Manajemen | Fakultas Ekonomi Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji joeb.79.3.157-162
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Can School Oversight Adequately Assess
Department Outcomes? A Study of Marketing
Curriculum Content
Stephen T. Barnett , Paul E. Dascher & Carolyn Y. Nicholson
To cite this article: Stephen T. Barnett , Paul E. Dascher & Carolyn Y. Nicholson (2004) Can
School Oversight Adequately Assess Department Outcomes? A Study of Marketing Curriculum
Content, Journal of Education for Business, 79:3, 157-162, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.79.3.157-162
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.3.157-162
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 16
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:08
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
Can School Oversight Adequately
Assess Department Outcomes?
A Study of Marketing Curriculum
Content
STEPHEN T. BARNETT
PAUL E. DASCHER
CAROLYN Y. NICHOLSON
Stetson University
Deland, Florida
T
he environment for business education challenges institutions and
their academic departments in many
ways. Educators must develop and offer
curricula that are effective and efficient,
identify experiences relevant to current
and future professional needs, and build
academic programs that demonstrate
value and continuous improvement.
Feedback is a vital part of any continuous improvement program. Although
the purpose and importance of outcomes assessment is clear, how to
design and implement such programs is
complex and confusing, as evidenced by
reports that most schools lack comprehensive outcomes assessment programs
(Kimmell, Marquette, & Olsen, 1998).
Curricular content is a critical ingredient in an academic or professional
educational program. Moreover, the
process of ongoing curriculum improvement requires that educators regularly
assess the outcomes of their particular
programs. A key step in defining and
measuring curricula is establishing clear
mission-driven criteria for individual
programs. AACSB International, The
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business, provides one
source for these criteria. Administrators
and educators often use these criteria as
guidelines in defining the mission for
institutions and programs. Because the
course requirements for various busi-
ABSTRACT. In this article, the
authors examine the key factors that
influence student choice of a business
major and how business schools can
help students make that choice more
realistically. Investigating students at a
regional university, the authors found
that whereas those with better quantitative skills tended to major in
accounting or finance, those with
weaker quantitative skills tended to
major in marketing and management.
For adherence to the requirements for
expanded assurance of learning (outcomes assessment) included in
AACSB International’s eligibility
standards (2003), the authors suggest
that schools of business provide their
students with a clear statement of the
opportunities and requirements in
each business major.
ness majors and programs are unique by
discipline yet also constitute much of a
student’s curriculum, we wondered if it
is effective to base outcomes assessment
on the broader college mission-driven
criteria. Our premise is that such broad,
strategic, college-level criteria do not
provide enough direction at the tactical
departmental level at which educators
implement the courses that deliver curricular content.
Our purpose in this study was to
explore the perceptions of a group of
leaders in one discipline regarding the
use of college-wide curricular standards
as criteria in assessing outcomes in a
department. Because AACSB standards
cover a range of knowledge and are
applicable to the whole business school
curriculum, we were curious to learn
how the leadership in one discipline
(marketing) perceived the role of that
discipline in fulfilling the school-wide
curriculum mission.
We have organized the research into
four parts: a literature review on educational outcomes assessment in general
and business education in particular, an
explanation of the current AACSB curriculum standards, the research design,
and a presentation of findings and
implications for curricular design and
oversight.
Outcomes Assessment
Expectations
The issue of educational accountability is topical, and business education is
certainly not exempt (Glover, Blankley,
& Oliver, 1995; Smart, Tomkovick,
Jones, & Memon, 1999). Sautter, Popp,
Pratt, and Mills (2000) reported that
recent trends in business education
have created increased awareness of
curriculum adequacies and deficiencies. AACSB undertook a vigorous program to respond to what was seen as a
“crisis” and instigated a program in the
early 1990s to encourage a more integrative business curriculum (Pharr &
Morris, 1997).
January/February 2004
157
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
Despite the pressure from accrediting
bodies and governmental agencies,
Kimmel, Marquett, and Olsen (1998)
found that only 42% of the business
schools that they surveyed reported having a comprehensive outcomes assessment program (COAP). They found that
the incidence of a COAP was related to
neither AACSB accreditation nor school
status (private versus public). Hindi and
Miller (2000) found that the highest
ranked uses of outcomes assessment in
accounting were for curricular changes.
In another survey at the department
level, Nicholson and Oliphant (2001)
found that almost a third of marketing
departments were not using any systematic assessment beyond course oversight
or placement.
If schools that are assessing outcomes do so as part of changing their
curriculum and there is a crisis in business education that most see as curriculum based, why are all schools not heavily involved in outcomes assessment?
We suspect that there are several reasons for this lack of involvement: (a)
The concept of outcomes assessment is
changing, (b) the changes in the concept
of outcomes assessment have created
goals that are more difficult to assess,
and (c) business schools are not organized to effectively assess outcomes.
Outcomes Assessment Is Changing
In the past, AACSB and business
schools have focused on the adequacy
of inputs—faculty members, library,
and research resources. A shift in this
emphasis from that of process to one of
outcomes assessment is evidenced by
added attention to the role of learning
objectives in curriculum design (Sautter, Popp, Pratt, & Mills, 2000).
More recently, a number of quantitative tests have been developed for business schools, including some coordinated through AACSB. Preeminent
among these tests are the ETS exam,
which assesses content acquisition
across the business curriculum, and the
EBI Student Satisfaction Survey, which
assesses the degree to which the current
curriculum meets student expectations.
Both tests are notable in that they provide benchmarking opportunities and
can be used to identify key areas of
158
Journal of Education for Business
weakness. However, they explore outcomes from the student’s tenure in the
business school and collapse across all
disciplines. Therefore, they provide
only limited curricular feedback to the
individual departments and programs
within the school.
Although such tests measure knowledge, they do not answer two basic
questions: (a) What are the most important lessons? and (b) How well do business schools prepare their students?
Peter Drucker’s perspective on these
two related questions points out the relevance and complexity of outcomes
assessment: “[Business students] have
to learn to take responsibility for themselves . . . [understanding] what [they]
should contribute to the organization . . .
and [develop a] basic literacy of the
organization. . . . and only the students
themselves can answer [how well
they’re prepared] and they rarely know
until ten years or more have passed”
(Chapman, 2001, p. 14).
Assessment Is More Difficult
AACSB International recognizes that
the curriculum is central in implementing a business degree program. The
organization specifically pointed this
out and underscored the critical role of
outcomes assessment: “[C]reating and
delivering high quality curricula
requires planning and evaluation”
(AACSB, 2001, p. 17). It also noted that
educational objectives can be realized
through use of curricula with different
structures and approaches.
AACSB addresses undergraduate
curricular requirements in five areas: (a)
perspectives on which a business curriculum should provide an understanding, (b) a general education component,
(c) four areas identified as the “foundation knowledge for business,” (d) written and oral communications, and (e)
additional requirements consistent with
the school’s mission.
Current expectations from accrediting bodies and other stakeholders have
moved from standards based on reputation and inputs, which are somewhat
straightforward for measurement purposes, to mission and value-added
goals, which are more qualitative and
difficult to define. In addition, curricu-
lum development takes place at a number of levels. Within departments,
assessments and curriculum development must take these criteria into consideration as educational programs are
implemented. A key question for
administrators of functional area programs in AACSB-accredited schools is
the extent to which the identified core
competencies can be or should be related to the courses offered by that academic area or department.
Assessment and Business School
Organization
Outcomes assessment typically is
viewed as a college issue, but is this
approach the most effective one?
AACSB standards suggest that 50% of
the content in a 120-hour business curriculum should be nonbusiness, 20%
should pertain to the Common Body of
Knowledge, and the remaining 30%
should be taken up by major courses
and electives.
Business schools normally use a college level committee to set the standards
for the curriculum and to organize the
curricular elements, even though the
expected outcomes for the different
majors vary substantially in perspective
and substance. Departmental faculties
predictably deal with these variations in
expected outcomes by defining and
developing courses (and their respective
syllabi) to meet what they perceive to be
employers’ or graduate schools’ expectations for graduates. College curriculum committees tend to rely on departmental expertise in making curriculum
content decisions. Thus, the normal
business school curriculum system
makes one body (the college curriculum
committee) responsible for overseeing
the content and standards and gives
another (the departmental faculty members) the authority to create and change
curricular content. Accountability problems are not uncommon in organizations that separate authority and responsibility in this fashion. We argue that,
especially when viewed against a backdrop of increasing expectations for the
school and for its included programs,
this split is a major factor in the lack of
adequate outcomes assessment in business education.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
As we see it, there are two alternatives for business schools and curriculum oversight. The first approach is to
insist that curriculum committees not
only take responsibility for interpreting
how the curriculum will meet the mission and curricular standards set by the
school but also evaluate the actual content of the courses. The second
approach is to insist that departments
not only decide the actual content of the
courses that make up the curriculum but
also take responsibility for interpreting
how those courses will meet the mission
and curricular standards set at the
school level. The second method is confounded by one key question: Are the
broad strategic mission standards really
applicable at the narrow tactical level at
which faculty members determine the
actual hourly content for their courses?
Or should departments be given the
authority to set and oversee standards
appropriate for their own programs?
Focusing on this debate between the
global and local interests, we decided to
explore an undergraduate curriculum in
light of the 18 AACSB core standards to
determine if administrators perceive college level standards as legitimate outcomes for their departments’ courses.
The AACSB Core Curriculum
Standards
Why use AACSB curriculum standards as opposed to some other set of
curriculum benchmarks? Ostensibly,
assessment mechanisms are in place at
the school level for accredited schools
of business administration. Thus, the
standards create a common language
across accredited schools. Degree programs face the challenge of ensuring
that the curriculum reflects the standards of an accrediting body. The
assumption is that such accrediting bodies, because of their exposure to
employers and a variety of other academic programs over an extended time
frame, are able to set out a comprehensive set of curricular criteria. AACSB
International is the foremost accrediting
body for business schools worldwide.
Moreover, because our focus is on the
issue of global versus local oversight of
curriculum, the school-level standards
are appropriate for the study.
Importantly, there are no such curricular guidelines accepted across the discipline for marketing or other academic
majors at the departmental level. This
seems, at first, hard to believe, yet the
education arm of the American Marketing Association (AMA), the area’s premier professional body, lists no such
guidelines. In fact, AMA only recently
has instituted a professional exam
(PCM, Professional Certified Marketer), which is more appropriate for
practicing professionals than for students or recent graduates and thus is not
particularly useful as an assessment tool
for current students.
In setting expectations more clearly,
the accreditation standards express the
following general and specific items
that educators should consider in curriculum design:
1. Perspectives that form the context
of business: ethical issues, global issues,
political systems, social issues, legal
issues, regulatory issues, environmental
issues, technology issues, and demographic diversity;
2. Foundation knowledge for business: accounting, behavioral sciences,
economics, mathematics, and statistics;
3. Important characteristics: written
and oral communications;
4. Additional requirements consistent
with the school’s mission: humanities
and natural sciences.
It is important to determine how these
standards are viewed at the program or
departmental level and whether such an
assessment can have meaningful,
actionable outcomes for curricula. An
assessment of these standards indicates
that the standards are not noted as
equally critical to success when viewed
through the departmental lens.
Method
In this research, we explored the perceptions of coordinators and chairs of
AACSB-accredited marketing departments regarding the coverage of the 18
core competencies. In addition to providing information useful to these
chairs for benchmarking in their own
programs, the research provides a
model that can be applied to other areas
within the business school. The research
also allows us to explore how departmental administrators evaluate schoollevel standards.
The current study was conducted via
a questionnaire mailed to 322 deans in
AACSB-accredited business schools
with the request that they forward it to
the person responsible for the academic
marketing department or area. We
obtained usable responses from 111
marketing program administrators, representing a response rate of 34.5%.
Curriculum Action Index Approach
Gap analyses assess users’ perceptions of delivered outcomes versus their
desired levels. The “gap” between the
delivered and the desired is measured,
and the larger gaps are viewed as areas
in which needs are not being met sufficiently. This approach—measuring outcomes against expectations—makes
very good sense for assessments. Davis,
Misra, and Van Auken (2002) and Duke
(2002) noted that gap analysis has several important benefits in terms of
assessments. This method identifies
more areas in which improvements can
be made—such as retention surveys,
exit examinations, or course evaluations—than do other assessment tools.
The Curriculum Action Index (CAI)
that we use shares a common methodological perspective with the work of
these gap analysts. Where we differ,
however, is in the gap that we assess.
The most significant difference between
the approaches is that ours involves a
third key variable in the evaluation—the
normative dimension. This approach is
based on the expectancy-value models
as developed by Fishbein (1967, 1972)
and modified by Bass and Talarzyk
(1972). A comparison between importance and preparation assesses two different, albeit related, domains. CAI, in
contrast, measures a delivered outcome
(i.e., preparation) against a perceived
normative standard for that outcome
(how much preparation should have
been given); then the gaps are weighted
by the importance of the topic, which
provides a measure of relative urgency
for the perceived gap.
Our instrument asked respondents to
evaluate 18 standards on three complementary scales based on (a) how much
January/February 2004
159
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
of the characteristic is present in their
marketing curriculum, (b) how much of
the characteristic should be covered in
their marketing curriculum, and (c) the
importance level of the characteristic.
The survey instrument used a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (a minimum
amount) to 5 (the maximum amount).
The approach involves the following
three steps: (a) creation of normative
and attitudinal measures called the Deficiency Index and Importance Index, (b)
conversion of these parametric indices
into ranked measures, and (c) calculation of a Curriculum Action Index
(CAI) that integrates the two indices
and indicates which issues are perceived
as most in need of attention.
We first created two parametric
indices. The Deficiency Ratio Index
(DRI) is a normative index that shows
how the respondents evaluated the content delivered relative to the issue. We
calculated the DRI as the mean response
to the content question “How much is
there?” divided by the mean response to
the normative question “How much
should there be?” Then, we calculated
the Importance Index as the mean on the
importance question “How important is
this issue?”
We then converted the DRI and the
Importance Index to ranked measures.
Ranks were ordered least (1) to most
(18). In the final step, we created a Curriculum Action Index (CAI) by multiplying the deficiency ranking for each
issue by its importance ranking. Instead
of an absolute scale, the range of CAI
scores depends on the number of outcomes evaluated, and we must evaluate
the relative differences among the CAI
scores. In this study of 18 issues, the
worst possible score was 324 (18 x 18 =
324), which would indicate that the
issue deemed the most deficient (ranking 18 on the DRI) was also the most
important (ranking 18 on the Importance Index also) of the 18 issues evaluated. The minimum CAI score is always
1 (1 x 1 = 1), which would indicate that
that issue was both least deficient and
least important. Higher scores are more
problematic and indicate the need for
review. As a guide, we suggest that
issues with CAI scores of 70% of maximum deserve the most serious consideration. However, in a longitudinal
160
Journal of Education for Business
study, any significant CAI increase over
time is clearly worthy of review.
Results
Our results suggest that the department chairs and area coordinators
thought the marketing curriculum
should and does play an important role
in certain curricular areas other than
marketing (e.g., economics, accounting, behavioral sciences, social sciences). They also believed that there are
other areas (e.g., written communications, oral communications, ethical
issues and technological issues) that the
marketing curriculum should address in
more depth.
Beginning with perceived importance
of the 18 standards within the marketing
department, we see that written communications and oral communications
ranked highest (see Table 1). The mean
importance score for written communications was 4.44; the mean importance
score for oral communication was 4.37.
These items also were among the five
areas that the respondents ranked as
most deficient. One explanation for this
finding is that perceptions that communication skills are both very deficient
and very important could result from a
perceived lack of these skills in the stu-
dent population as well as from the
department’s insufficiency in dealing
with them. Although departments agree
that all education depends on communication skills, we suspect that the teaching of specific skills goes beyond what
is offered—or expected—in most
university-based marketing courses.
Technological issues (4.18, rank 16)
and global issues (4.17, rank 15) were
the next most important areas. Interestingly, neither of these issues ranked in
the top quartile of the deficiency rankings; in fact, their deficiency scores were
virtually tied (87.95% for global and
87.44% for technological issues). Marketing administrators see these issues as
important and related to marketing.
The items perceived as least important included humanities (2.99, rank 3),
political systems (2.59, rank 2), and natural sciences (2.50, rank 1). These rankings suggest that the marketing educators felt that attention to and integration
with these areas would be less important
to the success of their students than
emphasizing other areas. Given their
relative lack of importance, these particular standards perhaps are not especially useful as an assessment tool for
the marketing program. Because they
are viewed as unimportant, very little
energy is likely to be expended to
TABLE 1. Importance Means and Ranks of 18 Core Content Areas for
Marketing Curricula
Rank
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
M
Content area
4.44
4.37
4.18
4.17
3.83
3.81
3.68
3.51
3.41
3.36
3.34
3.33
3.22
3.22
3.16
2.99
2.59
2.50
Written communications
Oral communications
Technological issues
Global issues
Behavioral sciences
Ethical issues
Statistics
Social issues
Economics
Accounting
Mathematics
Legal issues
Regulatory issues
Demographic diversity
Environmental issues
Humanities
Political systems
Natural sciences
Note. Importance of content areas was ranked on a scale of 1 (least) to 18 (most).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
ensure coverage in or integration with
the department’s marketing courses.
In Table 2, we list the Deficiency
Ratio Index in rank order. The results
show that the highest rankings (i.e., the
ones evaluated as most deficient in content) were given to ethical issues, written communications, mathematics, statistics, and oral communications. One
interpretation of this finding is that
these five items exemplify the unique
bridging position that marketing holds
in the business curriculum, a position
that requires the translation of ideas into
numbers and numbers back into ideas.
Marketing educators perhaps perceive
the marketing curriculum as not adequately addressing this bridging role.
Items from the AACSB curriculum
criteria that were seen as least deficient
in the marketing curricula were behavioral sciences, accounting, humanities,
and economics, indicating that the
respondents felt that the marketing curriculum is adequate in these areas.
Either the respective issues should and
do receive sufficient coverage, or they
should receive and are getting minimal
attention. Regardless of the interpretation, the low Deficiency Ratio Index
score represents a match between
department goals and perceived outcomes for these areas.
The Curriculum Action Index scores
(see Table 3) represent the combination
of the normative opinions and the perceived importance. Although one must
interpret CAI scores with caution, they
do provide several interesting insights.
Results draw attention to seven areas of
particular concern: written communications (CAI = 306), oral communications
(CAI = 238), ethical issues (CAI = 234),
technological issues (CAI = 192), statistics (CAI = 180), global issues (CAI =
165), and mathematics (CAI = 128).
Each of these areas is essentially an
issue relevant to marketing but, other
than global and ethical issues, is not
typically included in the curricular content of marketing.
Conclusions
We end this article with a beginning.
The results of this study suggest benefits
from applying the CAI technique to representative stakeholder groups at specific institutions. Overall, the results
seem to challenge basic curricular goals,
methods, and models as perceived by
the respondents. Although these chal-
TABLE 2. Deficiency Indices and Ranks of 18 Core Content Areas for
Marketing Curricula
Rank
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Content area
Deficiency Index (rounded, %)
Ethical issues
Written communications
Mathematics
Statistics
Oral communications
Environmental issues
Technological issues
Global issues
Demographic diversity
Political systems
Regulatory issues
Legal issues
Social issues
Natural sciences
Behavioral sciences
Humanities
Accounting
Economics
81
83
85
85
87
87
88
88
91
91
91
93
93
95
95
95
98
100
Note. Deficiency of content area was ranked on a scale of 1 (least) to 18 (most). A higher Deficiency Ratio Index implies a greater match between perceived curricular content and the amount
that normatively should be included in the curriculum.
lenges may emerge from the marketing
curriculum in general, what really matters is the adequacy of a curriculum at a
specific institution. Thus, schools would
benefit from expanding this study to
other programs and specific situations.
Luckily, the CAI approach is a flexible
tool that can be used with a variety of
standards. CAI can be used longitudinally to assess whether the market
changes are being incorporated adequately into the curriculum.
Curricular standards by AACSB are
intended to provide guides, not absolute
standards. They also are based on best
practices and are normative rather than
prescriptive. Our reported results confirm the importance of these attributes
to the marketing curriculum and suggest
some benefit in using them as an evaluation basis. Overall, there appear to be
areas in marketing that could benefit
from additional emphasis, especially the
seven major areas identified. Additional
data from other populations such as current students, graduates, and employers
might suggest additional directions. A
critical issue remains, however. Because
department curricular needs are unique
and unlikely to be consistent across the
college, broad standards evaluated at the
TABLE 3. Curriculum Action
Index for Marketing Curricula
Content area
Written communications
Oral communications
Ethical issues
Technological issues
Statistics
Global issues
Mathematics
Social issues
Behavioral sciences
Environmental issues
Demographic diversity
Legal issues
Regulatory issues
Accounting
Political systems
Economics
Humanities
Natural sciences
CAI score
306
238
234
192
180
165
128
66
56
52
50
49
48
18
18
10
9
5
Note. Higher scores represent greater
identified curriculum needs.
January/February 2004
161
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
college level may be less relevant at the
departmental level.
We have demonstrated that departments have the knowledge and drive to
evaluate their own curricula against
college-level standards and their own
internally developed criteria, and our
results have some meaning for curriculum design. However, it is also likely to
be true that these standards, as defined
by AACSB, do not capture the richness
of outcomes being produced within
marketing departments. We assert that
departmental involvement in and oversight of outcomes assessment is crucial
to long-term success of graduates. However, if, as research has suggested
(Nicholson & Oliphant, 2001), departments are abdicating that responsibility,
curriculum revision likely lags behind
not only college-level standards but also
marketplace needs.
The focus of the educational process
is to move students from a level of
knowledge and comprehension to critical thinking (Bloom, 1956) that correlates with the goal of the program. It is
important that AACSB standards and
common academic practices provide
significant latitude and encouragement
to faculty members, departments, and
programs for inclusion of curricular elements that support the mission, purpose,
and goals of specific programs. Clearly,
as our results suggest, marketing admin-
162
Journal of Education for Business
istrators do not view the AACSB standards as equally important. In spite of
that, the evaluation of the standards at
the departmental level provided a useful
perspective on items that are due for
curricular review.
Nevertheless, ensuring that programspecific curricular elements are
reviewed and evaluated in a similar manner, incorporated into a broader business
curriculum, and assessed on the basis of
outcomes are difficult tasks. It is encouraging to note that our results, although
specific to marketing, suggest that academic department heads are aware of curriculum issues. Departmental oversight
could be an additional avenue leading to
more effective mission-driven curricula.
REFERENCES
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB). (2001). Achieving
quality and continuous improvement through
self-evaluation and peer review. St. Louis:
AACSB International.
Bass, F. M., & Talarzyk, W. W. (1972). An attitude
model for the study of brand preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(February), 93–96.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New
York: David McKay.
Chapman, C. (2001). Taking stock: An interview
with Peter Drucker. Biz Ed, November/December, 12–17.
Davis, R., Misra, S., & Van Auken, S. (2002). A
gap analysis approach to marketing curriculum
assessment: A study of skills and knowledge.
Journal of Marketing Education, 24(December), 218–224.
Duke, C. R. (2002). Learning outcomes: Comparing student perceptions of skill level and importance. Journal of Marketing Education,
24(December), 203–217.
Fishbein, M. (1967). A behavior theory approach
to the relations between beliefs about an
object and the attitude toward the object. In
M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory
and measurement (pp. 389–400). New York:
Wiley.
Fishbein, M. (1972). The search for attitudinalbehavioral consistency. In J. B. Cohen (Ed).,
Behavioral science foundations of consumer
behavior (pp. 245–252). New York: The Free
Press.
Glover, H. D., Blankley, A. I., & Oliver, E. G.,
(1995). An integrated business school model.
Management Accounting, 76(May), 35–37.
Hindi, N., & Miller, D. (2000). A survey of assessment practices in accounting departments of
colleges and universities. Journal of Education
for Business, 75(May/June), 286–291.
Kimmell, S., Marquette, P., & Olsen, D. (1998).
Outcomes assessment programs: Historical perspective and state of the art. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(November), 851–869.
Nicholson, C. Y., & Oliphant, R. J. (2001). How
are we doing? The current state of undergraduate marketing programs outcomes assessment
efforts. In J. L. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of
the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators (pp. 172–175). Association of Collegiate
Marketing Educators.
Pharr, S., & Morris, L. (1997). The fourth generation marketing curriculum: Meeting AACSB’s
guidelines. Journal of Marketing Education,
19(Fall), 31–43.
Sautter, E., Popp, A., Pratt, E., & Mills, S. (2000).
A “new and improved” curriculum: Process and
outcomes. Marketing Education Review,
10(Fall), 19–28.
Smart, D., Tomkovick, C., Jones, E., & Memon,
A. (1999). Undergraduate marketing education
in the 21st century: Views from three institutions. Marketing Education Review, 9(Spring),
1–9.
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
Can School Oversight Adequately Assess
Department Outcomes? A Study of Marketing
Curriculum Content
Stephen T. Barnett , Paul E. Dascher & Carolyn Y. Nicholson
To cite this article: Stephen T. Barnett , Paul E. Dascher & Carolyn Y. Nicholson (2004) Can
School Oversight Adequately Assess Department Outcomes? A Study of Marketing Curriculum
Content, Journal of Education for Business, 79:3, 157-162, DOI: 10.3200/JOEB.79.3.157-162
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.79.3.157-162
Published online: 07 Aug 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 16
View related articles
Citing articles: 3 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji]
Date: 12 January 2016, At: 23:08
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
Can School Oversight Adequately
Assess Department Outcomes?
A Study of Marketing Curriculum
Content
STEPHEN T. BARNETT
PAUL E. DASCHER
CAROLYN Y. NICHOLSON
Stetson University
Deland, Florida
T
he environment for business education challenges institutions and
their academic departments in many
ways. Educators must develop and offer
curricula that are effective and efficient,
identify experiences relevant to current
and future professional needs, and build
academic programs that demonstrate
value and continuous improvement.
Feedback is a vital part of any continuous improvement program. Although
the purpose and importance of outcomes assessment is clear, how to
design and implement such programs is
complex and confusing, as evidenced by
reports that most schools lack comprehensive outcomes assessment programs
(Kimmell, Marquette, & Olsen, 1998).
Curricular content is a critical ingredient in an academic or professional
educational program. Moreover, the
process of ongoing curriculum improvement requires that educators regularly
assess the outcomes of their particular
programs. A key step in defining and
measuring curricula is establishing clear
mission-driven criteria for individual
programs. AACSB International, The
Association to Advance Collegiate
Schools of Business, provides one
source for these criteria. Administrators
and educators often use these criteria as
guidelines in defining the mission for
institutions and programs. Because the
course requirements for various busi-
ABSTRACT. In this article, the
authors examine the key factors that
influence student choice of a business
major and how business schools can
help students make that choice more
realistically. Investigating students at a
regional university, the authors found
that whereas those with better quantitative skills tended to major in
accounting or finance, those with
weaker quantitative skills tended to
major in marketing and management.
For adherence to the requirements for
expanded assurance of learning (outcomes assessment) included in
AACSB International’s eligibility
standards (2003), the authors suggest
that schools of business provide their
students with a clear statement of the
opportunities and requirements in
each business major.
ness majors and programs are unique by
discipline yet also constitute much of a
student’s curriculum, we wondered if it
is effective to base outcomes assessment
on the broader college mission-driven
criteria. Our premise is that such broad,
strategic, college-level criteria do not
provide enough direction at the tactical
departmental level at which educators
implement the courses that deliver curricular content.
Our purpose in this study was to
explore the perceptions of a group of
leaders in one discipline regarding the
use of college-wide curricular standards
as criteria in assessing outcomes in a
department. Because AACSB standards
cover a range of knowledge and are
applicable to the whole business school
curriculum, we were curious to learn
how the leadership in one discipline
(marketing) perceived the role of that
discipline in fulfilling the school-wide
curriculum mission.
We have organized the research into
four parts: a literature review on educational outcomes assessment in general
and business education in particular, an
explanation of the current AACSB curriculum standards, the research design,
and a presentation of findings and
implications for curricular design and
oversight.
Outcomes Assessment
Expectations
The issue of educational accountability is topical, and business education is
certainly not exempt (Glover, Blankley,
& Oliver, 1995; Smart, Tomkovick,
Jones, & Memon, 1999). Sautter, Popp,
Pratt, and Mills (2000) reported that
recent trends in business education
have created increased awareness of
curriculum adequacies and deficiencies. AACSB undertook a vigorous program to respond to what was seen as a
“crisis” and instigated a program in the
early 1990s to encourage a more integrative business curriculum (Pharr &
Morris, 1997).
January/February 2004
157
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
Despite the pressure from accrediting
bodies and governmental agencies,
Kimmel, Marquett, and Olsen (1998)
found that only 42% of the business
schools that they surveyed reported having a comprehensive outcomes assessment program (COAP). They found that
the incidence of a COAP was related to
neither AACSB accreditation nor school
status (private versus public). Hindi and
Miller (2000) found that the highest
ranked uses of outcomes assessment in
accounting were for curricular changes.
In another survey at the department
level, Nicholson and Oliphant (2001)
found that almost a third of marketing
departments were not using any systematic assessment beyond course oversight
or placement.
If schools that are assessing outcomes do so as part of changing their
curriculum and there is a crisis in business education that most see as curriculum based, why are all schools not heavily involved in outcomes assessment?
We suspect that there are several reasons for this lack of involvement: (a)
The concept of outcomes assessment is
changing, (b) the changes in the concept
of outcomes assessment have created
goals that are more difficult to assess,
and (c) business schools are not organized to effectively assess outcomes.
Outcomes Assessment Is Changing
In the past, AACSB and business
schools have focused on the adequacy
of inputs—faculty members, library,
and research resources. A shift in this
emphasis from that of process to one of
outcomes assessment is evidenced by
added attention to the role of learning
objectives in curriculum design (Sautter, Popp, Pratt, & Mills, 2000).
More recently, a number of quantitative tests have been developed for business schools, including some coordinated through AACSB. Preeminent
among these tests are the ETS exam,
which assesses content acquisition
across the business curriculum, and the
EBI Student Satisfaction Survey, which
assesses the degree to which the current
curriculum meets student expectations.
Both tests are notable in that they provide benchmarking opportunities and
can be used to identify key areas of
158
Journal of Education for Business
weakness. However, they explore outcomes from the student’s tenure in the
business school and collapse across all
disciplines. Therefore, they provide
only limited curricular feedback to the
individual departments and programs
within the school.
Although such tests measure knowledge, they do not answer two basic
questions: (a) What are the most important lessons? and (b) How well do business schools prepare their students?
Peter Drucker’s perspective on these
two related questions points out the relevance and complexity of outcomes
assessment: “[Business students] have
to learn to take responsibility for themselves . . . [understanding] what [they]
should contribute to the organization . . .
and [develop a] basic literacy of the
organization. . . . and only the students
themselves can answer [how well
they’re prepared] and they rarely know
until ten years or more have passed”
(Chapman, 2001, p. 14).
Assessment Is More Difficult
AACSB International recognizes that
the curriculum is central in implementing a business degree program. The
organization specifically pointed this
out and underscored the critical role of
outcomes assessment: “[C]reating and
delivering high quality curricula
requires planning and evaluation”
(AACSB, 2001, p. 17). It also noted that
educational objectives can be realized
through use of curricula with different
structures and approaches.
AACSB addresses undergraduate
curricular requirements in five areas: (a)
perspectives on which a business curriculum should provide an understanding, (b) a general education component,
(c) four areas identified as the “foundation knowledge for business,” (d) written and oral communications, and (e)
additional requirements consistent with
the school’s mission.
Current expectations from accrediting bodies and other stakeholders have
moved from standards based on reputation and inputs, which are somewhat
straightforward for measurement purposes, to mission and value-added
goals, which are more qualitative and
difficult to define. In addition, curricu-
lum development takes place at a number of levels. Within departments,
assessments and curriculum development must take these criteria into consideration as educational programs are
implemented. A key question for
administrators of functional area programs in AACSB-accredited schools is
the extent to which the identified core
competencies can be or should be related to the courses offered by that academic area or department.
Assessment and Business School
Organization
Outcomes assessment typically is
viewed as a college issue, but is this
approach the most effective one?
AACSB standards suggest that 50% of
the content in a 120-hour business curriculum should be nonbusiness, 20%
should pertain to the Common Body of
Knowledge, and the remaining 30%
should be taken up by major courses
and electives.
Business schools normally use a college level committee to set the standards
for the curriculum and to organize the
curricular elements, even though the
expected outcomes for the different
majors vary substantially in perspective
and substance. Departmental faculties
predictably deal with these variations in
expected outcomes by defining and
developing courses (and their respective
syllabi) to meet what they perceive to be
employers’ or graduate schools’ expectations for graduates. College curriculum committees tend to rely on departmental expertise in making curriculum
content decisions. Thus, the normal
business school curriculum system
makes one body (the college curriculum
committee) responsible for overseeing
the content and standards and gives
another (the departmental faculty members) the authority to create and change
curricular content. Accountability problems are not uncommon in organizations that separate authority and responsibility in this fashion. We argue that,
especially when viewed against a backdrop of increasing expectations for the
school and for its included programs,
this split is a major factor in the lack of
adequate outcomes assessment in business education.
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
As we see it, there are two alternatives for business schools and curriculum oversight. The first approach is to
insist that curriculum committees not
only take responsibility for interpreting
how the curriculum will meet the mission and curricular standards set by the
school but also evaluate the actual content of the courses. The second
approach is to insist that departments
not only decide the actual content of the
courses that make up the curriculum but
also take responsibility for interpreting
how those courses will meet the mission
and curricular standards set at the
school level. The second method is confounded by one key question: Are the
broad strategic mission standards really
applicable at the narrow tactical level at
which faculty members determine the
actual hourly content for their courses?
Or should departments be given the
authority to set and oversee standards
appropriate for their own programs?
Focusing on this debate between the
global and local interests, we decided to
explore an undergraduate curriculum in
light of the 18 AACSB core standards to
determine if administrators perceive college level standards as legitimate outcomes for their departments’ courses.
The AACSB Core Curriculum
Standards
Why use AACSB curriculum standards as opposed to some other set of
curriculum benchmarks? Ostensibly,
assessment mechanisms are in place at
the school level for accredited schools
of business administration. Thus, the
standards create a common language
across accredited schools. Degree programs face the challenge of ensuring
that the curriculum reflects the standards of an accrediting body. The
assumption is that such accrediting bodies, because of their exposure to
employers and a variety of other academic programs over an extended time
frame, are able to set out a comprehensive set of curricular criteria. AACSB
International is the foremost accrediting
body for business schools worldwide.
Moreover, because our focus is on the
issue of global versus local oversight of
curriculum, the school-level standards
are appropriate for the study.
Importantly, there are no such curricular guidelines accepted across the discipline for marketing or other academic
majors at the departmental level. This
seems, at first, hard to believe, yet the
education arm of the American Marketing Association (AMA), the area’s premier professional body, lists no such
guidelines. In fact, AMA only recently
has instituted a professional exam
(PCM, Professional Certified Marketer), which is more appropriate for
practicing professionals than for students or recent graduates and thus is not
particularly useful as an assessment tool
for current students.
In setting expectations more clearly,
the accreditation standards express the
following general and specific items
that educators should consider in curriculum design:
1. Perspectives that form the context
of business: ethical issues, global issues,
political systems, social issues, legal
issues, regulatory issues, environmental
issues, technology issues, and demographic diversity;
2. Foundation knowledge for business: accounting, behavioral sciences,
economics, mathematics, and statistics;
3. Important characteristics: written
and oral communications;
4. Additional requirements consistent
with the school’s mission: humanities
and natural sciences.
It is important to determine how these
standards are viewed at the program or
departmental level and whether such an
assessment can have meaningful,
actionable outcomes for curricula. An
assessment of these standards indicates
that the standards are not noted as
equally critical to success when viewed
through the departmental lens.
Method
In this research, we explored the perceptions of coordinators and chairs of
AACSB-accredited marketing departments regarding the coverage of the 18
core competencies. In addition to providing information useful to these
chairs for benchmarking in their own
programs, the research provides a
model that can be applied to other areas
within the business school. The research
also allows us to explore how departmental administrators evaluate schoollevel standards.
The current study was conducted via
a questionnaire mailed to 322 deans in
AACSB-accredited business schools
with the request that they forward it to
the person responsible for the academic
marketing department or area. We
obtained usable responses from 111
marketing program administrators, representing a response rate of 34.5%.
Curriculum Action Index Approach
Gap analyses assess users’ perceptions of delivered outcomes versus their
desired levels. The “gap” between the
delivered and the desired is measured,
and the larger gaps are viewed as areas
in which needs are not being met sufficiently. This approach—measuring outcomes against expectations—makes
very good sense for assessments. Davis,
Misra, and Van Auken (2002) and Duke
(2002) noted that gap analysis has several important benefits in terms of
assessments. This method identifies
more areas in which improvements can
be made—such as retention surveys,
exit examinations, or course evaluations—than do other assessment tools.
The Curriculum Action Index (CAI)
that we use shares a common methodological perspective with the work of
these gap analysts. Where we differ,
however, is in the gap that we assess.
The most significant difference between
the approaches is that ours involves a
third key variable in the evaluation—the
normative dimension. This approach is
based on the expectancy-value models
as developed by Fishbein (1967, 1972)
and modified by Bass and Talarzyk
(1972). A comparison between importance and preparation assesses two different, albeit related, domains. CAI, in
contrast, measures a delivered outcome
(i.e., preparation) against a perceived
normative standard for that outcome
(how much preparation should have
been given); then the gaps are weighted
by the importance of the topic, which
provides a measure of relative urgency
for the perceived gap.
Our instrument asked respondents to
evaluate 18 standards on three complementary scales based on (a) how much
January/February 2004
159
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
of the characteristic is present in their
marketing curriculum, (b) how much of
the characteristic should be covered in
their marketing curriculum, and (c) the
importance level of the characteristic.
The survey instrument used a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 (a minimum
amount) to 5 (the maximum amount).
The approach involves the following
three steps: (a) creation of normative
and attitudinal measures called the Deficiency Index and Importance Index, (b)
conversion of these parametric indices
into ranked measures, and (c) calculation of a Curriculum Action Index
(CAI) that integrates the two indices
and indicates which issues are perceived
as most in need of attention.
We first created two parametric
indices. The Deficiency Ratio Index
(DRI) is a normative index that shows
how the respondents evaluated the content delivered relative to the issue. We
calculated the DRI as the mean response
to the content question “How much is
there?” divided by the mean response to
the normative question “How much
should there be?” Then, we calculated
the Importance Index as the mean on the
importance question “How important is
this issue?”
We then converted the DRI and the
Importance Index to ranked measures.
Ranks were ordered least (1) to most
(18). In the final step, we created a Curriculum Action Index (CAI) by multiplying the deficiency ranking for each
issue by its importance ranking. Instead
of an absolute scale, the range of CAI
scores depends on the number of outcomes evaluated, and we must evaluate
the relative differences among the CAI
scores. In this study of 18 issues, the
worst possible score was 324 (18 x 18 =
324), which would indicate that the
issue deemed the most deficient (ranking 18 on the DRI) was also the most
important (ranking 18 on the Importance Index also) of the 18 issues evaluated. The minimum CAI score is always
1 (1 x 1 = 1), which would indicate that
that issue was both least deficient and
least important. Higher scores are more
problematic and indicate the need for
review. As a guide, we suggest that
issues with CAI scores of 70% of maximum deserve the most serious consideration. However, in a longitudinal
160
Journal of Education for Business
study, any significant CAI increase over
time is clearly worthy of review.
Results
Our results suggest that the department chairs and area coordinators
thought the marketing curriculum
should and does play an important role
in certain curricular areas other than
marketing (e.g., economics, accounting, behavioral sciences, social sciences). They also believed that there are
other areas (e.g., written communications, oral communications, ethical
issues and technological issues) that the
marketing curriculum should address in
more depth.
Beginning with perceived importance
of the 18 standards within the marketing
department, we see that written communications and oral communications
ranked highest (see Table 1). The mean
importance score for written communications was 4.44; the mean importance
score for oral communication was 4.37.
These items also were among the five
areas that the respondents ranked as
most deficient. One explanation for this
finding is that perceptions that communication skills are both very deficient
and very important could result from a
perceived lack of these skills in the stu-
dent population as well as from the
department’s insufficiency in dealing
with them. Although departments agree
that all education depends on communication skills, we suspect that the teaching of specific skills goes beyond what
is offered—or expected—in most
university-based marketing courses.
Technological issues (4.18, rank 16)
and global issues (4.17, rank 15) were
the next most important areas. Interestingly, neither of these issues ranked in
the top quartile of the deficiency rankings; in fact, their deficiency scores were
virtually tied (87.95% for global and
87.44% for technological issues). Marketing administrators see these issues as
important and related to marketing.
The items perceived as least important included humanities (2.99, rank 3),
political systems (2.59, rank 2), and natural sciences (2.50, rank 1). These rankings suggest that the marketing educators felt that attention to and integration
with these areas would be less important
to the success of their students than
emphasizing other areas. Given their
relative lack of importance, these particular standards perhaps are not especially useful as an assessment tool for
the marketing program. Because they
are viewed as unimportant, very little
energy is likely to be expended to
TABLE 1. Importance Means and Ranks of 18 Core Content Areas for
Marketing Curricula
Rank
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
M
Content area
4.44
4.37
4.18
4.17
3.83
3.81
3.68
3.51
3.41
3.36
3.34
3.33
3.22
3.22
3.16
2.99
2.59
2.50
Written communications
Oral communications
Technological issues
Global issues
Behavioral sciences
Ethical issues
Statistics
Social issues
Economics
Accounting
Mathematics
Legal issues
Regulatory issues
Demographic diversity
Environmental issues
Humanities
Political systems
Natural sciences
Note. Importance of content areas was ranked on a scale of 1 (least) to 18 (most).
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
ensure coverage in or integration with
the department’s marketing courses.
In Table 2, we list the Deficiency
Ratio Index in rank order. The results
show that the highest rankings (i.e., the
ones evaluated as most deficient in content) were given to ethical issues, written communications, mathematics, statistics, and oral communications. One
interpretation of this finding is that
these five items exemplify the unique
bridging position that marketing holds
in the business curriculum, a position
that requires the translation of ideas into
numbers and numbers back into ideas.
Marketing educators perhaps perceive
the marketing curriculum as not adequately addressing this bridging role.
Items from the AACSB curriculum
criteria that were seen as least deficient
in the marketing curricula were behavioral sciences, accounting, humanities,
and economics, indicating that the
respondents felt that the marketing curriculum is adequate in these areas.
Either the respective issues should and
do receive sufficient coverage, or they
should receive and are getting minimal
attention. Regardless of the interpretation, the low Deficiency Ratio Index
score represents a match between
department goals and perceived outcomes for these areas.
The Curriculum Action Index scores
(see Table 3) represent the combination
of the normative opinions and the perceived importance. Although one must
interpret CAI scores with caution, they
do provide several interesting insights.
Results draw attention to seven areas of
particular concern: written communications (CAI = 306), oral communications
(CAI = 238), ethical issues (CAI = 234),
technological issues (CAI = 192), statistics (CAI = 180), global issues (CAI =
165), and mathematics (CAI = 128).
Each of these areas is essentially an
issue relevant to marketing but, other
than global and ethical issues, is not
typically included in the curricular content of marketing.
Conclusions
We end this article with a beginning.
The results of this study suggest benefits
from applying the CAI technique to representative stakeholder groups at specific institutions. Overall, the results
seem to challenge basic curricular goals,
methods, and models as perceived by
the respondents. Although these chal-
TABLE 2. Deficiency Indices and Ranks of 18 Core Content Areas for
Marketing Curricula
Rank
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Content area
Deficiency Index (rounded, %)
Ethical issues
Written communications
Mathematics
Statistics
Oral communications
Environmental issues
Technological issues
Global issues
Demographic diversity
Political systems
Regulatory issues
Legal issues
Social issues
Natural sciences
Behavioral sciences
Humanities
Accounting
Economics
81
83
85
85
87
87
88
88
91
91
91
93
93
95
95
95
98
100
Note. Deficiency of content area was ranked on a scale of 1 (least) to 18 (most). A higher Deficiency Ratio Index implies a greater match between perceived curricular content and the amount
that normatively should be included in the curriculum.
lenges may emerge from the marketing
curriculum in general, what really matters is the adequacy of a curriculum at a
specific institution. Thus, schools would
benefit from expanding this study to
other programs and specific situations.
Luckily, the CAI approach is a flexible
tool that can be used with a variety of
standards. CAI can be used longitudinally to assess whether the market
changes are being incorporated adequately into the curriculum.
Curricular standards by AACSB are
intended to provide guides, not absolute
standards. They also are based on best
practices and are normative rather than
prescriptive. Our reported results confirm the importance of these attributes
to the marketing curriculum and suggest
some benefit in using them as an evaluation basis. Overall, there appear to be
areas in marketing that could benefit
from additional emphasis, especially the
seven major areas identified. Additional
data from other populations such as current students, graduates, and employers
might suggest additional directions. A
critical issue remains, however. Because
department curricular needs are unique
and unlikely to be consistent across the
college, broad standards evaluated at the
TABLE 3. Curriculum Action
Index for Marketing Curricula
Content area
Written communications
Oral communications
Ethical issues
Technological issues
Statistics
Global issues
Mathematics
Social issues
Behavioral sciences
Environmental issues
Demographic diversity
Legal issues
Regulatory issues
Accounting
Political systems
Economics
Humanities
Natural sciences
CAI score
306
238
234
192
180
165
128
66
56
52
50
49
48
18
18
10
9
5
Note. Higher scores represent greater
identified curriculum needs.
January/February 2004
161
Downloaded by [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] at 23:08 12 January 2016
college level may be less relevant at the
departmental level.
We have demonstrated that departments have the knowledge and drive to
evaluate their own curricula against
college-level standards and their own
internally developed criteria, and our
results have some meaning for curriculum design. However, it is also likely to
be true that these standards, as defined
by AACSB, do not capture the richness
of outcomes being produced within
marketing departments. We assert that
departmental involvement in and oversight of outcomes assessment is crucial
to long-term success of graduates. However, if, as research has suggested
(Nicholson & Oliphant, 2001), departments are abdicating that responsibility,
curriculum revision likely lags behind
not only college-level standards but also
marketplace needs.
The focus of the educational process
is to move students from a level of
knowledge and comprehension to critical thinking (Bloom, 1956) that correlates with the goal of the program. It is
important that AACSB standards and
common academic practices provide
significant latitude and encouragement
to faculty members, departments, and
programs for inclusion of curricular elements that support the mission, purpose,
and goals of specific programs. Clearly,
as our results suggest, marketing admin-
162
Journal of Education for Business
istrators do not view the AACSB standards as equally important. In spite of
that, the evaluation of the standards at
the departmental level provided a useful
perspective on items that are due for
curricular review.
Nevertheless, ensuring that programspecific curricular elements are
reviewed and evaluated in a similar manner, incorporated into a broader business
curriculum, and assessed on the basis of
outcomes are difficult tasks. It is encouraging to note that our results, although
specific to marketing, suggest that academic department heads are aware of curriculum issues. Departmental oversight
could be an additional avenue leading to
more effective mission-driven curricula.
REFERENCES
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business (AACSB). (2001). Achieving
quality and continuous improvement through
self-evaluation and peer review. St. Louis:
AACSB International.
Bass, F. M., & Talarzyk, W. W. (1972). An attitude
model for the study of brand preference. Journal of Marketing Research, 9(February), 93–96.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational
objectives: Handbook I, cognitive domain. New
York: David McKay.
Chapman, C. (2001). Taking stock: An interview
with Peter Drucker. Biz Ed, November/December, 12–17.
Davis, R., Misra, S., & Van Auken, S. (2002). A
gap analysis approach to marketing curriculum
assessment: A study of skills and knowledge.
Journal of Marketing Education, 24(December), 218–224.
Duke, C. R. (2002). Learning outcomes: Comparing student perceptions of skill level and importance. Journal of Marketing Education,
24(December), 203–217.
Fishbein, M. (1967). A behavior theory approach
to the relations between beliefs about an
object and the attitude toward the object. In
M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude theory
and measurement (pp. 389–400). New York:
Wiley.
Fishbein, M. (1972). The search for attitudinalbehavioral consistency. In J. B. Cohen (Ed).,
Behavioral science foundations of consumer
behavior (pp. 245–252). New York: The Free
Press.
Glover, H. D., Blankley, A. I., & Oliver, E. G.,
(1995). An integrated business school model.
Management Accounting, 76(May), 35–37.
Hindi, N., & Miller, D. (2000). A survey of assessment practices in accounting departments of
colleges and universities. Journal of Education
for Business, 75(May/June), 286–291.
Kimmell, S., Marquette, P., & Olsen, D. (1998).
Outcomes assessment programs: Historical perspective and state of the art. Issues in Accounting Education, 13(November), 851–869.
Nicholson, C. Y., & Oliphant, R. J. (2001). How
are we doing? The current state of undergraduate marketing programs outcomes assessment
efforts. In J. L. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of
the Association of Collegiate Marketing Educators (pp. 172–175). Association of Collegiate
Marketing Educators.
Pharr, S., & Morris, L. (1997). The fourth generation marketing curriculum: Meeting AACSB’s
guidelines. Journal of Marketing Education,
19(Fall), 31–43.
Sautter, E., Popp, A., Pratt, E., & Mills, S. (2000).
A “new and improved” curriculum: Process and
outcomes. Marketing Education Review,
10(Fall), 19–28.
Smart, D., Tomkovick, C., Jones, E., & Memon,
A. (1999). Undergraduate marketing education
in the 21st century: Views from three institutions. Marketing Education Review, 9(Spring),
1–9.