The proliferation of social media, especially among traditional higher education students, leads many advertising educators to Facebook and other social media platforms to engage their students. This study examines student participation in a traditional face-to-face classroom setting and compares it with a concurrent online social media community of the same students. It considers whether social media can enhance student engagement in subject matter discussions. Results indicate that students who were the most active in a traditional classroom setting were also the most active in the accompanying digital community. While personality traits like extraversion may influence participation in both settings similarly, the authors conclude that student interest in subject matter may also play a critical role.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeardF. K., & YangA. (2011). Choosing and evaluating digital and online media: A conceptual/instructional model. Journal of Advertising Education, 15(2), 5-13.
2.
BordiaP. (1997). Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: A synthesis of the experimental literature. Journal of Business Communication, 34(1), 99-120.
3.
ClaysonD. E., & HaleyD. A. (2013). An introduction to multitasking and texting: Prevalence and impact on grades and GPA in marketing classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 35(1), 26-40.
4.
CroninJ. J. (2013). Get students Pinterested in marketing and advertising. Journal of Advertising Education, 17(1), 36-45.
5.
DavisB. G. (1993). Tools for teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
6.
FritschnerL. M. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom: Faculty and students differ on the meaning of student participation. The Journal of Higher Education, 71(3), 342-62.
7.
GaleK., & KreshelP. J. (2006). “Involve me and I shall understand”: Case-based teaching in advertising education. Journal of Advertising Education, 10(2), 13-21.
8.
HarperS. R. (2007). The effects of sorority and fraternity membership on class participation and African American student engagement in predominantly white classroom environments. College Student Affairs Journal, 27(1), 94-115.
9.
HoS. S., & McLeodD. M. (2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35(2), 190-207.
10.
KarnsG. L. (2006). Learning style differences in the perceived effectiveness of learning activities. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(1), 56-63.
11.
KellyK. J., & StanleyL. R. (1999). Faculty perceptions and experiences of student behavior: Does gender matter?Journal of Marketing Education, 21(3), 194-205.
12.
Laird-Magee, T. (2013). Teams build a wiki to teach each other four social media platforms. Journal of Advertising Education, 17(1), 46-54.
13.
MabritoM. (2000). Computer conversations and writing apprehension. Business Communication Quarterly, 63(1), 39-49.
14.
McCombM. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43(2), 159-70.
15.
MelvinK. B. (1988). Rating class participation: The prof/peer method. Teaching of Psychology, 15(3), 137-38.
16.
MichelettoM. J.(2011). Conducting a classroom mini-experiment using an audience response system: Demonstrating the isolation effect. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 8(8), 1-13.
17.
MiddendorfJ., & KalishA. (1996). The “change-up” in lectures. The National Teaching & Learning Forum, (5)2, 1-12. DOI: 10.1002/ntlf.10026
18.
NgI. C. L (2006). Photoessays in the teaching of marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 237-53.
19.
PeltierJ. W., DragoW., & SchibrowskyJ. A. (2003). Virtual communities and the assessment of online marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 260-76.
20.
PetersonR. M. (2001). Course participation: An active learning approach employing student documentation. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(3), 187-94.
21.
PriluckR. (2004). Web-assisted courses for business education: An examination of two sections of Principles of Marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 26(2), 161-73.
22.
RamockiS. P. (2007). Metacognition and transfer: Keys to improving marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(1), 18-24.
23.
RedaM. M. (2010, September 10). What's the problem with quiet students? Anyone? Anyone? The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(3), A68.
24.
SautterP. (2007). Designing discussion activities to achieve desired learning outcomes: Choices using mode of delivery and structure. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(2), 122-31.
25.
SaxL. (2008, September 26). Her college experience is not his. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55(5), A32-A33.
26.
SchleeR. P. (2005). Social styles of students and professors: Do students' social styles influence their preferences for professors?Journal of Marketing Education, 27(2), 130-42.
27.
StoneE. F., & StoneD. L. (1990). Privacy in organizations: Theoretical issues, research findings, and protection mechanisms. In RowlandK. M. & FerrisG. R. (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management: A research annual, vol. 8 (pp. 349-411). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
28.
SweeneyJ. C., & IngramD. (2001). A comparison of traditional and Web-based tutorials in marketing education: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 55-62.
29.
TaylorS. A., HunterG. L., MeltonH., & GoodwinS. A. (2011). Student engagement and marketing classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(1), 73-92.
30.
TuckerJ., & CourtsB. (2010). Utilizing the Internet to facilitate classroom learning. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7(7), 37-43.
31.
UeltschyL. C. (2001). An exploratory study of integrating interactive technology into the marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 63-72.
32.
WetschL. R. (2012). A personal branding assignment using social media. Journal of Advertising Education, 16(1), 30-36.
33.
YoungJ. R. (2004, November 12). When good technology means bad teaching. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(12), A31-A32.
