Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Marketing education may be delivered through a number of different methods from face-to-face to distance education. This study analyzes MBA student perceptions and preferences with regard to face-to-face versus distance education methods for delivering a course in marketing management. The results indicate that consistent course structure can be developed across delivery formats but that some pedagogical adjustments may be required for the distance education format, particularly in the areas of class participation and course-related activities. The findings also show that students appear to select the distance education delivery method because of convenience, not quality, since distance education was found to be the least effective and least satisfying method of delivery for the students studied. The study concludes by discussing the implication of these results.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bates, A. W. 1995. Technology, open learning and distance education. London: Routledge.

Davison, Trevor . 1996. Distance learning and information technology: Problems and solutions in balancing, caring, access and success for students. Distance Education: An International Journal 17 (1): 145-157.

Filipczak, Bob . 1995. Putting the learning into distance learning. Training 32 (10): 111-118.

Garrison, D. R. 1990. An analysis and evaluation of audio teleconferencing to facilitate education at a distance. American Journal of Distance Education 4 (3): 16-23.

Imel, S. 1996. Distance education. Trends and issues alerts. ED 414 446. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, the Ohio State University.

Imel, S. 1997. Web-based training. Trends and issues. ED 399 383. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, the Ohio State University.

Imel, S. 1998. Distance education. Myths and realities. ED 399 383. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, the Ohio State University.

Kerka, Sandra . 1996. Distance learning, the Internet, and the World Wide Web. ERIC Digest no. 168. ED 395 214. Columbus: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education, the Ohio State University.

Klesius, J. P. , S. Homan , and T. Thompson . 1997. Distance education compared to traditional instruction: The students’ view. International Journal of Instructional Media 24 (9): 207-220.

10.

McNabb, J. 1994. Telecourse effectiveness: Findings in the current literature. Tech Trends 39 (October): 39-40.

11.

Schlosser, C. A. , and M. L. Anderson . 1994. Distance education: Review of the literature. ED 382 159. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications Technology.

12.

Sherry, L. 1995. Issues in distance learning. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 1 (4): 337-365.

13.

Simonson, M. 1997. Does anyone really want to learn at a distance? Contemporary Education 68 (2): 104-107.

14.

Standards for Accreditation Business Administration and Accounting. 1994-95. Achieving quality and continuous improvement through self-evaluation and peer review. St. Louis, MO: American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business.

15.

Thach, Elizabeth C. , and Karen L. Murphy . 1995. Competencies for distance education professionals. Educational Technology Research and Development 43 (1): 57-59.

16.

Warren, Ron . 1995. Professional development for distance educators. Basking Ridge, NJ: AT&T Center for Excellence in Distance Learning. [Internet, WWW], ADDRESS: http://www.att.com/cedl/profdev.html.

17.

Weinstein, P. 1997. Education goes the distance. Technology and Learning 17 (8): 24-25.

Delivering Graduate Marketing Education: An Analysis of Face-to-Face versus Distance Education

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References