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.

Arbaugh, J. B., Desai, A., Rau, B., Sridhar, B. S. (2010). A review of research on online and blended learning in management disciplines: 1994-2009. Organization Management Journal, 7, 39-55.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Biggs, J. B., Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P. (2001). The Revised Two-Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-SF. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-149.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI
Estelami, H. (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.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Fetzner, M. (2013). What do unsuccessful online students want us to know? Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 17(1), 13-27.
Google Scholar
Haytko, D. L. (2001). Traditional versus hybrid course delivery systems: A case study of undergraduate marketing planning courses. Marketing Education Review, 11, 27-39.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., Woehr, D. J. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36, 5-19.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Malgwi, C. A., Howe, M. A., Burnaby, P. A. (2005). Influences on students’ choice of college major. Journal of Education for Business, May/June, 275-282.
Google Scholar | Crossref
Marton, F., Säljö, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning, outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4-11.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Meuter, M. L., Chapman, K. J., Toy, D., Wright, L. K., McGwan, W. (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.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Priluck, R. (2004). Web-assisted courses for business education: An examination of two sections of principles of marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 161-173.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Rask, K. N., Bailey, E. M. (2002). Are faculty role models? Evidence from major choice in an undergraduate institution. Journal of Economic Education, 23, 99-124.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Ross, D. N., Rosenbloom, A. (2011). Reflections on building and teaching an undergraduate strategic management course in a blended format. Journal of Management Education, 35, 351-376.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Selingo, J. J. (2013). Attitudes on Innovation: How college leaders and faculty see key issues facing higher education. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retieved from http://results.chronicle.com/innovationssurveyadobe_2013
Google Scholar
Sierra, J. J. (2010). Shared responsibility and student learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 104-111.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169-191.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Sitzmann, T., Kraiger, K., Stewart, D., Wisher, R. (2006). The comparative effectiveness of web-based and classroom instruction: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 59, 623-664.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI
Taylor, S. A., Hunter, G. L., Horace, M., Goodwin, S. A. (2011). Student engagement and marketing classes. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 73-92.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the classroom environment in facilitating self-regulated learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 25-40.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals
View access options

My Account

Welcome
You do not have access to this content.



Chinese Institutions / 中国用户

Click the button below for the full-text content

请点击以下获取该全文

Institutional Access

does not have access to this content.

Purchase Content

24 hours online access to download content

Your Access Options


Purchase

JMD-article-ppv for $36.00