See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258153266

The Influence of New Product Characteristics on Rate of Adoption Increasing

Student Comprehension With the Bidding for Buyers Game

Article  in  Journal of Marketing Education · December 2012

DOI: 10.1177/0273475312455648

CITATIONS READS

11 1,635

1 author:

Brian A. Vander Schee

Indiana University Bloomington
76 PUBLICATIONS   300 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Social Media - Complimenting Behavior View project

Marketing Education – Classroom Environment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Brian A. Vander Schee on 05 February 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

455648
al of Marketing Education XX(X)Vander Schee
JMDXXX10.1177/0273475312455648Journ

Journal of  Marketing Education

The Influence of New Product Characteristics 34(3) 251­–264

© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
on Rate of Adoption:  Increasing Student sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0273475312455648

Comprehension With the Bidding for Buyers

http://jmed.sagepub.com

Game

Brian A.Vander Schee1

Abstract
The five characteristics that influence new product rate of adoption are routinely covered in the Principles of Marketing
course. Any particular marketing concept such as relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, divisibility, and communicability
may not capture interest or engagement among students who take the course as a graduation requirement. Thus, an active
learning activity game was developed to address the lack of participation and understanding. Primary assessment of the
activity (n = 300) demonstrated that students found Bidding for Buyers a valuable learning experience by encouraging class
participation and student motivation. A confirmatory study (n = 85) also demonstrated that student comprehension of
new product characteristics and their influence on rate of adoption using a traditional lecture and Bidding for Buyers was
significantly higher compared with just a traditional lecture covering the same material.

Keywords
active learning, games, diffusion of innovations, new product

Marketing educators face the task of keeping students
engaged in the classroom environment while providing
some assurance that the time spent adds value to the student
learning experience. This is particularly the case in the
introductory marketing course where students from a vari-
ety of business-related majors enroll to fulfill a graduation
requirement. Various pedagogical approaches including
active learning have been used to address the problem of
classroom engagement to help clarify concepts and high-
light their application. The research presented here adds to
the body of knowledge on active learning by reporting on
how well an in-class game in Principles of Marketing met
its objectives. The objectives include encouraging class
participation, enhancing student motivation, and improving
student comprehension.
The objective for players in Bidding for Buyers is to earn
the most points by setting the best price for a newly modified
portable media device targeted at price-conscious consumers
who are part of the early and late majority adopter categories.
The objective for instructors is for students to gain a better
understanding of how new product characteristics, namely
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, divisibility, and
communicability (Rogers, 1962) influence the consumer rate
of adoption of new products. This is demonstrated through a
direct measure of student learning. The original concept for
Bidding for Buyers was adapted from Bill Bigelow’s (2002)
Transnational Capital Auction: A Game of Survival.
Literature Review
Student engagement in the introductory marketing course
can be rather low as most students enrolled in the course are
not marketing majors (Taylor, Hunter, Melton, & Goodwin,
2011). As a required core business course it is usually the
nonmarketing business majors in particular that often expe-
rience apathy and disconnect in Principles of Marketing
(Shanahan, Hermans, & Haytko, 2006). To overcome this
challenge, many marketing educators use active learning
exercises to increase participation (Yamarik, 2007) often
times using specific incentives such as small prizes to
heighten interest and effort (Chylinski, 2009; Wooldridge,
2008). Active-learning team-based games in particular are
the kind of activities that increase student engagement,
regardless of chosen major (Taylor et al., 2011).
1
Aurora University, Aurora, IL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Brian A.Vander Schee, Dunham School of Business,  Aurora University, 347
S. Gladstone Avenue,  Aurora, IL 60506, USA
Email: bvanders@aurora.edu

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016

252 Journal of  Marketing Education 34(3)
Active Learning
Active learning as envisioned in its early development
involves engaging students with the course content so that
they readily make application of the material (Hamer, 2000).
Using this approach increases class participation, student
motivation, and student performance (Drea, Tripp, &
Stuenkel, 2005; Karns, 2006). Conversely, class participation
can also foster active learning (Dallimore, Hertenstein, &
Platt, 2006) by using teams (Hernandez, 2002), competitions
(Vander Schee, 2007a; Widmier, Loe, & Selden, 2007), or a
combination of teams and competitions (Ducoffe & Tucker,
2004; Rundle-Thiele & Kuhn, 2008). Other studies document
the benefits to using teams to enhance student learning in
marketing education, including exposure to diverse perspec-
tives (Amato & Amato, 2005), enhanced student motivation
(Denton, 1994), positive student experiences (Hernandez,
2002), and improved student learning (Lancellotti & Boyd,
2008). Indeed, active participation in general improves the
student learning experience (Chylinski, 2010).
One concern regarding active learning is that many
research reports document perceived learning by students
rather than direct measures of mastering concepts (Karns,
2006). The results of a meta-analysis of self-assessment stud-
ies by Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, and Bauer (2010) suggest that
when students self-assess their learning in class, it is more of
an expression of how they feel about a course rather than how
much they actually learn from taking it. This is consistent
with the findings of Bacon (2011) where student performance
on direct measures of learning was not significant, yet stu-
dents perceived that their learning was enhanced by the peda-
gogical approach under investigation.
Confounding results regarding student perceptions of
learning can be partially explained by metacognition. High
academic achievers are much more aware of what they do
not know and thus underestimate their mastery of knowl-
edge. Low academic achievers are unaware of what they do
not know and thus overestimate their performance. This
makes self-assessment of student learning suspect and limits
the reliability of indirect measures such as student percep-
tions of learning (Clayson, 2009).
A good situation is where a direct measure indicates
enhanced student learning even if an indirect measure sug-
gests the contrary. An even better situation is where students
demonstrate increased learning via a direct measure and
have positive feelings about the teaching approach. They
would then be more likely to provide positive feedback on
the course evaluation. Although student learning is the pri-
mary focus, the extrinsic reward serves as an incentive for
faculty who might otherwise resist investing the time needed
to adopt teaching strategies such as course evaluations in the
merit and promotion process (Albers-Miller, Straughan, &
Prenshaw, 2001).
Active learning strategies that students find enjoyable are
a starting point for incorporating strategies that will enhance
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016
student learning, not just their perception of such strategies.
Students view games positively as they have been used to
promote active learning for some time (Bergstrom & Miller,
1997; Wells, 1991). Team-based games encourage active
learning because students often find team-based active learn-
ing valuable and enjoyable (Laverie, 2006). Using games
translates to greater student learning provided the activities
involved are also challenging and have real-world applica-
tion (Karns, 2006). Teaching with games has also shown to
enhance student understanding of course material (Gremler,
Hoffman, Keaveney, & Wright, 2000) and improving critical
thinking skills (Ackerman, Gross, & Perner, 2003).
Computer games have advantages in that they can be
played with very large classes, remotely, or over a longer
period of time (Ironside, Joerding, & Kuzyk, 2004; Day &
Kumar, 2010). However, they also can be too complex
(Gentry, Burns, & Fritzsche, 1993), create anxiety (Grimley,
Green, Nilsen, Thompson, & Tomes, 2011), and lead to stu-
dent frustration with the technology (Halvorson, Ewing, &
Windisch, 2011). The interactivity of a noncomputer, com-
petitive game played in real time for just one class period
offers the benefits of other active learning strategies without
the limitations encountered with exclusive computer use.
Competitions in particular tend to foster heightened class
involvement and motivation to participate (Vander Schee,
2011). These kinds of active learning exercises have built-in
flexibility in that they can range from a portion of one class
period (Allerd & Swenson, 2006), a full class period with the
effects lasting much longer throughout the semester (Vander
Schee, 2007b) to a semester-long project (Greene, 2011;
Munoz & Huser, 2008). This study describes an innovative
competition-based active learning game completed in one
class period. The application of active learning is specific to
characteristics that influence new product rate of adoption.
New Product Characteristics
and Rate of Adoption
The consumer market has been divided into five categories
based on when they choose to adopt a new product innova-
tion, namely innovators, early adopters, early majority, late
majority, and laggards (Rogers, 1983). Much research has
focused on identifying the characteristics of those who
belong to a particular category (Donnelly & Ivancevich,
1974; Goldsmith & Flynn, 1992; Klink & Athaide, 2010;
Martinez, Polo, & Flavian, 1998; Schreier, Oberhauser, &
Prugl, 2007). This is understandable because identifying
the characteristics of those in the segment most likely to
make the purchase and then influence the purchases of
others is a very profitable approach. From a product
development perspective, identifying the product charac-
teristics that hasten consumer purchase is also beneficial.
Rogers (1962) has described the five characteristics that
influence the rate of adoption of new products (Rogers &
Shoemaker, 1971).
Vander Schee 253
Characteristics are connected to other marketing concepts
such as how the rate of adoption is linked to innovation take-
off, or the speed of making the transition from introduction
to growth in the product life cycle (Chandrasekaran & Tellis,
2008). Pricing is connected to new product characteristics,
particularly during commercialization or the transition from
product development to introduction (Chiesa & Frattini,
2011). Connections can also be made to consumer behavior
and social influence later in the growth stage (Du &
Kamakura, 2011; Kim & Park, 2011). It is at this point that
product modifications, reflected in product pricing can
encourage mass adoption, particularly for price-conscious
consumers.
Although the terms and the concepts they represent are
readily apparent to marketers, they may not be so intuitive
to students who have had little exposure to the marketing
discipline. When talking about complexity, students may
not realize that this characteristic of new products is linked
to pricing, consumer behavior intentions and actions, as
well as social connectedness of consumers (Goldenberg,
Han, Lehmann, & Hong, 2009). For example, consumers
indicate that they prefer new products with higher complex-
ity along with a good match for their needs and lower uncer-
tainty. However, when it comes to actual purchase decisions
consumers do indeed adopt less complex innovations at a
higher rate (Arts, Frambach, & Bijmolt, 2011). Those who
do choose more complex products often suffer from feature
fatigue, which leads to lower postpurchase satisfaction
(Thompson, Hamilton, & Rust, 2005).
Given the high failure rate of new product launches
(Schneider & Hall, 2011) it is important for students to
appreciate the influence of the five characteristics.
Efficiency in product development and deployment is thus
heavily scrutinized. Students need to be prepared to engage
in that conversation even if their career aspirations are in
business but not necessarily marketing in particular.
Therefore, it is important to develop a teaching innovation
to get students enthused about and increase their compre-
hension of new product rate of adoption characteristics.
Highlighting the early and late majority adopter category
with a modified portable media device focuses student
attention on mass consumer appeal. Using that scenario as
a starting point allows the conversation to easily extend
from innovators and really new products to laggards and
product failures.
A major challenge may be capturing student interest in
the topic at the outset because most students in the Principles
of Marketing course only take the class as a graduation
requirement (Taylor et al., 2011). The Bidding for Buyers
game addresses this concern directly. The objectives for
instructors using Bidding for Buyers are to increase class
participation, enhance student motivation, and improve stu-
dent comprehension regarding new product characteristics
that influence rate of adoption. Instructions on how to execute
the game are provided in the Method section.
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016
Method
Auctions have been used in class to demonstrate how a par-
ticular auction process works, such as electronic reverse auc-
tions (Williams & Dobie, 2011). Having students prepare for
each round of the silent auction is used in Bidding for Buyers
to simulate the consumer buying decision process. Then pric-
ing is used as a proxy for the level of new product develop-
ment characteristics that influence consumer rate of adoption.
Pricing has also been used in other active learning exercises
(Ducoffe & Tucker, 2004) and is one area where simply
delivering the course content without application limits stu-
dent understanding of its dynamic nature (Clow & Wachter,
1996). The team-based approach has demonstrated positive
student outcomes related to involvement and achievement
(Esposto & Weaver, 2011; Geringer, Stratemeyer, Canton, &
Rice, 2009; Laverie, Madhavaram, & McDonald, 2008). In
Bidding for Buyers these teaching elements were brought
together to demonstrate how new product characteristics
influence the rate of adoption. The game was executed after
a 10-minute lecture covering the characteristics and their
influence on new product rate of adoption. No grade or extra
credit was offered for participating in the game as this was
part of a regular class. The game is usually played one third
of the way through a 15-week semester.
Bidding for Buyers Suggested Procedure
The Bidding for Buyers game fits well within a 45-minute
time frame. The game is executed with the following time
requirements in mind. Game introduction and explanation
takes approximately 5 minutes. The first round takes about
10 minutes with the subsequent Rounds 2 through 5 lasting a
total of 15 minutes. The debriefing session requires 15 min-
utes but can last longer depending on the nature of the discus-
sion. To prepare for the activity, create the Score Card in an
EXCEL spreadsheet similar to the one provided in Table 1.
With at least 14 students in the class, let students self-
select into seven companies. Ask the companies to form
around the classroom, as far away from other companies as
possible. This can work with up to 50 students in the class.
For larger sections, consider having multiple industries, each
with seven companies and list each industry on a separate
sheet in the EXCEL workbook.
Then distribute copies of (a) Instructions and Definitions
(see Tables 2 and 3), (b) Selling Price List (Table 4), and (c)
Auction Record (Table 5). Read the Instructions aloud with
students. Emphasize the distinction between selling price and
game points. Then review the Selling Price List. Point out
that a company earns more game points the more it encour-
ages the rate of adoption of the new innovation. Announce
that the three companies (per industry for larger sections)
with the most game points will win small prizes (e.g., candy).
For the first round tell students to make their bids in each
of the categories and total up their selling price on the
254 Journal of  Marketing Education 34(3)

Table 1. Score Card Table 2. Instructions

Company You are the management team of the new products division
in a global technology company. Each of your companies has
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 equal access to the American consumer market.You have been
Round One charged with modifying a new portable media device targeted at
the lucrative price-conscious early and late majority segments of
 Bid   new product adopters.You must compete with other companies
 Rank   also focused on this segment and each is about to modify
  Game points   their own new product similar to yours. Marketing research
 Penalty   shows that you can increase the rate of adoption of your new
product modification by offering the following characteristics:
Round Two high relative advantage, high compatibility, low complexity,
 Bid   high divisibility, and high communicability. However, meeting
 Rank   consumer expectations also adds to cost and thus increases
the selling price. Many price-conscious consumers will forego
  Game points  
expensive new products. At the same time, new products that
 Penalty  
are priced very low may be perceived as defective or of marginal
Round Three benefit. The challenge is finding the best combination of product
characteristics to gain consumer confidence and therefore sales
 Bid   from the target market.
 Rank   There will be a series of auctions to capture the purchasing
  Game points   power of this target market.You win the game by ending up
 Penalty   with the most game points after five auction rounds. In this
activity it is assumed that innovators and early adopters have
Round Four
already purchased the new product. So you are working with a
 Bid   new product modification targeting the early and late majority
 Rank   of adopters.You must focus on value by balancing product
  Game points   characteristics with selling price. Therefore the company that
bids the 4th lowest selling price in a round is awarded 100 game
 Penalty  
points, the company with the 3rd lowest selling price gets 50
Round Five game points, and the company with the 2nd lowest selling price
gets 25 game points. The other companies get no points for the
 Bid   round because the focus is on capturing the price-conscious
 Rank   consumer early and late majority. The auction is silent—you do
  Game points   not know until the end of each round who bid what.
 Penalty   Keep in mind that the lower you go with price, the more your
product may be perceived by consumers as being cheap. Price-
Grand total points  
conscious consumers want affordable, easy-to-use innovations,
however marginally lower priced products may be viewed as
having low quality, being unpopular, or simply a poor investment.
That is why the company bidding the lowest selling price does
not get any game points.Your company may bid the lowest
Auction Record. Note that this is really the hardest round selling price once. For each time you are the lowest bidder
because students have no way of knowing what the other more than once, you lose game points (15 the first time, 30 the
companies will bid. After each company has submitted its 2nd, etc.) as a cheap product penalty.
bid, enter the total selling prices in the EXCEL spreadsheet.
This should be displayed so the whole class can see the
results. Award the game points based on the results as
explained in the Instructions. After a minute or so cover up prices and award game points for that round. Keep a run-
the scoring results until the end of the next round. From this ning total of each company’s game points. After the final
point on, the competition to win, or for small prizes, takes round award small prizes (i.e., candy) to the winners and
over, and students continue to put together the winning debrief with a discussion based on the questions provided
combination of characteristics for their new product in Table 6.
modification.
In the event of a tie in selling price in a given round each
team with the same selling price earns the appropriate game Bidding for Buyers Game Execution Rationale
points. To score ties, stop awarding points once three com- A newly modified portable media device was selected as the
panies have been awarded game points or you reach the product to introduce to the marketplace. The functionality
fifth lowest selling price, whichever comes first. After each of this kind of product is generically understood well
round of bids (five in total), continue to post the selling enough so that significant details about the product are not

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016

Vander Schee 255
Table 3. Definitions
Relative advantage: The degree to which the innovation appears
superior to existing products. The greater the perceived relative
advantage of the innovation, the sooner it is adopted.
Compatibility: The degree to which the innovation fits the
values and experiences of potential consumers. The more
compatible the innovation is with the lifestyle and technological
infrastructure available to the public, the sooner it is adopted.
Complexity: The degree to which the innovation is difficult to
understand or use. The easier the innovation is to use, the
sooner it is adopted.
Divisibility: The degree to which the innovation may be tried on
a limited basis. The shorter the required service contract, for
example, the sooner it is adopted.
Communicability: The degree to which the results of using the
innovation can be observed or described to others. The more
visible the innovation, the sooner it is adopted.
Source. Adapted from Armstrong and Kotler (2011).
necessary. The focus of the activity was on the new product
characteristics, not on product specifications. The newly
modified aspect was developed to make the product appro-
priate to the price-conscious early and late majority adopter
categories. Other market segments and the corresponding
changes needed in the game to reflect them were addressed
in the debriefing session as described in the Discussion sec-
tion.
The five features were designed to reflect the five new
product characteristics that influence rate of adoption,
namely, relative advantage, complexity, compatibility, divis-
ibility, and communicability. Relative advantage for exam-
ple was listed using an Industry Standard Index. This allowed
students to see that a measure is quantifiable yet for the sake
of providing simplicity in the game, further details are omit-
ted. It also encouraged students to focus on strategy and
application more so than feature mechanics. Having students
compete in teams strongly encouraged interaction and the
incentive to win gave them a collective responsibility to
learn the concepts such that they could contribute meaning-
fully to the team. Those who were unsure of particular ele-
ments could seek clarification in the social safety of their
own team. Organizing the game with five rounds of bidding
was designed to overcome the guessing that would occur if
there was only one round. Allowing teams to examine the
results of prior rounds encouraged them to set a strategy for
future bids. This also encouraged students to anticipate the
actions of competitors, very much the situation in an actual
marketing setting.
Primary Study
This study was conducted at a small private college over six
semesters using 14 sections of the Principles of Marketing
course with an average class size of 24.3 (SD = 2.6) taught
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016
by the same instructor. A survey asking for student percep-
tions regarding the effectiveness of the Bidding for Buyers
game and debriefing session or the class lecture alone cover-
ing the same material was administered during the subse-
quent class meeting 2 days later. The survey items adapted
from Vander Schee (2011) are provided in Table 7. This was
done to determine whether the game and debriefing session
along with the lecture or just the lecture was viewed more
positively in terms of increasing class participation and
enhancing student motivation.
Student responses were recorded using a 5-point Likert-
type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.
Students were also asked to provide written comments to
elaborate on their quantitative responses. Demographic data
such as sex, major, and year of study documented on the sur-
vey were tabulated using SPSS. Paired samples t-test analysis
was used to see if student responses differed based on content
delivery format, namely the game and debriefing session
after the lecture or just the lecture. Written responses were
coded by the most common themes expressed by the respon-
dents and then tallied for frequency.
Confirmatory Study
In the most recent semester of this study two sections of
Principles of Marketing participated in the game and debrief-
ing session following a lecture whereas one section only
received a lecture on the same material. A 10-question multi-
ple-choice quiz (see the appendix) was then administered in
the next class meeting. The reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was
rather low with α = .517, which is not unusual for a multiple-
choice assessment with only 10 items and thus has limited
reliability. An independent samples t test was conducted to
determine if the game and debriefing period following the
lecture was more effective in improving student comprehen-
sive regarding new product characteristics that influence rate
of adoption more so than a traditional lecture alone. Effect
size analysis using Cohen’s d as a standardized measure was
then used to make comparisons between the difference in quiz
score (direct measure of learning) and individual survey items
(indirect measures based on student perceptions). Each analy-
sis in this study was conducted at the .05 alpha level.
Results
Primary Study
The survey was completed by 300 students. Gender was bal-
anced in survey respondents with 43% female. Most of the
students who completed this survey were in a business-
related major with 48% in Business Administration, 18% in
Accounting, 5% in Marketing, 15% in Other Business, and
14% in Other Non-Business. Self-reported year of study was
centered on middle-year students with 13% freshman, 31%
sophomore, 47% junior, and 9% senior. Table 7 displays the
256 Journal of  Marketing Education 34(3)

Table 4. Selling Price List

Relative Advantage Compatibility
a
Ind Std Index Selling Price ($) Feature Selling Price ($)

−65 10 A. Significant lifestyle adjustment, limited local infrastructure 10

−60 15 B. Significant lifestyle adjustment, moderate local infrastructure 20
−55 20 C. Some lifestyle adjustment, limited regional infrastructure 30
−50 24 D. Some lifestyle adjustment, moderate regional infrastructure 55
−45 27 E. Some lifestyle adjustment, regional infrastructure in place 80
−40 30 F. Limited lifestyle adjustment, moderate national infrastructure 90
−35 33 G. Limited lifestyle adjustment, national infrastructure in place 100
−30 37  
−25 40  
−20 43  
−15 46 Divisibility

−10 49 Feature Selling Price ($)

−5 52 A. Two-year service contract, no rebate offer 10
0 55 B. One-year service contract, 10-day free trial, no rebate offer 35
+5 58 C. One-year service contract, half rebate offer 45
+10 61 D. Six-month service contract, 10-day free trial, half rebate offer 55
+15 64 E. Six-month service contract, rebate offer 65
+20 67 F. No service contract, 10-day free trial, rebate offer 75
+25 70 G. No service contract, 60-day free trial, rebate offer 100
+30 73  
+35 76  
+40 79  
+45 82  
+50 85  
+55 88  
+60 91  
+65 94  
+70 97  
+75 100  

Complexity Communicability
b
Rating Index Selling Price($) Feature Selling Price ($)
100 10 A. Limited to home use 10
90 14 B. Limited to home use, fashion accessory 25
80 18 C. Can be used in home or auto 40
70 22 D. Can be used in home or auto, fashion accessory 55
60 26 E. Can be used in home or auto, social network provided, 70
fashion accessory
50 30 F. Universal use, social network provided 85
40 35 G. Universal use, social network provided, fashion accessory 100
30 42  
20 48  
15 55  
10 60  
5 70  
3 80  
2 90  
1 100  

a. Ind Std Index = Industry Standard Index where 0 is equal to the industry average.
b. Rating Index = Consumer research rating where 1 means minimal learning needed and 100 means several days needed to master use.

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016

Vander Schee 257

Table 5. Auction Record

Round One Index/Feature Selling Price Round Two Index/Feature Selling Price
Relative advantage Relative advantage  
Complexity Complexity  
Compatibility Compatibility  
Divisibility Divisibility  
Communicability Communicability  
Total Total  
Round Three Index/Feature Selling Price Round Four Index/Feature Selling Price
Relative advantage Relative advantage  
Complexity Complexity  
Compatibility Compatibility  
Divisibility Divisibility  
Communicability Communicability  
Total Total  
Round 5 Index/Feature Selling Price  
Relative advantage  
Complexity  
Compatibility  
Divisibility  
Communicability  
Total  

Table 6. Discussion Questions
1. How would you bid differently if the target market was
innovators? Laggards?
2. How should the game point system change if the target market
was innovators? Laggards? In either case would there be any
point to the game?
3. With an actual new product innovation which of the five
characteristics would contribute the most to selling price?
Why?
4. Which innovation characteristics are more influential for
services? Goods?
5. The lower the selling the price, the less consumers have to
commit to try it. Does this aspect of divisibility matter more
or less to innovators?
6. Does communicability matter more to innovators, the majority,
or laggards?
7. How can an innovation offer greater relative advantage and a
lower selling price?
8. Given the target market, is the cheap product penalty an
accurate reflection of actual consumer behavior? If no, what
would be more appropriate criteria?
9. Did the average industry selling price over the course of
five rounds follow the typical pattern found in the actual
marketplace?
survey results. Students were asked to provide written com-
ments regarding what they liked or disliked about the game,
how the game enhanced their learning, and what, if anything
they would change about the game for future classes. Table 8
displays a summary of the themes extracted from the most
common comments.
As seen in Table 7, the survey items related to class par-
ticipation clearly indicate that Bidding for Buyers encour-
aged class participation (M = 4.55) more so than just the
traditional lecture (M = 3.29). Students also rated the items
Was a positive experience and Enhanced my learning expe-
rience significantly higher for Bidding for Buyers com-
pared with the lecture alone. As displayed in Table 8,
student responses regarding what they liked about the game
frequently addressed increasing participation. Represen-
tative sentiments include I liked the game because we used
strategy, planning, group orientation, and got everyone
involved and The whole mechanics of the game were very
engaging.
Table 7 also displays the survey results with items relat-
ing to student motivation. In each case the average response
was significantly higher for Bidding for Buyers than just the
lecture. In general students indicated a preference for the
game (M = 4.44) over the lecture (M = 2.84). More specifi-
cally they rated Increased my enthusiasm for the course and
Encouraged me to learn the concepts significantly higher
for Bidding for Buyers as well. Student comments regarding
motivation to learn ranged from, I actually had to pay atten-
tion since there were prizes involved, to The game got us
excited and kept us all involved, and To play the game I had
to learn the definitions.

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016

258 Journal of  Marketing Education 34(3)

Table 7. Student Perceptions Based on Content Delivery Format (n = 300)

Gamea Lecturea

Survey Item M SD M SD Diff. t p Cohen’s d

Encouraged me to participate in today’s class 4.55 0.680 3.29 0.902 1.27 20.43 .000 1.577
Was a positive experience 4.54 0.773 3.61 0.891 0.93 15.68 .000 1.115
I prefer learning concepts using the game/lecture 4.44 0.842 2.84 1.056 1.59 18.16 .000 1.675
Increased my enthusiasm for the course 4.31 0.863 3.30 0.874 1.02 17.05 .000 1.163
Enhanced my learning experience 4.29 0.873 3.61 0.849 0.68 10.43 .000 0.790
Encouraged me to learn the concepts 4.22 0.852 3.73 0.829 0.49 7.81 .000 0.583
Helped me better understand the concepts such 4.07 0.948 3.67 0.846 0.40 6.02 .000 0.445
that I could explain them to a friend
Clarified any confusion I had about the concepts 4.06 0.914 3.78 0.912 0.28 4.10 .000 0.307
a. Level of agreement mean rating with Likert-type scale where 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree.

Table 8. Student Written Feedback Summary

1.  What aspects, if any, of the Bidding for Buyers game did you really like?
  The competition provided an incentive to master the material (33%)
  Working in teams allowed students to help each other increase concept understanding (16%)
   Using logic and strategy was required in each round (9%)
   Applying the concepts in a simulation made the learning interactive (6%)
   Debriefing afterward forced students to demonstrate that they understood the material (5%)
2.  What aspects, if any, of the Bidding for Buyers game did you really not like?
   None (meaning they liked everything) (53%)
   Positive comments provided (even though the opposite was solicited) (21%)
   Initial explanation was not clear (13%)
  Too much focus on pricing, not product characteristics (13%)
3.  What aspects of the Bidding for Buyers game enhanced your learning experience?
   Directly using the concepts in the game (35%)
   Application to a real-world setting (23%)
   Students had to understand the concepts to be successful in the game (19%)
   Repeatedly focusing on the characteristics in each round (17%)
4.  What, if any, would you change about the Bidding for Buyers game?
   None (meaning they would not change anything) (74%)
   Positive comments provided (even though the opposite was solicited) (12%)
   Be more thorough in the initial explanation of how to play the game (9%)
   Deter teams from simply focusing on price and not the characteristics (5%)

Student perceptions regarding their learning of the mate- Confirmatory Study

rial, an indirect measure of learning, as displayed in Table 7
suggests that Bidding for Buyers was a more constructive
experience. Students more strongly agreed that the game,
Helped me better understand the concepts such that I could
explain them to a friend (M = 4.07) compared with the lec-
ture alone (M = 3.67). They also indicated that the game,
Clarified any confusion I had about the concepts (M = 4.06)
to a greater degree than the lecture (M = 3.78). Student-written
feedback supported these general perceptions by specifically
addressing improved student performance. An example
includes Instead of just listening to the definitions with exam-
ples in the lecture we had to directly apply the concepts to the
game creating a deeper understanding.
Active learning exercises often do not use assessment to
demonstrate that students actually learned anything, particu-
larly in comparison with a more traditional approach (Young,
Caudill, & Murphy, 2008). Therefore, in the next class meet-
ing after the game an unannounced 10-question, multiple-
choice quiz was administered (see the appendix). The results
of that quiz show that those who participated in the game and
debriefing period after the lecture scored significantly higher
(n = 49, M = 6.49) than those who were only exposed to the
lecture (n = 36, M = 4.44), t(83) = 4.72, p < .001.
It is possible that those who experienced the game and
debriefing period scored higher on the unannounced quiz

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016

Vander Schee 259
because they were predisposed with having higher academic
achievement. However, the results of an independent sample
t test showed no significant difference in cumulative grade
point average between those who were exposed to the game
and debriefing period (n = 49, M = 2.99) and those who were
only exposed to the lecture (n = 36, M = 2.96), t(83) = 0.34,
p = .738. Thus, the difference in quiz scores can be attributed
to the pedagogical approach taken in the prior class period.
Effect Size and Constructive Feedback
The data in Table 7 show that the effect size for the first four
items on the survey were large (Cohen’s d > 0.8) whereas the
next two items were medium (0.5 < Cohen’s d < 0.8). The
final two items which represent indirect measures of student
learning, namely Helped me better understand the concepts
such that I could explain them to a friend and Clarified any
confusion I had about the concepts had a small effect size
(Cohen’s d < 0.5). The effect size (Cohen’s d = 1.041) for the
difference in quiz scores between those who experienced the
game and debriefing session after the lecture compared with
those who experienced just the lecture was large.
Some students provided constructive feedback regarding
potential improvements to the game for future consideration.
These included specific recommendations such as allowing
the groups to debrief individually before drawing in the whole
class, using a line graph instead of just a spreadsheet to show
trends in prices, and at times students started to focus on just
getting the feature costs to total to a particular price rather than
consider the contribution of each characteristic. These sugges-
tions are helpful in getting students to think critically about the
game itself during the debriefing session as discussed below.
Discussion
In Bidding for Buyers, students made clear connections
between new product characteristics and consumer rate of
adoption. Price setting was used a proxy for a more complicated
process whereby students could see how new product charac-
teristics influence the rate of adoption. The in-class experience
provided a nonthreatening environment where everyone could
benefit from the explanations students made with each other in
teams and then in the debriefing session with the class as a
whole. Having seven teams competing provided an incentive
for students to try their best and to really understand the con-
cepts such that they could make ready application. Social loaf-
ing, which is a common challenge in group work (Aggarwal &
O’Brien, 2008) was also minimized in that the group exercise
only lasted for one class period and prizes were used as an
incentive. Specific outcomes regarding the game experience
and debriefing session are provided below.
Game Experience
To some degree increasing participation occurs naturally
when students are assigned to work in teams (Parsons &
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016
Lepkowska-White, 2009). However, adding a competitive
element helps students focus their energy to reach a common
goal. This was certainly the case in Bidding for Buyers as
students had an incentive to do well. The fact that this was a
competition for one team to win was enough motivation to
excel considering the nominal nature of the small prizes
(i.e., candy) on the line. Survey results indicate that Bidding
for Buyers encouraged class participation and enhanced stu-
dent motivation. Thus the game met its first two objectives
for instructors. Beyond merely viewing the game as enjoy-
able, students also appreciated the interaction and reflection.
The effects of the game are not only limited to the experi-
ence of the class period when the game was played. This type
of active learning approach where students become more
involved also generates more interest in the course content
(Frontezak, 1998; Sautter, 2007). Survey results confirm a
similar finding for Bidding for Buyers as the average rating
for the survey item, Increased my enthusiasm for the course,
was rated significantly higher for the game (M = 4.31) than
the lecture (M = 3.30). Benefits can carry on long after the
game is finished (Vander Schee, 2007b).
When asked to provide written comments about the game
the most common responses as listed in Table 8 centered on
the benefits of using a competition (33%), working in groups
(16%), using logic and strategy was required (9%), making
application of the concepts (6%), and enhanced learning dur-
ing the debriefing session (5%). Additional representative
comments include I liked the group aspect and if I didn’t
understand something my peers could show me; I loved
working in groups for competition–we worked well together
and learned more from each others’ perspectives; It helped
me to understand the concepts and what marketers really do,
the competition got us all excited about the concepts and
kept us all involved; and The debriefing helped me to connect
the concepts to my experience.
Debriefing Session
The debriefing session provides a comfortable setting for
students to reflect on the experience and dialog about what
they have learned (Paladino, 2008; Peltier, Hay, & Drago,
2005). This is where students have the opportunity to dem-
onstrate what they have learned and to seek clarification
about concepts that still may be unclear. In this case, analyz-
ing various aspects of the game itself was instrumental in
making application of the new product rate of adoption
characteristics.
The debriefing session included nine questions, listed in
Table 6. The first two questions ask about player and game
rule modifications based on a different target segment. Students
who understand characteristics associated with Innovators
quickly determine that maximizing new product features is
advantageous. Thus, the scoring in that case should be modi-
fied to reflect the most points going to the highest bidding
price. For any team that did not figure out the strategy in the
first round would certainly do so in the second and, thus, with
260 Journal of  Marketing Education 34(3)
every team bidding the highest possible price there would be
no point to the game. The same scenario would play out for
the Laggards category with the focus and scoring rewards on
the lowest bidding price. This helps students see the logic
behind the scoring used for the price-conscious early and late
majority adopter category.
The third question in the debriefing session asks about
which of the five characteristics contribute most to the selling
price with an actual new or newly modified product. Students
provide various responses, however at some point the dynamic
nature of Relative advantage is noted. Thus, it is a continuous
cost center as companies strive to match any improvement
developed by competitors. This conversation is revisited in
Question 7 which asks about how an innovation can offer
greater relative advantage and a lower selling price? Concepts
regarding market penetration and economy of scale from a
previous chapter are revisited to explain how this can be
accomplished. Students often spend time discussing which of
the other four features can be compromised in favor of relative
advantage, which is often related to the product category.
The Cheap Product Penalty is addressed in Question 8.
Students typically agree that a difference in price by a few dol-
lars does not really dissuade customer purchase. Consumers will
only have feelings of deficiency, lack of popularity, poor ser-
vice support, or outdated model when the product is priced
marginally less than competitors. Thus, the penalty should only
be enforced when the lowest bidding team is at least 20% lower
than the next lowest price bid. This would be applied to any
round, not just after the first time a team qualifies for it. Rather
than actually change this rule for future administrations of the
game, it is helpful to retain it for the sake of providing a lively
discussion regarding its application in the debriefing session.
In addressing the last debriefing session question the
instructor shows the average selling price per round. The
typical pattern is for the price to lower round by round with
the fourth and fifth rounds rather close. Although this can
vary every time the game is played, regardless of the pattern,
it can lead to a fruitful discussion regarding pricing with new
products or newly modified products introduced to the mar-
ket. Not only does this make the activity more realistic, it
provides another opportunity to review concepts related to
gaining market share, consumer perceptions, and pricing.
The debriefing session is an integral part of the activity.
The game itself provided a relaxed, yet competitive atmo-
sphere to enthuse and engage students in the learning pro-
cess. And in the same spirit as the activity by Makienko
(2009), Bidding for Buyers helped students transition from a
mode of memorization to one of understanding and applica-
tion. Again, the debriefing session in particular afforded stu-
dents the opportunity to demonstrate their understanding of
the material by making application to other settings.
Measures of Student Learning
The results of the student survey also indicate that students
perceived an increase in their understanding of the concepts.
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016
Results of the quiz administered in the next class meeting
confirmed student perceptions as students who participated
in Bidding for Buyers scored significantly higher than those
who only experienced a lecture covering the same material.
This is a notable finding compared with other studies where
students were indifferent about their participation in a simu-
lation game or found it more enjoyable but then they did not
perform any better than a control group of students who
covered the same material in a regular format (Bobot, 2010;
Dolvin & Pyles, 2011; Grandzol & Wynn, 2011). The game
met its third objective for instructors regarding demonstrated
student learning and thus makes Bidding for Buyers a valu-
able teaching tool in marketing education.
Students had no cues regarding their learning from the
activity when they completed the survey. Nor did they know
that they would be assessed on the material the next time the
class met. This may partially explain why the indirect measures
of student learning, namely the last two survey items were
small compared with the standardized direct measure (i.e., quiz
scores). The absence of cues regarding actual learning may
explain why the results here are contrary to those found by
Bacon (2011) where students perceived that they increased
their learning but the direct measures of such learning proved
the contrary. Thus, student perceptions may be influenced by
performance feedback. When none is offered they do not have
any external reference for comparison. Given the high level of
engagement and enjoyment, students may assume that these
active learning approaches are too fun to be educational.
Another consideration worthy of discussion is the time on
task. Students who only experienced the lecture spent approxi-
mately 10 minutes covering the characteristics and their
influence on new product rate of adoption. Students in the
experimental group spent an additional 45 minutes covering
the material via the game and debriefing session. Thus, it is
possible that the additional time dedicated to covering the con-
cepts may account to some degree for the increase in direct
measures of student learning. The fact that students found this
additional time an enjoyable experience helps explain the pos-
itive outcome regarding the indirect measures of student learn-
ing even though the standardized effect size was small.
Hamer (2000) suggests that experiential learning activi-
ties should be more broad based, give students greater con-
trol over their learning, and endure longer than a traditional
lecture. The Bidding for Buyers game is reflective of these
requirements in that students were engaged, used concrete
examples of the concepts, and spent more time on task than
they would simply listening to an explanation from the
instructor. The debriefing session provided further reflection
on the concepts and their application in the game and then to
the real-world setting. This process helps to focus students
on the learning objectives of the activity (Hatcher & Bringle,
2000), in this case, increased comprehension of the charac-
teristics that influence the adoption rate of new products.
The game also fostered elaborative verbal rehearsal where
students were encouraged to not only remember the important
points regarding the concepts with repetition but also to be
Vander Schee 261

creative in their selected strategy to perform at a higher level
as a team (Simpson, Olejnik, Tam, & Supattathum, 1994).
They were then instructed to explain their rationale among
teammates to demonstrate that they understood the concepts.
Although this was not assessed directly, student comments
suggested that the degree to which this took place varied by
team. Even though some students may not have consciously
processed that they were using a particular technique to
increase their learning, they did in fact achieve so as demon-
strated on the direct learning assessment.
The results of this study are significant but there are things
to consider when making direct application to the Principles
of Marketing course. The study was limited to one institution
and one instructor using the game for six semesters. The pri-
mary study may suffer from retroactive construction of details
to conform to the implicit appraisals in that students provided
their perceptions of the two teaching approaches only after
both were complete. Thus students may remember the lecture
less favorably as a result of experiencing the Bidding for
Buyers game and debriefing session after the lecture. The
increased time devoted to mastering the concepts in the
experimental setting may also confound the results as time on
task is not accounted for in the analysis. The confirmatory
study assessing student comprehension was also limited to
only 85 students. Perhaps with a larger pool of students the
results could be more generalized.
One concern that came up in the written comments was
that some students focused more on price than on applying
the five characteristics to the bidding situation. To address
this in the future, the instructor will require a logical expla-
nation regarding team strategy from the winning teams as a
requirement before actually awarding the prizes. Other
future research could focus on adaptation to an upper level
undergraduate marketing course or assessment in larger class
sections. Students could also be asked to modify the rules to
more accurately reflect an actual marketplace where modi-
fied new products are introduced and then play the game a
second time with the rule modifications in place. Finally,
assessment of student learning could be enhanced by increas-
ing the reliability of the unannounced quiz.
Conclusion
Active learning exercises can require more commitment from
instructors; however, the outcomes regarding student partici-
pation and engagement are worth the time and effort put into
their development and execution. In this study students found
the Bidding for Buyers game increased their participation and
interest in the course material. This can have a carryover
effect to other in-class learning situations (Vander Schee,
2007b). However indirect measures, such as student percep-
tions have not demonstrated actual learning in previous stud-
ies (Bacon, 2011; Clayson, 2009). The demand for direct
measures will likely not decrease over time as various entities
expect greater accountability in higher education.
The Bidding for Buyers game demonstrated an increase in
student learning using a direct measure even though the stan-
dardized effect size of the indirect measure was not as strong.
This provides benefits to students who find the activity a
positive experience and display a greater mastery of the con-
cepts. The benefit for instructors lies in having students
enjoy the classroom experience which can translate into
higher student evaluation of teaching. The positive student
learning outcomes should serve as an impetus for future
research regarding active learning classroom activities and
direct measures of student learning.

Appendix
Bidding for Buyers Game Quiz

  1. The degree to which the innovation fits the values and experiences of potential consumers is called _____.
A) Compatibility B) Relative advantage C) Communicability D) Complexity

  2. Price matters least to this adopter category.

A) Early adopters B) Laggards C) Late majority D) Innovators

  3. Communicability is best demonstrated by _____.

A) Family vacation planner service B) Home entertainment theater
C) Consumer portable media device D) Business office financial management system

  4. Lowering the price of the innovation increases its _____.

A) Compatibility B) Divisibility C) Relative advantage D) Communicability

  5. Which one is not a reason why Laggards delay innovation adoption?

A) Tradition is irrelevant B) Lack of resources
C) No perceived value D) Fear of debt

(continued)

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016

262 Journal of  Marketing Education 34(3)

Appendix (continued)
  6. When complexity is higher _____.
A) The rate of adoption is higher B) The rate of adoption is much higher
C) The rate of adoption stays the same D) The rate of adoption is lower

  7. Opinion leaders are mostly found in the adopter category _____.

A) Late Majority B) Early Adopters C) Innovators D) Early Majority

  8. The higher the communicability of the innovation the higher the rate of adoption because _____.
A) It fits with the values of society B) The price comes down more quickly
C) Quality is reflected in the product offering D) The results can be described to others

  9. Relative advantage contributes most to selling price because _____.

A) Technology requires significant lifestyle adjustment
B) Consumers want products that are easy to understand and use
C) Competitors quickly match unique features
D) It requires a huge investment in advertising

10. The fastest way to have the Late Majority adopt more quickly is to _____.
A) Implement a free trial period B) Focus on informative advertising
C) Increase salesperson efforts D) Use a celebrity in promotions

Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Ackerman, D. A., Gross, B. L., & Perner, L. (2003). Instructor,
student, and employer perceptions on preparing marketing stu-
dents for changing business landscapes. Journal of Marketing
Education, 25, 46-56.
Aggarwal, P., & O’Brien, D. L. (2008). Social loafing on group
projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfac-
tion. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 255-264.
Albers-Miller, N., Straughan, R. D., & Prenshaw, P. (2001). Explor-
ing innovative teaching among marketing educators: Percep-
tions of innovative activities and existing reward and support
programs. Journal of Marketing Education, 23, 249-259.
Allerd, C. R., & Swenson, M. J. (2006). Using technology to
increase student preparation for and participation in market-
ing courses: The random selector model. Marketing Education
Review, 16(1), 15-21.
Amato, C. H., & Amato, L. H. (2005). Enhancing student team
effectiveness: Application of Meyers-Briggs personality
assessment in business courses. Journal of Marketing Educa-
tion, 27, 41-51.
Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (2011). Marketing: An introduction
(10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Arts, J. W. C., Frambach, R. T., & Bijmolt, T. H. A. (2011). Gen-
eralizations on consumer innovation adoption: A meta-analysis
on drivers of intention and behavior. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 28, 134-144.
Bacon, D. (2011). Comparing direct versus indirect measures of the
pedagogical effectiveness of team testing. Journal of Marketing
Education, 33, 348-358.
Bergstrom, T. C., & Miller, J. H. (1997). Experiments with eco-
nomic principles. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bigelow, B. (2002). Transnational capital auction: A game of sur-
vival. In B. Bigelow & B. Peterson (Eds.), Rethinking global-
ization: Teaching for justice in an unjust world (pp. 108-114).
Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools Press.
Bobot, L. (2010). Teaching sales and negotiation with combining
computer-based simulation and case discussions. Marketing
Education Review, 20(2), 115-122.
Chandrasekaran, D., & Tellis, G. J. (2008). Global takeoff of new
products: Culture, wealth, or vanishing differences. Marketing
Science, 27, 844-860.
Chiesa, V., & Frattini, F. (2011). Commercializing technological
innovation: Learning from failures in high-tech markets. Jour-
nal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 437-454.
Chylinski, M. (2010). Cash for comment: Participation money as a
mechanism for measurement, reward, and formative feedback
in active class participation. Journal of Marketing Education,
32, 25-38.
Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related
to what students learn? Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 16-30.

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016

Vander Schee 263
Clow, K. E., & Wachter, M. K. (1996). Teaching methodologies
used in basic marketing: An empirical investigation. Journal of
Marketing Education, 18, 48-59.
Dallimore, E. J., Hertenstein, J. H., & Platt, M. B. (2006). Non-
voluntary class participation in graduate discussion courses:
Effects on grading, cold calling. Journal of Management Edu-
cation, 30, 354-377.
Day, J. M., & Kumar, M. (2010). Using SMS text messaging to cre-
ate individualized and interactive experiences in large classes:
A beer game example. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative
Education, 8, 129-136.
Denton, H. G. (1994). Simulating design in the world of industry
and commerce: Observations from a series of case studies in the
United Kingdom. Journal of Technology Education, 6(1), 16-31.
Dolvin, S. D., & Pyles, M. K. (2011). The influence of simulation
performance on student interest. Journal of Economics and
Economic Education Research, 12(3), 35-48.
Donnelly, J. H., Jr., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1974). A methodology for
identifying innovator characteristics of new brand purchasers.
Journal of Marketing Research, 11, 331-334.
Drea, J. T., Tripp, C., & Stuenkel, D. (2005). As assessment of the
effectiveness of an in-class game on marketing students’ per-
ceptions and learning outcomes. Marketing Education Review,
15(1), 25-33.
Du, R. Y., & Kamakura, W. A. (2011). Measuring contagion in the
diffusion of consumer packaged goods. Journal of Marketing
Research, 48, 28-47.
Ducoffe, S. J. S., & Tucker, M. (2004). Is the price right? A mar-
keting exercise in setting a selling price. Marketing Education
Review, 14(1), 13-19.
Esposto, A. S., & Weaver, D. (2011). Continuous team assessment
to improve student engagement and active learning. Journal of
University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1), 1-14.
Frontezak, N. (1998). A paradigm for the selection, use and devel-
opment of experiential learning activities in marketing educa-
tion. Marketing Education Review, 8(3), 35-44.
Gentry, J. W., Burns, A. C., & Fritzsche, D. J. (1993). Administra-
tion issues in the use of computer simulation games. Marketing
Education Review, 3(1), 26-32.
Geringer, S., Stratemeyer, A. W., Canton, A., & Rice, W. (2009).
Assessing service-learning outcomes in a Principles of Market-
ing course: A team vs. individual-based approach. Journal for
Advancement of Marketing Education, 14, 1-12.
Goldenberg, J., Han, S., Lehmann, D. R., & Hong, J. W. (2009).
The role of hubs in the adoption process. Journal of Marketing,
73(2), 1-13.
Goldsmith, R., & Flynn, L. R. (1992). Identifying innovators in
consumer product markets. European Journal of Marketing,
26(12), 42-56.
Grandzol, D., & Wynn, P. (2011). Retention, motivation, and enjoy-
ment: An exploratory evaluation of the effectiveness of hands-
on learning. Journal of the Academy of Business Education,
12(2), 137-151.
Greene, H. (2011). Freshmen marketing: A first-year experience with
experiential learning. Marketing Education Review, 21(1), 79-87.
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016
Gremler, D. D., Hoffman, K. D., Keaveney, S. M., & Wright, L. K.
(2000). Experiential learning exercises in services marketing
courses. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 35-44.
Grimley, M., Green, R., Nilsen, T. Thompson, D., & Tomes, R.
(2011). Using computer games for instruction: The student
experience. Active Learning in Higher Education, 12, 45-56.
Halvorson, W., Ewing, M., & Windisch, L. (2011). Using second
life to teach about marketing in second life. Journal of Market-
ing Education, 33, 217-228.
Hamer, 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.
Hatcher, J. A., & Bringle, R. G. (2000). Reflection: Bridging the gap
between service and learning. College Teaching, 45, 153-158.
Hernandez, S. A. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles
course: Cooperative structures that facilitate active learning
and higher level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24,
73-85.
Ironside, B., Joerding, W., & Kuzyk, P. (2004). Double-auction
market simulation software for very large classes. Journal of
Economic Education, 35, 284-290.
Karns, G. L. (2006). Learning style differences in the perceived
effectiveness of learning activities. Journal of Marketing Edu-
cation, 28, 56-63.
Kim, S. H., & Park, H. J. (2011). Effects of social influence on
consumers’ voluntary adoption of innovations prompted by
authors. Journal of Business Research, 64, 1190-1194.
Klink, R. R., & Athaide, G. A. (2010). Consumer innovativeness
and the use of new versus extended brand names for new prod-
ucts. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 23-32.
Lancellotti, M. P., & Boyd, T. (2008). The effects of team personal-
ity awareness exercises on team satisfaction and performance.
Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 244-254.
Laverie, D. A. (2006). In-class active cooperative learning: A way
to build knowledge and skills in marketing courses. Marketing
Education Review, 16(2), 59-76.
Laverie, D. A., Madhavaram, S., & McDonald, R. E. (2008). Devel-
oping a learning orientation: The role of team-based active
learning. Marketing Education Review, 18(3), 37-51.
Makienko, I. (2009). Learning the basics of classification in the
introductory marketing class. Marketing Education Review,
19(1), 23-28.
Martinez, E., Polo, Y., & Flavian, C. (1998). The acceptance and
diffusion of new consumer durables: Differences between first
and last adopter. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15, 319-342.
Munoz, C., & Huser, A. (2008). Experiential and cooperative learn-
ing: Using a situational analysis project in principles of market-
ing. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 214-219.
Paladino, A. (2008). Creating an interactive and responsive teach-
ing environment to inspire learning. Journal of Marketing Edu-
cation, 30, 185-188.
Parsons, A. L., & Lepkowska-White, E. (2009). Group projects
using clients versus not using clients. Journal of Marketing
Education, 31, 154-159.
264 Journal of  Marketing Education 34(3)
Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2005). The reflective learn-
ing continuum: Reflecting on reflection. Journal of Marketing
Education, 27, 250-263.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York, NY:
Free Press.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Free Press.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1971). Communication of
innovation: A cross-cultural approach. New York, NY: Free
Press.
Rundle-Thiele, S. R., & Kuhn, D. L. (2008). The get marketer chal-
lenge innovation: Challenging students using a tournament
style competition. Marketing Education Review, 18(1), 33-37.
Sautter, P. (2007). Designing discussion activities to achieve desired
learning outcomes: Choices using mode of delivery and struc-
ture. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 122-131.
Schneider, J., & Hall, J. (2011). Why most product launches fail.
Harvard Business Review, 89(4), 21-23.
Schreier, M., Oberhauser, S., & Prugl, R. (2007). Lead users and
the adoption and diffusion of new products: Insights from two
extreme sports communities. Marketing Letters, 18, 15-30.
Shanahan, K. J., Hermans, C. M., & Haytko, D. L. (2006). Over-
coming apathy and disconnect in marketing courses: Employ-
ing karaoke jeopardy as a content retention tool. Marketing
Education Review, 16(1), 85-90.
Simpson, M. L., Olejnik, S., Tam, A. Y., & Supattathum, S.
(1994). Elaborate verbal rehearsals and college students’ cog-
nitive performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,
267-278.
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-
assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective
measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9,
169-191.
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF WEST FLORIDA on January 4, 2016
View publication stats
Taylor, S. A., Hunter, G. L., Melton, H., & Goodwin, S. A. (2011).
Student engagement and marketing classes. Journal of Market-
ing Education, 33, 73-92.
Thompson, D. V., Hamilton, R. W., & Rust, R. T. (2005). Feature
fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good
thing. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 431-442.
Vander Schee, B. A. (2007a). Setting the stage for active learning:
An interactive marketing class activity. Marketing Education
Review, 17(1), 63-67.
Vander Schee, B. A. (2007b). Lasting effects of the first day in
Principles of Marketing. Journal for Advancement of Market-
ing Education, 10, 70-76.
Vander Schee, B. A. (2011). Marketing feud: An active learning
game of (mis)perception. Marketing Education Review, 21(1),
63-67.
Wells, D. A. (1991). Laboratory experiments for undergraduate
instruction in economics. Journal of Economic Education, 22,
293-300.
Widmier, S., Loe, T., & Selden, G. (2007). Using role-play compe-
tition to teach selling skills and teamwork. Marketing Educa-
tion Review, 17(1), 69-78.
Williams, J. A., & Dobie, K. (2011). Electronic reverse auctions:
Integrating an e-sourcing tool into a sales and purchasing cross-
course negotiation project. Marketing Education Review, 21(1),
35-42.
Wooldridge, B. R. (2008). Golden Duck Awards: An interactive
game to facilitate class participation. Marketing Education
Review, 18(1), 15-17.
Yamarik, S. (2007). Does cooperative learning improve student learn-
ing outcomes? Journal of Economic Education, 38, 259-277.
Young, M. R., Caudill, E. M., & Murphy, J. W. (2008). Evaluat-
ing experiential learning activities. Journal for Advancement of
Marketing Education, 13, 28-40.