Facilitating student interaction capabilities: the interplay of individual, group, and course-related factors

References

• Ackerman, D. S., & Hu, J. (2011). Effect of type of curriculum on educational outcomes and motivation among marketing students with different learning styles. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 273–284.10.1177/0273475311420233
   Google Scholar
• Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (1999). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 411–427.10.1177/0092070399274002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blasco-Arcas, L., Buil, I., Hernandez-Ortega, B., & Sese, F. J. (2013). Using clickers in class. The role of interactivity, active collaborative learning and engagement in learning performance. Computers & Education, 62, 102–110.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 413–426.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2014). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from and with each other. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bowden, J. L. H., & D’Alessandro, S. (2011). Co-creating value in higher education: The role of interactive classroom response technologies. Asian Social Science, 7, 35–49.
   Google Scholar
• Bravo, R., Lucia-Palacios, L., & Martin, M. J. (2016). Processes and outcomes in student teamwork. An empirical study in a marketing subject. Studies in Higher Education, 41, 302–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T., & Zhao, Y. (2002). Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515–524.10.1016/S0019-8501(01)00203-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chad, P. (2012). The use of team-based learning as an approach to increased engagement and learning for marketing students: A case study. Journal of Marketing Education, 34, 128–139.10.1177/0273475312450388
   Google Scholar
• Chapman, K. J., Meuter, M., Toy, D., & Wright, L. (2006). Can’t we pick our own groups? The influence of group selection method on group dynamics and outcomes. Journal of Management Education, 30, 557–569.10.1177/1052562905284872
   Google Scholar
• Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45, 458–465.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Díaz-Méndez, M., & Gummesson, E. (2012). Value co-creation and university teaching quality: Consequences for the European Higher Education Area (EHEA). Journal of Service Management, 23, 571–592.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, T. (2013). Conceptualising student engagement: A co-creation perspective. In D. Derricott, H. Kekäläinen, M. Kelo, R. S. Kristensen, T. Loukkola, B. Michalk, F. G. Palomares, N. Ryan, & B. Stensaker (Eds.), Working together to take quality forward (pp. 51–60). Brussels: European University Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M. F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty: An approach based on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 3, 331–344.10.1177/109467050134006
   Google Scholar
• 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, 73–85.10.1177/0273475302241009
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. D. (2005). An empirical investigation of sources of application-specific computer-self-efficacy and mediators of the efficacy – Performance relationship. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 737–758.10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.02.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karpen, I. O., Bove, L. L., & Lukas, B. A. (2012). Linking service-dominant logic and strategic business practice: A conceptual model of a service-dominant orientation. Journal of Service Research, 15, 21–38.10.1177/1094670511425697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karpen, I. O., Bove, L. L., Lukas, B. A., & Zyphur, M. J. (2015). Service-dominant orientation: Measurement and impact on performance outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 91, 89–108.10.1016/j.jretai.2014.10.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotzé, T. G., & du Plessis, P. J. (2003). Students as “co‐producers” of education: A proposed model of student socialisation and participation at tertiary institutions. Quality Assurance in Education, 11, 186–201.10.1108/09684880310501377
   Google Scholar
• Lambert, A. D., Terenzini, P. T., & Lattuca, L. R. (2007). More than meets the eye: Curricular and programmatic effects on student learning. Research in Higher Education, 48, 141–168.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LePine, J. A., LePine, M. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883–891.10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.883
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malter, A. J., & Dickson, P. R. (2001). The effect of individual learning on competitive decision-making and firm performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 18, 99–117.10.1016/S0167-8116(01)00034-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Hinkley, J. W., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Evaluation of the big-two-factor theory of academic motivation orientations: An evaluation of jingle-jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 189–224.10.1207/S15327906MBR3802_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Navarro-García, A., Peris-Ortiz, M., & Rueda-Armengot, C. (2015). Value co-creation, collaborative learning and competences in higher education. In M. Peris-Oritz & J. M. Lindahl (Eds.), Sustainable learning in higher education (pp. 37–45). Cham: Springer International Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Ng, I. C., & Forbes, J. (2009). Education as service: The understanding of university experience through the service logic. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 19, 38–64.10.1080/08841240902904703
   Google Scholar
• Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150.10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.128
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pearce, C. L., & Ensley, M. D. (2004). A reciprocal and longitudinal investigation of the innovation process: The central role of shared vision in product and process innovation teams(PPITs). Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 259–278.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93, 223–231.10.1002/jee.2004.93.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaffer, S. P., Lei, K., & Reyes Paulino, L. (2008). A framework for cross-disciplinary team learning and performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21, 7–21.10.1002/piq.v21:3
   Google Scholar
• Sujan, H., Weitz, B. A., & Kumar, N. (1994). Learning orientation, working smart, and effective selling. Journal of Marketing, 58, 39–52.10.2307/1252309
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. A., Hunter, G. L., Melton, H., & Goodwin, S. A. (2011). Student engagement and marketing classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 73–92.
   Google Scholar
• Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zulkefli, N., & Uden, L. (2013). A service quality framework for higher education from the perspective of service dominant logic. 7th International conference on knowledge management in organizations: Service and cloud computing (pp. 307–317). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar