Previous research supports the idea that the success of hybrid or online delivery modes is more a function of course design than delivery media. This article describes a case study of a hybrid Principles of Marketing course that implemented a comprehensive redesign based on design principles espoused by the Quality Matters Program, a center for improving online and hybrid course design through a faculty-centered, peer review process. The resulting team-taught course was well received by students, more efficient for faculty to deliver, and showed equivalence in direct measures (no difference in exam scores) of student learning.
ArbaughJ. B.DesaiA.RauB.SridharB. S. (2010). A review of research on online and blended learning in management disciplines: 1994-2009. Organization Management Journal, 7, 39-55.
2.
BiggsJ. B.KemberD.LeungD. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-SF. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
3.
EstelamiH. (2012). An exploratory study of the drivers of student satisfaction and learning experiences in hybrid-online and purely online marketing courses. Marketing Education Review, 22(2), 143-155.
4.
FetznerM. (2013). What do unsuccessful online students want us to know?Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 13-27.
5.
HaytkoD. L. (2001). Traditional versus hybrid course delivery systems: A case study of undergraduate marketing planning courses. Marketing Education Review, 11, 27-39.
6.
LoughryM. L.OhlandM. W.WoehrD. J. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36, 5-19.
7.
MalgwiC. A.HoweM. A.BurnabyP. A. (2005). Influences on students’ choice of college major. Journal of Education for Business, May/June, 275-282.
8.
MartonF.SäljöR. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
9.
MeuterM. L.ChapmanK. J.ToyD.WrightL. K.McGwanW. (2009). Reducing content variance and improving student learning outcomes: The value of standardization in a multi-section course. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 109-119.
10.
PriluckR. (2004). Web-assisted courses for business education: An examination of two sections of principles of marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 161-173.
11.
RaskK. N.BaileyE. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic Education, 23, 99-124.
12.
RossD. N.RosenbloomA. (2011). Reflections on building and teaching an undergraduate strategic management course in a blended format. Journal of Management Education, 35, 351-376.
SierraJ. J. (2010). Shared responsibility and student learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 104-111.
15.
SitzmannT.ElyK.BrownK. G.BauerK. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169-191.
16.
SitzmannT.KraigerK.StewartD.WisherR. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623-664.
17.
TaylorS. A.HunterG. L.HoraceM.GoodwinS. A. (2011). Student engagement and marketing classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 73-92.
18.
YoungM. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 25-40.
