2008 - Marketing Educators' Association

The results of this exploratory work suggest that
both “effective” programming (i.e., formal, yet
flexible) and community-building lead to satisfied
students. These antecedents are in-line with both
the educational literatures that focus on
living/learning environments, as well as the literature
in services marketing that focuses on extend service
encounters. With regard to programming, while
formal rules, procedures and guidelines for running
the program are necessary in order to identify its
theme and promote its reason for existing, an
element of vagueness is also necessary, so that the
student participants can take away their own
personal experiences. For example, in
living/learning-focused classrooms, required
readings and examinations should perhaps be
tempered with reflective journaling and/or “open”
discussions, in which students have the opportunity
to not only provide their own views on a particular
reading but also be given the chance to pull in
“outside” information that might not at first appear
relevant. Research in marketing education shows
that students learn through multiple methods, and
that students who live on campus are “active”
learners – i.e., they learn best by doing various
activities (Karns, 2006; Morrison, Sweeney, &
Heffernan, 2003). Activities that match students’
learning styles (e.g., active learning) provide the
students with experiences that foster more positive
attitudes (Morrison, Sweeney, & Heffernan, 2003).
In terms of community-building initiatives, simply
because the students live together does not
necessarily lead to common bonds and relationship
development among them. As was discussed
earlier, some groups are more likely to take
advantage of the community-building opportunities
that are implied by being part of a living/learning
program. However, effort needs to be made, to
insure that various groups (both the majority and
minority groupings) have the resources (i.e.,
programming) to develop bonds with one another.
Education is a “co-production” service; neither the
student nor the teacher (or facilitator or activity itself)
is solely responsible for the learning process
(McCollough & Gremler, 1999). Thus, it is imperative
for a living/learning program to foster relationship
development among its constituents. Only after
some time has passed during shared experiences
are individuals more likely to realize the importance
of and need for others. Returning again to the
theatrical metaphor, programming for the
living/learning environment must create a “setting” in
which various types of individuals have the
opportunities to share common experiences. In the
classroom, this could be as simple as randomly
assigning groups (as opposed to allowing students
63
to choose). In lectures and other planned
social/cultural activities, especially those where it is
impossible to include the entire living/learning
community, perhaps provide some mechanism for
randomizing invitations to those who are interested in
participating. With regard to the living environment,
support opportunities for others to interact with those
who they know, while also providing opportunities for
new interactions to break individuals out of their
“comfort” zones.
These results are biased to a particular living/learning
program. Future work needs to perhaps involve some
kind of content analysis of existing living/learning
programs, in order to identify a larger spectrum of
possible antecedents to student satisfaction. A more
exhaustive list could in turn lead to more robust (and
hopefully generalizable) measures that could be
applied to other programs. As stated earlier, with
regard to the intervening effects, although the data
suggest that the path coefficients are in the right
direction, the analyses are not significant. This is most
likely due to the small sample size. Future work will
benefit from a larger sample size.
Collegiate living/learning programs provide novel ways
for students to combine and better understand their
curricular and extra-curricular activities while in
college. From an institutional perspective, living/
learning programs provide a way to market the
institution to certain students, who seek out the option
of more closely co-mingling their various activities
while in college.
REFERENCES
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural
equation modeling in practice: A review and
recommended two-step approach. Psychological
Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
Arnould, E. J., & Price, L. L. (1993). River magic:
Extraordinary experience and the extended
service encounter. Journal of Consumer
Research, 20, 24-45.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating
structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 28, 39-50.
Grove, S. J., Fisk, R. P., & John, J. (2000), Services as
theater: Guidelines and implications. In T. A.
Swartz & D. Iacobucci (Eds.), Handbook of
services marketing and management. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 21-35.