APRIL 2004OF MARKETING EDUCATION
JOURNAL
If It Walks like a Duck . . . : Concerns
about Quackery in Marketing Education
Lawrence B. Chonko
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.
Keywords:
professional conduct; educator ethics; teaching effectiveness; quality education
Early in the twentieth century, medical quackery became
prominent and was recognized as a significant problem for an
unassuming public lacking in medical knowledge. Over the
years, many predicted the demise of quackery. The arguments
favoring the downfall of quackery included patients’ common sense, increased education, truths derived from science,
and laws securing proper labeling. These arguments were
posited as engines that would drive medical quackery from
the marketplace. Alas! Quackery did not succumb to these
forces. Today, medical/health quackery is a multibilliondollar business with bright prospects for the future (Young
2002).
Quackery derives from the word quacksalver, an individual who boasts about the healing power of the salves he or she
is selling (Barrett 2001). Dictionaries define quack as a pretender to medical skills, a charlatan, one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject being discussed. While terms like fraud and lying are also associated
with quackery, quackery’s defining characteristic is
promotion.
Is quackery limited to the medical profession? (Interested
readers are referred to the following Web site for information
about medical quackery: www.Quackwatch.com. Many of
the thoughts on which this article is based are adapted from
materials found on this site.) The purpose of this article is to
express some concerns about the existence of quack teaching
methodologies in marketing education. In an educational
context, quackery and poor teaching overlap but are not necessarily identical. The challenge in discerning quackery is
made difficult by the myriad of teaching methods that exist,
some good and some not so good. The difficulty is to try to
discern the effective from the ineffective. Similarly to medicine, and for definitional purposes, educational quackery
entails the use of teaching methodologies that are (1) not scientifically evaluated and (2) promoted as good for students
who are lacking in the knowledge to discern quality levels in
teaching. For this article, quackery in education includes anything involving use and promotion of teaching practices that
offer students a false sense of learning, regardless of the sincerity of the teacher. While the article attempts to provide
empirical justification for assertions made, these assertions
do represent the opinions of the author. As such, empirical
evidence in support or to the contrary would, it is hoped,
foster both dialogue and research about teaching
effectiveness.
PURPOSE
Marc Antony, in his oration at Julius Caesar’s funeral
stated, “I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.” This article
is not intended to bury marketing departments as havens for
teaching quackery. Rather, the purpose is to express concern
Lawrence B. Chonko is the Holloway Professor of Marketing in the
Hankamer School of Business, Department of Marketing, at Baylor University, Waco, Texas.
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 26 No. 1, April 2004 4-16
DOI: 10.1177/0273475303257763
© 2004 Sage Publications
4
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION
about elements of quackery that may have mingled with
sound teaching methodologies. In this article, a number of
concerns about quackery in marketing education are presented in the hope that those in marketing academe will
endeavor to (1) reduce the incidence of quackery in our profession if it indeed exists and (2) employ a scientific approach
to new teaching methodologies and activities in order to provide assurance that they are sound from a perspective of
student learning.
The target of concerns about quackery in marketing education cannot be rooted in Pavlovian-like responses to
unproven teaching methods or innovative ideas. Unproven
teaching methods are not necessarily quackery. Teaching
methods consistent with scientific concepts may be deemed
experimental. As such, they may or may not be effective. The
concern of this article is the use and promotion of teaching
methodologies that are (1) touted as effective from the perspective of students learning and (2) employed continuously
without proper assessment concerning learning. In other
words, quackery is a teaching method concern, not a subject
concern. Throughout the article, a number of teaching methodologies are asserted to have quack potential. These teaching methodologies are described in general ways to provide
illustrations that compel marketing educators to be apprehensive about the pervasiveness of quack teaching methods. As
they are discussed, questions will be posed in the hope that
they will serve as catalysts for marketing educators to empirically examine teaching-related issues in an effort to provide
substantive knowledge that can serve as a foundation for
improvement of the student learning experience.
COMMENTS ON COLLEGE AND
MARKETING EDUCATION: SOME ISSUES
As a starting point, one might ask, “Why is the subject of
quackery in marketing education worth examination?” This
is a fair question, one answer to which lies in the perceptions
of the quality of college graduates. Employers, educators, and
others have leveled many criticisms at the college educational
process, often focusing on the output of college education—
the student. Many of these criticisms originate with individuals who represent potential employing organizations for college graduates (Chonko 1993; Scully 1988; Walling 1996).
Comments about college education and college graduates
such as those that follow paint a grim picture of the state of
college education.
• College graduates do not perform adequately in the areas of
oral and written communication.
• College curricula are falling further behind in including new
technologies, production methods, learning productivity
methodologies, and global competitive methodologies.
• College curricula are too “tools oriented” at the expense of
qualitative thinking.
5
• College graduates are not people sensitive and, therefore, find
it difficult to get along with others who have different needs,
goals, and work styles.
• College faculty members, as a group, do too little research,
and that which is done fails the tests of relevance and applicability to society.
• College graduates do not know how to recognize common
themes in problem-solving situations.
• College graduates have not learned how to see relationships
between things that seem to be different.
• College graduates cannot tolerate ambiguity.
• College graduates cannot bring order out of seeming
confusion.
• College graduates are not capable of the type of thinking that
comes from the many ways to view the world.
• College graduates are woefully lacking in math skills.
• College graduates are poorly prepared in skill areas that can
serve them for a lifetime.
• College graduates seem to think that memorization of facts
and figures is equated with such things as critical thinking,
introspective analysis, and the ability to solve problems.
If, indeed, today’s students are less prepared than yesterday’s students (e.g., Remington et al. 2000), then, if marketing educators are to maintain standards based on what students should learn, higher failure rates would likely result in a
knowledge-driven marketplace. Instead, there seems to be
much concern about grade inflation (Evelyn 2002; Kember
and Biggs 2002). Even in one study in which the existence of
grade inflation was questioned, only one-third of students
earned grades of C or below (Shoichet 2002). The college
environment appears to be populated by many highly rewarded,
less knowledgeable and proficient students. Kelinson (1998)
observed that a larger-than-ever-before percentage of high
school graduates are entering college, resulting, possibly, in
larger numbers of unprepared students. Specific to marketing, Remington et al. (2000) recently reported some of the
same concerns voiced almost two decades ago by Budden
(1985), who concluded that marketing faculty members view
marketing majors as poorly prepared to study marketing.
Deficiencies in written and verbal communications skills and
quantitative skills were cited.
As noted in the previous paragraph, one reason for the
poor marks awarded college graduates may be grounded in
false praise of grade inflation. Given some of the earlier criticisms of college graduates, employees’ perceptions of lower
levels of knowledge and skills exist in a world of grade inflation. Grade inflation represents one mechanism for praising
mediocrity as if it were excellence. Upon graduation from
college, knowledge and skills implied by the existence of
these high grades seem to be deficient in many students if the
concerns noted earlier about college graduates are, indeed,
true.
Research has shown that there is a strong concern about
the quality of today’s college students that universities openly
praise upon admission (e.g., Hugstad 1997; LaBarbera and
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
6
APRIL 2004
Simonoff 1999; Keillor, Bush, and Bush 1995; Newell, Titus,
and West 1996). Many students seem to be interested in
“education-lite,” a second factor that contributes to the expressed
concerns about college graduates. Many students view learning with too little regard. It seems that education is the only
service that students want less of for their money. In an environment in which conventional wisdom promotes the
advanced state of education, too many students appear uninterested in learning and do not see the long-term value of a
strong educational foundation. Faced with pressures for success and the prospects of hard work as a means toward a
strong educational foundation, it seems that many students
prefer to seek out any class that offers the hope of a passing
grade for minimal effort. And they find them! It is especially
disillusioning when academics, trained in education and
research, accommodate students’ low thirst for learning and
even more discouraging when academics turn to quack teaching approaches to create a fool’s paradise of education.
Alan Bloom in his classic work, The Closing of the American Mind (1987), provides some perspective on this:
When a student arrives at the university, he [she] finds a
bewildering variety of departments and a bewildering variety
of courses. And there is no official guidance, no universitywide agreement, about what he [she] should study.
The real problem is those students who come hoping to
find out what career they want to have, or are simply looking
for an adventure with themselves. There are plenty of things
for them to do—courses and disciplines enough to spend a
lifetime on. Each department or great division of the university makes a pitch for itself, and each offers a course of study
that will make the student an initiate. But how to choose
among them? How do they relate to one another? The fact is
that they do not address one another. They are competing and
contradictory, without being aware of it. The net effect of the
student’s encounter with the college catalog is bewilderment
and often demoralization. Most professors are specialists
concerned with only their own fields. So the student must
navigate among a collection of carnival barkers, each trying
to lure him [her] into a particular sideshow. This undecided
student is an embarrassment of most universities, because he
[she] seems to be saying, “I’m a whole human being. Help me
form myself in wholeness and let me develop my real potential,” and he [she] is the one to which they [universities] have
nothing to say. (p. 339)
So, in the beginning, college students exist in a state of
confusion, a third reason for the concern about the quality of
graduates. For example, a recent survey of 3,680 freshmen at
50 universities revealed the following: (1) 44% rated their
emotional health as above average at the end of the year, down
from 52% at the start of the year; (2) physical health was also
perceived to decline; (3) the number of students who reported
feeling depressed at some time during the year doubled (8.2%
to 16.3%); and (4) 44% felt overwhelmed by all they had to do
(Bartlett 2002). Moreover, retention rates for college fresh-
men have declined since the early 1980s (Cravatta 1997), and
29% of entering freshmen in 2002 took at least one remedial
course (Cloud 2002). In addition, students face a quandary of
choices about classes, majors, teachers, social activities, and
work. The sheer exposure to the number of choices and the
barker-like promotional behavior of many (students, staff,
administration, and faculty) concerning classes, majors,
activities, and so forth can be daunting. Information overload
and pressure to be liked leads many students to make poor
choices. So, too, does the promoted attractiveness of choice
options.1
Based on the above, one might conclude that only the students are to blame for the state of college education. Clearly,
they play a part. However, as Anderson (1992) asserted,
“There are plenty of people who can be blamed for the decline
of the American university” (p. 194). He places the primary
burden for the university situation on trustees, overseers, and
regents as they are the only people in the university with (1) a
responsibility and authority to take decisive action, (2) who
have the power to do something, and (3) have been derelict in
their duties as trustees. However, Anderson also noted that
professors, as a group, have not conducted themselves with
excellence, a fourth factor that underlies the concern about
college graduates. Faculty members are guilty of many transgressions, including too few actually engaged in teaching, too
many faculty members seeking lighter teaching loads, too
many faculty members voicing too much concern about the
increased pressure to conduct research, and the emphasizing
of rewards for publication while there is a lack of reward for
teaching. Peter Drucker (1999) has written:
Management exists for the sake of an institution’s results. It
has to start with the intended results and has to organize the
resources of the institution to attain these results. It is the
organization that makes the institution . . . capable of producing results outside itself. (p. 39)
Substitute the word faculty for management in the above
quote. Faculty members are the instruments by which universities are capable of producing results. Clearly, the students
and the administration play key roles in education. Students
must want to learn, and the administration must support
excellence. However, faculty members provide the foundation for learning. Faculty members do have autonomy in the
classroom. They also have responsibility and authority for
what takes place in the classroom. They can make things happen. Yet criticisms abound about the trivial nature of courses,
the lack of relevance of classes, the focus on technology over
substance, the rigor of a college education, and the relevance
of a college education (e.g., Leo 1999).
Perhaps the most damaging critique of college education
was proffered by the National Committee on Educating
Undergraduates in the Research University (NCEURU).
Under the auspices of the Carnegie Foundation for the
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION
Advancement of Teaching, the NCEURU called for a new
model of undergraduate education. Among their findings
were the following: (1) poorly trained college instructors, (2)
deception in university advertising practices, (3) students not
receiving value for their tuition dollar, (4) college graduates
lacking in a coherent body of knowledge and the ability to
relate information, (5) college graduates not knowing how to
think logically, and (6) drone-like instructors who delivered
little in the classroom. Put succinctly, the NCEURU asserted
that universities are simply not doing their jobs when it comes
to educating young people. The college environment, then, is
conducive to the infiltration of quack teaching methods. With
this as background, let us take a look at why quackery works.
WHY QUACKERY WORKS
Why does quackery in teaching work in a marketing classroom? One reason lies in an analogy. In medicine, ignorance
is a mainstay of the quack. In medicine, many ailments are
signaled by the same symptoms, but patients usually cannot
conduct a proper diagnosis. Perhaps this is the case with education. A college student has had the opportunity to observe
many teachers during his or her lifetime and formulate
thoughts about what makes a good teacher. In education,
learning can occur as a result of many different teaching and
learning methodologies. A trait of quack teachers is promotion . . . in the form of use of quack teaching ideas and methods in class. By simply teaching the class and autonomously
selecting desired teaching methods, a quack teacher circumvents science. And, in class, it is unlikely that students will
have the expertise (or desire) to refute claims made by the
teacher. Are students capable of discerning how much they
learned and how it was learned?
A second reason why quackery works is that students are
generally optimists. They come to college to prepare for their
future (Chonko, Tanner, and Davis 2002). They come to college with hopes and dreams. They believe (some probably do
not care) that they receive a good education in the college of
their choice. However, education is complex. Students absorb
much information about education during their years as
learners. Nonetheless, what the typical college student learns
consists, in part, of a mixture of random experiences, facts,
hearsay, and observations learned from a variety of sources,
some credible, some not. Few can escape the misinformation
that makes them vulnerable to teaching quackery under the
right circumstances. Are students capable of recognizing
how learning prepares them for their future?
A third reason is that students are bored in class, often miss
class, and are less likely to do homework for more than 6
hours weekly (Gose 1998). Smart, Tomkovick, et al. (1999)
reported that faculty members view students as poorly prepared for tests, having inadequate writing and quantitative
skills, unwilling to read assigned materials having decreased
attention spans, unready for university-level work, and low in
7
motivation. Furthermore, if students had more time, they
would elect socializing, sleeping, or exercising over studying,
attending class, and doing homework (Krane and Cottreau
1998). It would be interesting to learn why students make
such choices. Do positive aspects of activities such as socializing and negative feelings associated with learning such as
homework drive their choice of instructors?
Even though there are many excellent educators in marketing departments, it seems easy to understand why students, as characterized by Gose (1998), Smart, Kelley, and
Conant (1999), and Krane and Cottreau (1998), might favor
quack teaching methodologies. One possible explanation is
that, faced with the prospects of challenge, hard work, loss of
sleep, or reduced party time, many students are tempted to
seek venues that offer more time for noneducationally related
endeavors. A second plausible explanation for this is disclosed by the following question: Who can argue with the
quack-grounded promises made by teachers within an educational system that imply increased student satisfaction by
means of quality offerings achieved through a focus on students, a dedication to continuous improvement, and the continuity of faculty involvement? Such statements abound in
college education (Burkhalter 1996).
In our society, many believe in clairvoyance, astrology, or
other superstitions. Many others seek advice in making
important decisions. Such activities and beliefs can provide
excuses to avoid the responsibility of choice and pass the
risks of mistakes on to others. In a society inundated with
superstitions, it is not hard to imagine that students are no different than the general public. Following are a few reasons
why students are particularly vulnerable to quack teaching:
Lack of suspicion. Many students believe that if something
is printed or broadcast by a university, it must be true. They
have a faith that the publication of misrepresentations would
not be allowed by reputable universities. University publications are often sensationalized, stimulating a false hope that
the university experience is wonderful. For example, most
students believe that faculty:student ratios translate into class
size. Students are attracted by promises of fun, one-to-one
mentoring, a friendly educational environment, quality living, and so on. The mass media, also unwittingly, fuel the lack
of suspicion through a continuous dialogue about the ills of
higher education—fun courses, easy grading—while at the
same time bemoaning the fact that students are in a poor position to really demand quality. Students also tend to believe
what other students tell them about their personal experiences
with faculty members who employ quack teaching
methodologies.
Belief in magic. University promises of one-to-one
mentoring, small classes, and a nurturing learning environment imply learning made easy via various university facilitators. Faculty statements such as “All you have to do is read the
book in order to pass” also fuel the lure of “education lite.”
Students, accustomed to praise for mediocre performance,
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
8
APRIL 2004
are easily taken in by the promise of an easy and low time
requirement solution to their learning problem. If this appears
unbelievable, then consider why such things as fad diets, false
medical procedures, get-rich-quick schemes, and so on are so
popular. The quick fix can also live in education.
Overconfidence. P. T. Barnum cautioned that one should
never try to beat others at their own game. Some students are
strong-willed and believe they learn all they need to know
from the text, even though they are often heard bemoaning the
quality of textbooks or bragging about how they passed a test
without reading the text. Still other students believe they have
little need for the learning that comes in college experiences.
They are simply in college to receive a degree, which they
believe will be the key to future success. Finally, there is
always a group of students who feel that because they made
great grades in high school with little effort put fort, a similar
set of circumstances will confront them at the college level.
Some succeed—they get good grades—and they may learn
much. Few, if any, receive learning value consistent with the
actual costs of taking the class. If they do not (or do not have
to) put in effort to learn and earn a high grade, learning value
is diminished.
Desperation. As college students matriculate, many face
serious educational problems—they are on probation, they
are learning how to study, they need a positive grade. To alleviate such circumstances, students may seek out classes that
can raise their hopes . . . and their grade point averages
(GPAs). They are seeking the quick fix for the GPA. Many
students simply do not know how to study. Others do no want
to study. Still others are very happy with a C, until they realize
that some Bs are required to graduate. The quack class offers
a cure for such situations. The more serious the situation, the
more attractive is the quack class.
Poor grasp of probability. Probability is not a popular subject among students. Understanding of probability would
provide students with the ability of grasping the significance,
or lack of significance, of everyday events. Poor understanding of probability leads students to be more amazed than they
should be when confronted with events.
Because of such vulnerabilities, students may be inclined
to select less challenging educational venues with the belief
that anything is better than nothing. . . . In other words, the
grade is more important than what is learned. In general,
much education quackery involves informing (explicitly or
implicitly) students that something is bad for them (e.g., hard
work, challenging classes) and then selling a substitute (e.g.,
a class in which students will feel good, receive a good grade,
etc.). Certainly marketing educators do not actively promote
and/or endorse such activities. However, while marketing
educators acclaim quality education, is inferior education
proliferating? Lamont and Friedman (1997) asserted that
marketing has not always been the choice of the serious student. For example, LaBarbera and Simonoff (1999) reported
that on-marketing majors do not view marketing courses as
challenging or demanding. Another author proffers that marketing faculty members have contributed to the image of
marketing discipline by lowering of standards instead of presenting marketing as an exciting, intellectually challenging
field of study (Rotfeld 1996). Indeed, in a 2002 listing of tenure requirements for assistant professors of marketing published through ELMAR, amid the requirement of excellence
in research as a requirement for tenure was the call for
“decent” teaching.
HOW QUACKERY WORKS
The situation described in the foregoing pages leads to the
purpose of this article—a discussion of the infusion of quackery in college education and its impact on college students. As
noted earlier, quackery can be broadly defined as anything
involving use and promotion of unproven teaching methodologies. This includes questionable presentations of materials
and the use of questionable teaching approaches regardless of
the apparent sincerity of the teacher. Let us examine how
quackery can manifest itself in the marketing classroom.
Quacks as Promoters
Quacks are superpromoters (Jarvis and Barrett 2000).
Quack teachers can zealously oversell their ideas on a variety
of dimensions that revolve around such things as excitement,
optimism, and potential future benefits. As an example,
holism represents the whole made up of independent parts. In
common language, holistic activity involves something that
deviates from the conventional. “I am interested in the whole
student,” teachers are often heard to stay. Such a statement is
admirable and, certainly, appealing to students and may,
indeed, be true. There is nothing wrong with expressing concern about students’ educational, psychological, physical,
spiritual, professional, and social well-being. However, no
single marketing class or teacher can provide for all of this.
No single marketing class can encompass all stated modalities of learning diagnosis and treatment as advocates of individualized instruction seem to imply. No single marketing
class can cover all parts of the specified knowledge requirements for students. For example, how can a teacher quell the
nervousness of a student who has a test in the next class
period?
Teachers who argue they are holistic may base their claims
on the notion that students rate “concerned” professors high
on teaching evaluations (Chonko, Tanner, and Davis 2002).
In general, most of us like pampering every now and again.
This is in the domain of quackery. For example, student learning patterns have changed over time (Lamont and Friedman
1997). These changed patterns are reflected in how students
learn marketing and how they prefer to be taught. Many students express preferences for active participation in the learning process (e.g., Karns 1993; Kelley, Conant, and Smart
1991). Involving students in learning has led to much experi-
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION
mentation concerning how to stimulate students who no longer want to learn passively (e.g., Lamb and Baker 1993;
Siegel 1996; Wynd and Bozman 1996). How many learning
styles can a teacher realistically and effectively accommodate
in a classroom setting? Students appreciate teachers who treat
them with respect, exhibit concern, and help them with their
work. Inherently, such activities may not be harmful. However, if through such methodologies students are led to
believe that much learning has occurred when in reality little
learning has occurred, quackery has entered the classroom.
What impact does promotion of things students want to hear
have on learning? What impact does promotion of things
students want to hear have on student evaluation of teaching?
Extraordinaary claims require extraordinary delivery.
Caudill and Carrington (1995) identified a number of programs and policies designed to improve student performance
and long-term development. However, in universities where
research and writing are king, most faculty members are
unlikely to want to participate in programs such as peer support, mentoring, and career planning, particularly since such
efforts are largely unrewarded (Polonsky and Mankelow
2000). The recognition by students that these are important
provides fertile ground for quackery. Phrases such as “I really
care about you” can provide psychological lift but do not create value from an otherwise worthless educational experience. Certainly many teachers have genuine concern that
their students will do well. However, too many teachers view
themselves as being in a contest for high student evaluations.
Therefore, they engage in teaching activities that lead students to feel positively about their experiences and that can
inflate teaching evaluations. Students’ expectations can be
influenced by what is heard from former students, and they
are adjusted based on experiences (Csikszentmihaly 1975).
For example, in a study by Chonko, Tanner, and Davis
(2002), the top six expectations of professors cited by 58% of
the students surveyed were (1) interesting, (2) helps students,
(3) communicates well, (4) easy to talk to, (5) good personality, and (6) kind. These all appear to be desirable qualities and may be conducive to learning, but are they? In the
same study, less than 8% of the students cited wanting students to learn, challenging, and knowledgeable as expectations of professors.
Quack teachers are masters at “feel good” tactics. For
example, some faculty members promote the fact that they
care about students by allowing them to e-mail them 24/7.
Students can e-mail any faculty member who has e-mail any
time they want. However, such messages convey to students
that faculty members really care about them and may, subsequently, affect teaching evaluations as students will tend to
rate people they like more highly. How do students’ expectations of marketing teachers influence their learning? Do
teachers who focus on student expectations offer improved
learning opportunities?
9
History and Excellence Convoluted
The length of time a teacher is employed in marketing education may be presented as a measure of teacher effectiveness, often substantiated by student evaluations. Simpson and
Siguaw (2000) observed that faculty members do try to influence the teaching evaluation process via activities including
inducements, verbal comments, deceit, grading leniency, observing teaching evaluations as they occur, personal traits,
socializing, providing “extras” to improve performance, and
activities designed to affect student expectations. These are all
tools of the quack teacher designed to promote self-excellence
and to promote a false metric of performance.
Teacher evaluations appear to be a false metric (e.g.,
Baldwin and Blattner 2003; Shevlin et al. 2000). Teacher
evaluations do not appear to result in any demonstrable
improvements in teaching quality (Kember, Leung, and Kwan
2002). Nevertheless, marketing educators (and other educators) persist in their use despite their obvious flaws, and universities continue to rely on them to provide evidence of
teaching effectiveness. Keep in mind that astrology has survived for thousands of years and, yet, there is no factual evidence of its validity. However, teacher evaluations are used
for other, arguably, more serious purposes such as merit
raises, promotion and tenure decisions, and teaching award
determination. How can the measurement and assessment of
teaching effectiveness be improved? How can improved and
acceptable teaching effectiveness measures be made available to faculty, students, and administrators?
Appeals Based on Ignorance
Work by Simpson and Siguaw (2000) provided a list of
reasons for skepticism of teaching evaluations. Included in
their list of criticisms was that instructors do not feel that students have the knowledge to provide an objective and accurate evaluation of teaching. It might be concluded, then, that
students, generally, are not savvy enough to question the
validity of teaching methods.
Students are also lacking in knowledge and the skills
required to think logically and discern truth from fiction as
pointed out by the NCEURU. That is why students are in college. Part of the difficulty concerns how students form relationships between things. Welcome to the “No Think Zone.”
Too many students seem to think that learning facts is the key
to a quality education. So, teachers who come to class armed
with facts in an effort to make students feel good about having
learned those facts may be engaging in quackery. Quack
teachers know how students form relationships between
things and are masters at appealing to students’ curiosities.
They do this by presenting a few examples or collecting hearsay to support their teaching claims. Or, their class may be
dominated by professionally produced videos that portray
“experts” presumably providing valuable learning experiences. As teachers and researchers, we know that information
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
10
APRIL 2004
must be evaluated with a skeptical eye. However, the average
student is trusting and perhaps a bit awestruck by the college
experience. Moreover, as indicated by the criticisms cited
earlier in this article, too many college students simply do not
think along the lines of the genesis of the facts being presented. They are inclined to believe most of what they hear in
a college classroom. For example, is learning related to class
size or to the types of learning opportunities provided
regardless of the size of a class?
There exists, seemingly, an endless supply of teaching
methodologies. The subject of teaching excellence engages
educators as it represents an enormous claim that is not
impossible to achieve. However, teaching excellence claims
must be supported by factual evidence, not the ramblings of a
promoter. Because, seemingly, dozens of teaching methodologies exist, there is great challenge in verifying that one
method is superior to another regarding student learning.
And, without scientific evidence, students can choose whatever they desire. Scientific methodology remains the only
way to discern cause and effect from coincidence, often the
difference between effective teaching and quackery. Unfortunately, as students progress through their education and
careers, the likelihood that the lack of knowledge from a
quack class can be traced to that quack class diminishes.
What can be done to improve students’ knowledge and
abilities needed to evaluate teaching effectiveness?
Students as Promoters
Evidence suggests that teaching evaluations are influenced by many factors. They can differ by course type and
amount of “perceived” learning (Whitworth, Price, and
Randall 2002), casting doubt on the wisdom of comparing
classes. In addition, the legitimacy of teaching evaluations is
influenced by contextual factors such as grading leniency,
class size, and workload (Greenwald and Gilmore 1997a,
1997b); instructor rank, experience, and autonomy
(d’Apollonia and Abrami 1997); and students’ motivation
and grade expectation (Marsh 1987).
A few teachers employ teaching methodologies designed
to be so appealing to students that they stimulate student
effort to validate and promote classroom performance and
popularity among other students. Such activity is within the
realm of the quack. Popularity may involve soliciting student
endorsements and testimonials. While not precisely the same,
Simpson and Siguaw (2000) observed in a section of their
article on manipulation of student evaluations that instructors
“distribut[e] ‘teacher of the year’ nomination forms to students in the class and requesting that they nominate their
instructors by listing all the strengths of that of that instructor
on the form” (p. 206).
It is imperative that university administrators ignore the
testimonials of individual students until those testimonials
can be verified. When quack teachers ask students to write
such testimonials, fear of repercussion from saying “no”
might lead those students into writing glowing, and perhaps
false, commentaries about a class. When events such as this
occur, social proof—the tendency to believe what most people believe—is being employed. Identifying a few people
who believe in the quack and having them go public with their
beliefs creates the impression that many have had the same
experience. Repeated affirmations create the impression that
the quack teacher is an excellent teacher. The affirmation is
even more powerful when teaching evaluations are positive
and administrators rely on them as a key part of the faculty
member’s overall evaluation.
Students who “believe” that they have learned something
likely enjoy sharing their success with their student colleagues. Students who provide such testimonials can be motivated by the desire to help their fellow students, but that help
may come in the advice to “take Professor X. . . . All you have
to do is read the book.” Is the typical student who feels good
about a teacher capable of separating that feeling from what
was really learned? Since we all tend to believe what “credible” others tell us of personal experiences, testimonials, and
so on, students can be effective promoters of quackery in
teaching . . . and they do not even know it (Kennedy 1997).
The students, as promoters, become a cornerstone of the success of the quack. Thus, quacks seek to become liked by students, and this liking leads to testimonials such as the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
“I liked the professor.”
“The professor held an entertaining class.”
“The professor has a sense of humor.”
“The professor has a genuine interest in his or her students.”
“The professor was enthusiastic about his or her subject.”
“The professor made the class easy.”
“The professor changed my life.”
“The professor is easy to talk with.”
“The professor has a good personality.”
The professor has an easygoing teaching style.”
Certainly, most teachers would like to have students feel
positively about them in ways described above. How do traits
described in the above statements, common on teaching evaluations, directly concern learning? Can a case be made for
some relationship between the traits described in the items
above and learning?
Side Effects
Further exacerbating the popularity issue is the notion that
a positive relationship exists between workload and grades.
Indeed, the opposite has been found to be the case. Students
report doing more work in classes in which they expect lower
grades (Greenwald 1996). This negative relationship has
been connected with issues such as instructor strictness and/
or leniency, easy and/or difficult classes, and grades (Hill and
Herche 2001). Greenwald (1996) observed a tendency to
reduce class requirements and inflate grades to raise instruc-
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION
tor evaluations. Students more interested in grades than learning are likely to be attracted to low-work, high-grade classes.
What can marketing instructors do to (1) increase student
motivation to work hard and (2) help students recognize that
class value is more than just a grade?
Classes that are described as easy and fun seem to have
few positive side effects. Of course, side effects are often
viewed as secondary and usually adverse. Students often
seek, or claim to seek, balance in their educational lives. They
may try to take a few easy classes in a semester when they
must take one or two challenging classes. Unfortunately, to
achieve balance, students may choose classes in which little
learning occurs. Keep in mind that it is the student who is
exercising this choice. Students can perpetuate quack teaching by their choices or by their unwillingness to demand
value. Students who take low-workload classes have little
anxiety, little fire, and little energy for the class. They just go
to class. . . . maybe. No blood is shed, no tears are shed, no
sleep is lost, no thinking occurs, no synthesis of materials
occurs, no improvement in communication skills occurs, and
no concern about excellence is expressed. In medicine, medication potent enough to help people often have negative side
effects. Is it true in education that any learning experience
powerful enough to help students will have positive side
effects?
Association
Quackery in teaching does not involve fraud, but it may
serve well to look at the essence of fraud. Fraud represents an
intentional perversion of truth. It encompasses inducing others to rely on something as valuable when it is not. It refers to
false representation of facts by words, conduct, allegations,
or concealment. Communication skills are often cited as a
critical instructor quality. However, a key question is, “What
is being communicated?” (Hill and Herche 2001, p. 21). In
one study, students cited “preparation for my future” as the
most frequent meaning associated with the phrase “educational excellence” (Chonko, Tanner, and Davis 2002). However, the authors note that few students could explain what
they meant by this. Those students who offered some explanation focused on their first job. Interestingly, only 14.5% of
students associated “educational excellence” with learning.
Do students possess the skills required to discern the value of
what is being communicated in the classroom? Even seasoned faculty members tend to hesitate when asked to
describe “world-class” teaching. And, we expect students to
recognize it?
A key issue here is that some education approaches can
border on intellectual dishonesty. When teachers tout the
learning benefits of new teaching methods, marketing educators must keep in mind the comments made earlier about the
quality of marketing students in particular and college students in general. If, indeed, that quality has diminished, will
new teaching methods offer the hope of improvement? For
11
example, an instructor’s personal experience is presented and
received by many students as the highest standard of proof.
Surely, there is room in the classroom for personal experiences, but the line between that experience and scientifically
generated and accepted knowledge and wisdom must be
drawn. Students can derive benefit from any classroom experience. Teachers assign readings, projects, and so on to supplement what is occurring in the class. Students may learn
some things, and the quack, of course, suggests that his or her
teaching methodology works best when combined with other
learning methodologies. Marketing educators must be careful to avoid “doublespeak” teaching methods. Doublespeak is
language that avoids or shifts responsibility. It conceals or
prevents thought rather than extending thought. How can
marketing educators prevent the infusion of new teaching
methods from being in the domain of doublespeak? If infusion of new teaching methods leads to teaching methods that
are deficient or conceals that adding worthless methods to
valued ones produces substandard learning, educational
doublespeak occurs.
The question for educators is not, “Did the students learn
something?” The answer to this question, it is hoped, is
always a resounding “Yes.” Rather, the question is, “Did the
overall educational experience (and each of its facets) contribute significantly to the students’ knowledge, wisdom, and
growth?” Stated another way, “Could students have learned
what they learned without the classroom experience?” Quack
teachers focus on the first question and employ the methodology of association to answer it. Through suggestion, belief,
expectancy, cognitive reinterpretation, and attention diversion, students may experience ineffective teaching methods
but feel they have learned much.
“But Wait! . . . ”
It is hard to imagine anyone being susceptible to the
“something extra” promotion. Every 30-second or 60-second
commercial attempting to sell something of “great value” for
a cheap price always has the “but wait!” addendum and the
offer of something extra to persuade customers to buy the
already promoted high-value, low-cost product. Students
receive something extra from quack teachers in a variety of
ways, including the following:
• Higher grades raised because the faculty member is attempting to influence teaching evaluations
• Extra credit work provided, especially for one student, making the student feel grateful
• Curves on tests to ensure good grades for many or most
• Giving higher grades to students who say they “knew more
than their grade shows”
• Receiving test questions in advance or allowing students to
choose questions
• The opportunity for students to self-assess
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
12
APRIL 2004
The above list of activities may sound like great pedagogy,
but are they? However, and for example, the self-assessment
literature asserts that the very process of self-assessment is
complex. Numerous studies have found that people tend to be
poor judges of the extent of their knowledge (e.g., Morris
1990) and the accuracy of their answers (e.g., Bradley 1981;
Schrau and Roedel 1994). By its very nature, self-assessment
can never be objective or free from the beliefs and values held
by the individual (Stewart et al. 2000). These authors conclude that self-evaluation is best used to analyze work practices and reflect on performance. While students may welcome self-assessment opportunities, one study indicates that
proctor grading prepared students better for major exams
(Conard 1977). In another study, Davis and Rand (1980)
observed that a self-graded class was overgenerous in their
assignment of grades, but these students also viewed the
course more favorably than their instructor-graded counterparts. Moreover, proper self-grading, according to Ulmer
(2000), can usually be accomplished in one full class period.
Does self-assessment create an illusion of learning? While
providing some value, how many class periods can be consumed in proper self-evaluation techniques before the content integrity of a class is impinged upon?
It has been found that students are favorable toward testing
adaptations (Nelson 2000). The practice of providing questions in advance has support from those who believe that it
allows for more equitable assessment (e.g., Gordon 1992),
provides opportunities to “show off” rather than undergo trial
by question (e.g., Wiggins 1993), and improves the intrinsic
motivation of students (e.g., Snow and Jackson 1993). However, it has been shown that the effects of choice can differ
according to the nature of the test and that students do not
make uniformly good choices (Nelson 2000). Choice may be
useful if the intent of the assessment is to determine ability to
organize information and present clear arguments. But, if
knowledge assessment is the focal point of the test, the
instructor should select questions (Bridgeman, Morgan, and
Wang 1995). According to Darby and Karni (1973), teaching
is low on search quality, high on experience quality, and high
on credence quality. Students base a disproportionate part of
their evaluation of a class on process. However, since students
struggle with evaluating actual outcomes, grades received
heavily affected their view of the class (Nelson 2000).
Certain teaching activities may be inconsistent with the
goal of education, which is, after all, learning. The key issue
revolves around the gaining of knowledge, the development
of skills, and a grade consistent with the amount of knowledge gained or the degree to which skills are enhanced. Do the
aforementioned teaching “extras” only improve grades, or do
they really enhance learning? Consider the “diet experts” and
physicians who push their patients to diet and chastise them
when they do not keep their weight down. Probably, the best
advice about diet (for most people) is “everything in moderation . . . live a reasonably healthy lifestyle.” In other words,
patients should focus on fitness, not weight, much like students should focus on learning, not grades.
Lack of Metrics
The innovation literature presents a way of examining
results, focusing on metrics including relative advantage,
compatibility with existing consumption pattern, trialability,
observability, and complexity (e.g., Mahajan, Muller, and
Bass 1990). In one study, marketing educators using this
approach to educational assessment employed relative
advantage to weigh the merits of adopting a new course
(Mayo and Miciak 1997). Furthermore, it has been asserted
that educators are more inclined to imitate external innovation than one developed in-house by offering it as a specialtopics class (trialability, observability) (Mayo and Miciak
1991). Teachers who attempt to stand on rigor by demanding
that their critics prove them wrong are acting like quacks.
Teachers, to support their hypotheses, who seek out only
information that appears to be supportive are acting like
quacks. They may resort to tactics like, “How do you know it
does not work if you haven’t tried it?” They craftily put critics
into the situation of supplying metrics for the purposes of
rejection. Indeed, a hypothesis might even exist at the genesis
of a teaching idea. In science, the burden of proof is on the one
advocating the new way of doing things. However, given the
nature of marketing education and the lack of resources, educators cannot thoroughly test every idea. Therefore, the tendency is to pursue those that seem the most promising, at least
according to some consensus.
Quack teachers may resort to the “Galileo Argument” as a
defense. They compare themselves to Galileo, arguing that
just as others believe the quack teacher to be wrong, Galileo
was also believed to be in error by his contemporaries.
However, the quack teacher fails to point out that Galileo’s
ideas were tested, verified, and accepted by his scientific
colleagues. So it is with teaching. Any new findings or teaching methodologies should be examined with healthy skepticism and a willingness to accept on the basis of scientific
evidence, not simply accepting information uncritically. As noted
earlier, unproven teaching methodologies are not necessarily
the stuff of quackery. Methodologies consistent with scientific
grounding and information can be considered “experimental.”
Unproven teaching methods that lack a plausible rational
should be considered worthless until proven otherwise. However, personal experience as a metric is no substitute for rigorous thought, analysis, and testing. Testing and examination
provide metrics to judge and accept or discard teaching
approaches. Teaching and education progress occurs as new
methodologies replace old ones, based on effectiveness and
learning. Scientific approaches require an open-mindedness
and involve a willingness to follow the evidence wherever it
leads. Open-mindedness should include willingness to
engage in, and defer to, impartial investigations rather than
one’s own preferences regarding classroom content and
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION
methodologies. Without comparative data concerning learning successes by students, no legitimate claim can be made
about teaching method effectiveness. What assessment programs exist or can be developed to provide a framework for
the advancement of teaching and learning excellence? What
metrics can be created to (1) provide a means of ascertaining
best practices in marketing teaching and (2) provide valid
learning effectiveness comparison data between teaching
methodologies?
DISCUSSION
Students, parents, educators, and administrators have all
expressed concern about the quality of higher education.
Consistent with these concerns, it seems that educational
quality is in crisis. Publish or perish, fueled by the desire for
national and global recognition and Tier 1 status, is growing
at a fast pace among universities and affect marketing education. More research is being conducted. More administrators
are promoting/demanding research. Faculty are packaging
research. And, the prevalence of inferior (arguably) education might be attributed to pressures from administrators who
demand high research productivity while simultaneously
demanding achievement, results, and measurements related
to teaching excellence. Resources, of course, are seemingly
always lacking. Rewards often emphasize research. Teaching
evaluations are badly flawed and easily manipulated. In other
words, teaching excellence cannot be inferred from university teaching instruments, leading to the discouraging condition that formal university processes do not easily identify
quack teachers. And, if identified, little corrective action is
likely to be forthcoming.
Are there quack teachers in marketing departments? The
answer is “yes” and, it is hoped, “very few.” Quackery seldom
looks outlandish to outside observers and to those lacking in
judgment ability. The use of charlatan-like approaches can,
unless scrutinized, make it difficult to discern genuine teaching and learning excellence from quackery. Quack teachers
use scientific terminology and employ information with scientific reference. Most, if not all, have reputable research
training but have chosen to ignore it as it applies in the classroom. An insidious reason for the difficulty of identifying
quack teachers is that most college educators engage in quack
teaching methodologies from time to time! Indeed, quack
teaching methods may be highly desired and sought after,
much like medical patients who prefer doctors with excellent
“bedside manner.” Quack teachers specialize in promises,
sympathy, concern, consideration, and reassurance. Students
respond to this kind of attention. Students are not incapable of
discerning these things, and they are not likely to be willing to
do the work required to be discerning.
In chasing the worthy goal of “educating the masses,” have
universities, as “centers of learning,” sacrificed their traditional values? Under the constant pressure to achieve num-
13
bers and combined with bureaucratic obsession with such
things as grades, numbers of graduates, and school rankings,
our universities are in danger of confusing the difference
between education and training. Our graduates are being
taught what to think rather than how to think—the stuff of
quackery.
At the same time, the face of marketing education is
changing (Smart, Kelley, and Conant 1999). Marketing professors must encourage teaching innovation, which implies
that universities give innovation proper recognition in the
reward process. Unfortunately, marketing faculty members
often begin the innovation process with the question, “If I
change, how will my teaching evaluations be affected?”
These faculty members have focused their innovative activity
on the wrong objective. Why, like many legitimate people in
the medical profession, do teachers who endeavor to provide
solid educational opportunities remain silent about quack
teaching? Does a fear of being labeled as intolerant exist? Is
the desire to be noncritical of colleagues so strong that it prevents legitimate critique? When students talk with teachers,
do those teachers find themselves wondering why they
endeavor to provide sound educational opportunities amid so
much confusion and distrust of conventional teaching methodologies? Are statements like the following representative
of the education environment? “Students will resent the fact
that they’re in a section where they have to think, while their
colleagues are in sections where they can study the night
before the exam and get an A” (Bhada 2002, p. 25). We are at
a point in time where too many are questioning the value of a
business degree (Bhada 2002). To retain brand integrity of
marketing education, change must be supported at the top of
university administrations but must also be encouraged by the
department chair and colleagues. Marketing faculty members
must keep up with effective teaching practices that yield
effective results for students.
Today’s technology provides easy access to accumulated
knowledge on a constantly increasing scale. The actionoriented values of our society suggest to students that knowledge is to be learned rather than understood. There seems to
be little time to absorb, debate, question, and adapt this
knowledge to existing circumstances (i.e., problems and
opportunities), much to the delight of those faculty members
who wish to avoid scrutiny. We live in a world of abstracts,
sound bites, and “great books” that are skillfully condensed to
heighten dramatic impact and reduce the overall educational
value of the reading. The author’s purpose in writing the book
may have had nothing to do with dramatic impact, just as the
presentation of a fact provides little about why that fact exists
and what processes led to the fact. Our high-speed environment demands constant updating of abbreviated truths to add
to the already voluminous megabytes of stored wisdom. Have
some marketing educators succumbed to this call for change?
Have they also sacrificed the search for profound wisdom?
Seemingly, less concern exists with producing graduates who
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
14
APRIL 2004
have the desire to seek wisdom, a circumstance that fuels
quackery.
Marketing educators must avoid the pedantic dedication to
ensuring that students absorb a determined amount of facts
and specific skills as a primary objective. This approach is
designed to produce students who meet the designated
requirements of the segmented and specialized outside world.
Grades, not knowledge and wisdom, are deemed important, a
facet of education much to the liking of quacks. While not
entirely in error, this approach favors training and students
receiving passing grades over the building of a knowledge
foundation for the long run. There seems to be little time for
the “pursuit of knowledge.” Such a development favors quack
teachers who prefer to focus on the student, rather than on the
student’s education.
Marketing educators must emphasize debate about the
concepts underlying facts that are presented to students who
so diligently cram these facts for the purpose of passing tests.
The traditional practice of debate and argument with each
other about what was being learned helped students develop
ownership of concepts and establish their set of values and
principles. These values and principles are necessary for subsequent thought and action. For example, students’ emphasis
on specialization, their strong focus on majors and jobs, and
their focus on grades over learning have eroded the concept of
foundation subjects such as logic or philosophy. Such a learning environment is conducive to quack teaching methods.
Emphasis on foundation subjects, once considered essential
tools in learning to think with some purpose, must be rekindled. They provided some perspective outside of specialization. More important, they instilled students with the habit of
asking questions. Often, these questions would be answered
by other questions, which in turn would be answered by other
questions. To many educators, such an exercise appears
pointless and a waste of the student’s valuable time. Too
many students and faculty alike hold the opinion that a student’s time is best spent learning materials to pass a test. This
once rigorous and challenging process of college education
was a powerful route to greater understanding of the world, in
which we live—which was largely a domestic world. Now, in
a global world, we have relegated this questioning process to
virtual nonexistence at a time when the process may indeed
be more critical to students’ understanding of the world. The
need for more thinking prowess has grown.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this article is to provide thought for debate
and exchange of ideas about marketing education. It is hoped
that readers found something of interest in this presentation
and did not feel pangs of guilt as I often did in writing this article. I found myself questioning my own classroom behaviors,
wondering how often I employ quack strategies. I have struggled to continuously remind myself to always test, adjust, and
discontinue teaching practices based on evidence of effectiveness (or lack thereof). Clearly, to qualify as a quack
teacher, one must habitually engage in most of the activities
cited in this article on a regular basis. Isolated incidents are
best avoided, but what teacher has not felt the urge to respond,
“Go tell my Dean that” to a student who praises a class? New
teaching methods often purport to combine alternative and
mainstream methodologies (traditional) approaches to education. The claim that the best of both approaches is provided
sounds reasonable. However, and analogously, what
improvements are forthcoming from the integration of
creationism and evolution, alchemy and modern scientific
chemistry, the belief that earth is flat and 6,000 years old with
modern dating of rocks, or the integration of perpetual motion
machines with conservation of energy and the laws of thermodynamics? As believers in scientific method and evidence,
marketing educators must focus on the student, the proposed
teaching method, and the need for convincing data on
learning outcomes.
Clearly, the viewpoints presented in this article are personal and somewhat cynical. They are presented in this way
not to be a critique of all marketing educators. On the contrary, I have found most marketing educators to be sincere
about what they do, concerned about quality marketing education, and disillusioned about the status of students’learning
desires and universities’ commitments to quality. Rather, the
purpose of this article is to stimulate thinking and, perhaps,
research, about college education. It is hoped that the combination of thought, effort, testing, and dialogue will lead educators to a renewal of interest in scientific ways of thinking
about college education.
Being skeptical is a fundamental requirement for scientific
thinking and truth detection. The difference between teaching
excellence and teaching quackery should not be blurred
because we, as educators, are uncaring or indifferent or
unwilling to examine what we do. There are no absolutes concerning excellent teaching, but this should not foster indifference to the search for education excellence. How can marketing educators induce students, faculty, and administrators to
ask for “proof” of excellence? If a teacher makes a claim, is it
not reasonable to ask how he or she knows it to be true? In
marketing, we must encourage students to be better consumers, faculty to be better providers, and administrators to be
better stewards of educational resources.
The human capacity for deception and self-deception
often seems unlimited. The future of quackery in marketing
education seems bright, as students are vulnerable. They fear
poor grades, so they seek easy classes/teachers. They fear
challenge, so they take memorization-focused classes for
which the test banks are in fraternity/sorority files around the
globe. Unfortunately, in marketing education, there really is
no fixed point of reference for educational excellence toward
which to navigate. Thus, it is easy to lose one’s way, to lose
touch with valid educational programs, and to become disil-
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION
lusioned and discouraged. As marketing education becomes,
more and more, a promotion of students’ freedom to choose
and suffers from the lack of rigorous assessment standards,
the fight for excellence becomes more imperative. It is hoped
that this article leads readers to discuss and question beliefs
about teaching excellence. This article, no doubt, has not
taken a popular stance. If readers decide to “shoot the messenger,” please do so from the perspective of scientific
inquiry.
NOTE
1. This observation is based on having taught more than 10,000 freshmen
across a 10-year period.
REFERENCES
Anderson, Martin. 1992. The imposters in the temple. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Baldwin, Tamara, and Nancy Blattner. 2003. Guarding against potential bias
in student evaluations. College Teaching 51 (1): 27-32.
Barrett, Stephen. 2001. Vulnerability to quackery. http://www.quackwatch.
com.
Bartlett, Thomas. 2002. Freshmen pay, mentally and physically, as they
adjust to life in college. Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (21): A35.
Bhada, Yezdi K. 2002. Top of the class. BizEd, November–December, 22-27.
Bloom, Allan. 1987. The closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Bradley, J. V. 1981. Overconfidence in ignorant experts. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society 17 (2): 82-84.
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.
Budden, Michael C. 1985. Attitudes of marketing professors towards students majoring in marketing. Proceedings of the Southern Marketing
Association, 87-90.
Burkhalter, B. B. 1996. How can institutions of higher education achieve
quality within the new economy? Total Quality Management 7:153-60.
Caudill, D., and M. Carrington. 1995. Marketing educators as mentors: Benefits for students. Business Education Forum, April, 34-35.
Chonko, Lawrence B. 1993. Business school education: Some thoughts and
recommendations. Marketing Education Review 3 (Spring): 1-9.
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, 271-81.
Cloud, John. 2002. Who’s ready for college? Time 160 (October 14): 60-61.
Conard, C. J. 1977. Self-grading versus external proctoring: A counterbalanced comparison. Research in Education 18 (July): 10-19.
Cravatta, M. 1997. Hanging on to students. American Demographics 19 (11):
41.
Csikszentmihaly, M. 1975. Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
d’Apollonia, Sylvia, and Philip C. Abrami. 1997. Navigating student ratings
of instruction. American Psychologist 52 (11): 1198-1208.
Darby, N. R., and E. Karni. 1973. Free competition and the optimal amount of
fraud. Journal of Law and Economics 16 (April): 67-86.
Davis, J. Kent, and David C. Rand. 1980. Self-grading vs. instructor grading.
Journal of Educational Research 73 (March–April): 207-13.
Drucker, Peter F. 1999. Management challenges for the 21st century. New
York: HarperBusiness.
Evelyn, Jamilah. 2002. A clean slate. Chronicle of Higher Education 49
(October 10): A39-A40.
15
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.
Gose, Ben. 1998. More freshmen than ever appear disengaged from their
studies, survey finds. The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 16,
A37-A39.
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.
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Gerald M. Gilmore. 1997a. Grading leniency is
a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist 52
(11): 1209-17.
. 1997b. No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring workload in
student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology 89 (4):
743-51.
Hill, Mark E., and Joel Herche. 2001. Teaching effectiveness: Another look.
Marketing Education Review 11 (Summer): 19-24.
Hugstad, Paul. 1997. Marketing the marketing major. Journal of Marketing
Education 19 (January): 4-13.
Jarvis, William T., and Stephen Barrett. 2000. How quackery sells. http://
www.quackwatch.com.
Karns, Gary L. 1993. Marketing students’ perceptions of learning activities:
Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education 15 (Spring): 3-10.
Keillor, Bruce D., Robert P. Bush, and Alan J. Bush. 1995. Marketing-based
strategies for recruiting business students in the next century. Marketing
Education Review 5 (3): 69-80.
Kelinson, Jonathan W. 1998. Trends in college degrees. Occupational Outlook Quarterly 42 (2): 22-28.
Kelley, Craig A., Jeffrey S. Conant, and Denise T. Smart. 1991. Master teaching revisited: Pursuing excellence from the students’perspective. Journal
of Marketing Education 13 (Summer): 1-10.
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 Education 27 (5): 411-25.
Kember, Richard, and Mary Biggs. 2002. Grade conflation: A question of
credibility. Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (April 12): B14.
Kennedy, Shirly Duglin. 1997. Intelligent decisions about information. Information Today 14 (November): 40-44.
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.
LaBarbera, Priscilla A., and Jeffrey Simonoff. 1999. Toward enhancing the
quality and quantity of marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education 21 (April): 4-13.
Lamb, Charles W., and Julie Baker. 1993. The case method of instruction:
Student-led presentations and video-taping. Marketing Education
Review 3 (Spring): 44-50.
Lamont, Lawrence M., and Ken Friedman. 1997. Meeting the challenges to
undergraduate marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education 19
(Fall): 17-30.
Leo, John. 1999. The new trivial pursuit. U.S. News & World Report 127
(August 30): 20.
Mahajan, Vijay, Edward. Muller, and Frank M. Bass. 1990. New product diffusion models in marketing: A review and directions for new research.
Journal of Marketing 54 (January): 1-26.
Marsh, E. 1987. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research 11:253-388.
Mayo, Michael A., and Alan R. Miciak. 1991. The decision making process
underlying curriculum revision. Journal of Marketing Education 6 (Summer): 27-32.
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
16
APRIL 2004
. 1997. Curriculum decision making: What are the sources of innovation? Journal of Education for Business 73 (September–October): 17-20.
Morris, C. C. 1990. Retrieval process underlying confidence in comprehension judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 16:223-32.
Nelson, Janet S. 2000. Student preferences for adaptations in classroom testing. Remedial & Special Education 21 (January–February): 41-52.
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 Education 18 (Fall): 57-67.
Polonsky, M., and G. Mankelow. 2000. Where are we going: Perceptions of
U.S. marketing academics. Journal of Marketing Education 16 (7): 71743.
Remington, Steve, Julie Anna Guidry, Michael Craig Budden, and John R.
Tanner. 2000. Revisiting perceptions of marketing students’ prior preparation. Journal of Marketing Education 22 (December): 188-98.
Rotfeld, Herbert. 1996. Excuse me, I thought you had a Ph.D. Marketing
Educator 15 (3): 7.
Scully, John. 1988. A perspective on the future: What business needs from
higher education. Change 20 (March–April): 41.
Schrau, G., and T. D. Roedel. 1994. Test difficulty and judgment bias. Memory and Cognition 22 (1): 63-69.
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 Education 25 (4): 397-405.
Shoichet, Catherine E. 2002. Reports of grade inflation may be inflated, study
finds. Chronicle of Higher Education 48 (July 12): A37.
Siegel, Carolyn F. 1996. Using computer networks (Intranet and Internet) to
enhance your students’marketing skills. Journal of Marketing Education
18 (Fall): 3-13.
Simpson, P. M., and Judy S. Siguaw. 2000. Students’ evaluation of teaching:
An exploratory study of faculty response. Journal of Marketing Education 22 (December): 199-213.
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 Education 21 (December): 206-16.
Smart, Denise T., Chuck Tomkovick, Eli Jones, and Anil Menon. 1999.
Undergraduate marketing education in the 21st century: Views from three
institutions. Marketing Education Review 9 (Spring): 1-9.
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.
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 Education 34:903-9.
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.
Walling, J. 1996. Colleges should change course. USA Weekend, September
4-5, 20-22.
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, 282-89.
Wiggins, G. 1993. Assessing student performance: Exploring the purpose
and limits of testing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wynd, William R., and Carl S. Bozman. 1996. Student learning style: A segmentation strategy for higher education. Journal of Education for Business 71 (4): 232-35.
Young, James Harvey. 2002. Why quackery persists. http://www.
quackwatch.com.
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016