sets by working with a “real” client, felt they had learned marketing strategy better through the client experience
rather than through a text, and that overall the client-based project was a valuable learning experience. Further,
a composite mean for the benefits statements was created and an additional t-test completed to determine if, as a
composite score, there were any differences between men and women. There was not. Therefore, H1a was
partially supported for the Client-based projects. However, in terms of the Community-based learning activities
as well as the Self-Marketing plans, neither gender’s means, nor the composite scores, indicated statistically
significant preferences. Therefore, H1a for the Community-based learning projects and Self-Marketing plans
could not be supported.
Hypothesis 1b stated that there would be differences between how men and women value their various
experiential activities in the area of employer-requested skill set development. At face value, there were strong
favorable responses to the project particularly in the Client-based project means. However, while females who
had completed Client-based projects seemed to respond more favorably that they did indeed see improvement in
their own skill sets, only one skill, project management, significantly different from the males (95% confidence
interval).
Table 4: Hypothesis 1b Gender and Skills
Skill Sets
Writing skills
Gender
Male
Female
Critical thinking skills
Male
Female
Information technology skills Male
Female
Communications skills
Male
Female
Project Management skills
Male
Female
Teamwork skills
Male
Female
Leadership skills
Male
Female
Conflict resolution skills
Male
Female
Presentation skills
Male
Female
Managing clients
Male
Female
*95% confidence level
**90% confidence level
Client-based
Projects
Mean
SD
3.83
.707
4.17
.697
4.17
.664
4.47
.560
4.06
.873
4.11
.820
4.06
.765
4.44
.652
4.31
.676
4.72*
.454
4.09
.919
4.58
.554
4.17
.664
4.58
.604
3.89
.900
4.61
.599
4.00
.767
4.44
.695
4.09
.951
4.67
.535
Community-based Self-Marketing Plans
Learning
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.59
.909
3.54
1.010
3.39
1.012
3.49
1.219
3.82
.842
3.86
.945
3.69
1.052
3.72
1.141
3.65
.947
3.75
1.081
3.51
1.010
3.65
1.243
3.50
1.003
3.76
.936
3.36
1.074
3.76
1.214
3.66
1.043
4.10
.929
3.56
1.068
3.92
1.258
2.80
1.308
----2.80
1.208
----3.00
1.287
----2.85
1.312
----3.12
1.217
----3.08
1.136
----3.10
1.320
----3.01
1.380
---------------------
A composite score was also calculated for the skills section and t-tested for the students who had
completed Client-based projects, Community-based learning and Self-Marketing plan. No statistical
significances between the men’s and women’s composite scores for any of the activities, nor at the questionlevel for Community-based learning and Self-Marketing plan students. Therefore, H1b was partially supported
for Client-based projects, but not supported for Community-based learning activities and Self-Marketing plans.
Hypothesis 1c stated that there would be differences between how men and women valued their
experiential activities in the area of career preparation. Client-based project students’ responses to the career
preparation section were strong. And while in the majority of instances, women appeared to respond more
favorably in terms of career preparation and enhancement, none of the indicators proved to be significantly
different from males’ responses in any of the activities. Further, a composite score was created and t-tested to
determine if there was a difference between men’s and women’s scored at a composite level. There was not.
Therefore, hypothesis 1c was not supported for any of the three activities.
Table 5: Hypothesis 1c Gender and Career Preparation
Client-based
Projects
I learned about myself
Set Career Goals
Think about career goals and plans
earlier than I might normally
I am more confident in my
knowledge about marketing
Can describe skills learned from
project to potential employer
Increased industry knowledge
Increased company knowledge
Increased salary knowledge
Have edge in career by completing
Increased occupation knowledge
Good example of skill sets
Project will make me more
marketable to future employers
Proud to show future employers
*95% confidence level
Community-based
Learning
Self-Marketing
Plans
Gender
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Mean
3.83
4.11
3.77
4.19
SD
1.098
1.090
.808
.920
Mean
3.30
3.24
3.13
2.97
SD
1.056
1.089
1.109
1.185
Mean
3.98
4.18
4.10
4.39
SD
1.009
.970
.970
.825
4.09
.818
3.24
1.155
4.22
.940
Female
Male
4.03
.971
3.15
1.238
4.36
.885
4.09
.919
3.73
1.049
4.20
.870
Female
Male
4.50
.609
3.89
.953
4.23
.731
3.61
.986
4.35
---
.730
---
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
4.64
--------------------4.11
4.53
.543
--------------------.676
.696
3.37
-------------------------
1.206
-------------------------
--4.19
4.26
4.22
4.32
4.13
4.32
4.10
4.34
4.17
4.35
4.03
4.31
--.856
.980
.920
.862
.910
.813
.894
.816
.837
.867
.965
.890
4.11
.867
3.62
1.069
4.07
.923
Female
4.53
.696
Male
4.14
.879
Female
4.56
.607
**90% confidence level
3.43
1.176
4.26
3.93
3.95
1.008
1.103
1.157
Hypothesis 1d stated that there would be differences between how men and women value client-based
projects in the area of marketing class content. The majority of the marketing management students saw the
connection between marketing content area topics and the client-based activity they completed. In the majority
of instances, females responded more strongly than their male counterparts, that client-based projects reinforced
their marketing content knowledge. Only one item, marketing’s role in the organization, as rated by women was
statistically significant. None of the marketing research content items were found to be statistically significant.
No statistically significant differences were found between men and women at the question level or at the
composite score level for either the Community-based learning students or the Self-Marketing plan students.
Therefore, H1d was partially supported for Client-based project students, but not supported for either
Community-based learning or Self-Marketing plan students.
Table 6: Hypothesis 1d Gender and Marketing Content
Client-based
projects
Gender Mean
SWOT Analysis
Male
4.10
Female
4.46
Target Marketing
Male
4.38
Female
4.58
Positioning
Male
4.19
Female
4.50
Product Concepts
Male
4.38
Female
4.38
Pricing Concepts
Male
4.05
Female
4.42
Place Concepts
Male
4.33
Female
4.46
Marketing Concepts
Male
4.48
Female
4.58
Segmentation
Male
4.38
Female
4.58
Marketing Strategy
Male
4.52
Female
4.75
Developing Marketing Plans
Male
4.43
Female
4.71
Integrated Marketing Communications Male
4.19
Female
4.54
Mkt's role in organization
Male
4.38
Female 4.67**
Relationship with other departments
Male
4.29
Female
4.54
Ethical Issues in Mkt
Male
4.05
Female
4.54
*95% confidence level
**90% confidence level
SD
.831
.779
.740
.584
.750
.659
.590
.711
.921
.654
.796
.588
.750
.504
.669
.584
.680
.442
.676
.464
.680
.588
.740
.482
.717
.588
.740
.658
Communitybased Learning
Self-Marketing
Plans
Mean
3.53
3.57
3.90
4.01
3.84
3.92
3.96
3.96
3.99
3.97
3.96
4.01
4.07
4.09
3.80
3.97
3.98
3.96
3.64
3.73
3.76
3.80
3.91
3.93
3.85
3.87
3.85
3.85
Mean
4.26
4.28
4.22
4.38
4.12
4.36
4.07
4.24
4.09
4.24
4.12
4.24
4.20
4.39
4.12
4.28
4.25
4.41
4.25
4.38
4.10
4.20
4.12
4.26
4.05
4.27
3.81
4.12
SD
1.207
1.221
.974
.979
.976
1.024
.994
1.006
.933
1.013
.926
1.033
.975
1.036
.957
1.013
.961
1.108
1.181
1.178
1.094
1.103
1.023
1.031
1.093
1.095
1.145
1.268
SD
.832
.944
.877
.696
.906
.713
.963
.888
.972
.857
.885
.841
.924
.841
.895
.750
.918
.826
.907
.855
.894
.906
.928
.861
.994
.865
1.110
.979
Client-based
projects
Marketing Research Content
Mkt Research Process
Problem Statements
Secondary Data
Questionnaire Design
Survey Sample
Research Report
Study Design
Appropriate Research Methods
Role of Mkt Research
*95% confidence level
Gender Mean
Male
4.50
Female
4.67
Male
4.07
Female
4.50
Male
4.43
Female
4.33
Male
4.29
Female
4.75
Male
4.36
Female
4.67
Male
4.14
Female
4.58
Male
4.29
Female
4.83
Male
4.21
Female
4.42
Male
4.21
Female
4.83
**90% confidence level
SD
.519
.492
.829
.674
.852
.778
.726
.452
.633
.492
.864
.515
.825
.389
.975
.515
.699
.389
Communitybased Learning
Self-Marketing
Plans
Mean
-------------------------------------
Mean
SD
SD
-------------------------------------
Conclusions from Hypothesis Group 1:
Hypothesis Group 1 stated that there would be differences between men and women’s perceptions of
their learning through the various experiential activities they participated in; that men (or women) would find
greater value in terms of career preparation, benefits, skill improvement, and marketing content reinforcement
having completed their semester project.
While there were differences in how men and women’s perceptions of benefits from the client based
project, there were not statistically different results between men and women’s perceptions in the self marketing
plan and community based learning projects.
Table 7: Hypothesis Group 1 Results
Client-based
Projects
Hypothesis
Dependent
Results
Variable
1a
Benefits
Partially
Supported
1b
Skills
Partially
Supported
1c
Career
Not Supported
Preparation
1d
Marketing
Partially
Content
Supported
Communitybased Learning
Results
Self-Marketing
Plans
Results
Not supported
Not supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Hypothesis 2 Grouping: Employment-based differences
Group 2 involved employment-based differences among students and their experiences with client-based
projects. Does work experience influence how a student experiences and what benefits they gain from a clientbased project? Therefore, Hypothesis 2a stated that there would be differences between employed and nonemployed students and how they valued each of the experiential activities in the area of benefits. A t-test was
performed to compare the means between the two groups (employed versus non-employed students) at both the
question-level as well as a composite score to support or reject the hypothesis for Client-based projects,
Community-based learning as well as Self-Marketing plans..
Table 8: Hypothesis 2a Employed and Benefits
Benefits
Valuable learning experience*
Enjoyed completing the assignment
Learned mkt strategy better than by
reading in text
Assignment is effective means of
learning mkt strategy
More valuable than completing a
Community-based Learning
Assignment
Rather completed mkt plan
More valuable than completing a case
study
More valuable than completing a
simulation
Employe
d
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Client-based
Projects
Communitybased Learning
Mean
SD
4.69 .499
4.45 .820
3.98 1.079
4.08 .900
Mean
3.83
4.07
3.50
4.00
Self-Marketing
Plans
SD
Mean
.873
4.34
.998
4.15
1.094
3.77
1.095
3.69
SD
.863
.801
1.142
1.032
4.61
.636
3.93
.901
4.07
.995
No
Yes
4.08
.900
4.19
.910
4.31
.480
4.52
.620
3.93
.852
4.150
.9648
No
Yes
4.33
.651
4.10
---
.908
---
3.769
---
.5991
---
4.53
.740
No
Yes
No
Yes
4.58
-----
.515
-----
4.47
.695
--3.48
3.65
---
--1.257
1.518
---
--3.218
3.077
---
--1.4299
1.0377
---
No
Yes
4.42
.515
4.44
.822
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.67
.492
4.65
.603
-----
-----
-----
-----
4.25 .866
4.13 .877
3.83 1.030
-----------------
--3.71
4.00
3.67
3.61
2.96
3.30
--1.077
1.145
1.020
1.358
1.168
1.179
--3.97
4.00
4.21
4.46
4.16
4.00
--1.061
.816
.871
.660
.911
.913
4.60
.639
3.35
1.108
4.39
.910
4.67
4.48
4.50
.651
.763
.674
3.81
3.69
4.00
1.078
1.158
1.238
4.54
4.09
4.17
.660
1.033
.577
No
Gained skill sets by working with "real" Yes
client
No
Will have influence on career choice
Yes
No
More complete self mkt effort
Yes
No
Assignment gives edge in job mkt
Yes
No
Required greater effort than other
Yes
semester projects
No
Recommend for other semesters
Yes
No
*95% confidence level
**90% confidence level
At face value, the t-tests seemed to indicate that students who are not employed enjoyed working on the
client-based project, felt it was a more valuable type of experience than other common experiential learning
types and seemed more willing to recommend the project for future class use than working students. However,
only one item’s results were statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval: working students responded
more strongly to the statement that “completing the client-based project was a valuable learning experience”
than non-working students. No such significant differences were found for Community-based learning students
nor for the Self-Marketing plan students. Further, none of the calculated composite scores found differences
between the employed and non-working student groups. Therefore, hypothesis 2a was partially supported for
Client-based projects, but not supported for either Community-based learning or the Self-Marketing plan
students.
Hypothesis 2b suggested that there would be differences between how employed/non-employed students
valued each of the experiential activities in the area of employer-requested skill set development.
Table 9: Hypothesis 2b Employed and Skills
Client-based
Projects
Skill Sets
Writing skills
Critical thinking skills
Information technology skills
Communications skills
Project Management skills
Teamwork skills**
Leadership skills
Conflict resolution skills
Presentation skills
Managing clients**
*95% confidence level
Employed
Mean
Yes
4.02
No
3.58
Yes
4.35
No
3.83
Yes
4.13
No
3.67
Yes
4.27
No
4.00
Yes
4.58
No
4.08
Yes
4.39
No
3.92
Yes
4.40
No
4.08
Yes
4.34
No
3.67
Yes
4.26
No
4.08
Yes
4.47
No
3.92
**90% confidence level
SD
.735
.793
.630
.835
.799
.985
.728
.739
.560
.793
.710
1.084
.613
.900
.745
1.073
.723
.900
.671
1.240
Communitybased Learning
Self-Marketing
Plans
Mean
3.46
3.68
3.73
4.00
3.55
3.81
3.40
3.84
3.58
3.90
2.71
3.35
2.81
3.65
3.03
3.60
2.95
3.74
-----
Mean
3.49
3.85
3.79
3.92
3.71
3.85
3.76
3.54
4.03
3.62
---------------------
SD
.953
.871
.932
.816
.969
.946
1.003
1.098
1.038
1.044
1.213
1.404
1.282
1.170
1.176
.968
1.299
1.264
-----
SD
1.100
.801
1.046
.641
1.153
.801
1.059
.877
1.053
1.193
---------------------
As a whole, working students responded more favorably that they felt they had improved their skill sets
through the client-based project (teamwork and managing client skills – both at the 90% confidence level). Is it
feasible that because these students are in the workplace, and therefore, have the ability to see what skills are
needed and observe those skills in themselves that they responded so favorably? This trend, however, does not
hold true for either the composite scores, or the t-tests for the other two activities. Therefore, hypothesis 2b was
only partially supported for the Client-based projects, but not supported for either the Community-based
learning activities or Self-Marketing plans.
Hypothesis 2c posited that there would be differences between employed and non-employed students
and how they valued their experiential activities the area of career preparation. In terms of career preparation
benefits, there were no statistically significant differences between those students who work and those who do
not for any of the activities. However, at face value, there does seem to be a difference: working students did
seem to respond more favorably that the client-based projects and Self-Marketing plans did seem to enhance
their career preparation. Non-working students, however, felt more strongly about the Community-based
learning activities – but again, not of any statistically significant difference. Further, none of the composite
scores for any of the activities showed any statistically significant differences between the composite scores for
employed and non-employed students. Therefore, hypothesis 2c was not supported.
Table 10: Hypothesis 2c Work Experience and Career Preparation
Client-based
CommunityProjects
based Learning
Mean
4.05
3.50
4.08
3.42
SD
1.078
1.000
.795
1.084
Mean
3.17
3.68
2.98
3.48
SD
1.083
.979
1.102
1.180
Mean
4.05
4.00
4.22
4.08
SD
.999
.816
.926
.760
4.15
.865
3.10
1.143
4.28
.916
No
Yes
3.58
.900
3.65
1.199
4.23
.725
4.39
.686
3.77
.984
4.26
.831
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
3.83
------------4.37
4.00
1.115
------------.683
.853
3.94
-----------------
1.063
-----------------
4.08
4.24
3.92
4.27
4.23
4.23
4.23
4.13
4.15
.862
.893
1.038
.894
.832
.876
.725
.965
.689
4.37
.773
---
---
3.91
1.144
No
4.17
.835
I can describe the skills learned Yes
from this project to a potential
4.47
.620
employer
No
4.08
.900
Project will make me more
Yes
4.39
.776
marketable to future employers
No
4.00
.853
*95% confidence level
**90% confidence level
---
---
4.00
.816
3.42
1.095
---
---
3.87
.991
---
---
3.43
1.089
4.13
.974
4.00
1.033
4.23
.832
I learned about myself
Set Career Goals
Think about career goals &
plans earlier than I might
normally
I am more confident in my
knowledge about marketing
Increased industry knowledge
Increased company knowledge
Increased salary knowledge
Good example of skill sets
Proud to show future
employers
Employed
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Self-Marketing
Plans
Hypothesis 2d stated that there would be differences between employed and non-employed students and
how they valued their various experiential activities in the area of marketing class content.
Table 11: Hypothesis 2d Employed Students and Marketing Content
Client-based
CommunitySelf-Marketing
Projects
based Learning
Projects
Marketing Content
Employed
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
SWOT Analysis
Yes
4.34
.745
3.51
1.191
4.26
.886
No
3.80 1.033
3.77
1.334
4.38
.650
Target Marketing
Yes
4.58
.552
3.92
.952
4.28
.809
No
3.90
.876
4.13
.991
4.31
.751
Positioning
Yes
4.34
.708
3.84
.990
4.22
.841
No
4.30
.675
4.00
1.000
4.15
.689
Product Concepts
Yes
4.37
.633
3.96
.968
4.14
.942
No
4.30
.675
3.97
1.048
3.92
.760
Pricing Concepts
Yes
4.24
.786
3.97
.951
4.14
.929
No
4.20
.789
4.03
.983
4.23
.725
Place Concepts
Yes
4.37
.675
3.98
.952
4.17
.863
No
4.40
.699
4.00
1.000
4.08
.862
Marketing Concepts
Yes
4.63
.541
4.07
.994
4.27
.901
No
4.10
.738
4.13
.957
4.38
.650
Segmentation
Yes
4.53
.557
3.87
.953
4.19
.828
No
4.10
.876
3.94
1.031
4.15
.801
Marketing Strategy*
Yes
4.71
.460
3.96
.962
4.31
.884
No
4.20
.919
4.00
1.183
4.38
.650
Developing Marketing Plans
Yes
4.61
.547
3.67
1.144
4.29
.893
No
4.40
.699
3.84
1.214
4.46
.519
Integrated Mkt Communications
Yes
4.37
.633
3.79
1.034
4.14
.898
No
4.30
.675
3.77
1.283
4.15
.801
Mkt's role in organization
Yes
4.63
.541
3.93
.928
4.18
.907
No
4.00
.816
3.90
1.300
4.08
.641
Relationship with other depts*
Yes
4.50
.558
3.90
.988
4.13
.956
No
4.00
.943
3.73
1.437
4.15
.801
Ethical Issues in Mkt
Yes
4.29
.732
3.83
1.153
3.92
1.056
No
4.10
.876
3.90
1.322
4.15
.987
Mkt Research Process
Yes
4.58
.504
--------No
4.50
.707
--------Problem Statements
Yes
4.29
.751
--------No
4.00 1.414
--------Secondary Data
Yes
4.38
.824
--------No
4.50
.707
--------Questionnaire Design
Yes
4.50
.659
--------No
4.50
.707
--------Survey Sample
Yes
4.50
.590
--------No
4.50
.707
--------Research Report
Yes
4.38
.770
--------No
4.00
.000
--------Study Design
Yes
4.54
.721
--------No
4.50
.707
--------Appropriate Research Methods
Yes
4.29
.806
--------No
4.50
.707
--------Role of Mkt Research
Yes
4.50
.659
--------No
4.50
.707
--------*95% confidence level
**90% confidence level
Overall, working students seemed to draw a more clear connection between the marketing concepts
provided in the courses, and the client-based projects they completed. In two instances, “marketing strategy”
and “marketing’s relationship with other departments within the organization,” these strong responses were
statistically significant at the 95% confidence interval. But while there were significant differences found
among the Client-based project students based on employment, no such differences were found with the
Community-based learning students or the Self-Marketing plan students at either the question or composite
level. Therefore, hypothesis 2d was partially supported for the Client-based projects but not supported for the
other activities.
Conclusions from Hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 2 stated that there would be differences in how working students versus unemployed
students perceived their learning through the their various experiential activities; that working students would
find greater value in terms of career preparation, benefits, skill improvement, and marketing content
reinforcement having completed the client-based project than their non-working colleagues.
As a whole, client based project scores tended to be higher, followed by self marketing plans. While
working undergraduates responded more strongly to the client-based project and self marketing plans, nonworking undergraduates seemed to respond better to the community based learning projects. The stereotype of a
college student whose main focus is to go to school and perhaps minimally work has influenced how many
faculty teach. Presuming that their traditional undergraduates lack life skills or work experience, faculty may
forego drawing students’ real world work experiences into the class discussion to help illustrate the theories.
However, with the number of employed, traditional undergraduates as well as the amount of hours many of
these students are working, faculty must find ways to connect undergraduates’ working lives with their
academic experiences, much as they would with their non-traditional adult students.
This raises a question: do unemployed students possibly crave such work experiences? Such relevance
in the classroom? Did their scores, while not being statistically significant, reinforce the Kolb’s theory that
students must be able to put the theories into practice? Further investigation into this theory might be
appropriate.
Table 12: Hypothesis Group 2 Project Results
Client-based
Projects
Hypothesis
Dependent
Results
Variable
2a
Benefits
Partially
Supported
2b
Skills
Partially
Supported
2c
Career
Not Supported
Preparation
2d
Marketing
Partially
Content
Supported
Communitybased Learning
Results
Self-Marketing
Plan
Results
Not Supported
Not supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Hypothesis 3 Grouping: Volunteering differences
Group 3 posed the question if students who have volunteered or acted in an unpaid capacity, such as an
internship, would benefit differently or have different preferences based on their experiential learning activities.
Hypothesis 3a then asked if there would be differences between students who have volunteer or who have
unpaid -experience and those who do not, and how the students valued their various projects. A t-test was
performed to compare the means between the two groups (students with volunteer or other unpaid work
experience) to support or reject Hypothesis 3a.
Table 13: Hypothesis 3a Unpaid Work Experience and Benefits
Client-based
Projects
Unpaid
Benefits
Work
Mean
SD
Valuable learning experience
Yes
4.65 .529
No
4.64 .621
Enjoyed completing the assignment
Yes
1.06
4.02
7
No
4.07 .900
Learned mkt strategy better than by
Yes
4.50 .731
reading in text
No
4.54 .693
Assignment is effective means of
Yes
4.50 .665
learning mkt strategy
No
4.43 .573
Rather completed mkt plan
Yes
-----
SD
.817
.970
Mean
4.28
4.40
SD
.913
.763
3.65
1.119
3.79
1.140
3.54
1.063
3.74
1.126
3.97
.890
3.95
1.050
3.99
.904
4.31
3.93
.833
4.009
4.02
.869
4.306
3.61
1.175
3.174
---
3.43
1.416
3.264
-------------
-------------
3.76
3.75
3.81
3.51
3.15
2.85
1.047
1.146
.942
1.213
1.164
1.184
3.96
4.00
4.17
4.33
4.04
4.32
4.39 .813
---
---
---
---
No
Yes
4.79 .418
---
---
---
---
4.36 .718
---
---
---
---
No
Yes
4.61 .567
---
---
---
---
4.50 .629
---
---
---
---
No
Yes
4.39 .994
---
---
---
---
4.57 .661
---
---
---
---
No
Yes
4.61 .685
---
---
---
---
4.59 .658
3.41
1.076
4.42
.805
No
4.61 .629
Yes
4.43 .759
No
4.57 .742
**90% confidence level
3.46
3.83
3.70
1.151
1.123
1.176
4.36
4.09
4.11
1.025
1.031
.979
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
More complete self mkt effort
Assignment gives edge in job mkt
More valuable than completing a
Community-based Learning
Assignment*
More valuable than completing a case
study
More valuable than completing a
simulation
Gained skill sets by working with "real"
client
*95% confidence level
Mean
3.95
3.82
---
Assignment will influence career
Recommend for other semesters
Self-Marketing
Plans
.781
1.026
2
.7807
1.482
4
1.278
1
1.063
1.021
.837
.888
.931
.853
No
Required greater effort than other
semester projects
Communitybased Learning
Those students who do not volunteer or participate in unpaid work such as internships seemed to
respond more strongly to the client-based projects’ overall benefits. However, and of particular note, one item
was statistically significant: students who do not volunteer or participate in internships responded more strongly
that the client-based project was more valuable to them than Community-based learning activities (95%
confidence interval). Additional research might be warranted to determine if students have a negative
perception about Community-based learning/service learning or volunteerism in that they see “nothing in it for
them.” Is it feasible students do not make the connection that they can garner career relevant skills in such
situations? A composite score was also created of the benefits responses and t-tested to determine if there was a
statistically significant difference between the two groups; there, however, was not. Therefore, hypothesis 3a
was only partially supported for the Client-based projects. However, there was no statistically significant
difference for the Self-marketing plan or Community-based learning activities between those who volunteer and
don’t volunteer at either the question or composite score level. Therefore, Hypothesis 3a could not be supported
for the Community-based learning activities or the Self-marketing plan.
Hypothesis 3b explored the concept that there would be differences between those with unpaid work
experience and how they might gain different employer-requested skills than their non-volunteering
counterparts. Students who do not volunteer seemed to respond more strongly that they improved their skill sets
– more so than volunteering students – for all the activities. However, none of these findings proved to be
statistically significant. Further, a composite score was also created of the skills responses and t-tested to
determine if there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups; there, again, was not.
Therefore, hypothesis 3b was not supported for any of the activities.
Table 14: Hypothesis 3b Unpaid Experience and Employer Skills
Client-based
Community-based
Project
Learning
Unpaid
Work
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Writing Skills
Yes
4.00
.747
3.38
.974
No
3.82
.772
3.64
.878
Critical Thinking
Yes
4.25
.651
3.65
.981
Skills
No
4.25
.752
3.92
.829
Information
Yes
3.95
.834
3.56
1.005
Technology
No
4.14
.848
3.66
.928
Communications
Yes
4.14
.765
3.51
1.114
No
4.32
.670
3.42
.912
Project Management
Yes
4.48
.628
3.67
1.041
No
4.50
.638
3.59
1.036
Teamwork
Yes
4.30
.795
2.68
1.346
No
4.29
.810
2.99
1.174
Leadership
Yes
4.32
.639
2.81
1.386
No
4.39
.737
3.10
1.165
Conflict Resolution
Yes
4.14
.852
3.01
1.247
No
4.32
.819
3.27
1.060
Presentation
Yes
4.11
.754
3.00
1.391
No
4.36
.731
3.18
1.251
*95% confidence level
**90% confidence level
Self-Marketing
Plan
Mean
3.48
3.58
SD
1.063
1.123
3.72
1.048
3.92
.975
3.63
1.165
3.85
3.71
3.79
4.01
4.00
-----------------
1.070
1.058
1.034
1.030
1.126
-----------------
Hypothesis 3c asked if there would be differences between students with/without volunteer experience
and how they value their experiential activities in the area of career preparation. While no statistically
significant findings arose out of this particular set of questions, two observations are noteworthy in the Clientbased project means. The first set of indicators were responded to more favorably by those who did not
volunteer. So, is it feasible that non-volunteering students gained valuable insight about themselves, grew more
confident in their knowledge and were put on the path towards a career – more so than their counterparts who
do volunteer? The surface level data would certainly seem to indicate so. Conversely, the second half of the
indicators resonated more with the volunteering students; students who volunteered responded more favorably
that the felt the client-based project made them more marketable, would be a good example of their skills and
that they would be proud to show their reports to potential employers. Is it because these students are already
out in the marketplace experiencing real life situations that they realize the value of such activities? Further, it
also appears that at least at surface level the students who do not volunteer seemed to respond more strongly to
the Self-marketing plan. That said, none of the items were statistically significant at either the individual
question level or the composite score. Therefore, H3c could not be supported for any of the experiential
activities.
Table 15: Hypothesis 3c Unpaid Experience Career Preparation
Client Based
Community Based Self Marketing
Projects
Learning
Plans
Unpaid
Work
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
I learned about myself
Yes
3.86
1.153
3.18
1.154
4.00
.982
No
4.11
.956
3.34
1.003
4.13
.992
Set Career Goals
Yes
3.93
.818
3.06
1.105
4.17
.891
No
4.04
.962
3.07
1.166
4.28
.953
Think about career goals and plans
Yes
4.05
.834
3.20
1.241
4.20
.890
earlier than I might normally
No
4.07
.979
3.18
1.101
4.40
.914
Increased industry knowledge
Yes
--------4.15
.910
No
--------4.33
.888
Increased company knowledge
Yes
--------4.17
.888
No
--------4.43
.869
Increased salary knowledge
Yes
--------4.19
.837
No
--------4.29
.911
Have edge in career by completing
Yes
--------4.10
.882
No
--------4.35
.808
Increased occupation knowledge
Yes
--------4.15
.840
No
--------4.40
.833
I am more confident in my
Yes
4.25
.751
3.82
1.005
4.17
.826
knowledge about marketing
No
4.36
.870
3.80
.997
4.38
.830
I can describe the skills learned from Yes
4.39
.722
3.47
1.152
----this project to a potential employer
No
4.43
.634
3.54
1.028
----Project will make me more
Yes
4.34
.805
3.50
1.162
4.03
.959
marketable to future employers
No
4.32
.772
3.59
1.025
4.32
.947
*95% confidence level
**90% confidence level
Hypothesis 3d stated there would be differences between students with unpaid work experience and
those with out and how each group saw class content reinforced in the projects. A t-test was conducted to
determine if there were statistically significant differences. In this instance, those students who do not volunteer
seemed to value the connection and reinforcement of the course content with the client-based activities and
Community-based learning activities than their volunteering counterparts. However, none of these findings
were statistically significant. A composite score was then created for both the marketing management content as
well as the marketing research content and then t-tested to determine if there was a statistically significant
difference between the two groups; there, however, was not. Therefore, hypothesis 3d was not supported for any
of the activities.
Conclusions from Hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 3 stated that there would be differences in how volunteers versus those students who did not
volunteer perceived their learning through the projects; that volunteers (or non-volunteers) would find greater
value in terms of career preparation, benefits, skill improvement, and marketing content reinforcement having
completed the projects.
The results demonstrated that volunteering or unpaid work experience had virtually no influence on
students’ responses to any of the surveys. That said, further investigation might be warranted into this area as
Generation Y continues to lead the resurgence of volunteering in the US. Non-volunteering students may gain
more insight about themselves, grow more confident in their knowledge and set out on the path towards a career
– perhaps more so than their counterparts who do volunteer. In many cases, non-volunteering students did rate
the items more highly. Thus, it may be that non-volunteering students do derive more value than their
volunteering counterparts as they, perhaps, no not have as much organizational or community exposure to help
them develop these various skill sets or level of depth of understanding of how the world or organizations work.
Further research should be done to understand the influence of volunteerism on students’ perspectives about
their academic experiences.
Table 16: Hypothesis Group 3 Results
Hypothesis
3a
Dependent Variable
Benefits
3b
3c
3d
Skills
Career Preparation
Marketing Content
Client-based
Projects
Results
Partially
Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
CommunitySelf-Marketing
based Learning
Plans
Results
Results
Not Supported
Not supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Not Supported
Hypothesis 4 Grouping: Difference in Marketing Classes
Group 4 posed the hypothesis that students in different marketing courses would experience the
Community-based learning projects differently and therefore, have different benefits.
Hypothesis 4a then sought to understand the differences between students in different marketing courses
and how they perceive their learning from the Community-based learning projects. MANOVA was conducted
to determine the differences between students in each class to support or reject Hypothesis 4a. Principles of
marketing students seemed to respond more strongly to the Community-based learning activities more so than
Services Marketing students, and particularly more strongly than Marketing Management students. Overall,
Principles of Marketing students rated the various benefits statements more highly than their Marketing
Management and Services Marketing counterparts, however a few statements were statistically significantly
different:
 Principles students enjoyed completing the Community-based learning activities more so than their
marketing management counterparts. (90% confidence level)
 Principles students felt the assignment would influence their career choices more so than either of the
other groups of students. (95% confidence level)
 Principles students felt the activities helped them move towards a more complete Self-Marketing effort
than the other groups of students. (95% confidence level)
 Principles students more strongly recommended using the Community-based learning activities in future
classes than their marketing management counterparts. (95% confidence level)
Therefore, hypothesis 4a was partially supported. Principles students seemed to experience more benefits from
the Community-based learning projects than their marketing management counterparts, and somewhat more so
than their services marketing counterparts.
Hypothesis 4b posited that there would be differences in the skill enhancements from the Communitybased learning activities different marketing courses. There were only slight differences in how the three groups
of students rated how the Community-based learning activities helped them improve their career skill sets.
Therefore, H4b was not supported.
Hypothesis 4c posed that there would be differences between students in different marketing courses and
their level of career preparation through the Community-based project. While overall, principles of marketing
students seemed to rate the various career preparation benefits more strongly than their other class colleagues,
only one statement, “I felt more confident in my knowledge of marketing as a result of completing the project”
was statistically different (95% confidence level) than the marketing management students. Therefore,
hypothesis 4c was only partially supported.
Hypothesis 4d stated that there would be differences between students in different marketing courses and
their level of marketing content reinforcement through the Community-based learning projects. In numerous
cases principles students stated they perceived they learned key marketing concepts through the Communitybased learning activity more strongly than their marketing management or services marketing counterparts
(95% confidence level).
Table 17: Marketing Content Course Comparison
Concept
Marketing Management
Pricing

Place

Promotions

Segmentation

Strategy

IMC

Marketing’s Role in the

Organization
Marketing’s Relationship with

Other Departments
Ethical Issues in Marketing

Services Marketing



Table 18: Hypothesis 4 Grouping Results
Hypothesis
Dependent Variable
Results
4
Benefits
Partially Supported
4a
Skills
Not Supported
4b
Career Preparation
Partially Supported
4c
Marketing Content
Supported
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS
Clearly, no one experiential learning activity can provide benefits to all students, nor is activity
appropriate in all situations. This study hoped to uncover what undergraduate marketing students gained from
some of the most popularly referenced forms of experiential learning activities found in the marketing literature.
While some research had been done about various characteristics of these activities, none to date has
incorporated perceived benefits, skills developed, marketing content reinforced and career preparation in one
study.
From the research, it appears that female undergraduate marketing students appear to derive more
perceived benefits from the Client-based project in the tested areas than do their male counterparts as a whole –
particularly in the marketing research course. This is not to say that males can or don’t benefit – but certainly
one area of study might be to more closely examine male participation in experiential learning to understand
more about their perceptions. While there certainly are differences between male and female responses, such as
in the skills section, the remaining question is why? Is it because males perceive that they are already entering
the courses as seniors with “adequate” skills for the marketplace (thus implying they are blissfully ignorant of
employers’ perceptions of traditional undergraduates)? Is it due to a self-efficacy difference between males and
females? Is it because females are more honest in their responses whereas males still find a need to maintain an
image of competence –even when anonymity is evident? The existing survey does not address any of these
issues, but would certainly be worth considering for future studies.
Further, is this set of experiences with experiential learning unique to marketing classes? What are the
gender differences (if any) when one studies a similar cap-stone, client-based project in a different discipline,
such as accounting or management? Would there be similar results? Another area of study to consider is to
further explore the correlation between work experience, gender and the responses on the survey. Perhaps the
males who responded lower than the females have more work experience and already feel they are “prepared?”
Lastly, it would be wise to further compare the responses found here in this study to how students react to other
forms of experiential learning, such as internships, self-marketing plans, simulations or Community-based
learning.
A less clear result came from the Self-Marketing plans and Community-based learning activities. While
none of the hypotheses were entirely supported, based on the mean scores, clearly students are deriving
perceived benefits from the experience. The very lack of differences among these common groupings
(employment, volunteerism, and gender) may indicate the very ubiquitous beneficial nature of the SelfMarketing plan itself: that all students, regardless of gender, previous work history, unpaid work experience or
skill-enhancing academic projects, can and do benefit from the Self-Marketing plan.
The determination then is what the instructor wishes to accomplish. All four key areas, general benefits,
career preparation, employment-related skill enhancement and marketing content reinforcement were
accomplished with all the activities – just not statistically significant differences between the stated independent
variables. Therefore, if faculty members are looking to improve their students’ preparation for career entry
while reinforcing marketing content, the Self-Marketing plan could be a strong experiential activity for them to
include. The Community-based learning projects clearly were more strongly recommended for the entry level
courses, as well as for more specialized marketing electives like Services Marketing where there might be no
other “competing” activity. A Community-based learning project, based on qualitative comments from the
survey, seems to pale by comparison to an activity such as the Client-based project.
Picking the right experiential activities is never as simple as what is observed in the Wizard of Oz. There
is no great and all powerful Oz to give professors exactly the right solution they need to ensure student growth,
skill improvement or content reinforcement. However, just as there were lessons Dorothy and her compatriots
learned along the yellow brick road, so too are there lessons faculty can keep in mind as they design their next
class.
 Faculty must closely coordinate with staff for the appropriate activities. Plan early and repeated visits
by campus resources who can support the activities the students will be completing, such as how to do
business/industry research, locate salary data. Publicize appropriate Career Services workshops that also
support classroom requirements, such as networking and resume writing sessions and employer panels
designed to help students understand their “target market”.
 Intentionally connect textbook content to the project. Use in-class discussions in appropriate sections to
support the final project and make the connection to the core concepts of marketing, such as
segmentation, targeting, positioning, strategy, promotions, etc.
 Determine desired goals. In addition to marketing content, faculty can impart other skills such as time
management, writing and research skills, depending on the faculty’s planned goals or objectives. If
feasible find multiple ways to reinforce similar goals/skills.
 Reinforce what students are learning. Students often do not understand why time management or
“simple” communication skills such as interviewing or report writing are important in the workplace.
They often do not understand why the ability to research salary data or information about an industry
could serve them later in their early careers. Faculty must help students connect the dots between the
classroom and future requisite business skills.
References
Abernethy, A., & Lett III, W. (2005). You are fired! A method to control and saction free riding in group assignments.
Marketing Education Review, 15(1), 47-54.
Alam, I. 1998. An experiential learning approach to undergraduate marketing education American Marketing Association
Conference Proceedings, 9, 246-255.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) International. (2003) Eligibility procedures and
standards for business accreditation. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International. Retrieved Feb 27, 2008 from
http://www.aacsb.edu/accreditation/standards.asp.
Bloom, B. (1956) Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. New York: David McKay.
Bobbit, L. M., Inks, S.A., Kemp, K.J. & Mayo, D.T. (2000). Integrating marketing courses to enhance team-based
experiential learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(1). 15-24.
Capell, P. (2002). Seniors in the job market can expect high hurdles. College Journal from the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.collegejournal.com/jobhunting/searchstrategies/200111001-capell.html.
Clark, K. (2006, October 24). College tuition keeps rising [Electronic version]. US News & World Report.
Clark, T. 2005. The business profession: a mandatory, noncredit, co-curricular career preparation program for
undergraduate business majors. Business Communication Quarterly, 68, 271-289.
Corbin, S. (2002). Improving group collaboration and student teams' understanding of responsibility through a three
phased classroom assessment technique. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 2 (Summer), 37-49.
Corporation for National & Community Service (2006) College students helping America. Retrieved February 22, 2008
from www.nationalservice.gov
Crews, R.J. (2002). Higher Education Service-Learning Sourcebook. Westport: Oryx Press.
Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and Education. New York: Collier. (Originally published in 1938).
Eastman, J., & Allen, R. (1999) Assessing a marketing program: One department’s journey. Marketing Education Review
9(2) 7-14.
Elam, E., & Spotts, H. (2004) Achieving marketing curriculum integration: a live case study approach. Journal of
Marketing Education 26(1), 50-65.
Ellis, S., & Kruglanski, A. (1992) Self as an epistemic authority: effects on experiential and instructional learning. Social
Cognition 10(4) 357-375.
Erikson, T. (2003) Towards a taxonomy of entrepreneurial learning experiences among potential entrepreneurs. Journal of
Small Business and Enterprise Development, 10(1) 106-112.
Eyler, J. & Giles, D.E. (1999). Where’s the Learning in Service-Learning? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Floyd, C.J., & Gordon, M.E. (1998). What skills are important? A comparison of employer, student and staff perceptions.
Journal of Marketing Education, 20(2). 103-109.
Furco, A. (1996). “Service-Learning: A Balanced Approach to Experiential Education.”
Jakubowski, L.M. (2003). Beyond Book Learning: Cultivating the Pedagogy of Experience through Field Trips. The
Journal of Experiential Education, 26(1), 24-33.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty productivity (ASHEERIC Higher Education Report #4 ed.). Washington DC: George Washington University, School of Educational and
Human Development.
Hansen, R. (2006) Benefits and problems with student teams: Suggestions for improving team projects. Journal of
Education for Business, 82(1) 11-19.
Hernandez, S. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: cooperative structures that facilitate active learning
and higher level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24(1), 73-85.
Kaenzig, R., Hyatt, E., & Anderson, S. (2007) Gender differences in college of business educational experiences. Journal
of Education for Business, 83(2), 95-100.
Kalenkoski, C., & Pabilonia, S. (2005). Parental transfers, student achievement and the labor supply of college students
(BLS Working Paper 387). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Karnes, G. (1993). Marketing student perceptions of learning activities: structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal
of Marketing Education, 15(1), 3-10.
Karnes, G. (2005). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: structure, preferences and
effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 163-171.
Kolb, D. (1984) Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs: NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Kolvenbach, Rev. Peter-Hans, S.J. “The Service of Faith and the Promotion of Justice in American Jesuit Higher
Education.” Commitment to Justice in Jesuit Higher Education Conference. Santa Clara University, San Jose. 6
October 2000.
Kramer, H. 1988. Applying marketing strategy and personal value analysis to career planning: an experiential approach.
Journal of Marketing Education, 10, 69-73.
Lamb, Jr, C. W., Shipp, S. H., & Moncrief III, W. C. 1995. Integrating skills and content knowledge into the marketing
curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 17, 10-19.
Leclair, D., & Stottinger, B. (1999). Using an intensive living case in graduate marketing coures: experiences from an
international project. Marketing Education Review, 9(3), 31-40.
Lincoln, D. (2006). Student authored cases: Combining benefits of traditional and live case methods of instruction.
Marketing Education Review, 16(1), 1-7.
Lopez, T., & Lee, R. (2005). Five principles for workable client-based projects: Lessons from the trenches. Journal of
Marketing Education, 27(2), 172-188.
Maher, J., & Hughner, R. (2005). Experiential marketing projects: sudent perceptions of live case and simulation methods.
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 7(Winter), 1-10.
May, G. 2005. Incorporating a career planning lab into a managerial communications course. Business Communication
Quarterly, 68, 345-357.
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.
McCorkle, D.E. Alexander, J.F., Reardon, J. & Kling, N.D. (2003). Developing self-marketing skills: are marketing
students prepared for the job search? Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 196-207.
McCorkle, D., Reardon, J., Alexander, J., Kling, N., Harris, R., & Iyer, V. (1999). Undergraduate marketing students,
group projects and teamwork: the good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of Marketing Education, 21(2), 106-117.
Mintzberg, H. (1976). Planning on the left side and managing on the right. Harvard Business Review, 54(4), 49-53.
Mooney, L.A., & Edwards, B. (2001). Experiential Learning in Sociology: Service Learning and Other Community-Based
Learning Initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29(2), 181-194.
Nicholson, C., Barnett, S., & Dascher, P. (2005). Curriculum assessment in marketing programs: Current status and
examination of AACSB core standards at the program level. Marketing Education Review 15(2) 13-26.
Noll, C. 1995. Collaborating with the career planning and placement center in the job-search project. Business
Communication Quarterly, 58, 53-55.
Porter, L.W., & McKibbon, L.E. (1988). Business education and development: drift or thrust into the 21st century. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Pritchard, R., Potter, G., & Saccucci, M. (2004). The selection of a business major: elements influencing student choice
and implications for outcomes assessment. Journal of Education for Business 79(3), 152-156.
Rassuli, A., & Manzer, J. (2005). "Teach us to learn:" Multivariate analysis of perception of success in team learning.
Journal of Education for Business, 81(1), 21-27.
Ray, C.M & Stallard, J.J. (1994). Criteria for business graduates’ employment: human resource managers’ perceptions.
Journal of Education for Business, 69(3).
Riggert, S., Boyle, M., Petrosko, J., Ash, D., & Rude-Parkins, C. (2006). Student employment and higher education:
Empiricism and contradiction. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 63-92.
Scott, J.D. & Frontczak, N.T. (1996). Ad executives grade new grads: The final exam that counts. Journal of Advertising
Research, 36(2), 40-47.
Shavelson, R., & Bolus, R. (1982) Self-concept: The interplay of theory and methods. Journal of Educational Psychology,
74(1) 3-17.
Shor, Ira. (1992). Empowering Education: Critical Teaching for Social Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Slavin, R. (89-90). Research in cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-55.
Smith, K. 2004. Implementing the “Marketing You” project in large sections of principles of marketing. Journal of
Marketing Education, 26, 123-136.
Stone, R., & Bailey, R. (2007) Team conflict self-efficacy and outcome expectancy of business students. Journal of
Education for Business, 82(6) 258-266.
Taylor, K. (2003). Marketing yourself in the competitive job market: an innovative course preparing undergraduates for
marketing careers. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(2), 97-107.
Young, M., Klemz, B., & Murphy, 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.
Zlotkowski, E. (1996) Opportunity for all: Linking service-learning and business education. Journal of Business Ethics,
15(1) 5-19.