Level Up: A Stage-Based Mixed Methods Approach to Gamification Adoption in Higher Education

Institution Marketing and Recruiting  

by Layla A. Souers, Bachelor of Science                    

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Master of Science

in the field of Mass Communications                    

Advisory Committee:

Musonda Kapatamoyo, Chair

David Kauzlarich

Mark Poepsel

 

                         

Graduate School Southern  Illinois  University  Edwardsville

December 2014

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERSThe quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscriptand there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

a note will indicate the deletion.

Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.All rights reserved. This work is protected against

unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.789 East Eisenhower Parkway

P.O. Box 1346Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346

UMI 1573457

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.

UMI Number: 1573457

                     

© Copyright by Layla A. Souers December 2014

All rights reserved

 

 

  ii

ABSTRACT

LEVEL UP: A STAGE-BASED MIXED METHODS APPROACH TO GAMIFICATION ADOPTION IN HIGHER EDUCATION

INSTITUTION MARKETING AND RECRUITING

by

LAYLA A. SOUERS

Chairperson: Professor Musonda Kapatamoyo

The advertising landscape has changed so drastically over the last decade that marketers

have had to come up with new techniques to reach their target audience. Higher

education institutions are now using marketing as a way to combat some barriers to

enrollment (such as declining high school graduation rates, competition for students

around the globe, and public opinion of student debt). As higher education institutions

rely on marketing to help solve their enrollment barriers, they are not immune to

marketing challenges. Through the lens of Diffusion of Innovations Theory, this study

examines factors that lead to universities' adoption or rejection of gamification into their

marketing strategies. Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory helped to examine the

phenomenon of how and why new ideas or technology are communicated through society

over time and accepted or rejected. The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of

gamification adoption in higher education institution marketing and recruiting and make

recommendations for further research in this field.

 

  iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  

I must also acknowledge some of the remarkable people that I had the pleasure of working

with in higher education, and from whom I drew my inspiration to pursue this degree and

a career in higher education. First, to my thesis chair, Dr. Musonda Kapatamoyo, who

provided me with the additional guidance I needed to navigate my research and for always

believing in me. His enthusiasm, encouragement, and faith in me will always be cherished.

I would also like to thank my other two thesis committee members, Dr. Mark Poepsel and

Dr. David Kauzlarich for all of their feedback and inspiration. To Nick: Thank you for

your love and support. I offer my sincerest thanks and gratitude to all those around me

who have provided insight and inspiration as I have embarked on this journey. My deepest

gratitude goes to all of my family, colleagues, participants, and to my advisor for the

unending support in making this thesis possible. This thesis is dedicated to my mom,

Maureen, who always provided me with a solid foundation and encouragement to pursue

my education. I am truly fortunate and know I could not have done this without you.

                                 

 

  iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ vi

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1

The New Culture of Marketing ................................................................... 1 Marketing and College Admissions ............................................................ 3 Purpose of Study .......................................................................................... 5 Theoretical Perspectives .............................................................................. 6

Diffusion of Innovations Theory .......................................................... 6 Definition of Terms ................................................................................... 12

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................................................................. 14

Explaining the Emergence of Gamification .............................................. 14 Education and Gamification ...................................................................... 15 Gamification and Marketing ...................................................................... 16 Higher Education Institutions and Marketing ........................................... 17

Enter Marketing ................................................................................. 17 A Higher Purpose ............................................................................... 18 Strategic Enrollment Management ..................................................... 20 Selling Diversity ................................................................................ 21 Social Media and Higher Education .................................................. 22

Higher Education Recruiting and Gamification ........................................ 22  

III. METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................... 24

The General Perspective ............................................................................ 24 The Research Context ................................................................................ 25 Pilot Study ................................................................................................. 26

Data Collection for the Pilot Study .................................................... 26 Round Two Data Analysis ................................................................. 28

 

  v

Interview Discussions ........................................................................ 28 Pace and Length of Interviews ........................................................... 29

Sampling and Selection for the Main Study .............................................. 30 Selection of Participants ............................................................................ 30 Instruments Used in Data Collection ......................................................... 31 Procedures Used ........................................................................................ 32 Survey and Interview Questions ................................................................ 32 Qualitative Analysis of Interview Data ..................................................... 36

Preparing Data .................................................................................... 36 Coding Data ....................................................................................... 36

Chapter

IV. RESULTS OF THE STUDY ........................................................................... 39

Analysis of Data ........................................................................................ 39 Interview Analysis ..................................................................................... 43

 V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 55

Discussion of Findings .............................................................................. 55 Research Question One ...................................................................... 55 Research Question Two ..................................................................... 57

Conclusion ................................................................................................. 59 Limitations ................................................................................................. 60 Recommendations for Future Research ..................................................... 60

 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 62

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 71

A. Email for Pilot Study ................................................................................. 71 B. Questionnaire for Pilot Study .................................................................... 72 C. Extra Questions from Pilot Study .............................................................. 74 D. Email for Main Study ................................................................................ 75 E. Survey Questionnaire ................................................................................ 76 F. In-depth Interview Questions .................................................................... 81

 

  vi

LIST OF FIGURES      

Figure Page

1. Five Stages of the Innovation-Decision Process ................................. 34

2. Research Variables .............................................................................. 38

3. Gamification Knowledge Stage .......................................................... 40

4. Responses for Gamification Non-Adoption ........................................ 43

5. Gamification in Higher Education Marketing and Recruiting ............ 54

                                                         

 

  vii

LIST OF TABLES      

Table Page

1. Knowledge of Gamification Term ..................................................... 39

2. Cross Tabulation Among Gamification Knowledge and Rewards ..... 40

3. Gamification Adoption ........................................................................ 41

4. Perceived Need for Innovation ............................................................ 41

5. First Exposure to Gamification ........................................................... 42

6. Gamification in HE Institution Marketing .......................................... 42

7. Stage of Innovation-Decision Process (IDP) Factors .......................... 45

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

 As advertisers become increasingly competitive, they have increased their efforts to

fill up almost every inch of space in the media landscape that has created an environment of

clutter. Clutter can be defined as “the density of advertisements in a media vehicle” (Ha,

1996). As traditional advertisements multiply and spill over to other forms of media (such as

the Internet, mobile applications, and video games) advertisers have to use more

advertisements to break through all of the clutter from the competition, which in turn, creates

even more clutter.

The New Culture of Marketing

On average, people are exposed to nearly 3,000 ads everyday (Mastin, Coe,

Hamilton, and Tarr, 2004). With overexposure to ads comes the desensitized reaction to most

of the advertisements (Lepkowska-White, Parsons, and Ceylan, 2014). Because of this,

advertisers look for new ways to reach their target audience. For years, advertising

companies have been trying to get inside the mind of the consumer. Currently marketers use

numerous techniques to learn what makes people tick and what will appeal to them.

The fierce competition of advertising and marketing has given rise to a number of

new strategies: branding, shock advertising, neuromarketing, cool hunting and gamification.

Each of these non-traditional marketing strategies combines some aspect of culture (such as

nostalgia) with the product. By doing this, companies are able to weave their messages back

into the daily lives of Americans. The end result is that these advertisements then become

part of culture and integrated into daily life—going virtually unnoticed by the audience.

 

  2

Coca-Cola® (Coke) has managed to outweigh the competition and has worked its

way into the hearts of every American by attaching “lovemarks” to their product

(Carmichael, 2004). For several years now, Coke has been the number one selling brand

worldwide.

In researching the Pepsi® Challenge of the 1970s and ‘80s, neuroscientist Read

Montague found that overall people preferred Pepsi over Coke (McClure et al., 2004). If this

was true, then Pepsi should be the number one selling soft drink not Coke (McClure et al.,

2004).

By doing his own taste test, Montague found that even when Coke drinkers chose

Pepsi, they still insisted they preferred Coke (McClure et al., 2004). He monitored the

subjects’ brain waves and noted that certain parts of the brain, associated with higher

thinking, lit up when Coke was mentioned (McClure et al., 2004). This type of brain-wave

research is called neuromarketing and it is becoming an interest to some corporations

(McClure et al., 2004). Companies hope to find what images and products will appeal to the

most people (Carmichael, 2004). For example, Daimler-Chrysler did research and found that

when men were shown sportier cars, it caused activity in the brain that was similar to the

responses to alcohol and drugs (Carmichael, 2004).

Potentially, this could be the same reaction Coke fans are having. It seems a loyal

following has been created from the overwhelming images of the Coke brand (Carmichael,

2004). Although it’s only a soft drink, this love affair with Coke seems to surpass logic.

From the classic contoured bottle, to the iconic Santa designed in the 1930s, Coke remains a

hallmark of America and a national tradition.

 

  3

Marketing and College Admissions

Some HE institutions now recognize they need to market themselves on a global scale

(Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006). Since these institutions are now competing around the

globe to reach their target audience, they have starting adapting their recruiting strategies. “In

response to these changes, the value, effectiveness and potential benefits of using marketing

theories and concepts which have been effective in the business world, are gradually now

being applied by many universities: with a view to gaining a competitive edge, and gaining a

larger share of the international market” (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006).

In addition to positioning themselves in a global marketplace, other factors are

causing enrollment of traditional students to become highly competitive for admission

counselors. From the Common Application causing an influx of too many undesirable

applications, to declining high school graduation rates, to public perception of student loan

debt, a viable incoming class is getting more difficult to obtain.

Current trends suggest that college enrollments will grow more slowly than

normal. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, private institutions

showed a 38% increase in undergraduate enrollment over the past eight years, however, over

the next eight years it is been predicted it will increase only 10%. Because of these hurdles, it

is imperative that college enrollment and marketing administrators determine ways to

respond to the trends.

Some institutions look to retain larger non-traditional students. Other HE institutions

rely on marketing to help with falling numbers. As these HE institutions look to marketing to

help with their enrollment barriers, they are not immune to the challenges that plague

traditional marketers.

 

  4

As marketers continue to raise the marketing bar, they have to come up with more

creative ways to get their messages to their target audiences. To stay ahead of the

competition, some companies try to tap into the psyche of society’s younger generation. The

Merchants of Cool Frontline video highlights that the youth of today are a company’s biggest

market. Because teenagers have discretionary income and the extra time to shop, they are a

prime target audience. Also, teenagers thrive on new and trendy items and fashion.

Companies that want to stay ahead of the competitive game strive to provide the

coolest and latest products for teenagers to purchase. In order to do this, a new approach

called “coolhunting” market research has emerged (PBS, 2004). The coolhunter

professionals seek out individual teenagers that seem to be the trendsetters (PBS, 2004). By

trying to express themselves through fashion, for example, these teenagers create their own

subculture (PBS, 2004). Coolhunter professionals then present these ideas to companies

(PBS, 2004). The subculture is then sold back to the rest of society, thus becoming part of

culture (PBS, 2004).

In addition, brands like Steve Madden Shoes are utilizing social media users.

According to Product Placement News (Castillo, 2012), a select group of Instagram

subscribers are offered gifts and monetary rewards in exchange for posting pictures of

merchandise. With over 200 million users and 60 million photographs posted daily,

Instagram is becoming the new avenue for product placement.

Successful companies like Starbucks, Whole Foods, and various others have started

utilizing newer technology to assist marketing strategies. By using social networking sites to

receive feedback from customers and to hear what is being said about their product as well as

integrating gamification (in the way of social media check-ins, points, rewards, etc.) to

engage their audience.

 

  5

Corporations are not the only ones using non-traditional marketing techniques to

reach their target audience. Higher education (HE) institutions, politicians, and countries are

now using “branding” to promote themselves. The Rise of the Brand State: The Postmodern

Politics of Image and Reputation, highlights the fact that countries are now trying to brand

themselves to increase the public relations (van Ham, 2004). In essence, this global branding

helps to promote tourism, thus increasing revenue for the country. Like with corporations,

once a reputation is established, a higher standard may be expected.

Purpose of Study  

This paper describes a research study that will examine the current state of HE

institution marketing, recruiting and enrollment. The study will address marketing issues,

define the elements of gamification and examine HE institutions that are using non-

traditional methods in order to make the college selection process more appealing to younger

audiences and their parents. This study will also investigate whether the universities are

integrating gamification into HE marketing strategies in order to increase audience

engagement as well as develop brand affinity.

For this study, it is essential to recognize that gamification can often influence

behavior through the use of game elements. According to a 2012 Pew Research Center

report, although gamification is seen as a fad, “neuroscientists are discovering more and

more about the ways in which humans react to such interactive design elements. They say

such elements can cause feel-good chemical reactions, alter human responses to stimuli—

increasing reaction times, for instance—and in certain situations can improve learning,

participation, and motivation” (Anderson and Rainie, 2012).

The purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of gamification in the marketing of

higher education institutions and make recommendations for further research in this field.

 

  6

The objective of the literature review is to: systematically identify current adopters of

gamification and identify gaps in the research. It is hoped that this study of gamification will

make a contribution to the knowledge of HE institution marketing and recruiting.

To understand what factors lead to HE institutions use or rejection of gamification for

recruiting and marketing purposes, it is necessary to look through the lens of Diffusion of

Innovations theory.

Theoretical Perspectives

Diffusion of Innovations Theory

Applying Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory can help to examine the

phenomenon of how and why some new ideas or technologies are communicated through

society over time and accepted or rejected (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003). Diffusion is a special

type of communication in which information is centered focused around new ideas (Rogers,

1983, 1995, 2003). Diffusion refers to the process by which an innovation is communicated

through certain channels among members of a social system (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003).

The term innovation isn't limited to new product on the market. According to

diffusion theory, “[a] n innovation is an idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by

an individual or other unit of adoption" (Roger, 1983, p. 11). Any new idea or concept can be

considered an innovation. "The perceived newness of the idea for the individual determines

his or her reaction to it. If the idea seems new to the individual, it's an innovation" (Rogers,

1983, p. 11).

Diffusion of innovations theory consists of four main elements: innovation,

communication channels, time, and social system and are present in every diffusion research

study (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003).

 

  7

The first element is innovation. An innovation could have been invented years before,

however, if it is still seen as new by an individual, then it can be considered an innovation

(Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003). According to Rogers (2003), an innovation is more easily

adopted if it there is a perceived need for it. Seligman uses an example of a student without a

computer decides they need a computer because they see another student has one (2006).

Rogers’ innovation attributes are as follows: relative advantage, compatability,

trialability, complexity, and observability. These attributes can influence the rate of adoption

of an innovation as well as rejection.

Relative advantage can be defined as “the degree to which an innovation is perceived

as better than the idea it supersedes” (Rogers, 1995, p. 212). In essence, it is the benefits that

an innovation provides such as social prestige or economic advantages (Yasemin &

Akıncıtürk, 2010).

Compatibility is the extent to which an innovation is aligned with the values of the

adopter. If an innovation is not seen as compatible, it is usually only adopted if there is a

change in values (Rogers, 1995).

Trialability refers to testing an innovation on a limited basis (Rogers, 1995). An

individual is more inclined to adopt an innovation if it is successful after a probationary

period (Rogers, 1995). Triability is important for adoption because “the level of

comprehension and adaptation of innovation can only be increase when it can be tested”

(Yasemin & Akıncıtürk, 2010). The more an innovation is experimented with, the faster it is

adopted. It is also possible to just observe how others are using the innovation. Rogers refers

to this as a trial-by-others.

Complexity refers to the degree of difficulty of an innovation. Innovations that are

seen as too complex to use or understand are not adopted as rapidly as simpler ones (Rogers,

 

  8

1995). For example, Martin (2003) found that if computer hardware and software are user-

friendly, faculty would be more likely to adopt them for the distribution of course material.

The last attribute is observability. According to Rogers (2003), it is “the degree to

which the results of an innovation are visible to others” (p. 16). This peer observation is a

main factor for deciding to continue to use an innovation.

The next element is communication channels which are important for transferring

information. This is the second element of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory.

Communication channels are how ideas are disseminated (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003).

Although mass media channels and social networking sites are both channels, social

networking sites could potentially be a more effective way to deliver messages. Social

networking sites and interpersonal channels are both very “effective in persuading

individuals to accept a new idea, especially if the interpersonal channel links two or more

individuals who are similar in socioeconomic status, education, or other important ways”

(Rogers, 1995, p. 18).

The third element is time. Rogers believes this is an important element that is usually

ignored in behavioral science research (1983). “The inclusion of time as a variable in

diffusion research is one of its strengths, but the measurement of the time dimension (often

by means of respondents’ recall) can be criticized” (Rogers, 1983, p. 20).

The final element in the diffusion process is the social system. According to Rogers,

this element is very significant since the entire foundation of diffusion occurs within a social

system (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003). Communication channels and social norms and values

also play a role in the social system.

Although the previous elements are important for adoption, the innovation-decision

process (IDP) determines whether or not an innovation will be adopted or rejected (Rogers,

 

  9

1983, 1995, 2003). Five stages of IDP are present in diffusion theory: knowledge, persuasion,

decision, implementation, and confirmation (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003).

Knowledge stage. During this first stage, the individual becomes aware of the

innovation and attempts to understand what it is and how it works by asking “what?”

“how?”, and “why?” (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003). These questions lead to three types of

knowledge: awareness-knowledge, how-to-knowledge, and principles-knowledge (Rogers,

1983, 1995, 2003). Perceived need of an innovation plays a major role in this stage

(Seligman, 2006). An individual is more likely to seek out information is there is a need for

the innovation. Characteristics of the adopter also play a part in this stage.

Persuasion stage. At the persuasion stage, the individual forms an opinion about the

innovation (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003). According to Rogers, “the formation of a favorable

or unfavorable attitude toward an innovation does not always lead directly or indirectly to an

adoption or rejection (2003, p, 76).

Decision stage. During this third stage, the individual chooses to adopt or reject the

innovation (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003). Adoption means the “full use of an innovation is the

best course of action available,” rejection refers to “not to adopt an innovation” (Rogers,

2003, p. 177).

Implementation stage. The innovation is put into practice during the implementation

stage (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003).

Confirmation stage. During the last stage, the individual is looking for feedback

about the innovation (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003). This stage can be reversed if the individual

receives negative feedback about the innovation (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003).

 

  10

For over 30 years, researchers from different disciplines (sociology, political science,

mass communications, marketing, education, et al) have used Rogers’ Diffusion of

Innovations theory to study the process of adopting new innovations.

Wu and Chen (2014) used Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations theory to look at

Information System (IS) innovation. They examined the relationships between a stage-based

diffusion structure and the performance indicators and determined that three diffusion stages

had different impacts on performance. “The adoption stage further decomposes into

knowledge acquisition, persuasion and learning, and decision, leading to the actual adoption

decision. The implementation stage includes the preparation for changes to task structure,

task process, and innovation technology necessary for deployment” (Wu and Chen, 2014, p.

78). They also found that successful diffusion of IS innovation in organizations was a

predictor for performance (Wu and Chen, 2014).

Morales and Prince used Diffusion of Innovations theory to examine a summer

faculty immersion program (SFIP) to educate faculty on new instructional methods such as

gamification to teach engineering students (2014). The researchers stated that diffusion of

educational innovations is a challenge. Due to the successful use of social channels and a

social system, this program has shown to have a 100% success rate (Morales and Prince,

2014).

Although the literature shows that researchers mainly use Roger’s Diffusion of

Innovations theory to study the process of adopting new innovations, it can also be used to

study the rejection of innovations (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003). According to Rogers, rejection

can happen even after an innovation has been adopted (1983). There are two different kinds

of rejection (Rogers, 1983). The first is active rejection. This happens if an innovation is

considered but then not implemented (Rogers, 1983). The second type of rejection is passive

 

  11

rejection. Rogers also refer to this as non-adoption (1983). Rejection occurs because the

adoption of the innovation was never considered (Rogers, 1983).

Abrahamson (1991) examined ways scientists could develop more theories of

innovation diffusion and rejection in organizations. He breaks perspectives down into four

explanations: efficient-choice perspective, fad perspective, fashion perspective, and forced-

selection perspective (Abrahamson, 1991).

Organizations that have the efficient-choice perspective readily adopt technically-

efficient innovations (Abrahamson, 1991). This perspective helps to speed up the rate of

adoption.

According to the fad perspective, there are assumptions that influence this perspective

(Abrahamson, 1991). The individuals in the organization are unsure of their goals and the

effectiveness of the innovation (Abrahamson, 1991). Also, individuals are not influenced by

other groups within the organization (Abrahamson, 1991). With this perspective, decisions to

adopt inefficient innovations or rejection of efficient ones can be imitated (Abrahamson,

1991). In contrast to the fad perspective, the fashion perspective recognizes there are

influences outside of the group (Abrahamson, 1991).

The last perspective is the forced-selection perspective. This perspective “assumes

both low uncertainty and outside influences by organizations. It suggests that it may be in the

interest of powerful outside organizations, such as governmental regulators or labor unions,

to coerce organizations inside a group either to adopt technically inefficient innovations or to

reject efficient ones” (Abrahamson, 1991, p. 608).

These perspectives help explain adoption and rejection of innovations within an

organization. In some cases fad and fashion perspective may serve to benefit the organization

if the innovation helps them be perceived as innovative (Abrahamson, 1991). These

 

  12

perspectives may also help organizations with social status and customer perception

(Abrahamson, 1991).

Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory has been accepted in a variety of fields,

especially mass communications. Whether at the microscopic level or macroscopic level,

Rogers’ diffusion theory continues to provide a sound foundation for examining how society

adopts innovations.

Definition of Terms

For the purposes of this study, the following terms are defined.

Level up. To make a move in order to increase one's stature in life or performance at

a particular task.

Gamification. The use of game elements such as rewards and competition in non-

game situations in order to achieve a certain behavior.

Game elements. Features such as quests, collections, rewards, points, badges, leader

boards, progress bars, and the ability to “level up.”

PBLs. Refer to game achievements most associated with gamification: points,

badges, and leaderboards.

Branding. The use of language and visuals in order to create a cohesive identity to a

product or business.

Coolhunting. A term used to describe a certain type of focus-group marketing that

aims to find out what is most interesting to trendsetting teenagers in hopes to get the jump on

the competition and sell new concepts before they become common.

Neuromarketing. A new type of focus group marketing that aims to use brain-waves

research to determine what types of products appeal to people’s emotions.

 

  13

Common Application (Common App). An undergraduate college application used

to apply to several colleges worldwide.

Gamify. To adapt a task or process so that it takes on the form of a game.

Selfie. A self-portrait picture, usually taken with a hand-held digital camera or camera

phone and posted on social networking sites.

Hashtag. A word or unspaced phrase preceded by the number sign (#). The use of

this symbol allows those terms to be grouped together on social networking sites.

 

  14

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

 The literature review revealed there is limited research on gamification, but it is a

growing area as scholars seek to examine it for relationships to political, social and cultural

issues. Previous to 2010, articles on gamification didn’t exist. Over the last few years the

number of articles on gamification have increased tremendously (Hamari et al, 2014).

Most research focused on three areas: First there is the investigation of how

gamification is assisting technology (video games, websites, etc.). Second, there is the

analysis of gamification as a tool for education. Third, there is evidence to show gamification

is being integrated into marketing strategies.

Explaining the Emergence of Gamification   Gamification is a relatively new term that has been applied to a relatively old concept.

The term “gamification” was first coined in 2002 by Nick Pelling, programmer and inventor

(Deterding et al, 2011). Gamification in its simplest definition is the use of rewards with the

end-goal to motivate the user behavior (Deterding et al, 2011), however, that has been

expanded to include anything that invokes the same reaction that games do (Hamari and

Hutari, 2012). Gamification also involves actions such as competing with others or gaining

points to achieve a new status or to “level up.”

It’s hard to pinpoint when gamification was first adopted by society as a marketing

technique since merchants have always looked for ways to create repeat business. Offering

rewards for paying cash instead of with credit dates back to the late 1800s. Furthermore,

supermarket trading stamps were popular in the 1930s (Conejo, 2014). Lastly, companies

 

  15

like airlines have been using a rewards system in the way of frequent flier miles for loyal

customers since the 1970s (Stephenson and Fox, 1987). Loyalty schemes like these might be

the earliest forms of gamification. (Anderson, 2013).

More recently, gamification has been used in the workplace not only to train

employees using simulators, but also to improve their health through incentives like

employee wellness programs (Bosworth, 2012; Oprescu, Jones, and Katsikitis, 2014).

Overall, gamification can help to make their time at work a positive experience.

Gamified elements can also be determining factor for an individual to continue using

and recommend a new service like a fitness phone application. In their 2013 empirical study,

Hamari and Koivisto analyzed how social motivations can predict attitudes about

gamification as well as the use and recommendation of gamified additions for the fitness

service called Fitocracy. They discovered that social factors are, in fact, strong predictors for

how gamification is perceived (Hamari and Koivisto, 2013). They also found that strong

attitudes toward the gamified system had influenced whether or not the user would

recommend the service (Hamari and Koivisto, 2013).

Education and Gamification  

Historically, schools have used gamification elements such as points (GPAs and

grades) as well as contests (science fairs, debate teams, sports). Currently, gamification is

being used in a variety of other ways. “Gamification is not, however just about status,

community building, and marketing. Game-like approaches to education and problem-

solving are rolling out in new ways” (Anderson and Raine, 2014, p. 299).

For educational organizations such as Khan Academy, gamification is at the forefront

of the online learning platform. Khan Academy offers online lessons in science,

mathematics, technology, and the humanities. Gamification elements such as knowledge

 

  16

maps, goals, and progress indicators are used to engage the user and increase motivation with

e-learning (Morrison and DiSalvo, 2011).

The 2013 study, Gamifying Learning Experiences: Practical Implications and

Outcomes, showed that students who completed a gamified experience improved their scores

in practical assignments and in overall scores (Dominguez et al, 2013).

Gamification also has the potential to increase engagement and improve social

interactions. Researchers have found that the use of social gamification in education can

speed up the adoption of quality improvement practices for nursing students (Roy-Burman et

al, 2013). Integrating a social networking platform with a gamification application,

researchers were able to increase student engagement and collaboration that would

potentially accelerate overall nursing performance through team-based competitions (Roy-

Burman et al, 2013).

The success of this gamified education tool could be explained by Rogers’ Diffusion

of Innovations theory. “An important factor affecting the adoption rate of any innovation is

its compatibility with values, beliefs, and past experiences of the social system (Rogers,

1995, p. 4).

Gamification and Marketing  

Corporations have used gamification as a successful marketing strategy to create

brand loyalty and increase sales. Techniques like gamification “have been strongly harnessed

for purposes of marketing, attitude change, and motivational pull” (Hamara and Koiviso,

2013 p. 2). By 2015, 50% of business will be gamifying their practices (Gartner, 2011).

Gamification is the "use of game design elements in non-game contexts" (Deterding

et al, 2011, p.1). However, gamification consists of much more than turning the user

experience into a game. Gamification, with the help of game elements and psychology, has

 

  17

the potential to motivate while helping the user find the meaningful core of experiences to

make them more rewarding, while not pulling the them out of the real world (Deterding et al,

2011).

With gamification being revered as the “next method for marketing and customer

engagement,” empirical studies from 2010 to 2013 were examined to learn the state of

current research on gamification and whether it is effective or not (Hamari, Koivisto, and

Sarsa, p. 1, 2014). According to Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa gamification does produce

positive effects and benefits, but are greatly dependent on the context of the activity (2014).

The researchers pointed out one limitation to this quantitative study were the newly

coined term gamification itself. Any studies that did not use that term or gameful specifically

would not have come up in the initial searches, therefore, would not have been included in

the analysis (Hamari, Koivisto, and Sarsa, 2014).

Higher Education Institutions and Marketing

Enter Marketing  

Due to trends such as demand for tax dollar accountability, losing financial support

and low admission numbers, HE institutions have had to position themselves in a global

marketplace for the first time (Elliot and Healy, 2001).

The elements of globalization in higher education (HE) are widespread and

multifaceted and the HE market is now well established as a global

phenomenon, especially in the major-English speaking nations: Canada, the

USA, Australia and the UK. In the context of increasing competition for

home-based and overseas students higher education institutions now

 

  18

recognize that they need to market themselves in a climate of international

competition.

(Boyer, 2006, p. 136)

Confused with advertising, marketing practices were not always of interest to HE institutions,

especially private institutions, until they also started to lose funding and enrollments started

decreasing (Kotler, 1979). “Of all the classic business functions, marketing has been the last

to arrive on the nonprofit scene” (Kotler, p. 38, 1979). Although late to adopt the idea of

marketing, HE institutions now incorporate marketing into their recruitment strategies (Noel-

Levitz, 2013a). According to Rogers, “technological innovations are not always diffused and

adopted rapidly even when the innovation has obvious and proven advantages” (2003, p. 10).

To respond to the ever-changing environment and compete for prospective students,

it’s imperative HE institutions now acknowledge they are also a service industry (Cheng and

Tam, 1997) and need to market themselves as such (Hemsley-Brown and Oplatka, 2006).

“Universities can build trust by treating students in a consistent and equitable manner,

meeting the students expectations, and handling student complaints in a caring manner”

(Elliot and Healy, p. 2, 2001).

A Higher Purpose

According to the The Historical Roots of Enrollment Management, HE institutions at

one time relied only on faculty and the president to recruit students (Coomes, 2000).

With changes in the environment (for example), HE institutions have been forced to

make changes to their organizational structures. Implemented first within admissions

departments, the first concept of enrollment management emerged in the mid-1970s

(Coomes, 2000).

 

  19

To support new marketing initiatives, HE institutions also made additions to their

administration staff. Some additional positions such as vice presidents of marketing,

marketing director, marketing committees as well as task force committees were added to the

organizational structure (Kotler, 1979). The new administrative staff used creative and non-

traditional techniques to engage students (Kotler, 1979).

With the onset of newer barriers to enrollment like declining high school graduation

rates (Berry-Cullen, Levitt, Robertson and Sadoff, 2013), HE institutions stepped up their

marketing efforts (Henderson, 2005). Enrollment management was defined and expanded in

the 1980s (Coomes, 2000; Henderson, 2005).

As enrollment management systems became an important function for HE

institutions, other departments began to adopt enrollment marketing into their structure

(Coomes, 2000). Enrollment management began to spread to such departments such as

financial aid services, career services, and student affairs (Henderson, 2005).

In Agents of Change: Roles, Barriers, and Opportunities for College Admissions

Professionals and High School Counselors, Christopher Tremblay discusses several

challenges and solutions for HE institution undergraduate recruitment. One challenge is the

multiple role college admission professionals have to undertake. These professionals serve as

the marketers and the gatekeepers of information (Henderson, 2005; Tremblay, 2013).

College admission professionals now utilize marketing tactics such as giving out

promotional items; advertisements like billboards, recruiting videos, and paying new outlets

to tell their story as well on-site interviews and as same-day admission (Kotler, 1979;

Wenzel, 2002), although it’s reported that HE institutions are still seeing the biggest benefit

from events and events-based activities such as campus visits and open houses (Noel-Levitz,

2013a). In addition to marketing and coordinating events, admission professionals also serve

 

  20

as the guidance counselor for prospective students to navigate the college admission process

(Tremblay, 2013).

Strategic Enrollment Management

In addition to organizational changes, some HE institutions have started

implementing Strategic Enrollment Management (SEM) plans (Tremblay, 2013). Mathis

(2010) suggests a SEM “ambassador” can use research to guide recruitment and retention

strategies, engage faculty and inform students of the college admission process.

It was reported that last year, private colleges staffed their admission and recruitment

offices at the highest levels yet (Noel-Levitz, 2013b). At an average cost of $2,433 per

prospective student, private HE institutions are realizing recruiting a larger student

population is becoming an unsustainable model and the focus should shift to retention (Noel-

Levitz, 2013b; Tremblay, 2013).

According to Elliot and Healy (2001) for HE institutions utilizing a SEM plan, “they

must first identify what is important to students to attract them, then deliver a quality

education to retain them. However, it should also be remembered that student recruitment

and retention activities are interrelated. The most effective and efficient means of recruiting

students is through word-of-mouth promotion which comes from current satisfied students”

(Elliot and Healy, 2001, p. 10).

Tremblay suggests that SEM plans could have a negative impact if they are not

carefully monitored and managed (2013). According to Noel-Levitz’s 2013 Marketing and

Student Recruitment Practices Benchmark Report for Four-Year and Two-Year Institutions,

“only about one-third to one half of respondents across institution types reported having a

strategic, multi-year enrollment plan that they felt good about” (p. 1).

 

  21

Selling Diversity

In response to the changing environment, some HE institutions have started to recruit

more diverse populations of students. To accomplish this, some HE institutions utilize their

websites to visually present diversity on their campus as well as build relationships and

recruit prospective students (Boyer, 2006). Of the 163 private and public HE institution

websites looked at, 65% featured minority students on the homepage (Boyer, 2006).

“Globally, colleges and universities are using their websites as key marketing and public

relations tools to reach prospective students. With their need to recruit a more diverse student

population, combined with the increased number of Internet usage, HE institutions must rely

on their websites to portray their university as diverse in order to appeal to a wider

population” (Boyer, p. 136, 2006).

Contrary to this, some HE institutions are more cautious with their portrays of

diversity (Boyer, 2006). In order to not raise any questions from other university

stakeholders, depictions of diversity are kept to a minimum (Boyer, 2006). Unfortunately,

taking this conservative approach to using diverse populations to represent their institutions,

there is a lost opportunity “to communicate with prospective students of varied racial, ethnic,

and religious backgrounds, as well as those with limited physical abilities” (Boyer, 2006).

Typically, teens need to envision themselves at college. If they do not see similar images on

university websites, they feel campus community is not inclusive which would cause them to

apply to another institution (Boyer, 2006).

Boyer (2006) found that one solution to counter falsely advertising diversity is to

promote programs dedicated to certain student populations instead. For example, the

Midwest is not as diverse in nature as compared to areas in the North and West, which are

known more for international populations (Boyer, 2006). Therefore, trying to depict the

 

  22

campus with a large population of minority students would be questioned (Boyer, 2006, p.

149). Instead, HE institutions in the Midwest tend to promote their international programs

(Boyer, 2006).

Social Media and Higher Education

Another way to reach prospective domestic and international students is through

social media. New studies suggest that HE institutions have been quick to adopt the use of

social media for marketing and recruiting efforts (Barnes and Mattson, 2010; Barnes and

Lescault, 2011). This latest study (2010-2011) examined the most recent trending of social

media adoption among four-year accredited institutions in the United States.

Not only are HE institutions having some success with social media, they are

outperforming Fortune 500 companies (Barnes and Mattson, 2010). Topping the list of the

most effective social media networking sites was Facebook (Barnes and Lescault, 2011). HE

institutions also proved to have much success with blogs (Barnes and Lescault, 2011).

Higher Education Recruiting and Gamification With the success of social media adoption, some HE institutions are attempting to

further engage students using gamification. Game-based geolocation mobile applications

such as Scvngr for Universities are being used for campus visits and university orientation.

Because university orientation is so vital to new students, some HE institutions utilize mobile

applications to help them transition to the new environment by informing them people,

locations, and events (Fitz-Walter, Tjondronegoro, and Wyeth, 2011).

According to the 2011 pilot study, Orientation Passport: Using Gamification to

Engage University Students, a gamified element was added to a university mobile application

in order to make the application more enjoyable for the user and motivate them to use it more

 

  23

(Fitz-Walter, Tjondronegoro, and Wyeth). The application included an achievement design

that was centered around check-ins. Results showed that the added achievement element was

generally well received by the students. With the exception of one participant, the students

agreed the achievement “added value to their orientation experience and that the achievement

system was fun to connect phones with another person in order to add their details and

unlock the friend themed achievement” (Fitz-Walter, Tjondronegoro, and Wyeth, 2011, p. 4).

Since an innovation is defined as “the first or early use of an idea by one of a set of

organizations with similar goals,” gamification can be considered innovation (Rogers, 1983,

1995, 2003). This study intends examine factors lead to HE institutions adoption or rejection

of gamification into their marketing and recruiting practices.

RQ1: What stage of the gamification innovation-decision process is the most

dominant among HE institutions? RQ2: Which elements of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory are factors for HE

institutions adopting or rejecting gamification as part of undergraduate student recruitment marketing strategies?

 

  24

CHAPTER III  

METHODOLOGY  

This chapter explains the methods used to conduct the study, giving special emphasis

on the collection of data. It should be noted that the mixed methodology was an evolving one

that took on different forms as the study progressed. The next chapter presents the results

obtained from those methods.

The General Perspective For this study, a combination of qualitative and quantitative data was collected and

analyzed. In the past, researches have generally drawn differences between qualitative and

quantitative studies.

Qualitative field research focuses on interpretations of findings and is usually

associated with the social sciences (Babbie, 2005). Contrary to that, quantitative field

research uses statistical analysis and is usually considered to be more objective (Babbie,

2005). More recently, Creswell and Clark (2007) have explained how the two approaches can

be combined. The following definition will guide this study:

Mixed methods research is a research design with philosophical assumptions

as well as methods of inquiry. As a methodology, it involves philosophical

assumptions that guide the direction of the collection and analysis of data and

the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches in many phases in the

research process. As a method, it focuses on collecting, analyzing, and mixing

both quantitative and qualitative data in a single study or series of studies. Its

central premise is the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in

 

  25

combination provides a better understanding of research problems than either

approach alone.

(Creswell and Clark, p. 5, 2007)

Using Creswell and Clark’s definition, the mixed method approach in this study

consisted of two phases: Phase One included quantitative procedures and Phase Two

included qualitative analysis for overall findings. As primarily a qualitative study, the

research reported here embodies both quantitative and qualitative perspectives.

This study began by collecting preliminary quantitative data as a basis for collecting

and interpreting the primary qualitative data. The intention was to use the qualitative data to

help answer the first research question. In the end, the procedures used qualitative data to

explain quantitative results.

Not only can the mixed methods approach help to answer questions that qualitative

and quantitative methods cannot answer on their own, it can provide “more comprehensive

evidence for studying a research problem than either quantitative or qualitative research

alone” (Creswell and Clark, p. 9, 2007).

A 2008 study by Farzen et al. using mixed methods research sought to show how the

use of gamification elements, such as a point system, can motivate users’ contributions in an

enterprise social networking. The researchers conducted follow-up interviews after an initial

incentive experiment was conducted in the user community (Farzen et al., 2008). The

interviews were essential for evaluating the effectiveness of the experiment.

The Research Context  

This study looked at the state of higher education (HE) institution marketing over the

past 2013-14 academic year. Given the fact that HE institutions are struggling with

enrollment, their marketing practices were examined for any emergence of gamification.

 

  26

Pilot Study A pilot study consisting of five marketing and recruiting experts that met the study

protocol was drawn from across Saint Louis University in St. Louis, Missouri. The first

modified gamification survey questionnaire consisted of a sample size of 30 participants

from university marketing or recruiting departments.

This initial study was developed in order to test the relevance of the predetermined

questions as well as identify possible themes that will guide the research. This study was

developed as a preliminary analysis before committing to the larger scale study.

Data Collection for the Pilot Study

Round One of the pilot study included the participation of 15 marketing and

recruiting experts. Seven of the experts were from individual schools within the university;

six were from the admissions department, one from academic affairs, and one from

marketing and communications department. The recruitment of participants consisted of

contacting 30 experts from across the university via email (Appendix A) with an embedded

Google Form questionnaire sent on Sept. 8, 2014. The pilot participants provided consent for

the 13 multiple-choice questions as well as left feedback through two open-ended questions

(Appendix B) through a Google Form.

The first group of potential participants consisted of counselors, directors, and

marketing managers from admissions. These individuals are usually the first point of contact

for prospective students. The second group was expanded to the marketing and

communications department that oversees the branding of the university.

The third pool consisted of marketing managers at various schools across the

university (arts and sciences, business, law, and public health) that are in charge of marketing

their particular school and recruiting students into their programs.

 

  27

Finally, personnel in the academic affairs department were also contacted to secure

participants for the pilot portion of this study.

Round Two of the pilot study included five marketing and recruiting professionals.

Three of the professionals were from individual schools within the university and two were

from the admissions department. The recruitment of these participants was based on the

responses from the two survey questions: “Are you familiar with the term gamification?”

and “Would you be willing to participate in a longer questionnaire about the use of

gamification?”

Round One Data Analysis

Although only 33% of respondents said they were familiar with the term

gamification, 73% said they used gamified techniques such as scavenger hunts and trivia and

87% said their website housed contests for prospective students. These results show that only

a small percentage of HE marketers are in the implementation stage of the innovation-

decision process. From this small sample it is also clear that certain aspects of gamification

have been adopted in HE marketing and recruiting.

In addition to supplying their own questions, survey participants revealed that it

would be helpful to include a definition of gamification in the questionnaire.

Gamification: The process of using game elements and techniques

from games we all play such as board games and video games and

applying them in real-life situations in order achieve an outcome. For

example, increase engagement or motivation.

See Appendix C for additional questions that came from participant suggestions.

 

  28

Round Two Data Analysis

The pilot interviewees were informed of the nature and subject of the study before

answering any questions (Appendix F). They then provided written consent for the interview

as well as for the audio recording.

To maintain confidentiality, interview participants were assigned non-identifying

labels.

• Respondent A is a Senior Manager in Admissions

• Respondent B is a Mid-level Manager in Admissions

• Respondent C is a Mid-level Manager in Arts and Sciences

• Respondent D is a Mid-level Manager in Business

• Respondent E is an Entry-level Manager in Public Health

These participants were interviewed in person. Their responses were recorded using a

digital recorder so they could then be analyzed for any emergence of gamification terms

and/or themes.

Interview Discussions

This part of the pilot study was created in order to see if any characteristics of the

diffusion of innovation elements (innovation, communication channels, time, and social

system) appeared.

For innovation, several new terms emerged when discussing gamification. New

identifiers for gamification to be added to the main study survey were as follows: temporary

tattoos, VIP badges, and QR codes.

 

  29

In response to adopting gamification, time and implementation of gamification

seemed to be determining factors for not integrating gamification more into marketing and

recruiting events. Here are some results:

Respondent A:

Challenges include coming up with concepts and trying to decide who will be in charge of it. While I plan the events, I’m not necessarily in charge of content. And then our marketing department dictates look, feel, and messaging. So putting all of the pieces together has been difficult and probably why I haven’t pushed harder for it.

Respondent B:

Development alone is probably three to four weeks. And that would be someone working on it solely. So, for a big project like that here, it takes a year to prepare for that kind of addition.

Pace and Length of Interviews

The structure of the interviews progressed naturally while averaging about 30

minutes. When additional questions were included in the main study, the interview time

increased to about 45 minutes. See Appendix C for additional questions that emerged from

the in-depth interviews.

During the in-depth interviews, factors leading to response rate of participation were

discussed. It was determined the use of incentives would be beneficial to secure a better

response rate as well as sending polite reminders and setting deadlines. These tactics will

also be implemented in the main study.

This pilot study helped to determine that some questions needed to be revised as well

as including additional follow-up questions that were implemented in the larger study. It is

important to point out that the participants from this pilot study will not be included in the

main study.

 

  30

Sampling and Selection for the Main Study  

A purposive sample of 50 HE institutions in the Midwest was identified and selected

based on a good representation of universities. The selection included public and private HE

institutions with varying class sizes, endowments, campuses, and acceptance rates. These

statistics were compiled from ranked HE institutional profiles found on the 2015 U.S. News

and World Report website as well as the Illinois Board Higher Education Consortium

website (2011).

Selection process for 25 Illinois and 25 Misssouri is as follows: 5 institutions with the

highest class size, 5 with the lowest class size; 5 institutions with the highest tuition, 5 with

the lowest tuition; 3 institutions with the highest acceptance rate. Due to some overlap in

more than one category, 6 institutions were thrown out. A total of 22 Illinois institutions and

22 Missouri institutions were selected for the study.

Selection of Participants

After the institutions were selected, admission and marketing representatives at these

institutions were identified via each institution's website and then contacted to participate in

the study. Admission representatives included admission counselors, enrollment

coordinators. Senior marketing representatives included web marketing coordinators,

marketing directors, and deans. For purposes of confidentiality, each HE institution

marketing professional is referred to with a fictitious name.

Since this study relied solely on human subjects, institutional review board (IRB)

approval was required before any contact with research participants. An IRB form (IRB # 14-

1002-3) was filled out and sent in for review along with the survey and interview questions.

A consent form was also sent to the participants taking part in the in-depth interviews.

 

  31

Instruments Used in Data Collection

Several instruments and recording processes were used in the data collection. First,

questions based on Rogers’ theory were developed for the survey and in-depth interview. The

questionnaire was based on background documentation including academic papers, articles,

and books. This questionnaire provided information about how HE institutions are either

adopting or rejecting gamification. Qualtrics (a web-based survey software tool) was used to

build the survey questionnaire, contact the participants, collect the data, and generate reports.

Respondents were employed by regional universities located across two states in the

Midwest (Illinois and Missouri). There were 228 admission and marketing professionals

selected from HE institution admission webpages or internal database webpages. The names,

job title, department, and email addresses of these individuals were collected and put into a

Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.

In order to contact the large number of participants at once, email invitations

(APPENDIX D) were distributed to these professionals via Qualtrics Mailer. Email

invitations included a personalized message and custom individual link, which recorded their

personal information and tracked their responses. Participants were also given an incentive to

complete the survey by being registered in a drawing to win a $25 Amazon gift card.

Through the software, each participant who started the survey was automatically assigned a

Response ID that would made it easy to categorize them by their job title and university. In

all, 93 surveys were started for an overall response rate of 41%. Because of missing data, 27

of the surveys started were unstable. As a result, 66 respondents comprised the final

subordinate sample.

 

  32

Procedures Used  

Forty-five professionals from Missouri universities participated while 20

professionals from Illinois universities participated. Some of the respondents were from the

same university, but did provide additional insight about their institution. They were grouped

together to reveal the true sample size of 10 Illinois universities and 18 Missouri universities.

Their responses were similar to one another. Overall there were 5 marketing representatives,

11 marketing directors, 40 admission representatives, 9 admission directors, and 1 dean who

completed the questionnaire.

To complete the research design, several specific procedures were used. First, survey

questions were developed and sent out. Next, codes for gamification elements and

innovation-decision process were developed and categorized. After the quantitative data were

collected, degree of gamification usage was analyzed.

Survey and Interview Questions  

To determine whether or not gamification has been adopted or rejected, questions

were framed using Rogers’ stages in the innovation-decision process: knowledge, persuasion,

decision, implementation, and confirmation (Rogers, 1983, 1995, 2003).

Interviews allow the researcher to control the line of questioning as well as gather

additional historical or background information not covered in the survey questionnaire

(Creswell, 2009). In-depth interview questions were created to help examine which of

Rogers’ elements of Diffusion of Innovations are most influential for adoption of

gamification. Four elements were examined: the innovation, communication channels, time,

and social systems. Please see Appendix F for list of questions.

The survey questionnaire was composed of five sections (APPENDIX E). The first

part of the survey was designed to collect characteristics of the HE institutions (name,

 

  33

marketing, recruiting, and communication preferences) as well as general indicators of

gamification adoption (contests, trivia, rewards, etc.) The last question in this section

collected information about the gamification term. For those that were not familiar with the

term at all, the survey was ended. Only 28 out of the 66 respondents indicated they were

familiar (slightly, somewhat, moderately, and very) with the term and continued to the next

section. In the second section, respondents answered questions about gamification adoption

to reveal elements of the innovation-decision process (innovation, communication channels,

time, and social system).

The third part of the survey consisted of specific information about the innovation-

decision process. For the nine respondents who indicated that they were not aware of it being

utilized in HE institution marketing, the survey ended. Fifteen respondents were aware, but

wanted to know more. One respondent was aware of it, but chose not to use it. Both of these

groups were prompted an opened-ended question: “If not being currently using gamificaion

in your marketing and recruiting at your institution, what has been the major decision for

this decision?” The survey was then ended.

Only two respondents made it to the fourth section. One indicated that gamification

was being used at their HE institution and the other indicated they had chosen to use it at

their HE institution. These respondents were asked three additional questions regarding

implementation and evaluation of gamification success.

The survey consisted of 5- and 6-point Likert scale questions, multiple-choice

answers, and open-ended questions. The Qualtrics software automatically recorded

responses. Reports were generated and downloaded. One with raw data, one visual report,

and one statistical report were analyzed. The visual report consisted of charts and tables that

were easy to view quickly for patterns. SPSS Statistics software was used to run statistical

 

  34

analysis of the results. After collecting the interview data, the results were analyzed and

coded for any appearance of the stages of Rogers’ innovation-decision process and its

elements. See Figure 1.

Figure 1. Five Stages of the Innovation-Decision Process

The very last section of the survey asked respondents to participate in an in-depth

interview. There were 15 respondents who were willing to participate in a phone interview.

Nine respondents were contacted to participate in the interview. Only those that indicated

they had some knowledge of gamification were selected for the phone interview with two

exceptions, the one dean who completed the survey and the one participant who had the

highest level of gamification knowledge. The dean was selected for the interview because of

the high degree of decision-making and also because they indicated their institution was

participating in rewards and interactive checklists. He was asked the same questions, but

 

  35

gamification was replaced with new marketing technique. The other respondent was

contacted because of their expertise with gamification indicated by their answers about

gamification adoption as well as responses to the open-ended questions even though they did

not indicate they wanted to participate in an in-depth interview. Each of these respondents

was interviewed. One participant changed their mind when contacted and another participant

did not respond to the follow up email. Overall, a total of 7 phone interviews were

conducted.

According to Creswell, interviews are especially useful when the participant cannot

be directly observed (2009). Unstructured interviews are “intended to elicit views and

opinions from the participants” (Creswell, 2009, p. 181). Before the interview, an email was

sent to confirm participation and to establish the best time for the interview.

Procedure was loosely based on Creswell’s (2009) protocol for qualitative interviews.

An introduction, followed by an icebreaker question, was used at the beginning of the

interview. Prior to conducting the interview, the interviewees were also informed of the

recording process. The HE professional was then interviewed using the in-depth questions.

Follow-up questions were asked when it was necessary to get the individual to explain their

answers in more detail. Handwritten notes were taken during the interview (heading with

date, time, and name was also included). Time was allowed between answers in order to take

notes. To acknowledge the individual’s time, a final thank you statement was used at the end

of the interview.

While conducting the semi-structured phone interview, a digital recording device was

used to capture responses. Their responses were recorded using Express Dictate™ on an

Apple Mac OS X laptop Version 10.6.8 (Express Dictate is a voice recording and

transcription software). These interviews were recorded digitally so they could then be easily

 

  36

analyzed for any emergence of gamification innovation elements and/or themes. Audio

recordings were deleted upon completion of the project.

Qualitative Analysis of Interview Data  

Preparing Data  

Organization and preparation of the raw data had to be completed before the analysis

could begin. Hand-written notes were typed up and placed in another spreadsheet with

respondent responses from the survey for easy cross-referencing.

Step one: First, the interviews were transcribed using Express Dictate and later pasted

into spreadsheet and then printed out for easy coding. Next, all of the transcriptions were

browsed over quickly as a whole to get a general sense of what was present in recordings.

Then, first impressions were noted. Finally, the transcripts were read again, one by one. Each

line was read very carefully several times to look for any emergence of any interesting

information like repeated terms or phrases.

Coding Data  

Step two: Next, the transcripts were coded. To code, relevant pieces in the transcripts

were labeled, underlined, and highlighted different colors. Relevant codes were words,

phrases, sentences that were repeated several times, surprising, or something the individual

explicitly said was important. These labels were about actions, opinions, differences and

similarities, as well as preconceived theories and concepts. Specially, any piece that was in

anyway related to Rogers’ diffusion theory was considered highly significant.

Codes included, but were not limited to, the five stages of the innovation-decision

process (knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation); Rogers’

elements of the innovation-decision process (innovation, communication channels, time, and

 

  37

social system); as well as innovation attributes (relative advantage, complexity,

comparability, trialability, and observability), and game elements (contests, trivia, scavenger

hunts, interactive checklists, rewards, and giveaways).

Step three: Data collected were separated into meaningful parts (Strauss, 1987). By

bringing several codes together, the categories created became themes. These codes helped to

define meaningful data. Extra codes were ignored. In brief, all of the codes created in the

previous step were not used.

Through this process, the researcher tried to remain unbiased, creative, and open-

minded. In other words, reviewing the information on an abstract level to better

conceptualize the data.

Step four: Categories were labeled and the connections between these categories were

described. The results were the experience about the HE institutional realm through the

perspective of the participants in the study. It is these connections that became the main

results of the study. See Figure 2.

Step five: Categories were reviewed and ranked according to importance. Some codes

appeared more than once and in more than one category.

Step six: Results were written up and summarized in the Chapter IV. Furthermore,

results were also interpreted according to Rogers’ diffusion theory and summarized in

Chapter V.

 

  38

Figure 2. Research Variables

VARIABLE OPERATIONAL MEASURE

Innovation-decision Process

Scaled items: defined for knowledge, persuasion, decision, and implementation. Knowledge hearing about gamification for the first time, persuasion stage involved in forming an opinion, decision stage involved in deciding to use, and implementation if gamification was in use 5- and 6-point Likert scale, multiple choice, in depth interviews

Innovation Classified as adopter if using trivia, contests, rewards, and interactive checklists. Other classifications: relative advantage, complexity, compatability, trialability, observability.

Channel Multiple choice. Classified as mass media external if advertisement, article, book, or news story. Classified as mass media internal if presentation on my campus or professional conference. Classified as interpersonal if colleague/word of mouth or social media.

Time Classified the innovation-decision process if any elements of the stages are observed.

Social system Classified as optional if decision to adopt or reject was an individual’s choice. Classified as collective is choice to adopt or reject was a consensus among group. Classified as authority if leadership made the choice to adopt or reject.

This chapter has explained the methods used in this mixed study of 44 HE institutions

across two states in the Midwest. The next chapter presents the results obtained with those

methods.

 

  39

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS OF THE STUDY    

As stated in Chapter 1, the study examined the current state of HE marketing and

recruiting as well as investigated whether these institutions have adopted gamification as a

HE marketing strategy.

Analysis of Data  

The results of the survey, which evaluated the innovation-decision process related to

gamification and the factors that influenced these stages, were interpreted using the

characteristic features of innovation defined by Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory

(1995).

Referring specially to the term gamification, data from one question indicated that

58% of respondents were not familiar with the gamification. The rest of the respondents were

familiar with the term gamification to some degree. See Table 1.

Table 1 Knowledge of Gamification Term Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative Percent

Not at all 38 57.6 57.6 57.6 Slightly familiar 13 19.7 19.7 77.3 Somewhat familiar 3 4.5 4.5 81.8 Moderately familiar 7 10.6 10.6 92.4 Very familiar 5 7.6 7.6 100.0 Total 66 100.0 100.0 Notes: N = 66, M = 1.91, Mnd 1.00, SD = 1.321, range 4, min 4, max 5.

Overall, a total of 32% of admissions professionals surveyed were familiar with

gamification to some extent. 68% of admission professionals were not familiar with

gamification at all. 85% of marketing professionals surveyed were familiar with

 

  40

gamification. Only 15% of marketing professionals were unfamiliar with gamification. See

Figure 3.

Figure 3. Gamification Knowledge Stage

When asked specifically about college apparel, 37 out of 66 respondents (56%) said

their institution had used it as a reward within the last year. Twenty-four respondents (65%)

who answered, “Yes” to using college apparel also indicated they were not familiar with the

term gamification at all. See Table 2.

Table 2 Cross Tabulation Among Gamification Knowledge and Rewards Students are Given Branded Apparel as Reward Familiar with Gamification Yes No Not sure Total Not at all 24 11 3 38 Slightly familiar 8 3 2 13 Somewhat familiar 0 1 2 3 Moderately familiar 3 4 0 7 Very familiar 2 0 3 5 Total 37 19 10 66 Notes: c2 (1, N = 66) = 23.48*, degrees of freedom = 8, p < 0.001 * The Chi-Square approximation may be inaccurate - expected frequency less than 5.

Some respondents indicated that gamified elements were being used to some degree.

Responses show that university mobile apps are being used to a great extent. Giveaways,

interactive checklists are also being used to some extent. Scavenger hunts, and rewards are

0  

5  

10  

15  

20  

25  

30  

35  

40  

Yes   No  

Admission  Professionals  

Marketing  Professionals  

 

  41

also being used to some degree. Respondents indicated that trivia is being used the least. See

Table 3.

Table 3 Gamification Adoption Interactive

checklists Trivia Scavenger

hunts Giveaways Guidebook University

mobile app Rewards

Not at all 16 27 31 9 38 45 24 Rarely 9 20 10 13 4 3 11 Sometimes 13 2 10 19 2 3 15 Often 9 2 1 12 4 2 5 To a great extent

6 - - 5 1 12 -

Not sure 11 13 14 7 16 16 9

To help determine the perceived need for innovation, all respondents were asked if

their institution had been successful in reaching their audience. Overall, 52% of the

respondents indicated they have been very successful and 36% have been moderately

successful.

Table 4 Perceived Need for Innovation Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative Percent

Somewhat successful 4 6.1 6.1 6.1 Moderately successful 24 36.4 36.4 42.4 Very successful 34 51.5 51.5 93.9 Not sure 4 6.1 6.1 100.0 Not very successful - - - - Total 66 100.0 100.0 Notes: N = 66, M = 4.58, Mnd = 5.00, SD = 0.703, range 3, min 3, max 6.

Those respondents that were familiar with gamification were asked when they first

heard of the term. Most reported to learning of it less than a year ago while only 3% of

respondents learned of it between four to five years ago. See Table 5.

 

  42

Table 5 First Exposure to Gamification Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent Do not recall 5 7.6 17.9 17.9 < 1 year 10 15.2 35.7 53.6 1 to < 2 years 5 7.6 17.9 71.4 2 to < 3 years 6 9.1 21.4 96.3 3 to < 4 years 2 3.0 7.1 100 4 < 5 years - - - - Total 28 42.4 100.0 Missing System 38 57.6 Total 66 100 Notes: N = 28, M = 2.64, Mnd 2.00, SD = 1.22, range 4, min 4, max 5.

Those that were familiar were asked how they first heard of the term. There was not a

communication channel that was the only contributor to learning about gamification. It was

found that 18% had read an article or book about it while 15% heard of gamification by word

of mouth. Only 3% heard about it through social media and 5% from a conference.

Most of these respondents also reported that they were interested in knowing more

about gamification in HE marketing and recruiting practices. None of the respondents

indicated that gamification in their marketing practices was currently being evaluated at their

institution. See Table 6.

Table 6 Gamification in HE Institution Marketing Frequency Percent Valid

Percent Cumulative Percent

Knowledge 9 13.6 33.3 33.3 Persuasion 15 22.7 55.6 88.3 Decision - rejection 1 1.5 3.7 92.6 Decision - adoption 1 1.1 3.7 96.3 Implementation 1 1.1 3.6 100 Confirmation - - - - Total 27 40.9 100.0 Missing System 39 59.1 Total 66 100 Notes: n = 28, M =1.91, Mnd = 1.00, SD = 0.932, range 4, min 4, max 5.

 

  43

To determine detailed factors that lead to gamification rejection, respondents were

asked an open-ended question. Out of the 28 responded who indicated they were familiar

with the term gamification, 15 indicated it was currently not being used in their marketing

and recruiting. Although answers varied, the most consistent answer was lack of knowledge

(See Figure 4).

 Figure 4. Responses for Gamification Non-adoption

If not currently using gamification in your marketing and recruiting at your institution, what has been the major influence for this decision?

• It is not what we are focused on. • I'm not sure if leadership is aware of this idea. • I'm not sure if we have tried it or not, but if we haven't it would be due to a lack of

knowledge. • Relevance or lack thereof to the target audience for most of our programs • Don't know enough about it. • I feel as though gamification to encourage participation can tend to "cheapen" data or

create false interest. • Not enough information about it or how to implement. • Lack of dedicated staff to create/implement. Budget constraints. • Lack of knowledge. • Not just one, there are major influencers. Show me some data that supports how we

can use this to increase yield in any way. • Lack of knowledge. • I'm not sure; gamification is outside my purview. • Funding. • Administrative decisions from above and financial restrictions • The concept needs to be vetted via admissions.

Interview Analysis  

Respondent A is an Admissions Counselor from a small, public HE institution in a

small town in Missouri.

Respondent B is a Program Director from a medium size, private nonprofit HE

institution in urban Missouri.

 

  44

Respondent C is a Director of Communications and Marketing from a large, public

HE institution in Missouri.

Respondent D is a Dean of Admissions from a small, private HE institution in

suburban Illinois.

Respondent E is Marketing Specialist from a large, public HE institution in suburban

Illinois.

Respondent F is a Director of Student Activities from a large, private university in a

small town in Illinois.

Respondent G is an Admissions Counselor from a large, public HE institution in rural

Illinois.

Innovation-decision process. The majority of the respondents indicated on the

survey that they were familiar with gamification and were using it to some extent at their HE

institutions. Only one respondent wasn’t familiar with the term although his HE institution

was using a gamified element to engage with prospective students. It was noted that five of

the respondents have gone through the knowledge stage, persuasion stage, decision stage,

and implementation stage. One respondent is starting the knowledge stage. This is the

respondent that was introduced to gamification for the first time due to the survey

questionnaire also indicating wanting to know more about it is. One respondent is starting the

confirmation stage. It was also evident that certain key factors took place during each stage.

See Table 7.

   

 

  45

Table 7 Stage of Innovation-Decision Process (IDP) Factors IDP Stage Element Attribute Knowledge Innovation

Social system Communication channels

Relative advantage Complexity Observability

Persuasion Social system Communication channels Innovation

Compatibility Complexity

Decision Time Innovation

Complexity Compatibility

Implementation Innovation Time

Trialability

Confirmation Innovation Social system Communication channels

Observability Relative advantage

Knowledge stage. Six of the respondents indicated on the survey that they were

familiar with the term gamification to some extent. During this stage, communication

channels varied. Two respondents learned about it by reading an article or book, two

respondents learned about gamification at a professional conference, and two respondents

learned about it through word of mouth. During this stage, relative advantage was observed.

Although the benefits of using gamification to reach the undergraduate audience was

understood, the true meaning of the term was sometimes questioned.

Respondent D is a Dean of Admissions from a small, private HE institution in

suburban Illinois. According to the respondent, their institution was very successful reaching

their undergraduate audience this past year. The respondent was not aware of the term

gamification before the survey, but wanted to know more about it. The respondent disclosed

that their institution is currently using Zinch™ (a web-based platform used to track and to

connect with students). The respondent goes on to say that although they like to stay up-to-

 

  46

date with innovative trends, careful consideration needs to be taken when trying to integrate

something new:

I always describe admissions as being the type of industry where you’re scared to stop doing anything you've been doing and you're also scared to start doing all of the other stuff everybody else is doing. So what we end up with in some cases is a very complex process because it's always additive. We try to keep everything else going while at the same time trying new things. With marketing and limited resources sometimes it's a little different because you've got to look at how we’ve been doing traditionally and what could we maybe let go of a little in order to try something new. So that's kind of how our marketing budget is usually going to be divided. The respondent also stated that their institution does attempt new marketing

techniques on a trial basis:

We have things that we're dedicated to already and if we see a new product or new technology different that we'd like to try, we've usually set some money aside. We'll try it for a year or two maybe three to see what kind of productivity we get out of it. If there's not a lot of productivity we'll then reallocate those resources to something different or new and try to see how that works. If we find something that does work really well for us, then that becomes a permanent part of our operation. And then if another new opportunity comes up we've got to figure out what else to let go again to make budget room for that new. So you don't have an unlimited budget. There's a lot of cool stuff out there, but you can't just keep adding and adding and adding. You've really got to be strategic about what can you cut that will have the least impact on your enrollment and what can you add that might have the greatest impact.

Respondent B is a Program Director at a large, private HE institution in urban

Missouri. According to the survey, the respondent is very familiar with the term gamification

and learned about at a conference two to three years ago. The respondent is between 25 and

34 years old and believes gamification comes naturally for younger generations. The

respondent also finds that it is harder to it explain gamification to those that have not grown

up with newer technologies. The respondent goes on to explain why the use of the term

gamification is problematic.

Internally, when I try to talk about [gamification], I’ve found it's very much a generational thing. We've experienced enough that it's kind of engrained in us. We know how it's done. We've seen it done. We know what to expect. In higher education, a lot of the powers that be are old school. They like the physical paper

 

  47

copy in front of them. So explaining it, I think for me is showing examples of different ways. The visual for me has been the most effective to get that buy-in. Because trying to explain it verbally can be very difficult. If there's data or research out there, then you can access again, I think that speaks to them. Respondent C is a Director of Communications and Marketing from a large, public

HE institution in Missouri. The respondent is somewhat familiar with gamification and

learned about it at a conference two to three years ago. The respondent believes their HE

institution is not quite skilled in gamifcation yet. Although they are using it to engage current

students, the respondent thinks this new method could also help them reach their

undergraduate audience better:

I would first of all say, I'm not any expert in [gamification] and we're just dabbling in it and trying to understand new ways we can reach and really interact with prospective students. But mostly, most of the social media or I'd say fun things we do, are targeted toward existing students. We haven't scratched the surface on this. I don't think we understand the term to be honest with you.

Respondent F is a Director of Student Activities from a large, private university in a

small town in Illinois. The respondent believes they are slightly familiar with

gamification since hearing about it by word of mouth about two to three years ago:

Well, I'm a little bit familiar with the word. It has come up in conversation here just in our division of student services. Our director of admissions has also alluded to this term before. I think we're really trying to increase our reach to students through some of these, what I'll call game-like elements, to encourage students to participate, to follow through and not just show up at an event, but then stay at an event and so forth. So I know enough about it, probably just enough to be dangerous about it. Respondent A is an Admissions Counselor from a small, public HE institution in a

small town in Missouri. The respondent is moderately familiar with gamification after

reading an article about it one to two years ago. They stated that within the last year, their

institution has been moderately success in reaching their undergraduate audience. According

to the respondent, the use of rewards, (e.g. t-shirts, water bottles) for social media check-ins

 

  48

for camps events was reactionary to what others were already doing. The respondent goes on

to say gamification has started to be integrated because of a new social media strategy.

Respondent A also believed the decision to use gamification was due to the fact that

goals for social media changed:

We have changed our factors of what we would consider successful. Originally we were trying to earn more “likes” and simply gain more followers and realized that that doesn't necessarily mean more people are sharing or are necessarily interested in our content. More recently there’s been more focus on gaining greater engagement. So, trying to get people interested and involved with social media at [our university] -- essentially more interaction than just blanket “likes” or followers.

Respondent F, the Director of Student Activities from a large, private university in a

small town in Illinois, indicated their institution has been moderately successful reaching

their undergraduate audience. The respondent sees an advantage to using gamification and

thinks they “need to meet the students where they are. For many students this may be a way

to connect with them when they're not paying attention through a lot of our other means of

marketing and communication.”

Respondent E is Marketing Specialist from a large, public HE institution in suburban

Illinois and is moderately familiar with gamification. They read an article about gamification

two to three years ago. The respondent also believes gamification is a way to better reach the

undergraduate students since they are “trying to find ways to stay with the current times.”

The respondent also stated that their institution integrates gamification with social media

because students are heavily monitoring sites like Twitter so it’s important to try and find

ways to stay in that area and keep them engaged.

Persuasion stage: Six of the respondents indicated they were using some form of

gamification at their HE institutions and also indicated game elements such as giveaways,

 

  49

interactive checklists, trivia, contests, rewards were used in person as well as on social media

platforms.

Respondent G thinks gamification adoption can help to get the audience’s

attention:

I think the biggest thing is capturing an audience. And I really do believe, the more you capture and audience, the more you get people involved and get people excited about buying into your university, the more successful anything is. That's kind of what got us to that point.

Decision stage. Several of the respondents were trying gamification on a trial basis.

Most of these respondents used a collective innovation-decision. Respondent B and C used

an authority innovation-decision process.

Respondents A, D, E, and F all work with small groups of colleagues and student

workers to brainstorm ideas as well as how to implement those ideas. Respondent A stated

that at their institution, they have a couple of working committees that meet regularly to

bounce ideas off of each other as well as “hash things out before approaching leadership for

things like budget.”

Respondent A, the Admission Counselor from a small, public HE institution in a

small town in Missouri, has created with a gamification idea that he would like to try for

campus events. The respondent would like to take a random picture on campus and send out

clues via social media. Students that found his location would get a reward such as college

apparel. The respondent also stated that he had the freedom to pursue these ideas, but not

necessarily the time to do. Since there is not a specific position (such as a social media

manager) at the their institution, it would probably be his responsibility to implement

gamification. The respondent explained that if they were to go down that road and decide it

 

  50

was something they wanted to do, and the project was delegated to him, it would end up

being on his timeframe to put it together.

The respondent also goes on to say that it would take a change in the organization structure

in order to get gamification fully adopted:

I think at a certain point it becomes not necessarily about wants, it's more about how can we man it? - especially if our competitors are doing [gamification] and they are seeing insane amounts of engagement. But we don't have a dedicated position. We can't do it the way we're functioning now. There needs to sort of an institutional change in the direction of what that position is able to do and then from and increase it since it would be somebody's day-to-day job. Although there is a virtual tour on their institution’s website, Respondent G stated

that to truly move toward gamification adoption, you have to have leadership with right

mindset:

The biggest thing with gamification is that it is very new. I think it takes an innovative thinker to really be able to move forward and say, “Okay. We're going to do this.” And then everyone else kind of jumps on the bandwagon. I don't know of any administrator yet that has really said this for sure.

Respondent B believes the reason gamification is being used at their HE institution is

because they wanted to connect more with their target audience:

I think that ultimately gamification can provide greater expansion for us in that student relationship. I felt like we spoke a lot to our parent audience, but we really weren't pulling in our student audience. So we've already increased our more direct communications to the students in a way that they can understand. Instead of just a plain email, there's a branded email with an embedded quiz with some type of prize. They get a better perception and a better relationship with the university, which you know encourages in them in multiple ways that they might come to the university, then great, but more importantly, they become a brand champion. They encourage their friends to take part of it. They're now wearing the apparel and getting our message out there.

Respondent F believes trying gamification is a way to reach some students and it’s

“just part of that larger dynamic. Not everybody is going to respond to this, but potentially

 

  51

there are students who would be. And you have to get out there and see what's it's like and try

and know that you're only going to be successful with some.”

Respondent B, the Program Director at a large, private HE institution in urban

Missouri, does not like to use the term gamification at their institution:

What I like to say instead of the word gamification is the word stickiness. It's the idea that even before someone makes a decision in terms of a college, before they even get to a campus, they already have in their mind an idea of what [our university] means. They have perception of [us] because they've encountered us. They've either heard about us. They've looked us up online and played with our website and got drawn into it and liked what they saw.

Respondent C, the Director of Communications and Marketing from a large, public

HE institution in Missouri, is currently using Merit software™ to motivate current students

with digital badges throughout the academic year. This software program creates merit pages

for students that allows for them to share their accomplishments at the same time creating

brand awareness for the university.

We use this software call Merit software™ to help us. When you get admitted, it sends a press release to your hometown newspaper. Then, we also send you a badge with our [mascot] on it you can post to Facebook. Then students share it with their parents and their family and all of the sudden the brand gets shared all over the place. So once they're here you know there's all kinds of different awards they get like being on the Dean’s list. The respondent goes on to say that utilizing gamification for current students may

have the potential to entice prospective students that may visit the Facebook page. The

respondent also would like to see gamification be used to engage high school students who

come on campus to learn about the institution on prospective student visits.

Students seem to like Merit. It's a pretty interesting program. We've done a little bit of that for prospective students. They seem to like it. They like to share successes even if they haven't even enrolled here yet. So there's ways that we've tried to tap into that mindset and we haven't done everything we can with that software yet, but it's really seems to be powerful.

 

  52

The respondent also goes on to say that the potential for their brand to reach other students is

increase with using Merit software™:

Think about it, once they share it with their fans, it just explodes. Mostly their parents want to share it you know what I mean. And the newspapers get it and then the little local paper and all of the sudden you start to getting more students from those towns. Now we haven't had ton of data yet, we've only been doing it for a year. But we have found that once they get out there and are aware of it, it starts to -the shares do increase quite a bit. I guess in a small way that's gamification.

The respondent thinks they “can do more and the admissions team would be open to

doing something with gamification on [prospective student] day.” Although they don’t know

what that would be, they think it would be a great place to start.

Implementation stage. Contrary to the survey, further investigation showed one

respondent has gone through the implementation stage. Respondent E, the Marketing

Specialist from a large, public HE institution in suburban Illinois, has had success running

several gamified social media campaigns. The respondent started on a small scale by utilizing

social media and gamification to get students involved at events. One social media challenge

involved trying to find the mascot during freshman orientation. Clues where sent via social

media channels along with a hashtag. At the end of the quest, the mascot was present for

students to have the chance to get their pictures taken with him.

A second social media campaign was implemented at another event. For this a student

asked a question with a certain hashtag via Twitter and stop by an information booth, they

received a prize. Also, all answers were put up on a big screen for everyone to see the Twitter

feed.

The respondent stated they also had success with another social media challenge

involving a pumpkin scavenger hunt. To find the pumpkins, students had to check the

 

  53

institution’s Facebook page. Although the scavenger hunt was for current students, it was so

successful that students were even calling in to get clues as well as providing feedback that

they wished there would have been more pumpkins to find. The respondent found this very

exciting.

Confirmation stage. Respondent E revealed they were in the confirmation stage. The

biggest success was a social media challenge involving their preview day for prospective

students. This was a “selfie” picture challenge on Twitter that also had its own. The

challenge was for students to take pictures of themselves during the day to share their

experience. This social media challenge was so successful; the hashtag was trending

nationally and locally on Twitter. The respondent contributes some of the success to getting

buy-in from the administration and has received a lot of positive feedback about the social

media campaign.

From virtual tours to mascot picture challenges, gamification adoption has helped

these HE institutions reach, engage, and motivate their prospective student audience. For a

summary of gamification techniques uncovered in this study, see Figure 5.

 

  54

Figure 5. Gamification in Higher Education Marketing and Recruiting

Gamified elements Interactive checklists Interactive maps University mobile applications Virtual tours Leaderboards Twitter feeds (used in public Q&A sessions) Rewards/Giveaways College apparel Rewards/Leveling up Merit Software™

Games/contests Social media contests using:

• Selfies • Hashtags

Scavenger hunts using:

• Mascot • Selfies • Hashtags

Trivia

 

  55

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 

Discussion of Findings  

The nature of gamification adoption in HE institution marketing and recruiting was

explored in this study. The results indicate that a slight majority of HE institutions are not yet

aware of gamification as a HE marketing technique. Since there is little evidence in the

scholarly literature for gamification and HE institution marketing and recruiting, this study

helped to shed some light on some on factors that lead to gamification adoption and will add

to the body of literature.

The results also indicate that, although some HE institutions are using gamified

elements, they are not aware of the gamification term, therefore, haven’t adopted or rejected

the innovation. However, it there might be several reasons for this

According to Rogers (1995) there are five stages that lead to either innovation

adoption or rejection. The purpose of this study was to determine where HE institutions were

in the decision process.

Research Question One   What stage of the gamification innovation-decision process is the most dominant

among HE institutions?

According to Rogers, the innovation-decision process occurs when an individual goes

from first knowledge of an innovation to forming an opinion toward the innovation, to a

decision to adopt or reject, to implementation of the innovation, and to confirmation of this

decision (1995). All five stages (knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and

confirmation) were observed from the survey and in-depth interviews.

 

  56

Data from the survey helped to answer the first research question. If considering the

term gamification only, the majority of the HE institutions are not yet even in the knowledge

stage, however, some of those individuals that were not familiar with the term were using

college apparel as rewards (Table 2). This could be due to the fact that some early adopters

prefer not to use the term in higher education. Two respondents believed the term was

confusing to the administrative staff. One being that the term gamification meant they had to

create a complex video game to add to the website for example, and the other being that the

term itself does not translate to an older generation. Therefore, HE institution professionals

may be using different terms to get approval.

Although it was evident that most of the HE institutions sampled in the Midwest were

in a pre-knowledge stage. A small percentage of respondents that were familiar with

gamification were in the knowledge. While in this stage, there are three kinds of knowledge

that individuals obtain: awareness-knowledge leads to how-to knowledge, and then

principles-knowledge (Rogers, 1995). Most of the HE institutions were just being exposed to

gamification by the survey questionnaire (awareness-knowledge). Others were aware of it,

but were seeking knowledge to understand how to use it at their institutions (how-to

knowledge). None of the respondents indicated wanting to know how gamification

functioned (principles-knowledge).

There was evidence that showed some HE institutions had awareness-knowledge that

motivated them individual to learn more. One example was Respondent C who was exposed

to the term gamification, but forgot about it until this survey questionnaire about gamification

was introduced. That respondent was motivated to learn more and then continued to the

persuasion stage onto the decision stage. Although currently using a gamified element for

current students, this respondent was inspired to perform a mental trial for how gamification

 

  57

could be utilized for reaching prospective undergraduate students. Finally, there was a

respondent that clearly wanted to know how gamification worked before trying it on a larger

scale.

Another theme that appeared was the dependence on social media channels. Although

some gamification adoption (trivia, scavenger hunts, contests) was being utilized in-person, it

relied heavily on social media for participation, communication, and recognition (check-ins,

announcements, leaderboards).

Research Question Two  

Which elements of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory are factors for HE

institutions adopting or rejecting gamification as part of undergraduate student recruitment

marketing strategies?

Most of the four elements (innovation, communication channels, time, and social

system) were observed in more than one stage. Attributes of the innovation (relative

advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability) itself seemed to be most

influential in the knowledge stage, persuasion stage, and decision stage (which leads directly

to adoption or rejection).

In general, HE institutions have not fully adopted gamification into their marketing

and recruiting strategies. One explanation for this is that they do not have a perceived need

for the innovation itself. Since the majority of the respondents indicated they were successful

at reaching their audience within the last year (Table 4), there was not a need to seek out

alternatives to what is already being done. The perceived relative advantage of gamification

would need to surpass the current methods being used. For example, one respondent was

deciding on gamification because their institution needed inexpensive marketing ideas.

 

  58

Another reason could be the complexity of the gamification term itself. One

respondent indicated that it is often hard to explain to someone who is not familiar with the

term. The respondent also believes there is a hindrance when administrators think

gamification means you have to create a complex, expensive video game. An innovation will

not be adopted if not “readily understood by most members of a social system” (Rogers,

1995, p. 16).

According to another respondent, gamification is not always compatible with the

higher education identity for individuals who might associate gamification with game shows

and carnivals. This incompatibility of gamification in this regard would require higher

education to change its values and norms for adoption (Rogers, 1995).

Observability seemed to be a main factor in gamification adoption. After seeing the

success on social media as well as getting positive feedback from students, Respondent E

decided to adopt gamification into further marketing efforts. Other respondents reported they

would like to see gamification work well at other HE institutions before trying it on a large

scale.

Communication channels and the social system played a key role in the knowledge

stage and the persuasion stage. As Rogers’ notes, “Individuals tend to expose themselves to

ideas that are in accordance with their interests, needs, and existing attitudes” (1995, p. 164).

The social system also played a role during the decision and implementation stage.

According to some respondents, implementing gamification cannot be added on to an

individual’s current job duties. There would need to be a position created specifically for

gamification, which would require institutional change.

 

  59

Conclusion   This research introduced Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory in order to examine

the current state of HE institutions marketing and recruiting as well as investigate whether

these institutions have adopted gamification as a marketing strategy.

Having identified many of the factors that influence adoption and rejection, it was

also important to examine factors in the innovation-decision process. The perception of an

innovation can greatly impact adoption. One reason gamification hasn’t been widely adopted,

may be due to the fact that some HE institutions’ current methods of communication (email,

social media, print, etc.) seem to be working for their marketing goals. The decision to use an

innovation usually starts with trying to replace or improve a current method or technology.

For an innovation to be adopted, the individual has to believe that the new concept or

technology will be even more successful than what they are already using. Therefore, unless

there is a perceived need, individuals do not seek out new information.

There is also a perceived level of complexity associated with gamification. Often

times, the term gamification is confused with a complicated or intricate video game. While

most HE institutions eventually adopted marketing techniques to help reach their audience,

integrating gamification may add a level of difficulty they are not ready to take on. It is also

import to note that gamification doesn’t require creating a complex game. Gamification can

be as simple as a having a contest for stopping by different booths at an event, given that the

purpose of gamification is to engage your audience and elicit some sort of desired behavior

by using a gamified element. If this definition starts to be more widely used, gamification

might be adopted at a faster rate.

Currently gamification is being used to create social media content for the sole

purpose of increasing engagement on social networking platforms. Although most HE

 

  60

institutions were quick to adopt social media, the responsibility of maintaining social media

was added on to counselors’ day-to-day duties for the most part. For gamification to be more

readily adopted, there may have to be changes to the organizational structure to allow for a

designated person to design, implement, confirm the use of gamification. This will be a large

feat, especially since historically the realm of higher education is often resistant to change.

Limitations   As the results of this research are interpreted, limitations must be taken into account.

For this mixed method study, individuals were contacted to fill out an online survey and then

asked to participate in an in-depth interview to get a more profound understanding of their

gamification habits. Since a small, purposive sample of public and private HE institutions in

the Midwest was used, validity issues must be considered. For the quantitative segment of the

study, the responses from participants cannot be attributed to the general population. In

addition, the in-depth interviews gave insight into their department only.

Since this study used Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory to examine adoption of

gamification, other factors such as budgets and where not considered. To understand more

about rejection, participants answered an open-ended question, If not currently using

gamification in your marketing and recruiting at your institution, what has been the major

influence for this decision?. Although responses varied, lack of funding was a major factor

for some HE institutions’ rejection of gamification.

Recommendations for Future Research   This study explores the nature of gamification in HE institution marketing and

recruiting and points to social media marketing as an avenue for further research. Firstly,

further studies could analyze the effect current gamification adoption has on HE institution

 

  61

social media platforms. I would recommend a qualitative study of fewer institutions that is

more in depth.

Secondly, in addition to comparing demographics of HE institution variables such as

type (public verses private) and budgets, future work could consider differences related to

organizational structure such as lack of marketing departments.

Thirdly, this research has explored only gamification adoption relying solely on

respondents’ opinions. By conducting a textual analysis, further studies could investigate

which HE institutions are using gamification throughout the undergraduate recruiting process

via email, print, websites, social media and high school visits as well as describe the content,

structure, and function of those messages.

Fourthly, further studies could also measure if prospective students are more

receptive to gamification marketing more than traditional marketing. Conducting focus

groups could provide rich detail that would be difficult to get in a survey questionnaire.

   

 

  62

REFERENCES  

Abrahamson, E. (1991). Managerial fads and fashions: the diffusion and rejection of

innovations. Academy of management review, 16(3), 586-612.

Abrahamson, E., & Rosenkopf, L. (1993). Institutional and competitive bandwagons: Using

mathematical modeling as a tool to explore innovation diffusion. Academy of

management review, 18(3), 487-517.

Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2012). Gamification and the Internet: Experts expect game layers

to expand in the future, with positive and negative results. Games For Health:

Research, Development, and Clinical Applications, 1(4), 299-302.

Armstrong, D. (2013). The new engagement game: the role of gamification in scholarly

publishing. Learned Publishing, 26(4), 253-256.

Babbie, E. (2005). The basics of social research (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson

Wadsworth.

Barnes, N. G., & Mattson, E. (2010). Social media and college admissions: Higher-ed beats

business in adoption of new tools for third year. University of Massachusetts–

Dartmouth Center for Marketing Research.

Barnes, N. G., & Lescault, A. M. (2011). Social media adoption soars as higher-ed

experiments and reevaluates its use of new communications tools. Center for

Marketing Research. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA.

Boyer, L., Brunner, B. R., Charles, T., & Coleman, P. (2006). Managing impressions in a

virtual environment: Is ethnic diversity a self‐presentation strategy for colleges and

universities?. Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication, 12(1), 136-154.

Berry Cullen, J., Levitt S., Robertson E. & Sadoff, S. (2013). What can be done to improve

 

  63

struggling high schools? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), 133-152.

Bosworth, A. (2012). Keas: Developing a successful game-based employee wellness

program. Games for Health Journal. 1(3).

Carmichael, M. (2006). Neuromarketing: Is it coming to a lab near you?. Retrieved May 3,

2014, from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/etc/neuro.html

Castillo, D. (2012). Instagram users can be paid for product placement. Product

Placement News. Retrieved November 10, 2014, from

http://productplacement.biz/201206214358/branded-entertainment/instagram-users-

can-be-paid-for-product-placement.html

Cheng, Y. C., & Tam, W. M. (1997). Multi-models of quality in education. Quality

Assurance Education, 5(1), 22-31.

Chitwood, A. (2011). Social media and higher education institution marketing and

recruitment: A qualitative analysis of adoption and use through diffusion of

innovations (Unpublished thesis). Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL.

Cochrane, L., Olson, C., Murray, S., Dupuis, M., Tooman, T., & Hayes, S. (2007). Gaps

between knowing and doing: Understanding and assessing the barriers to optimal

health care. Journal Of Continuing Education In The Health Professions, 27(2), 94-

102.

Conejo, F. (2014). Loyalty 3.0: How to revolutionize customer and employee engagement

with big data and gamification. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 31(1), 86-87.

Coomes, M. D. (2000). The historical roots of enrollment management. New Directions for

Student Services, 2000(89), 5-18.

Dahl, D., Frankenberger K., & Manchanda, R. (2003). Does it pay to shock?

 

  64

Reactions to shocking and nonshocking advertising content among university

students. Journal of Advertising Research, 43(03), 268-280.

Creswell, W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, W. & Plano Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of

information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

Deterding, S., Sicart, M., Nacke, L., O'Hara, K., & Dixon, D. (2011, May). Gamification.

Using game-design elements in non-gaming contexts. In CHI'11 Extended Abstracts

on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2425-2428). ACM.

Deterding, S., Dixon, D., Khaled, R., & Nacke, L. (2011, September). From game design

elements to gamefulness: Defining gamification. In Proceedings of the 15th

International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media

Environments (9-15). ACM.

Deterding, S. (2012). Gamification: Designing for motivation. Interactions, 19(4), 14-17.

Domínguez, A., Saenz-de-Navarrete, J., De-Marcos, L., Fernández-Sanz, L., Pagés, C., &

Martínez-Herráiz, J. J. (2013). Gamifying learning experiences: Practical implications

and outcomes. Computers & Education, 63(380-392).

Elliott, K. M., & Healy, M. A. (2001). Key factors influencing student satisfaction related to

recruitment and retention. Journal of marketing for higher education, 10(4), 1-11.

Etzkowitz, H., Webster, A., Gebhardt, C., & Terra, B. R. C. (2000). The future of the

university and the university of the future: Evolution of ivory tower to entrepreneurial

paradigm. Research policy, 29(2), 313-330.

 

  65

Farzan, R., DiMicco, J. M., Millen, D. R., Dugan, C., Geyer, W., & Brownholtz, E. A. (2008,

April). Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the

enterprise. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in

Computing Systems (pp. 563-572). ACM.

Fitz-Walter, Z., Tjondronegoro, D., & Wyeth, P. (2011, November). Orientation passport:

using gamification to engage university students. In Proceedings of the 23rd

Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (pp. 122-125). ACM.

Frambach, R. T. (1993). An integrated model of organizational adoption and diffusion of

innovations. European Journal of Marketing, 27(5), 22-41.

Gartner (2011). Gartner says by 2015, more than 50 percent of organizations that manage

innovation processes will gamify those processes.

Retrieved May 10, 2013, from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1629214.

Gomes, L., & Murphy, J. (2003). An exploratory study of marketing international education

online. International Journal of Educational Management, 17(3), 116-125.

Greenhalgh, T., Stramer, K., Bratan, T., Byrne, E., Russell, J., & Potts, H. W. (2010).

Adoption and non-adoption of a shared electronic summary record in England: a

mixed-method case study. BMJ, 340.

Ha, L. (1996). Observations: Advertising clutter in consumer magazines: Dimensions and

effects. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 76-84.

Hamari, J., & Koivisto, J. (2013). Social motivations to use gamification: An empirical study

of gamifying exercise.

Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014, January). Does gamification work?--A literature

review of empirical studies on gamification. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th

Hawaii International Conference on. 3025-3034. IEEE.

 

  66

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace:

A systematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International

Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(4), 316-338.

Henderson, S. E. (2005). Refocusing enrollment management: Losing structure and

finding the academic context. College and University Journal, (80), 3-8.

Instagram Stats. (2014). Retrieved from http://instagram.com/press

Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Witchey, H., Cummins, M., Estrada, V., Freeman, A., &

Ludgate, H. (2013). The NMC horizon report: 2013 higher education edition. Austin,

Texas: The New Media Consortium, Retrieved June 1, 2014, from

http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2013-horizon-report-HE.pdf

Kotler, P. (1979). Strategies for introducing marketing into nonprofit organizations. The

Journal of Marketing, 37-44.

Lepkowska-White, E., Parsons, A., & Ceylan, A. (2014). Cross promotion of web references

in print ads: Are advertisers attempting to engage consumers?. Journal of Research in

Interactive Marketing, 8(4), 309-326.

Lee, G., & Xia, W. (2006). Organizational size and IT innovation adoption: A meta-analysis.

Information & Management, 43(8), 975-985.

Lucassen, G., & Jansen, S. (2014). Gamification in consumer marketing-future or

fallacy?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 148, 194-202.

Martin, M.H. (2003). Factors influencing faculty adoption of web-based courses in teacher

education programs within the State University of New York (Doctoral dissertation,

Virgina Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2001). ProQuest Digital

Dissertation. Information & Management, 43(8), 975-985.

Mastin, T., Coe, A., Hamilton, S., & Tarr, S. (2004). Product purchase decision-making

 

  67

behavior and gender role stereotypes: A content analysis of advertisements in Essence

and Ladies’ Home Journal, 1990–1999. Howard Journal of Communications, 15(4),

229-243.

Mathis, D. (2010). Strategic enrollment management's ambassadors: The changing role of

admissions counselors. College and University, 85(4), 55-58.

McClure, S. M., Li, J., Tomlin, D., Cypert, K. S., Montague, L. M., & Montague, P. R.

(2004). Neural correlates of behavioral preference for culturally familiar drinks.

Neuron, 44(2), 379-387.

McGrath, A. (2014, September 9). Best Colleges 2015. Retrieved September 25, 2014, from

http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges

Morrison, B. B., & DiSalvo, B. (2014, March). Khan academy gamifies computer science. In

Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education.

39-44. ACM.

Noel-Levitz. (2013a). 2013 marketing and student recruitment practices at

four-year and two-year institutions. Coralville, Iowa. Retrieved June 5,

2014, from: http://www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports.

Noel-Levitz. (2013b). 2013 cost of recruiting an undergraduate student report.

Coralville, Iowa. Retrieved June 5, 2014, from:

http://www.noellevitz.com/BenchmarkReports.

Oprescu, F., Jones, C., & Katsikitis, M. (2014). I play at work—ten principles for

transforming work processes through gamification. Frontiers in psychology, 5.

PBS (2004) The Merchants of Cool. Frontline Video. Online video clip retrieved January 26,

2012, from,

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p70&%20o

 

  68

ninuous=1

PBS (2004, November 9). The Persuaders. Frontline Video. Online video clip retrieved

March 18, 2012, from

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p70&%20o

ninuous=1

Rodrigues, L. F., Costa, C. J., & Oliveira, A. (2014, May). How gamification can influence

the web design and the customer to use the e-banking systems. In Proceedings of the

International Conference on Information Systems and Design of Communication (pp.

35-44). ACM.

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2004). Theoretical diversity in political communication. Handbook of

Political communication research, 3-16.

Roy-Burman, A., Lightbody, L., Henry, D., Huey, R., Lynch, M., & Martin, E. (2013). 118:

Engaging nurses through social gamification. Critical Care Medicine, 41(12), A23.

Sahin, I. (2006). Detailed review of Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory and educational

technology-related studies based on Rogers' theory. The Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology, 5(2).

Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2001). Explaining the diffusion of knowledge management: The

role of fashion. British Journal Of Management, 12(1), 3.

Schelly, C. (2014). Residential solar electricity adoption: What motivates, and what matters?

A case study of early adopters. Energy Research & Social Science.

Seligman, L. (2006). Sensemaking throughout adoption and the innovation-decision

 

  69

process. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(1), 108-120.

Smith, K. (2012). Lessons learnt from literature on the diffusion of innovative learning and

teaching practices in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching

International, 49(2), 173-182.

Smith, R. (2011). The future of work is play: Global shifts suggest rise in

productivity games. In Games Innovation Conference (IGIC), 2011 IEEE

International (40-43). IEEE.

Smith, R. (2012). The future of work is play. In International Games Innovation

Conference, IEEE.

Stephenson, F. J., & Fox, R. J. (1992). Corporate strategies for frequent-flier programs.

Transportation Journal, 38-50.

Strauss A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: University

Press.

Terlutter, R., & Capella, M. L. (2013). The gamification of advertising: Analysis and

research directions of in-game advertising, advergames, and advertising in social

network games. Journal of Advertising, 42(2-3), 95-112.

Tremblay, E. D., & Christopher, W. (2013). Agents of change: Roles, barriers, and

opportunities for college admissions professionals and high school counselors.

College & University, 12-27.

Wenzel, K. (2002). On-site admissions process gains popularity in nation. In The Michigan

Daily. Retrieved on June 6, 2014, from http://www.michigandaily.com/content/site-

admissions-process-gains-popularity-nation

Wu, I. L., & Chen, J. L. (2014). A stage-based diffusion of IT innovation and the BSC

 

  70

performance impact: A moderator of technology–organization–environment.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 76-90.

Yasemin, E., & Akıncıtürk, A. R. (2010). An exploratory study of innovation diffusion in

architecture firms. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(11), 1392-1401.

van Ham, P. (2002). The rise of the brand state: The postmodern politics of image and

reputation. Foreign Affairs, 80(5), 2-6.

 

  71

APPENDIX A  

Email for Pilot Study  Subject Line: Quick question....  

Hello,  

Would you have 10 minutes to complete a short survey? I would really love to get your insight about higher education marketing and recruiting.  

 *This is part of a pilot study to help guide predetermined questions for larger research study.

Please note that names of participants will not be included in the main study. Any results used from this study will be kept entirely anonymous.  

 

Thank you!  

Layla  

Please see form below and submit by 8:00 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014.  

If you have trouble viewing or submitting this form, you can fill it out online:  

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1ESebx0LJi2eQgkyvhQYsJVh7A4YATjij_XohNkCn7e8/viewform?c=0&w=1&usp=mail_form_link

 Questionnaire: Higher Education Marketing and Recruiting  Thank you so much for your participation in this pilot study. Allow for about 10-15 minutes to complete the form below.  

Please submit before 8:00 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 16, 2014.  

 

                   

 

  72

APPENDIX B

Questionnaire for Pilot Study  

 1. Name of your institution (Please include your school, department or center).

2. What is your role at your institution?

3. In the past year, have you (or your department) used scavenger hunts during campus

visits or events?

4. In the past year, have you (or your department) used trivia on your website or during

campus visits or events?

5. In the past year, have you conducted any contests and posted the winners on social

networking sites?

6. In the past year, did your website house any type of contest for prospective students?

7. In the past year, were prospective or admitted students rewarded stickers, badges, or

any kind of token for achieving a set goal?

8. In the past year, were prospective or admitted students given college apparel as a

reward for their participation during a campus event?

9. In the past year, have you given an interactive checklist to prospective or admitted

students?

10. Are you familiar with the term gamification?

11. In the past year, has your institution utilized a third-party gaming app such as Scvngr?

12. Would you be willing to participate in an longer questionnaire about the use of

gamification?

13. If "Yes," how did you learn of the term?

14. Would you be interested in learning about my final results?

 

  73

15. PLEASE PROVIDE FEEDBACK: Is there anything else you would like to add?

(E.g. Could a question be worded differently?, Is a question and/or information

missing?, Would you like to comment further about an answer?, etc.)

16. Email:

 

  74

APPENDIX C

Extra Questions from Pilot Study  

1. What is your age?

2. Is gamification being used at your university?

3. In the past year, have you or your department conducted contests on social

networking sites?

4. What is the purpose/strategy for your social networking sites or posts?

5. Is there anything that students have to collect during events?

6. How do you get students excited about your rewards or giveaways?

7. Have you noticed any current behavior trends with the incoming class?

8. Are you struggling to reach/engage your target audience?

9. How have you used gamification to engage your audience?

10. Can you explain where you see gamification being integrated into your marketing and

recruiting efforts?

11. How long do you think it would take you to successfully integrate gamification into

your marketing?

12. Do you anticipate any barriers to using gamification?

13. How would you overcome those barriers?

14. What is the purpose/function of your website or webpage?

15. Do you know if your competitors are using gamification?

16. What is the main factor driving your gamification implementation?  

 

  75

APPENDIX D  

Email for Main Study

Hello  [Name],  

My  name  is  Layla  Souers.  I  am  conducting  a  survey  on  higher  education  marketing  for  my  masters  thesis  at  Southern  Illinois  University,  Edwardsville,  Illinois.    I  am  targeting  a  select  number  of  higher  education  professionals  in  the  Midwest  and  thought  you  could  provide  some  valuable  insight  regarding  undergraduate  recruitment.  In  my  thesis,  I  will  be  addressing  current  barriers  to  enrollment  while  shedding  light  on  trends  in  our  region.    The  survey  should  only  take  approximately  5-­‐10  minutes  and  will  be  done  completely  online.    

Follow  this  link  to  the  Survey:  Take  the  Survey  

Or  copy  and  paste  the  URL  below  into  your  Internet  browser:  https://siue.co1.qualtrics.com/WRQualtricsSurveyEngine/?Q_SS=5is713NLxutBIJ7_2f80OuofWldcGfH&_=1      

• Submit  survey  before  11:00  p.m.  Friday,  Oct.  24,  2014  (All  participants  will  be  registered  for  a  chance  to  win  a  $25  Amazon  gift  card).  

• Your  answers  are  confidential  and  will  only  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  this  study.  • At  the  end  of  the  survey,  you  can  opt  to  receive  my  research  findings  via  email  as  well  as  choose  

to  take  part  in  an  in-­‐depth  interview  (I  hope  you  are  able  to  participate  in  that  as  well).  • Your  input  will  ultimately  be  contributing  to  a  cutting-­‐edge  study  about  higher  education  

marketing  and  recruiting  in  the  Midwest.    

*  Please  note  that  names  of  participants  will  not  be  included  in  the  study.  Your  answers  are  also  confidential  and  will  only  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  the  research  study.      

Thanks  in  advance  for  participating  in  my  thesis  survey.  I  look  forward  to  sharing  my  findings  with  you.  Please  contact  me  if  you  have  any  questions  or  concerns.  

 Sincerely,      

Layla  A.  Souers  lsouers.siue.edu  IRB  No.  1410023  

 

 

 

 

  76

APPENDIX E  

Survey Questionnaire Thanks in advance for taking this short survey. Please submit by 11:00 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 24. Q1 Name of your institution. Q2 What is your role at your institution? Q3 What is your age? m < 18 (1) m 18 - 20 (2) m 21 - 24 (3) m 25 - 34 (4) m 35 - 44 (5) m 45 - 54 (6) m 55 - 64 (7) m 65 - 74 (8) If < 18 Is Selected, Then Skip To End of Survey Q4 Approximately what percentage of your time is spent using each of the following to reach and/or engage prospective undergraduate students regularly?

More than

80% (1)

60 to 80% (2)

40 to 59% (3)

20 to 39% (4)

Less than

20% (5)

Less than

10% (6)

Not sure (7)

We do not use it to recruit students directly

(8) Print (1) m m m m m m m m

Email (2) m m m m m m m m

College fairs (4)

m m m m m m m m

Social media (5)

m m m m m m m m

Online/mobile ads (6)

m m m m m m m m

Other (Please

specify): (7) m m m m m m m m

Q5 In the past year, has your institution been successful at reaching your prospective undergraduate audience with your messages? m Not at all (1) m Not very successful (2) m Somewhat successful (3) m Moderately successful (4) m Very successful (5) m Not sure (6)

 

  77

Q6 How are you, your department or your institution using the following to engage prospective or admitted undergraduate students? (Check all that apply):

In print (1) In email (2) College fairs (3)

Campus visits (4)

On university webpages

(5)

On social media

platforms (6)

Not sure (7)

Trivia (1) q q q q q q q

Contests (2)

q q q q q q q

Scavenger hunts (3)

q q q q q q q

Social media (7)

q q q q q q q

QR Codes (4)

q q q q q q q

Other (Please

specify): (5) q q q q q q q

Other (Please

specify): (6) q q q q q q q

 

  78

Q7 To what extent are you, your department or your institution using the following to engage prospective or admitted undergraduate students? (Check all that apply):

Not at all (1) Rarely (2) Sometimes (3) Often (4) To a great

extent (5) Not sure (6)

Trivia (1) m m m m m m

Contests (2) m m m m m m

Scavenger hunts (3)

m m m m m m

Rewards (badges,

temporary tattoos, stickers, stamps,

tokens, etc.) (4)

m m m m m m

Interactive checklists (5)

m m m m m m

Giveaways (6)

m m m m m m

University mobile app with a game element (7)

m m m m m m

Third-party mobile

gaming apps (such as

Scvngr) (8)

m m m m m m

Third-party mobile apps

(such as Guidebook)

(9)

m m m m m m

m m m

Q8 Do prospective undergraduate students receive your institution's branded apparel as reward for completing a task during campus events? m Yes (1) m No (2) m Not sure (3)

 

  79

Q9 Approximately how long have you, your department or institution encouraged prospective undergraduate students to participate in the following during campus tours or visits?

Never (1)

Less than a

year ago (2)

From 1 to less than 2 years

(3)

From 2 to less than 3 years

(4)

From 3 to less than 4 years

(5)

From 4 to less than 5 years

(6)

More than 5 years

(7)

Not sure (8)

Trivia (1) m m m m m m m m

Contests (2)

m m m m m m m m

Scavenger hunts (3)

m m m m m m m m

Social media (4)

m m m m m m m m

Other (Please specify):

(5)

m m m m m m m m

Other (Please specify):

(6)

m m m m m m m m

Q10 How familiar are you with the term gamification? m Not at all (1) m Slightly familiar (2) m Somewhat familiar (3) m Moderately familiar (4) m Very familiar (5) If Not at all Is Selected, Then Skip To Please provide any comments on factors... Q11 How did you first hear about gamification? m Read an article or book about it (1) m Professional conference (2) m Presentation on my campus (3) m Colleague/word of mouth (4) m Advertisement (5) m News story (6) m Social media (7) m Other (Please specify): (8) ____________________ Q12 Approximately when did you first hear about gamification? m Do not recall (1) m Less than a year ago (2) m From 1 to less than 2 years (3) m From 2 to less than 3 years (4) m From 3 to less than 4 years (5) m From 4 to less than 5 years (6) m More than 5 years (7)

 

  80

Q13 What is your experience with the use of gamification in higher education marketing and recruiting efforts for undergraduate students? m Not aware of it (1) m I am aware of it, but would like to know more (2) m I have formed an opinion about it and have chosen NOT to use it at my institution (3) m I have formed an opinion about it and have chosen to use it at my institution (4) m It is currently in practice at my institution (5) m It has been used at my institution and is being evaluated (6) If I am aware of it, but would... Is Selected, Then Skip To If not currently using gamification i...If I have formed an opinion ab... Is Selected, Then Skip To If not currently using gamification i...If I have formed an opinion ab... Is Selected, Then Skip To Approximately how long have you used&...If It is currently in practice... Is Selected, Then Skip To Approximately how long have you used&...If I have no prior knowledge o... Is Selected, Then Skip To If not currently using gamification i...If It has been used at my inst... Is Selected, Then Skip To Approximately how long have you used&... Q20 If not currently using gamification in your marketing and recruiting at your institution, what has been the major influence for this decision? If If not currently using gami... Is Empty, Then Skip To Please provide any comments on factor...If If not currently using gami... Is Not Empty, Then Skip To Please provide any comments on factor... Q14 Approximately how long have you used gamification in your marketing and recruiting undergraduate efforts? m Do not recall (1) m Less than a year ago (2) m From 1 to less than 2 years (3) m From 2 to less than 3 years (4) m From 3 to less than 4 years (5) m From 4 to less than 5 years (6) m More than 5 years (7) Q15 What or who has been the main influence for utilizing gamification in your marketing and recruiting efforts? Q16 Did gamification help you reach your marketing and recruiting goals? m Not at all (1) m Slightly (2) m Somewhat (3) m Fairly well (4) m Very well (6) m Not sure (5) Q17 Please provide any comments on factors that impact your department or institutions' plans for marketing and recruiting in the future. Q21 Would you like me to email you my findings? m Yes (1) m No (2)

Q22 Would you be willing to participate in an in-depth phone interview to further discuss the use of gamification for about 30 minutes? (If yes, please provide your contact information below):

Name (First, Last): (1) Email: (2) Phone: (3) Best time/day to reach you: (4)

 

  81

APPENDIX F    

In-depth Interview Questions  Introduction:  

I want to thank you for taking the time to chat with me today and thanks for helping

out with the Qualtrics survey My name is Layla Souers, and I would like to talk to you about

gamification marketing at your higher education institution. This interview will provide

insight for my mass communication thesis.  

The interview should take about thirty minutes. I will be audio recording the session

because I don’t want to miss any of your comments. Although I will be taking notes during

our session, I can’t possibly write fast enough to get it all down.  

All responses will be kept confidential. This means that your interview responses will

only be accessible to me and I will ensure that any information I include in my thesis does

not identify you as the respondent. Remember, you do not have to talk about anything you

don’t want to and you may end the interview at any time.  

Do you have questions so far about what I have explained?  

Are you willing to participate in this interview and be recorded?  

Questions  

1. Name of Institution:

2. State:

3. Can you tell me how you learned of gamification?

4. Please describe how gamification is a part of your marketing strategy?

5. What game techniques do you use? Please name them individually.

6. Which of those games techniques would you consider key elements to reaching your

marketing goals?

 

  82

7. To what extent does using game techniques advance or hinder your marketing

objectives? Please explain.

8. What works well?

9. What would you do differently?

10. How many staff members are dedicated to this effort in your HE institution?

11. How long have you integrated gamification in your marketing strategy?

12. What would you recommend be sustained or increased? Please provide justification.

13. What needs to be discontinued?

14. What are some barriers to gamification if any, that you encountered? Lack of

administrative support? Lack of technical assistance or know how from staff?

15. How did you overcome the barriers?

16. How much activity takes place on game techniques?

17. What effect, if any, do you feel gamification has had on the community in which you

work? Increased awareness from prospective students? Increased knowledge of

institution as a whole?

18. How likely are you to share what you know about gamification?

19. How would you inform others of gamification?

20. Is there anything more you’d like to add?

I’ll be analyzing the information you and others gave me and submitting my final results to

my thesis committee at the beginning of December 2014. I’ll be happy to send you a copy to

review at that time, if you are interested.  Thank you for your time.