The delivery of marketing education seems to be rapidly shifting toward pedagogy rich in experiential learning and strongly supported with educational technology. This study integrates and extends previous research efforts and investigates the simultaneous effects of multiple influences of technology and nontechnology factors on learning outcomes. Responses were obtained across a marketing curriculum with technology-accustomed students. The findings suggest that the use of preferred instructional methods will enhance each of the three different measures of learning outcomes, while encouraging supportive class behaviors can increase self report performance and course grade. Regardless of the dependent outcome measure, only one of the five instructional technology variables proved significant, suggesting that in contrast to previous studies that examined technology in isolation, when analyzed relative to other learning factors, technology’s influence is secondary. Implications are discussed with practical suggestions for the classroom and direction for further investigation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adrian, C. Mitchell, and G. Dean Palmer. 1999. Toward enhancing the quality and quantity of marketing majors. Journal of Marketing Education21(1): 25-33.
2.
Bandura, Albert. 1986. Social foundations of thought and action: A socialcognitive view. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
3.
Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, eds. 1999. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
4.
Bridges, Eileen. 1999. Experiential learning and customer needs in the undergraduate marketing researchcourse. Journal of Marketing Education21 (1): 51-59.
5.
Brokaw, Alan J., and Thomas E. Merz. 2000. The effects of student behavior and preferred learning style on performance. Journal of Business Education1 (spring): 44-53.
6.
Chickering, Arthur W., and Zelda F. Gamson. 1987. Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. Wingspread Journal9 (2): 1-16.
7.
Clarke, Irvine III, Theresa B. Flaherty, and Sandra Mottner. 2001. Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education23 (3): 169-177.
8.
Compeau, Deborah, and Christopher Higgins. 1995. Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS Quarterly19 (2): 189-211.
9.
Compeau, Deborah, and D. B. Meister. 1997. Measurement of perceived characteristics of innovating: A reconsideration based on three empirical studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Diffusion Interest Group on Information Technology, 15 December, Atlanta, GA.
10.
Davis, Richard, Shekhar Misra, and Stuart Van Auken. 2000. Relating pedagogical preference of marketing seniors and alumni to attitude toward the major. Journal of Marketing Education22 (2): 147-154.
11.
Deeter-Schmelz, Dawn R., Karen Norman Kennedy, and Rosemary P. Ramsey. 2002. Enriching our understanding of student effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education24 (2): 114-124.
12.
Devadoss, S., and J. Foltz. 1996. Evaluating factors influencing student class attendance and performance. American Journal of Agricultural Economics78 (August): 499-507.
13.
Dillion, William R., and Matthew Goldstein. 1984. Multivariate analysis: Methods and applications. New York: John Wiley.
14.
Dunn, Rita, Mary C. Giannitti, John B. Murray, and Ino Rossi. 1990. Grouping students for instruction: Effects of learning style on achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology130: 485-494.
15.
Erekson, O. H. 1992. Joint determination of college student achievement and effort: Implications for college teaching. Research in Higher Education33 (4): 433-446.
16.
Fornell, C. R. 1982. A second generation of multivariate analysis. Volumes 1-2, Methods. New York: Praeger.
17.
Frontczak, Nancy T. 1998. A paradigm for the selection, use and development of experiential learning activities in marketing education. Marketing Education Review8 (3): 25-34.
18.
Goodwin, Donna. 1996. Effects of matching student and instructor learning style preferences on academic achievement in english. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arkansas.
19.
Grasha, Anthony F., and Natalia Yangarber-Hicks. 2000. Integrating teaching styles and learning styles within structional technology. College Teaching48 (1): 2-10.
20.
Hamer, Lawrence O. 2000. The additive effects of semistructured classroom activities on student learning: An application of classroom-based experiential learning techniques. Journal of Marketing Education22 (1): 25-34.
21.
Hill, T., N. D. Smith, and M. F. Mann. 1987. Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers. Journal of Applied Psychology72 (2): 307-313.
22.
Holley, J. H., and E. K. Jenkins. 1993. The relationship between student learning style and performance on various test question formats. Journal of Education for Business68 (5): 301-308.
23.
Honey, Peter, and Alan Mumford. 1992. The manual of learning styles. Berkshire, UK: Maidenhead.
24.
Jaju, Anupam, Hyokjin Kwak, and George M. Zinkhan. 2002. Learning styles of undergraduate business students: A cross-cultural comparison between the US, India, and Korea. Marketing Education Review12 (2): 49-62.
25.
Johnson, Rayneld R. 1996. An analysis of learner variables related to achievement in an introductory graduate statistics course. Ph.D. dissertation, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI.
26.
Karns, Gary L. 1993. Marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education15 (1): 3-10.
27.
Kennedy, Ellen J., Leigh Lawton, and E. Leroy Plumlee. 2002. Blissful ignorance: The problem of unrecognized incompetence and academic performance. Journal of Marketing Education24 (3): 243-252.
28.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
Kolb, D. A.. 1988. Learning styles and disciplinary differences. California Management Review18 (3): 22-31.
30.
Lashinger, H. K., and M. W. Boss. 1984. Learning styles in nursing students and career choices. Journal of Advanced Nursing9: 375-380.
31.
Marks, Ronald B. 2000. Determinants of student evaluations of global measures of instructor and course value. Journal of Marketing Education22 (2): 108-119.
32.
Matthews, Doris B. 1994. An investigation of students’learning styles in various disciplines in colleges and universities. Journal of Humanistic Education and Development33 (2): 65-74.
33.
McCloy, Rodney A., John P. Campbell, and Robert Cudeck. 1994. A confirmatory test of a model of performance determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology79 (4): 493-516.
34.
McCorkle, Denny E., James Reardon, Joe F. Alexander, Nathan D. King, Robert C. Harris, and R. Vishwanathan Iyer. 1999. Understanding marketing students, group projects, and teamwork: The good, the bad, and the ugly? Journal of Marketing Education21 (2): 106-117.
35.
McNeilley, Kevin M., and Frances J. Ranney. 1998. Combining writing and the electronic media in sales management courses. Journal of Marketing Education20 (3): 226-235.
36.
Mitchell, Andrew A., and Jerry C. Olsen. 1981. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediators of advertising affects on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research18: 318-332.
37.
Nonis, Sarath A., and Cathy Owens Swift. 1998. Deterring cheating behavior in the marketing classroom: An analysis of the effects of demographics, attitudes, and in-class deterrent strategies. Journal of Marketing Education20 (3): 188-199.
38.
Nulty, Duncan D., and Mary A. Barrett. 1996. Transitions in students’learning styles. Studies in Higher Education21: 333-345.
39.
Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40.
Okebukola, Peter Akinsola. 1986. The influence of preferred learning styles on cooperative learning in science. Science Education70: 509-517.
41.
Petkus, Ed, Jr. 2000. A theoretical and practical framework for service-learning in marketing: Kolb’s experiential learning cycle. Journal of Marketing Education22 (1): 64-70.
42.
Ritchie, Donn, and Chris Volkl. 2000. Effectiveness of two generative learning strategies in the science classroom. School Science and Mathematics100 (2): 83-89.
43.
Roach, S. S., M. W. Johnston, and J. F. Hair Jr. 1993. An exploratory examination of teaching styles currently employed in marketing education: Developing a typology and its implications for marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education18 (3): 32-38.
44.
Romer, D. 1993. Do students go to class? Should they? Journal of Economic Perspectives7 (3): 167-174.
45.
Schacter, John. 1999. The impact of education technology on student achievement. Milken Exchange on Education Technology. Retrieved from http://www.milkenexchange.org/
46.
Stewart, Karen L., and Linda A. Felicetti. 1992. Learning styles of marketing majors. Educational Research Quarterly15 (2): 15-23.
47.
Stöttinger, Barbara, and Bodo B. Schlegelmilch. 2002. Information and communication technologies in tertiary education: A “customer” perspective. Marketing Education Review12 (2): 63-72.
48.
Strauss, Denise T., and Raymond D. Frost. 1999. Selecting instructional technology media for the marketing classroom. Marketing Education Review9 (1): 11-20.
49.
Tull, Donald S., and Del I. Hawkins. 1990. Marketing research: Measurement and method. 5th ed. New York: Macmillan.
50.
Webster, J., and J. Martocchio. 1992. Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure withworkplace implications. MIS Quarterly16 (2): 201-226.
51.
Williams, Tim. 1992. Validating a degree: Subject relevance and assessment issues in the development of a new degree. Education and Training34 (3): 31-33.
52.
Wood, Robert, and Albert Bandura. 1989. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Academy of Management Review14 (3): 361-384.
53.
Young, Mark R. 2001. Windowed, wired and webbed—Now what? Journal of Marketing Education23 (1): 45-54.
