The following study investigates the relative importance of Web management practices in business curricular pedagogy from an undergraduate student perspective. Using conjoint methodology, the results suggest that students early in their program of studies tend to most value (more) tests in terms of course attributes, while students later in their program of studies tend to value Web management practices. Taken together, these results suggest that undergraduate course design can be effectively implemented, consistent with the marketing concept, based on a sensitivity to diverse student learning styles and needs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Adrian, C. Mitchell, and G. Dean Palmer. 1999. Toward a model for understanding and improving educational quality in the Principles of Marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education21(1): 25-33.
2.
American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) Task Force on Effective and Inclusive Learning Environments. 1998. Effective and inclusive learning environments. St. Louis, MO: AACSB International.
3.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business International. 2003. Eligibility procedures and standards for business accreditation.Retrieved August 25, 2003, from http://www.aacsb.edu/accredidation/brc/standards-4-25.pdf.
4.
Bacon, Donald R. 2003. Assessing learning outcomes: A comparison of multiple-choice and short answer questions in a marketing context. Journal of Marketing Education25(1): 31-36.
5.
Baker, Stacey M., Susan S. Kleine, and Mark Bennion. 2003. What do they know? Integrating the core concept of customer value into the undergraduate marketing curriculum and its assessment. Journalof Marketing Education25(1): 79-89.
6.
Batra, Madan M., Barbara E. Walvoord, and Krish S. Krishnan. 1997. Effective pedagogy for student-team projects. Journal of Marketing Education19(2): 26-42.
7.
Bridges, Eileen. 1999. Experiential learning and customer needs in the undergraduate marketing research course. Journal of Marketing Education21(1): 51-59.
8.
Caverly, David C., and Lucy MacDonald. 1999. Techtalk: A synchronous distance developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education23(2): 36-37.
9.
Clarke, Irvine, III, Theresa B. Flaherty, and Sandra Mottner. 2001. Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education23(3): 169-177.
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 team effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education24(2): 114-124.
12.
Desai, Suzanne, Earl Damewood, and Richard Jones. 2001. Be a good teacher and be seen as a good teacher. Journal of Marketing Education23(2): 136-144.
13.
Dubas, Khalid M., and James T. Strong. 1993. Course design using conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Education15(1): 31-36.
14.
Dunn, Rita, Mary C. Giannitti, John B. Murray, Ino Rossi, Gene Geisert, and Peter Quinn. 1990. Grouping students for instruction: Effects of learning style on achievement and attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology130(4): 485-494.
15.
Granitz, Neil, and C. Scott Greene. 2003. Applying e-marketing strategies to online distance learning. Journal of Marketing Education25(1): 16-30.
16.
Houston, Mark B., and Lance A. Bettencourt. 1999. But that’s not fair! An exploratory study of student perceptions of instructor fairness. Journal of Marketing Education21(2): 84-96.
17.
Karns, Gary L. 1993. Marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education15(1): 3-10.
18.
Liaw, Shu-sheng, and Hsiu-mei Huang. 2000. Enhancing interactivity in Web-based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology40(3): 41-45.
19.
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.
20.
Morris, Linda J., and John S. Morris. 1999. Introducing quality function deployment in the marketing classroom. Journal of Marketing Education21(2): 131-137.
21.
Nulty, Duncan D., and Mary A. Barrett. 1996. Transitions in students’learning styles. Studies in Higher Education21(3): 333-345.
22.
Orme, Bryan. 1998. Sample size issues for conjoint analysis studies. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Retrieved August 15, 2002, from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com.
23.
Orme, Bryan, Mark I. Alpert, and Ethan Christensen. (1997). Assessing the validity of conjoint analysis—Continued. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. Retrieved August 15, 2002, from http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com.
24.
Pfaff, Elizabeth, and Patricia Huddleston. 2003. Does it matter if I hate teamwork? What impacts student attitudes toward teamwork? Journalof Marketing Education25(1): 37-45.
25.
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). 1997. SPSS conjoint 8.0. Chicago: SPSS, Inc.
26.
Stewart, Karen L., and Linda A. Felicetti. 1992. Learning styles of marketing majors. Educational Research Quarterly15(2): 15-23.
27.
Tarasewich, Peter, and Suresh K. Nair. 2000. Course design using instructor and student preferences. Journal of Business and Economic Studies6(2): 40-54.
28.
Wellington, William J., and A. J. Faria. 1996. The use of simulation games in marketing classes: Is simulation performance due to luck or skill? Journal of Marketing Education18(2): 50-61.
29.
Zufryden, Fred S. 1983. Course evaluation and design optimization: A conjoint analysis-based application. Interfaces13(2): 87-94.
