Marketing Education Review

ISSN: 1052-8008 (Print) 2153-9987 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/mmer20

Are Face-to-Face Classes More Effective Than

Online Classes? An Empirical Examination

Gopala Ganesh, Audhesh Paswan & Qin Sun

To cite this article: Gopala Ganesh, Audhesh Paswan & Qin Sun (2015) Are Face-to-Face
Classes More Effective Than Online Classes? An Empirical Examination, Marketing Education
Review, 25:2, 67-81, DOI: 10.1080/10528008.2015.1029851

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2015.1029851

Published online: 15 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 955

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=mmer20
 ARE FACE-TO-FACE CLASSES MORE EFFECTIVE THAN ONLINE CLASSES?
AN EMPIRICAL EXAMINATION
Gopala Ganesh, Audhesh Paswan, and Qin Sun

Using data from a unique undergraduate marketing math course offered in both traditional and
online formats, this study looks at four dimensions of course evaluation: overall evaluation, per-
ceived competence, perceived communication, and perceived challenge. Results indicate that stu-
dents rate traditional classes better on all four dimensions. However, the relationships between
outcome variables (overall evaluation and perceived competence) and controllable variables
(perceived communication and challenge) remain consistent across both formats. Perceived
competence and perceived communication are positively associated with overall evaluation of the
course. While perceived challenge has no significant relationship with overall evaluation, it is
positively associated with perceived competence.

Online classes and degree programs, as a component of
distant-learning initiatives, have attracted a lot of
attention from educational institutions, administrators,
policymakers, and society at large. According to results
of Pew Research Center 2011 Surveys, about 23 percent
of college graduates have taken online courses, and of
those, about 15 percent have earned a degree comple-
tely online. Viewed from the supply side, 91 percent of
two-year colleges, 89 percent of four-year public col-
leges and universities, and 60 percent of four-year pri-
vate schools offer online classes (Pew Research
Center, 2011). The tremendous growth in online
courses and programs could be attributed to the flex-
ibility and convenience provided by this delivery for-
mat (Bristow, Humphreys, & Ziebell, 2011; Mintu-
Wimsatt, 2001; Peltier, Drago, & Schibrowsky, 2003;
Roberts, 1996), the advancement of information tech-
nology (Berger & Topol, 2001; Close, Dixit, &
Malhotra, 2005; Hatfield & Taylor, 1998; Malhotra,
Dixit, & Uslay, 2002), and the unique characteristics
of adult and millennial generation learners (Eastman &
Swift, 2001; Wood, Solomon, & Allan, 2008).
Gopala Ganesh (Ph.D., University of Houston), University
Distinguished Teaching Professor, College of Business,
University of North Texas, Denton, TX, ganesh@unt.edu.
Audhesh Paswan (Ph.D., University of Mississippi), Professor
of Marketing, College of Business, University of North Texas,
Denton, TX, paswana@unt.edu.
Qin Sun (Ph.D., University of North Texas), Assistant
Professor, College of Business Administration, Trident
University International, Cypress, CA, qin.sun@trident.edu.
Earlier studies on distance learning show that distance-
learning classes (e.g., using Intranet, Internet, one-way
and two-way audio and video delivery methods) and
programs were perceived as somewhat ineffective by
both students and faculty (Bergmann & Dobie, 1999;
Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000; Wayland, Swift, &
Wilson, 1996), while more recent research indicates an
increasing confidence in computer-mediated distant
learning formats (Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago, 2007;
Wood, Solomon, & Allan, 2008). For example, Clarke,
Flaherty, and Mottner (2001) found no significant differ-
ence between the effectiveness of online and offline
courses. In addition, while 29 percent of the public
believes that the value of online courses is equivalent to
that provided by face-to-face courses, a much higher per-
centage of college presidents do (51 percent) (Pew
Research Center, 2011). Some researchers even assert
that online education could provide a superior learning
experience for students (Peltier, Schibrowsky, &
Drago, 2007; Sherif & Kahn, 2005). At the very least, the
online delivery of courses provides a viable and flexible
option to college students, especially to those with time,
distance, family, career, or language constraints (Liu,
Gomez, Khan, & Yen, 2007; Steiner & Hyman, 2010;
Stewart, 2004). Notwithstanding such a rich literature
base, the debate on the capability and effectiveness of
online format for delivery of education relative to tradi-
tional face-to-face format is still open. Empirical studies
are needed to examine the potential influence of mixed
teaching methods on learning effectiveness for market-
ing students (Ganesh, Sun, & Barat, 2010). Against this
backdrop, in this paper, we compare the face-to-face and

Marketing Education Review, vol. 25, no. 2 (summer 2015), pp. 67–81.
Copyright Ó 2015 Society for Marketing Advances
ISSN: 1052–8008 (print) / ISSN 2153–9987 (online)
DOI: 10.1080/10528008.2015.1029851
68 Marketing Education Review
online course delivery formats on various outcome and
input dimensions, and explore the relationships among
these dimensions. Specifically, we focus on two perceived
outcome dimensions (perceived competence and overall
evaluation of the course) and two input dimensions
(perceived challenge and perceived communication in
the course).
The findings have important implications not just
for the education sector, but also for public policy-
makers and society at large. Most states and educa-
tional institutions are facing an ever-increasing
shortage of resources and everyone in the education
sector (e.g., educators, administrators, policymakers,
and even students) is constantly looking for ways to
increase efficiency without sacrificing quality or effec-
tiveness (Clayson, 2009; Mintu-Wimsatt, 2001; Peltier,
Drago, & Schibrowsky, 2003; Peltier, Schibrowsky, &
Drago, 2007; Roberts, 1996; Wood, Solomon, &
Allan, 2008). One solution that is attracting almost
everyone’s attention is the use of increasingly popular
distant-learning technologies, especially given the
rapid advancements in the Internet and information
technologies (Berger & Topol, 2001; Clayson, 2009;
Clarke, Flaherty, & Mottner, 2001; Close, Dixit, &
Malhotra, 2005; Hatfield & Taylor, 1998; Malhotra,
Dixit, & Uslay, 2002). Despite opposition from various
quarters, it seems that distant-learning classes and pro-
grams are here to stay and flourish. One argument put
forth by opponents is that simply delivering online
courses and programs in an online-only environment
might compromise the quality of education. Hence,
there is a need to better understand the differences
and similarities between distance learning and face-to-
face teaching. In addition, there is limited research on
the relationships among the outcome and input vari-
ables (e.g., in this study, the overall evaluation of the
course, perceived competence, perceived communica-
tion, perceived challenge) from the students’ perspec-
tives (Parayitam, Desai, & Phelps, 2007). We hope that
this study contributes to that effort and helps us make
more informed evaluations and decisions.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature on education in general, and business
and marketing education in particular, is rich with
studies focusing on the effectiveness of teaching effort
and its antecedents. The effectiveness of face-to-face
teaching was found to be related to instructional
design, instructors’ subject knowledge, instructors’
capability to communicate clearly and create rapport
with the students, and to deliver the course enthusias-
tically (Paswan & Young, 2002; Sweeney, Morrison,
Jarratt, & Heffernan, 2009). In comparison, the effec-
tiveness of online courses is seen to be associated with
factors such as student-to-student interactions, stu-
dent-to-instructor interactions, instructor support
and mentoring, lecture delivery quality, course con-
tent, and course structure (Clayson, 2009; Peltier,
Drago, & Schibrowsky, 2003; Peltier, Schibrowsky, &
Drago, 2007; Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000). In a
face-to-face class, traditional instructors serve as the
key information source for the students, whereas
those who teach online courses are mainly seen as
facilitators (Berger & Topol, 2001).
Teaching effectiveness refers to the extent to which
students learn and gain knowledge in a specific course
(Cohen, 1981). However, there seems to be some diver-
gence in opinion about how to measure teaching effec-
tiveness. One perspective focuses on perceived learning,
perceived gain in competence, and the affective dimen-
sions. In business schools, it is common to see educators
and administrators using some version of the Student
Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SET) measurement
scales (Clayson, 2009; Ganesh & Paswan, 2010; Paswan
& Young, 2002) and student self-assessment of know-
ledge (Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, & Bauer, 2010). These
measures of teaching effectiveness and learning seek to
capture students’ perceived competence, perceptions
about the antecedent dimensions, and overall evalua-
tion (i.e., affective dimension) of the course (Sitzmann,
Brown, Casper, Ely, & Zimmerman, 2008; Sitzmann, Ely,
Brown, & Bauer, 2010). A second perspective focuses on
objective indicators of teaching effectiveness and argues
that measures such as test scores and GPA are valid,
reliable, and hence better indicators of cognitive learn-
ing outcomes (Bacon & Bean, 2006; Flanagan, 2012;
Kraiger, Ford, & Salas, 1993). Some even argue that the
real test of teaching effectiveness is the extent to which
students are able to use what they learn in a classroom at
work or in life (Finch, Nadeau, & O’Reilly, 2013;
Wymbs, 2011). Finally, a few have tried to reconcile
these divergent perspectives by suggesting that teaching
effectiveness is closely related to student learning out-
comes (Cohen, 1981).
The biggest hurdle faced by these bridge builders is
the inability to link the perceived or affective measures
of teaching effectiveness, the objective measures of

learning, and the subsequent use of knowledge to a
particular student or a particular instructor. The reasons
for the difficulty, to name a few, include legal matters,
issues of political correctness, and the nonlinear nature
of how people acquire and use knowledge. We too
faced the problem of an inability to link the name of
the student and their objective assignment scores,
exam performance, and GPA to their responses on the
perceived and affective measures of teaching effective-
ness. Having acknowledged this shortcoming, we next
discuss the key variables and the various hypothesized
relationships among them.
Overall Evaluation and Perceived Teaching
Competence
Overall evaluation of a course is designed to test whether
the students feel that they got what they should be getting
from the course and whether they liked the course or not.
Literature on technology adoption (Davis, 1989, 1993;
Davis, Bagozzi, & Warshaw, 1989) and marketing
(Darke, Chattopadhyay, & Ashworth, 2006; Ding,
Eliashberg, Huber, & Saini, 2005) have amply demon-
strated that consumers’ overall evaluation or the affective
evaluation of a stimulus helps in technology or product
adoption and is associated with their satisfaction with the
stimulus. In the teaching evaluation field, most SET scales
tend to include some measure of overall satisfaction with
the course and/or the instructor (Wachtel, 1998). In this
study, we look at this overall evaluation as a subjective
measure of teaching effectiveness; it is defined as learning
value as perceived by students.
Our second focal construct capturing teaching effec-
tiveness is perceived competence. It is defined as the
students’ feeling of mastering their class work
(Harter, 1981; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Those stu-
dents with higher perceived competence have been
found to be more intrinsically motivated and likely to
use self-regulated learning strategies than those with
lower perceived competence (Young, 2005), leading to
higher test performance in the former group (Bicen &
Laverie, 2009). Furthermore, when students anticipate
higher test grades, they tend to evaluate the course
better (Clayson, 2009; Sweeney, Morrison, Jarratt, &
Heffernan, 2009). In addition, based on the TAM
(Technology Acceptance Model) literature that exam-
ines the relationship between level of competence and
attitude (Davis, 1989, 1993; Davis, Bagozzi, &
Warshaw, 1989), we argue that when students feel
Summer 2015 69
that they are becoming more competent in the subject
matter, they are more likely to feel positive about the
course and the teacher. As a result, we hypothesize a
positive relationship between these two dimensions
capturing perceived teaching effectiveness:
Hypothesis 1: Perceived competence will be positively
associated with overall evaluation of the course.
We next discuss those important aspects of a class-
room that the instructor can control in both online
and face-to-face environments, and which influence
either perceived competence or the overall evaluation
of the course—perceived communication in the class-
room and the perceived challenge of successfully com-
pleting the course. Identification of these constructs is
in sync with the existing literature on self-regulated
learning, intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, and
teaching effectiveness (Koon & Murray, 1995; Paswan
& Young, 2002; Tang, 1997; Young, 2005).
Perceived Communication
Perceived communication refers to students’ percep-
tions of a teacher’s communication skills. Several stu-
dies in the education literature have established that
perceived communication is a key determinant of effec-
tive teaching (Andrew, Cobb, & Giampietro, 2005;
Clayson, 2009; Neves & Sanyal, 1991; Paswan &
Young, 2002; Roberts & Becker, 1976; Sweeney,
Morrison, Jarratt, & Heffernan, 2009). Open communi-
cation between professors and students could enhance
student perceived ease of use of a course and perceived
usefulness of the course (Barat, Rajamma, Zolfagharian,
& Ganesh, 2009). In addition, the interactions between
students and professors enhance the students’ knowl-
edge acquisition, thus increasing their perceived com-
petence in accomplishing the course tasks (Jeltova
et al., 2007). While some students have difficulty
decoding the feedback from professors, thus undermin-
ing the effectiveness of communication (Higgins, 2000)
and thereby impeding students’ perceived competence,
in general, most researchers have found positive rela-
tionships between student perception of classroom
communication and perceived teaching effectiveness,
as well as satisfaction with the instructor and the
course (Parayitam, Desai, & Phelps, 2007; Paswan &
Young, 2002). Thus, we hypothesize that perceived
communication level in the class will be positively
70 Marketing Education Review
associated with the overall evaluation of the course and
perceived competence gained through the course.
Hypothesis 2a: Perceived communication will be posi-
tively associated with overall evaluation of the course.
Hypothesis 2b: Perceived communication will be posi-
tively associated with perceived competence.
Perceived Challenge
Based on the extant literature, perceived challenge is
defined as the students’ assessment of the amount of
work in the class and the extent to which the class is
difficult. Literature on education effectiveness and per-
ceived course challenge (Clayson, 2009; Parayitam,
Desai, & Phelps, 2007; Paswan & Young, 2002) suggests
that it may be directly associated with perceived compe-
tence gained through the class but inversely with the
overall evaluation of the course and the instructor.
Literature on student evaluations of faculty suggests
that more demanding courses have a negative effect on
students’ evaluation of the course and the faculty
(Paswan & Young, 2002). Some have started questioning
the notion of making classes easy to boost self-confidence
and perception of confidence (Clifford, 1990). Others
have found that positive feedback provided by instructors
would result in higher level of perceived competence,
which increases students’ comfort level and lowers their
perception of challenge (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988;
Boggiano, Ruble, & Pittman, 1982). Taking these findings
into account, we would expect students to have less satis-
factory evaluations of the course if it is perceived to be
more challenging, but at the same time, they may feel
that they have become more competent.
Hypothesis 3a: Perceived challenge will be negatively
associated with overall evaluation of the course.
Hypothesis 3b: Perceived challenge will be positively
associated with the perceived competence.
Course Delivery Format
Literature on online versus face-to-face teaching
(Bergmann & Dobie, 1999; Clayson, 2009; Mintu-
Wimsatt, 2001; Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000;
Wayland, Swift, & Wilson, 1996) suggests that despite
the popularity of the online format and technological
developments in online education, most students still
perceive face-to-face classes more positively than online
classes, except perhaps on the convenience dimension
(Mintu-Wimsatt, 2001; Peltier, Schibrowsky, &
Drago, 2007; Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000). In addi-
tion, researchers have found that face-to-face classes are
normally associated with higher level of communication
and rapport in the classroom (Sweeney, Morrison, &
Heffernan, 2009).
By comparison, such associations are weak in an
online, typically asynchronous, environment due to
the relatively rare active classroom interaction
between the instructor and students. However, with
the complement of technological tools such as discus-
sion forum, electronic conference, wikis, messaging
and e-mails, online courses could create effective
interactive communities to facilitate and encourage
experiential learning among students (Park, Crocker,
Nussey, Springate, & Hutchings, 2010; Wood,
Solomon, & Allan, 2008). In addition, online learning
is enhanced by students having more time and flex-
ibility to think, search, and then ask or respond to
questions via resources such as discussion board or
online chat, while also being able to repetitively
review all the previous discussions and course materi-
als that are typically recorded (Eastman & Swift, 2001).
Thus, experiential learning can be promoted by inter-
active online teaching, which conforms to the require-
ment of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools
of Business International (AACSB) that their members
increase flexibility and responsiveness to student
needs (AACSB, 2003; Hatfield & Taylor, 1998).
Furthermore, the effectiveness of online courses has
been linked with level of interaction, instructor sup-
port and mentoring, lecture delivery quality, course
content, and course structure (Clayson, 2009; Peltier,
Drago, & Schibrowsky, 2003; Peltier, Schibrowsky, &
Drago, 2007; Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000).
Summarizing the findings from these studies, we
find that while the online medium is becoming very
popular among many students, faculty members, and
administrators, there are still some skeptics about its
effectiveness in comparison with the tried and tested
face-to-face teaching medium. It is possible that some
of these negative feelings may be attributed to the
initially weak online course delivery technologies.
Recent developments have made great strides in mak-
ing the online medium more attractive. This is particu-
larly relevant for a student body that literally lives with

electronic gadgets, such as cell phones, tablet compu-
ters, and Internet resources such as text messages,
Facebook, and Twitter, to name a few (Malhotra,
Dixit, & Uslay, 2002; McGorry, 2006; Wymbs, 2011;
Zahay & Fredricks, 2009). Given these somewhat
inconclusive and conflicting evidences, we believe
that while face-to-face classes may still be seen in a
more positive light, the relationship between teaching
effectiveness dimensions (i.e., overall evaluation and
perceived competence) and controllable dimensions
(i.e., perceived communication and perceived
challenge) will be similar in both formats.
Hypothesis 4: The course delivery format (face-to-face
versus online) will have no moderating effect on the
relationship between the overall evaluation of the
course and perceived competence.
Hypothesis 5a: The course delivery format (face-to-face
versus online) will have no moderating effect on the
relationship between overall evaluation of the course
and perceived communication.
Hypothesis 5b: The course delivery format (face-to-face
versus online) will have no moderating effect on the
relationship between overall evaluation of the course
and perceived challenge.
Hypothesis 6a: The course delivery format (face-to-face
versus online) will have no moderating effect on the
relationship between perceived competence and per-
ceived communication.
Hypothesis 6b: The course delivery format (face-to-face
versus online) will have no moderating effect on the
relationship between perceived competence and per-
ceived challenge.
The following section discusses the research method
used to test the hypothesized relationships developed
above.
RESEARCH METHOD
The research context for this study was an undergrad-
uate marketing math course, offered at a major public
university in the southwestern United States. The
course is designed to improve the students’ quantita-
tive skills and analytic thinking. It is a required course
for undergraduate marketing majors and is usually
Summer 2015 71
taken after the mandatory Principles of Marketing
core course. This highly structured course is offered in
both face-to-face and online instructional formats that
do not differ in cost to the student or in compensation
to the professor and the enrollment is self-selected
(although the room capacity–constrained face-to-face
class typically fills up faster).
Description of the Two Instructional Formats
Data collection for this study was done over a period of
four years during which both instructional formats
were taught using an identical resource pool, a collec-
tion of 50 to 60 one-page minicases on various market-
ing math topics. In the face-to-face class, each topic
was discussed by the professor while solving several
relevant minicases on an overhead projector. A series
of step-by-step discussion questions guided and encour-
aged wide participation by the students. In the online
format, each topic was implemented as an enhanced
PDF PowerPoint presentation. Several relevant mini-
cases, accompanying blank, professor-designed Excel
worksheets and their solution PDFs were hyperlinked
within the presentation. One unique resource created
for most of the cases, primarily for the benefit of the
online class, was a Camtasia Audio+Video (A+V) record-
ing in which the professor solved the case by hand on a
writing tablet while explaining the steps. Some of the
cases were also solved using Excel and the process was
recorded as an A+V. Since the Web site and A+Vs were
available anyway, the face-to-face students were
allowed access to a mirrored Web site, with content
activated on a delayed basis, after coverage in class.
This “after class, electronic tutor” was a special and
unusual resource for the face-to-face class. The course
and its implementation are described in detail else-
where (Ganesh, Sun, and Barat, 2010). The online
class was closely monitored by the professor to com-
pensate for absence of the typical face-to-face interac-
tion and therefore consumed a lot of time to answer
student clarification questions, which were unpredict-
able in terms of number, timing, and complexity.
These had to be handled using online resources such
as a voluntary participation discussion board, which
was quite busy during the semester.
All graded work that made up the 1,000-point seme-
ster total were identical in both instructional formats,
required individual effort, and consisted of several
components, namely, Excel homework assignments,
72 Marketing Education Review

comprehensive cases, and multiple-choice midterm instructional formats were in their early years.
and final exams, described briefly as follows: Students were offered a 0.5 percent course grade incen-
tive for their voluntary participation (self-identified
1. Three Excel homework assignments, each with
through their voluntary response at a different Web
five cases and worth 100 points, in which stu-
site). This made little difference in the grade outcome.
dents worked on professor-provided blank Excel
Of the 1,104 students (which is a response rate of 90
worksheets to exactly match the professor’s acces-
percent) who responded, 1,038 identified the instruc-
sible PDF solution and submitted their hard copy
tional format of their class. About 40 percent, or 428
solution and formula sheets. Typically, three of
respondents, identified themselves as being from the
the five cases were already solved by hand in
face-to-face class, while the remaining 60 percent, or
class; professor-recorded Audio+Videos (A+Vs)
610, were from the online class. We would like the
were also made available for these. The remaining
reader to note that both face-to-face and online sec-
two were “challenge cases” not solved in class for
tions were taught using identical materials, assign-
which the professor’s blank Excel worksheet and
ments, and the multiple-choice, computer-graded
its solution PDF were both provided but there was
exams, all prepared by the professor who designed the
no accompanying A+V.
course. While that professor taught all the face-to-face
2. Comprehensive Case 1 (100 points), in which
and some of the online sections, a doctoral student TA
students first designed and then solved their
assigned to the professor was the instructor of record
own Excel worksheet for a single case not solved
for the remaining online classes. Even for those online
in class with no professor’s PDF solution and only
classes, however, the professor took care of responses to
a few hint answers to guide them.
discussion board posts by students and set up the grad-
3. Comprehensive Case 2 (100 points), in which
ing criteria, and carefully supervised grading of the
students designed a PowerPoint presentation for
assignments by the TA to ensure maximum consistency
the CC1 case, to detailed specifications, using the
between the two instructional formats.
completed CC1 worksheet.
4. Multiple-choice format Midterm Exam (200
points).
5. Multiple-choice format Final Exam (300 points). ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
For all non-exam assignments, students were
Tables 1 and 2 present a comparison of the students
allowed to help each other through study teams
who took the class in the face-to-face and online for-
or the discussion board, with the requirement
mats. Other than gender and self-reported CGPA
that they use the current semester’s materials
(cumulative GPA, which were similar across the two
and declare in writing that they did not copy
class formats) the significant differences are expected
someone else’s work. In CC1, they were allowed
and make sense. For instance, a greater proportion of
to consult each other in solving the case by hand,
the face-to-face students lived in the university town. A
but after that, they were required to design their
much higher percentage of marketing students, for
own worksheet. Likewise, they could discuss the
whom this was a mandatory class, took it face-to-face.
specifics of the CC2 charts with other students
Online students were much more dependent on the
but their finished presentations had to look suffi-
Web site for the class and hence checked e-mail and
ciently unique. The online students came to cam-
the discussion board much more frequently than in the
pus for face-to-face exams on Saturdays and were
face-to-face class. The online students were older, lived
required to submit their graded assignments
farther from the university town, and had greater
either to a drop-box on campus or snail mail/
experience with online classes than the face-to-face
courier their submission to the professor.
students. While self-reported CGPA did not differ
across the two classes, the face-to-face students ended
the semester with a marginally higher weighted test
Data Collection
score percentage and semester grade percentage than
Data for this research was collected using an online the online students. However, the Cohen’s d statistic
survey between 2003 and 2007, when both shows that effect sizes for the metric-scaled data are at
 Summer 2015 73

Table 1 Data for these scale items were first subjected to an

Sample Characteristics of Two Instructional Format iterative exploratory factor analysis procedure. This
Groups resulted in a satisfactory and clean factor structure con-
Instructional format taining 22 items loading on 5 factors (i.e., significant
Bartlett’s test, KMO [Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin] measure of
f2f Online
0.94, and a cumulative explained variance of 74.76
n % n % percent). These five factors were labeled as perceived
Gender competence, perceived communication, overall evalua-
Female 204 49% 330 55% tion, perceived challenge, and satisfaction with the face-
Male 210 51% 270 45% to-face or Internet format (see Table 3 for the rotated
Total 414 100% 600 100% factor structure, percentage of variance explained, and
Home zip code the α scores). A very similar structure resulted when the
University town 246 61% 260 44%
data were analyzed separately by instructional format.
Outside university 160 39% 336 56%
town
The five factors exhibited satisfactory internal consis-
Total 406 100% 596 100% tency, with most of the Cronbach’s αs (also in Table 3)
Grouping by major being mostly very well above 0.6 (Churchill, 1979).
Marketing 322 80% 326 56% Furthermore, the scale items generally had higher inter-
Other 80 20% 258 44% item correlation within factor than across factors, indi-
Total 402 100% 584 100% cating acceptable levels of convergent and discriminant
How to decide on class validity (Churchill, 1995). In addition, a look at the
format
correlation (computed using composite factor scores;
Department Web page 27 8% 25 5%
Another student 57 17% 58 11% see Table 4) indicate that in general the interconstruct
recommended correlations were less than the corresponding α scores.
None of the listed 196 58% 201 39% These suggest that the internal consistency within items
reasons measuring construct are greater than the association
Other 61 18% 236 45%
between constructs, thus providing further evidence of
Total 341 100% 520 100%
convergent and discriminant validity. This encouraged
Frequency of checking
e-mail from professor us to proceed further using the composite scores for
Once a day or more 149 36% 295 49% each construct.
Less than once a day 262 64% 312 51% Table 5 compares the two instructional formats on
Total 411 100% 607 100% the five factors. For all five factors, the face-to-face
Frequency of checking group has significantly higher means than the online
discussion board
group, indicating that the traditional class is seen in a
Once a day or more 114 28% 256 42%
more positive light. However, the Cohen’s d scores
Less than once a day 296 72% 352 58%
Total 410 100% 608 100% capturing the effect size were at best small to medium.
To test the hypothesized relationships, six multi-
Notes. f2f = face-to-face. Except for gender (p = 0.073), all differences
significant at p = 0.0005.
variate regression analyses were conducted using the
composite scores for the five factors, divided into two
sets of three regressions each. The first set specified
best modest (“small to medium”), with the exception overall evaluation as the dependent variable and per-
of experience with online classes (medium). ceived competence, perceived communication, and
The authors acknowledge that the main reason for perceived challenge as independent variables (Table 6
data collection was to help fine-tune the online and —Model 1 a, b, and c), while the second specified
face-to-face classes to make them as similar as possible perceived competence as the dependent variable, and
in terms of course content. Therefore, the instrument perceived communication and perceived challenge as
included all relevant scale items that were motivated by independent variables (Table 7—Model 2 a, b and c).
the constructs and their specific measurement items All six regressions in both sets included expected grade
typically found in most commonly used faculty evalua- in the class, CGPA and satisfaction with format as
tion instruments such as SET. control variables.
74 Marketing Education Review

Table 2
Demographics & Academic Performance of Two Instructional Format Groups
Instructional format
f2f Online Cohen’s d

Mean n Mean n Value Explanation

Age 24.58 412 25.68 597 0.27 small to medium

Miles home from university town 12.15 394 20.94 595 0.37 small to medium
Number of WebCT classes taken 1.81 394 3.30 595 0.51 medium
Self-reported cumulative GPA (CGPA) 3.12 405 3.11 596 0.02 very small
Earned semester % grade (max = 100) 83.1 443 80 615 0.25 small to medium
Weighted test score %: Midterm + Final Exam 70.61 337 68.75 548 0.14 small
Notes. f2f = face-to-face.
Except for CGPA (cumulative GPA), all differences significant at p = 0.0005.

Table 6 shows the results of set 1 (overall evaluation
as dependent variable). The β weights (Model 1a) pro-
vide support for H1 and H2a but not H3a. Perceived
competence and perceived communication are signifi-
cantly and positively associated with overall evaluation
while perceived challenge is not. Of the three control
variables, expected grade and satisfaction with the for-
mat of the class are significant, while CGPA is not.
Based on the β weights, perceived competence has the
stronger impact on overall evaluation compared with
perceived communication.
Examination of the regression of perceived compe-
tence (Model 2 a) provides support for H2b and H3b.
Perceived communication and perceived challenge
both significantly and positively influence competence.
Of these, perceived communication has the stronger
effect on perceived competence gained in the class
compared with perceived challenge. Of the three con-
trol variables, expected grade and satisfaction with for-
mat are significant whereas CGPA is not.
To test H4 and H5, the regression model using over-
all evaluation as the dependent variable was run two
more times, once for each instructional format (results
shown in Table 6—Model 1 b and c). The resulting
three estimates of residual sum of squares (total plus
each instructional format) were used to compute the
Chow’s statistic (1.41, df 6, 822, p value > 0.05), show-
ing that the relationships between perceived compe-
tence, perceived communication, perceived challenge,
and overall evaluation are similar between the two
samples representing the face-to-face and online class
formats. A closer look at β weights from Models 1 a, b,
and c indicates that the pattern is consistent across all
three regressions. This provides clear support for H4,
H5a, and H5b.
Finally, H6 was tested in a similar manner. The
regression model using perceived competence as the
dependent variables was run two more times, once for
each instructional format (results shown in Table 7—
Model 2 b and c), and Chow statistic was computed
using residual sum of squares for the combined sample
(Model 2 a), face-to-face sample (Model 2 b), and online
sample (Model 2 c). The Chow statistic (= 1.99, df:5 and
827, p value > 0.05) indicates that the relationships
between perceived communication, perceived chal-
lenge, and perceived competence are consistent across
the two samples representing the face-to-face and
online class formats. Thus, H6a and H6b were
supported.
Again, β weights for all three control variables in
their relationships with overall satisfaction as depen-
dent variable were consistent across two subsamples,
that is, face-to-face and online class formats (Models 1
b and c in Table 6). However, when we used perceived
competence as a dependent variable, the β weights
associated with expected grade were not consistent
across these two samples, whereas β weights associated
with CGPA and satisfaction with the format were con-
sistent (Models 2 b and c in Table 7).
DISCUSSION
The goal of this study was to compare the two class
formats—face-to-face and online—on two outcome
dimensions and two controllable input dimensions,
as well as the relationships between these two sets of
 Table 3
Rotated Factor Structure
Rotated (Varimax) Principal Component

Constructs Scale items 1 2 3 4 5

Perceived communication WebCT e-mail satisfactory communication method with professor 0.84
Professor responded to e-mail and Discussion Area posting in timely fashion 0.81
Content and materials on WebCT easy to access, review 0.80
WebCT Discussion Area effective for clarifications 0.77
Course content and materials on WebCT easy to follow, understand 0.74
Requirements for graded assignments explained well 0.71
Opportunity for clarification of exams, assignments adequate 0.62
Perceived competence More confident “working case numbers” 0.83
More confident using math in marketing 0.82
Improved ability to approach methodically 0.82
Taught tools for marketing decisions 0.79
Skills would be useful for life 0.79
More confident using spreadsheets 0.74
Overall evaluation M&M learning value vs. other marketing classes 0.78
M&M learning value vs. other UNT classes 0.75
Take M&M if not elective 0.70
M&M pushed me to peak performance compared to other classes 0.65
Perceived challenge More work than other marketing classes 0.91
More challenging than other business classes 0.88
More work than other business classes 0.87
Satisfaction with the format Will take another class from professor in same format 0.92
No regrets about format chosen 0.54
Percentage of variance explained (post-rotation) 45.89 10.46 9.35 4.93 4.13
Coefficient α score 0.84 0.94 0.84 0.88 0.60
Note. M&M = marketing math course.
Summer 2015
75
76 Marketing Education Review

Table 4
Correlation Between Factors
Overall Perceived Perceived Perceived Satisfaction with the
evaluation competence communication challenge format

Overall evaluation 0.84

Perceived competence 0.683 0.94
Perceived communication 0.508 0.596 0.84
Perceived challenge 0.175 0.278 0.302 0.88
Satisfaction with the format 0.492 0.512 0.512 0.154 0.66
Notes. All correlations significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed). Diagonal elements are coefficient α scores.

Table 5
Comparison of Face-to-Face and Online Class Formats on Key Variables
Means Cohen’s d

f2f n Online n value Explanation

Overall evaluation 3.17 412 2.90 600 0.35 small to medium

Perceived competence 7.52 413 6.99 599 0.27 small to medium
Perceived communication 7.92 414 7.34 601 0.33 small to medium
Perceived challenge 7.57 412 7.15 601 0.22 small
Satisfaction with the format 7.13 347 5.95 516 0.47 medium
Notes. f2f = face-to-face.
Means for all five constructs differ between the two groups at p value ≤ 0.01.

constructs. Data were collected from a required mar-
keting math class offered in both instructional formats
and the results indicate that the traditional class is still
perceived more favorably than online classes on all
four dimensions. In addition, the results indicate that
perceived competence and perceived communication
are positively associated with the overall evaluation of
the class. Likewise, perceived communication and per-
ceived challenge are positively associated with per-
ceived competence. Surprisingly, perceived challenge
did not have any influence on the overall evaluation,
which implies that some students may not really
always dislike being challenged.
These seemingly contradictory results are really not
at odds with one another. The more favorable percep-
tion of face-to-face classes on various dimensions may
be due to the fact that we are still social animals and
like meeting other people. This may explain why we
all do not shop for everything in our pajamas at our
bedroom and like to visit stores and malls where we
can interact with human beings. However, this does
not take away from the fact that as retailers enhance
the level of interaction, feeling of security, and other
factors typically associated with brick-and-mortar
stores in their online retailing Web sites, consumers
are increasingly moving to online retailing environ-
ments. Extending this analogy to a classroom setting,
the results of this study suggest that the relationships
between instructor-controllable variables (perceived
communication and perceived challenge) and the out-
come variables (perceived competence and overall
evaluation) remain consistent across both formats. In
other words, if the instructor uses the technology to
ensure similar levels of perceived communication and
perceived challenge across face-to-face and online
classes, it is likely to result in similar enhancement of
perceived competence. In turn, positive student per-
ception of these three variables (perceived communi-
cation and challenge, and the resultant perceived
competence) will lead to an enhanced evaluation of
an online class, as they would for a face-to-face class.
Clearly, the findings suggest that without exception,
 Table 6
Multiple Regression Results with Overall Evaluation as the Dependent Variable (DV)
Model 1: DV = Overall evaluation
(a) Combined sample (n = 834) (b) f2f only (n = 333) (c) Online only (n = 501)

Independent variable Unstd. β Std. β t Sig. Unstd. β Std. β t Sig. Unstd. β Std. β t Sig

(Constant) 0.530 2.97 0.00 0.365 1.265 0.207 0.702 3.062 0.002
Perceived competence 0.187 0.489 15.04 0.00 0.206 0.527 9.999 0.000 0.177 0.475 11.228 0.000
Perceived communication 0.055 0.129 4.01 0.00 0.048 0.105 2.062 0.040 0.057 0.142 3.358 0.001
Perceived challenge 0.007 0.018 0.70 0.48 0.019 0.045 1.084 0.279 –0.002 –0.005 –0.154 0.878
Expected M&M grade 0.149 0.150 5.72 0.00 0.172 0.169 4.185 0.000 0.133 0.141 3.954 0.000
cumulative GPA –0.029 –0.015 –0.60 0.55 –0.029 –0.015 –0.387 0.699 –0.034 –0.018 –0.545 0.586
Satisfaction with format 0.043 0.143 4.81 0.00 0.039 0.116 2.492 0.013 0.039 0.138 3.519 0.000
R 0.72 0.732 0.701
R2 0.52 0.536 0.492
Adjusted R2 0.52 0.527 0.486
Sum of squared residuals 245.496 92.451 150.538
Chow Test statistic 1.41, F distributed with 6 and 822 degrees of freedom. Not significant at α < 0.01 or 0.05.
Notes. f2f = face-to-face; M&M = marketing math.
Boldface numbers show significant results
Summer 2015
77
 78 Marketing Education Review

Table 7
Multiple Regression Results with Perceived Competence as the Dependent Variable (DV)
Model 2: DV = Perceived competence
(a) Combined sample (n = 837) (b) f2f only (n = 335) (c) Online only (n = 502)

Independent variable Unstd. β Std. β t Sig. Unstd. β Std. β t Sig. Unstd. β Std. β t Sig

(Constant) 0.327 0.659 0.510 –0.110 –0.142 0.887 0.551 0.846 0.398
Perceived communication 0.453 0.41 12.957 0.000 0.506 0.430 9.013 0.000 0.422 0.388 9.433 0.000
Perceived challenge 0.166 0.16 5.749 0.000 0.153 0.145 3.366 0.001 0.172 0.165 4.586 0.000
Expected M&M grade 0.385 0.15 5.412 0.000 0.173 0.066 1.572 0.117 0.510 0.201 5.491 0.000
cumulative GPA –0.093 –0.02 –0.696 0.486 0.034 0.007 0.166 0.868 –0.183 –0.036 –1.034 0.302
Satisfaction with format 0.194 0.25 8.129 0.000 0.245 0.288 6.256 0.000 0.172 0.225 5.576 0.000
R 0.673 0.697 0.654
R2 0.453 0.486 0.428
Adjusted R2 0.450 0.478 0.422
Sum of squared residuals 1914.138 670.764 1220.569
Chow Test statistic 1.99, F distributed with 5 and 827 degrees of freedom. Not significant at α = 0.01 or 0.05.
Notes. f2f = face-to-face; M&M = marketing math.
Boldface numbers show significant results

these relationships hold well regardless of instruc-
tional format of the class, which (e.g., face-to-face vs.
online) has no significant moderating impact on the
relationship between overall evaluation and factors
such as perceived competence, perceived communica-
tion, and perceived challenge. Furthermore, it also has
no moderating influence on the relationships between
perceived competence and factors such as perceived
communication and perceived challenge.
The nonsignificant relationship between perceived
challenge and overall evaluation of the course
(irrespective of the delivery format) could be explained
as follows. First, the focal course is a math-based mar-
keting course and the incoming students taking this
class know that this would be a “hot potato” (through
formal and informal mode of communication), and
hence challenge perception may not have any effect
on their overall evaluation of the course. A second
explanation could be that students expect a challen-
ging course to make them more competent and may
not let the level of difficulty and challenge influence
their overall evaluation of the course.
These findings are consistent with existing studies
(e.g., Clayson, 2009; Peltier, Drago, & Schibr
owsky, 2003; Peltier, Schibrowsky, & Drago, 2007;
Ponzurick, France, & Logar, 2000) and have important
implications for educators and administrators.
Irrespective of the course delivery format, the level of
perceived communication and interaction need to be
high enough to obtain either a favorable overall evalua-
tion, or to develop a perception of competence among
students. Furthermore, while making a course perceptibly
more challenging apparently has no direct effect on the
overall evaluation of the course, it does have a significant
positive effect on perceived competence, which in turn
has a strong positive effect on the overall evaluation of
the class. Therefore, making the class less challenging
may be detrimental to everyone concerned. The results
also suggest that while perceptually face-to-face classes
tend to outperform online classes on various dimensions,
it is possible to achieve similar levels of perceived com-
petence among students and obtain similar evaluations
in both face-to-face and online class formats, as long as
the instructor keeps the perceived communication and
perceived challenge similar in both formats.
Consequently, the findings in this study extend the pre-
vious work on comparison of traditional versus online
course format and especially fill the gap to evaluate the
Summer 2015 79
student perceptions of two learning formats (Bristow,
Humphreys, & Ziebell, 2011).
LIMITATION AND IMPLICATIONS
A key limitation of this study is its focus on one single
course at a single university. Further research may be
needed to apply the findings in this study to other set-
tings. For instance, would similar findings result if the
course were not a rigidly structured undergraduate mar-
keting math class? Would a graduate-level class, taught
using the two formats produce similar results? In addi-
tion, in this study we focused only on three key deter-
minants of the overall course evaluation—perceived
competence, perceived communication, and perceived
challenge—while controlling for variables such as satis-
faction with the course format, cumulative GPA, and
expected GPA in the focal course. It would be naive for
us to presume that these constructs and variables form
an exhaustive set of variables affecting the overall course
evaluation. Future studies should explore other related
variables such as student experience with both online
and face-to-face format, and investigate other boundary
conditions. We did not collect information on many
other background variables such as marital status, chil-
dren in the home, or employment status and recognize
that these could influence attitude toward format of the
class, especially for online students. There is also a need
to define and examine teaching efficiency (as opposed to
teaching effectiveness), which was not included as a
variable in this research.
There is, in general, lack of research attention on
teaching efficiency in the extant literature. Moreover,
additional research is needed with a focus on more
objective and cognitive measures of teaching effective-
ness such as GPA due to the possible self-reporting bias
of students relative to learning outcomes. With the
advancement of information technology, online univer-
sities increasingly utilize multimedia and live confer-
ences to emulate the traditional classroom. There is a
need to investigate how these technological develop-
ments could improve the effectiveness and efficiency
of online teaching and learning. As a result, additional
research is necessary to keep track of the changing per-
ceptions of students and faculty with respect to the two
learning platforms. We hope that these limitations pro-
vide the impetus for future investigations in this area,
which is probably going to change the face of academia.
80 Marketing Education Review
REFERENCES
Andrew, M. D., Cobb, C. D., & Giampietro, P. J. (2005).
Verbal ability and teacher effectiveness. Journal of
Teacher Education, 56(4), 343–354.
Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
(AACSB) International. (2003). Eligibility procedures and
standards for business accreditation. St. Louis, MO: AACSB
International.
Bacon, D. R., & Bean, B. (2006). GPA in research studies: An
invaluable but neglected opportunity. Journal of
Marketing Education, 28(1), 35–42.
Barat, S., Rajamma, R. K., Zolfagharian, M. A., & Ganesh, G.
(2009). Student course perceptions: A perceived-ease-of-
use-perceived-usefulness framework. Marketing Education
Review, 15(Winter), 35–45.
Berger, K. A., & Topol, M. T. (2001). Technology to enhance
learning: Use of a Web site platform in traditional classes
and distance learning. Marketing Education Review, 11(3),
15–26.
Bergmann, M., & Dobie, K. (1999). The Interactive Video
Learning Environment and Teacher Evaluation:
Teachers May Never Have to Leave Their Campus But
They Must “Go the Extra Mile”. Marketing Education
Review, 9(1), 21–28.
Bicen, P., & Laverie, D. A. (2009). Group-based assessment as
a dynamic approach to marketing education. Journal of
Marketing Education, 31(2), 96–108.
Boggiano, A. K, Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children’s
preference for challenge: The role of perceived compe-
tence and control. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(1), 134–141.
Boggiano, A. K, Ruble, D. N., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). The
mastery hypothesis and the overjustification effect.
Social Cognition, 1, 38–49.
Bristow, D., Shepherd, C. D., Humphreys, M., & Ziebell, M.
(2011). To be or not to be: That isn’t the question! An
empirical look at online versus traditional brick-and-
mortar courses at the university level. Marketing
Education Review, 21(3), 241–250.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better
measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing
Research, 16(February), 64–73.
Churchill, G. A. (1995). Marketing research: Methodological
foundations. Hindsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
Clarke, I., III, Flaherty, T. B., & Mottner, S. (2001). Student
perceptions of educational technology tools. Journal of
Marketing Education, 23(December), 169–177.
Clayson, D. E. (2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are
they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and
review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education,
31(1), 16–30.
Clifford, M. M. (1990). Students need challenge, not easy
success. Educational Leadership, 48(1), 22–26.
Close, A. G., Dixit, A., & Malhotra, N. K. (2005). Chalkboards
to cybercourses: The Internet and marketing education.
Marketing Education Review, 15(2), 81–94.
Cohen, P. A. (1981). Student ratings of instruction and stu-
dent achievement: A meta-analysis of multi-section
validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51,
281–309.
Darke, P. R., Chattopadhyay, A., & Ashworth, L. (2006). The
importance and functional significance of affective cues
in consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3),
322–328.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use
and user acceptance of information technology. MIS
Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
Davis, F. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technol-
ogy: System characteristics, user perceptions and beha-
vioral impacts. International Journal of Man-Machine
Studies, 38, 475–487.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User
acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of
two theoretical models. Manage Science, 35, 982–1003.
Ding, M., Eliashberg, J., Huber, J., & Saini, R. (2005).
Emotional bidders: An analytical experimental examina-
tion of consumers’ behavior in a priceline-like reverse
auction. Management Science, 51(3), 352–364.
Eastman, J. K., & Swift, C. O. (2001). New horizons in dis-
tance education: The online learner-centered marketing
class. Journal of Marketing Education, 23(1), 25–34.
Finch, D., Nadeau, J., & O’Reilly, N. (2013). The future of
marketing education: A practitioner’s perspective.
Journal of Marketing Education, 35(1), 54–67.
Flanagan, J. L. (2012). Online versus face-to-face instruction:
Analysis of gender and course format in undergraduate
business statistics courses. Academy of Business Journal,
2(4), 89–98.
Ganesh, G., & Paswan, A. K. (2010). Teaching basic mar-
keting accountability using spreadsheets: An explora-
tory perspective. Journal of Business Research, 63(2),
182–190.
Ganesh, G., Sun, Q., & Barat, S. (2010). Improving the
marketing math skills of marketing undergraduate
students through a unique undergraduate marketing
math course. Marketing Education Review, 20(1),
47–63.
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus
extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and
informational components. Developmental Psychology,
17, 300–312.
Hatfield, L., & Taylor, R. K. (1998). Making business schools
responsive to customers: Lessons learned and actions.
Marketing Education Review, 8(2), 1–8.
Higgins, R. (2000). Be more critical: Rethinking assessment
feedback. In, Proceedings of the Conference of the British
Educational Research Association, Cardiff University,
Wales, September.
Jeltova, I., Birney, D., Fredine, N., Jarvin, L., Sternberg, R. J., &
Grigorenko, E. L. (2007). Dynamic assessment as a pro-
cess-oriented assessment in educational settings.
Advances in Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 271–285.
Koon, J., & Murray, H. G. (1995). Using multiple outcomes to
validate student ratings of overall teacher effectiveness.
The Journal of Higher Education, 66(1), 61–81.
Kraiger, K. J., Ford, K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of
cognitive, skill-based and affective theories of

learning outcomes to new methods of training eva-
luation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.
Liu, S., Gomez, J., Khan, B., & Yen, C.-J. (2007). Toward a
learner-oriented community college online course drop-
out framework. International Journal on E‑Learning, 6-
(December), 519–542.
Malhotra, N. K., Dixit, A., & Uslay, C. (2002). Integrating
Internet technology in marketing research education.
Marketing Education Review, 12(3), 25–34.
McGorry, S. Y. (2006). Data in the palm of your hand.
Marketing Education Review, 16(3), 83–90.
Mintu-Wimsatt, A. (2001). Traditional vs. technology-
mediated learning: A comparison of students’ course
evaluations. Marketing Education Review, 11(2), 63–73.
Neves, J. S., & Sanyal, R. N. (1991). Classroom communica-
tion and teaching effectiveness: The foreign-born
instructor. Journal of Education for Business, 66(5),
304–308.
Parayitam, S., Desai, K., & Phelps, L. (2007). The effect of
teacher communication and course content on student
satisfaction and effectiveness. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 11(3), 91–105.
Park, C. L., Crocker, C., Nussey, J., Springate, J., & Hutchings,
D. (2010). Evaluation of a teaching tool-wiki in online
graduate education. Journal of Information Systems
Education, 21(3), 313–321.
Paswan, A., & Young, J. A. (2002). A causal analysis of process
variables in student evaluation of instructors. Journal of
Marketing Education, 24(2), 193–202.
Peltier, J. W., Drago, W., & Schibrowsky, J. A. (2003). Virtual
communities and the assessment of online marketing
education. Journal of Marketing Education, 25(3), 260–276.
Peltier, J. W., Schibrowsky, J. A., & Drago, W. (2007). The
interdependence of the factors influencing the perceived
quality of the online learning experience: A causal model.
Journal of Marketing Education, 29(2),140–153.
Pew Research Center. (2011). The digital revolution and higher
education. Retrieved from http://pewsocialtrends.org/
files/2011/08/online-learning.pdf
Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and
self-regulation learning components of classroom aca-
demic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology,
82(1), 33–40.
Ponzurick, T. G., Russo France, K., and Logar, C. M. (2000).
Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of
face-to-face versus distance education. Journal of
Marketing Education, 22(3), 180–187.
Roberts, C. L., & Becker, S. L. (1976). Communication and
teaching effectiveness in industrial education. American
Educational Research Journal, 13(3), 181–197.
Summer 2015 81
Roberts, J. (1996). The story of distance education: A practi-
tioner’sperspective. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science, 47, 811–816.
Sherif, J., & Khan, R. (2005). Role and relevance of Web
supported learning for first generation learners. Journal
of American Academy of Business, 6, 123–129.
Sitzmann, T., Brown, K. G., Casper, W. J., Ely, K., &
Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). A review and meta-analysis
of the nomological network of trainee reactions. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 93, 280–295.
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K. G., & Bauer, K. N. (2010). Self-
assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affec-
tive measure? Academy of Management Learning and
Education, 9(2), 169–191.
Steiner, S, D., & Hyman, M. R. (2010). Improving the student
experience: Allowing students enrolled in a required
course to select online or face-to-face instruction.
Marketing Education Review, 20(1), 29–33.
Stewart, B. L. (2004). Online learning: A strategy for social
responsibility in educational access. Internet and Higher
Education, 7(4), 299–310.
Sweeney, A. D. P., Morrison, M. D., Jarratt, D., & Heffernan, T.
(2009). Modeling the constructs contributing to the
effectiveness of marketing lecturers. Journal of Marketing
Education, 31(3), 190–202.
Tang, T. L. (1997). Teaching evaluation at a public institution
of higher education: Factors related to the overall teach-
ing effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 26(3),
379–389.
Wachtel, H. K. (1998). Student evaluation of college teaching
effectiveness: A brief review. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 23(2), 191–211.
Wayland, J., Owen Swift, C., & Wilson, J. (1996). Distance
education in the principles of marketing class: Are teach-
ing evaluations affected? Edited by Elnora W. Stuart,
David J. Ortinau, and Ellen M. Moore, Proceedings of the
Annual Meeting of the Southern Marketing Association, New
Orleans, LA, 234–238.
Wood, N. T., Solomon, M. R., & Allan, D. (2008). Welcome to
the Matrix: E-learning gets a second life. Marketing
Education Review, 18(2), 47–53.
Wymbs, C. (2011). Digital marketing: The time for a new
“academic major” has arrived. Journal of Marketing
Education, 33(1), 93–106.
Young, M. R. (2005). The motivational effects of the class-
room environment in facilitating self-regulated learning.
Journal of Marketing Education, 27(1), 25–40.
Zahay, D., & Fredricks, E. (2009). Podcasting to improve
delivery of a project-based Internet marketing course.
Marketing Education Review, 19(1), 57–63.