Business Student Preferences: Exploring the Relative Importance of Web Management in Course Design

Journal of Marketing Education

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 42-49

  Taylor, Steven A ^a   Humphreys, Michael ^a   Singley, Roger ^a   Hunter, Gary L ^a  

^a ILLINOIS STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

course attributes: marketing pedagogy; course design; course preferences; Web management

Indexed keywords

EID: 84990319651     PISSN: 02734753     EISSN: 15526550     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0273475303262352     Document Type: Article

References (29)

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 Education 21(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 Education 25(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 Education 25(1): 79-89.
6. Batra, Madan M., Barbara E. Walvoord, and Krish S. Krishnan. 1997. Effective pedagogy for student-team projects. Journal of Marketing Education 19(2): 26-42.
7. Bridges, Eileen. 1999. Experiential learning and customer needs in the undergraduate marketing research course. Journal of Marketing Education 21(1): 51-59.
8. Caverly, David C., and Lucy MacDonald. 1999. Techtalk: A synchronous distance developmental education. Journal of Developmental Education 23(2): 36-37.
9. Clarke, Irvine, III, Theresa B. Flaherty, and Sandra Mottner. 2001. Student perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of Marketing Education 23(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 Education 22(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 Education 24(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 Education 23(2): 136-144.
13. Dubas, Khalid M., and James T. Strong. 1993. Course design using conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing Education 15(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 Psychology 130(4): 485-494.
15. Granitz, Neil, and C. Scott Greene. 2003. Applying e-marketing strategies to online distance learning. Journal of Marketing Education 25(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 Education 21(2): 84-96.
17. Karns, Gary L. 1993. Marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education 15(1): 3-10.
18. Liaw, Shu-sheng, and Hsiu-mei Huang. 2000. Enhancing interactivity in Web-based instruction: A review of the literature. Educational Technology 40(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 Development 33(2): 65-74.
20. Morris, Linda J., and John S. Morris. 1999. Introducing quality function deployment in the marketing classroom. Journal of Marketing Education 21(2): 131-137.
21. Nulty, Duncan D., and Mary A. Barrett. 1996. Transitions in students’learning styles. Studies in Higher Education 21(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 Education 25(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 Quarterly 15(2): 15-23.
27. Tarasewich, Peter, and Suresh K. Nair. 2000. Course design using instructor and student preferences. Journal of Business and Economic Studies 6(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 Education 18(2): 50-61.
29. Zufryden, Fred S. 1983. Course evaluation and design optimization: A conjoint analysis-based application. Interfaces 13(2): 87-94.