Quackery is a term commonly associated with the medical profession. It is often associated with those who are proponents of alternative medicines, the benefits of which are not based on science. In this article, it is asserted that quack methodologies have been infused into the teaching of marketing. Marketing education is not indicted with being dominated by quack teachers. Rather, the article presents a number of concerns about the infusion of quack teaching methodologies that, as practiced, are proffered to contribute positively to student learning. The article offers a challenge to marketing educators to engage in more scientific assessment of teaching methods. Throughout the article, questions are presented that, it is hoped, will energize some marketing educators to rigorously examine teaching methodologies in the continuing quest to improve the quality of marketing education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, Martin. 1992. The imposters in the temple. New York: Simon & Schuster.
2.
Baldwin, Tamara, and Nancy Blattner. 2003. Guarding against potential bias in student evaluations. College Teaching51(1): 27-32.
Bartlett, Thomas. 2002. Freshmen pay, mentally and physically, as they adjust to life in college. Chronicle of Higher Education48(21): A35.
5.
Bhada, Yezdi K. 2002. Top of the class. Biz Ed, November-December, 22-27.
6.
Bloom, Allan. 1987. The closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon & Schuster.
7.
Bradley, J. V. 1981. Overconfidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society17(2): 82-84.
8.
Bridgeman, B., R. Morgan, and M. Wang. 1995. Choice among essay topics: Impact on performance and validity. ETS Research Report No. 96-4. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9.
Budden, Michael C. 1985. Attitudes of marketing professors towards students majoring in marketing. Proceedings of the Southern Marketing Association, 87-90.
10.
Burkhalter, B. B. 1996. How can institutions of higher education achieve quality within the new economy? Total Quality Management7: 153-160.
11.
Caudill, D., and M. Carrington. 1995. Marketing educators as mentors: Benefits for students. Business Education Forum, April, 34-35.
12.
Chonko, Lawrence B. 1993. Business school education: Some thoughts and recommendations. Marketing Education Review3(Spring): 1-9.
13.
Chonko, Lawrence B., John F. Tanner, and Roger Davis. 2002. What are they thinking? Students’ expectations and self-assessments. Journal of Education for Business, May-June, 271-281.
14.
Cloud, John. 2002. Who’s ready for college? Time160(October 14): 60-61.
15.
Conard, C. J. 1977. Self-grading versus external proctoring: A counterbalanced comparison. Research in Education18(July): 10-19.
16.
Cravatta, M. 1997. Hanging on to students. American Demographics19(11): 41.
17.
Csikszentmihaly, M. 1975. Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
d’Apollonia, Sylvia, and Philip C. Abrami. 1997. Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist52(11): 1198-1208.
19.
Darby, N. R., and E. Karni. 1973. Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. Journal of Law and Economics16(April): 67-86.
20.
Davis, J. Kent, and David C. Rand. 1980. Self-grading vs. instructor grading. Journal of Educational Research73(March-April): 207-213.
21.
Drucker, Peter F. 1999. Management challenges for the 21st century. New York: Harper Business.
22.
Evelyn, Jamilah. 2002. A clean slate. Chronicle of Higher Education49(October 10): A39-A40.
23.
Gordon, E. W. 1992. Implications of diversity in human characteristics for authentic assessment. CSE Technical Report No. 341. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
24.
Gose, Ben. 1998. More freshmen than ever appear disengaged from their studies, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 16, A37-A39.
25.
Greenwald, Anthony G. 1996. Applying social psychology to reveal a major (but correctable) flaw in student evaluation of teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, August, New York.
26.
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Gerald M. Gilmore. 1997a. Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist52(11): 1209-1217.
27.
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Gerald M. Gilmore. 1997b. No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology89(4): 743-751.
28.
Hill, Mark E., and Joel Herche. 2001. Teaching effectiveness: Another look. Marketing Education Review11(Summer): 19-24.
29.
Hugstad, Paul. 1997. Marketing the marketing major. Journal of Marketing Education19(January): 4-13.
Karns, Gary L. 1993. Marketing students’ perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education15(Spring): 3-10.
32.
Keillor, Bruce D., Robert P. Bush, and Alan J. Bush. 1995. Marketing-based strategies for recruiting business students in the next century. Marketing Education Review5(3): 69-80.
33.
Kelinson, Jonathan W. 1998. Trends in college degrees. Occupational Outlook Quarterly42(2): 22-28.
34.
Kelley, Craig A., Jeffrey S. Conant, and Denise T. Smart. 1991. Master teaching revisited: Pursuing excellence from the students’perspective. Journal of Marketing Education13(Summer): 1-10.
35.
Kember, David, Doris Y. P. Leung, and K. P. Kwan. 2002. Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the overall quality of teaching? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education27(5): 411-425.
36.
Kember, Richard, and Mary Biggs. 2002. Grade conflation: A question of credibility. Chronicle of Higher Education48(April 12): B14.
37.
Kennedy, Shirly Duglin. 1997. Intelligent decisions about information. Information Today14(November): 40-44.
38.
Krane, David, and Amy Cottreau. 1998. Generation 2001: A survey of the first college graduating class of the new millenium. Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Mutual Life and Harris and Associates.
39.
LaBarbera, Priscilla A., and Jeffrey Simonoff. 1999. Toward enhancing the quality and quantity of marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education21(April): 4-13.
40.
Lamb, Charles W., and Julie Baker. 1993. The case method of instruction: Student-led presentations and video-taping. Marketing Education Review3(Spring): 44-50.
41.
Lamont, Lawrence M., and Ken Friedman. 1997. Meeting the challenges to undergraduate marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education19(Fall): 17-30.
42.
Leo, John. 1999. The new trivial pursuit. U.S. News & World Report127(August 30): 20.
43.
Mahajan, Vijay, Edward. Muller, and Frank M. Bass. 1990. New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for new research. Journal of Marketing54(January): 1-26.
44.
Marsh, E. 1987. Students’evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research11: 253-388.
45.
Mayo, Michael A., and Alan R. Miciak. 1991. The decision making process underlying curriculum revision. Journal of Marketing Education6(Summer): 27-32.
46.
Mayo, Michael A., and Alan R. Miciak. 1997. Curriculum decision making: What are the sources of innovation? Journalof Education for Business73(September-October): 17-20.
47.
Morris, C. C. 1990. Retrieval process underlying confidence in comprehension judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition16: 223-232.
48.
Nelson, Janet S. 2000. Student preferences for adaptations in classroom testing. Remedial & Special Education21(January-February): 41-52.
49.
Newell, Stephen J., Philip A. Titus, and James S. West. 1996. Investigating the undergraduate student decision-making process of selecting a business specialization: A comparison of marketing and non-marketing business students. Journal of Marketing Education18(Fall): 57-67.
50.
Polonsky, M., and G. Mankelow. 2000. Where are we going: Perceptions of U.S. marketing academics. Journal of Marketing Education16(7): 717-743.
51.
Remington, Steve, Julie Anna Guidry, Michael Craig Budden, and John R. Tanner. 2000. Revisiting perceptions of marketing students’prior preparation. Journal of Marketing Education22(December): 188-198.
52.
Rotfeld, Herbert. 1996. Excuse me, I thought you had a Ph.D. Marketing Educator15(3): 7.
53.
Scully, John. 1988. A perspective on the future: What business needs from higher education. Change20(March-April): 41.
54.
Schrau, G., and T. D. Roedel. 1994. Test difficulty and judgment bias. Memory and Cognition22(1): 63-69.
55.
Shevlin, M., P. Banyard, M. Davies, and M. Griffiths. 2000. The validity of student evaluations of teaching: Love me or love my lectures. Assessment and Evaluation of Higher Education25(4): 397-405.
56.
Shoichet, Catherine E. 2002. Reports of grade in flation may be in flated, study finds. Chronicle of Higher Education48(July 12): A37.
57.
Siegel, Carolyn F. 1996. Using computer networks (Intranet and Internet) to enhance your students’marketing skills. Journal of Marketing Education18(Fall): 3-13.
58.
Simpson, P. M., and Judy S. Siguaw. 2000. Students’evaluation of teaching: An exploratory study of faculty response. Journal of Marketing Education22(December): 199-213.
59.
Smart, Denise T., Craig A. Kelley, and Jeffrey S. Conant. 1999b. Marketing education in the year 2000: Changes observed and challenges anticipated. Journal of Marketing Education21(December): 206-216.
60.
Smart, Denise T., Chuck Tomkovick, Eli Jones, and Anil Menon. 1999. Under graduate marketing educationin the 21st century: Views from three institutions. Marketing Education Review9(Spring): 1-9.
61.
Snow, R. E., and D. N. Jackson. 1993. Assessment of conative constructs for educational research and evaluation: A catalogue. CSE Technical Report No. 354. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
62.
Stewart, Jane, Catherine O’Halloran, J. Roger Barton, Stephen J. Singleton, Patrick Harrington, and John Spencer. 2000. Clarifying the concepts of confidence and competence to produce appropriate self-revaluation measurement scales. Medical Education34: 903-909.
63.
Ulmer, M. B. 2000. Self-grading: A simple strategy for formative assessment in activity-based instruction. Paper presented at the Conference of the American Association of Higher Education, June, Charlotte, NC.
64.
Walling, J. 1996. Colleges should change course. USA Weekend, September 4-5, 20-22.
65.
Whitworth, James E., Barbara Price, and Cindy H. Randall. 2002. Factors that affect college of business students opinion of teaching and learning. Journal of Education for Business, May-June, 282-289.
66.
Wiggins, G. 1993. Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
67.
Wynd, William R., and Carl S. Bozman. 1996. Student learning style: A segmentation strategy for higher education. Journal of Education for Business71(4): 232-235.
