Developing Pedagogical Competence

Journal of Marketing Education
http://jmd.sagepub.com/
Developing Pedagogical Competence: Issues and Implications for Marketing Education

Sreedhar Madhavaram and Debra A. Laverie Journal of Marketing Education published online 23 February 2010 DOI: 10.1177/0273475309360162 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/02/23/0273475309360162
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Marketing Education can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jmd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jmd.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010
Journal of Marketing Education OnlineFirst, published on February 23, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0273475309360162
Developing Pedagogical Competence: Issues and Implications for Marketing Education

Sreedhar Madhavaram1 and Debra A. Laverie2
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X) 117 2010 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0273475309360162 http://jmd.sagepub.com
Abstract Competence in pedagogy and research is the sine qua non of marketing educators careers. However, there is evidence in the literature that marketing academics focus more on and are more competent in research than teaching. This imbalance, in a majority of instances, can be traced back to doctoral education. Doctoral programs in marketing are designed to prepare students for becoming successful marketing professors. An important component of becoming a successful professor is learning how to teach effectively. Yet doctoral programs fall short of providing adequate pedagogical training. Consequently, marketing educators, from their doctoral days through their professorial careers, have a responsibility to continuously work on their competence in teaching. However, how can marketing educators in general and marketing doctoral students in particular develop pedagogical competence (PC)? In this article, the authors deconstruct PC into five components: content knowledge (or knowledge of subject matter), knowledge of pedagogical approaches, course management capability, classroom management capability, and student management capability. Next, they discuss how individuals can develop PC and the implications of PC for marketing education. Specifically, the authors discuss issues and implications for doctoral students, doctoral programs, marketing departments, and marketing faculty. Finally, the authors conclude with a discussion of the contributions of the article to marketing academe. Keywords pedagogical competence, teaching excellence, doctoral education, marketing education, marketing educators Universities are in the knowledge business, and apart from producing or manufacturing knowledge through research, they disseminate or retail knowledge through their teaching function (Hunt, 1992). Consequently, competence in pedagogy and research is the sine qua non of marketing educators careers. However, there is evidence in the literature that marketing academics focus more on and are more competent in research than teaching. This imbalance, in a majority of instances, can be traced back to doctoral education. Specifically, in preparing doctoral students for academic careers, universities should deliver training in research as well as teaching methodology. However, there is overwhelming evidence that doctoral students receive more training in research than teaching (Leavitt, 1993). In fact, whereas doctoral students have several seminars dedicated to developing research know-how and mentors in the form of a chair and committee members who guide them in developing and completing dissertations, they often have one, mandatory, macro, collegewide seminar on teaching know-how and do not get any mentoring in developing their pedagogical knowledge. Consequently, marketing educators, from their doctoral days through their professorial careers, have a responsibility to continuously work on their competence in teaching. We believe that marketing educators will be better served if they start focusing on pedagogical competence (PC) during their doctoral programs. However, how can marketing educators in general and marketing doctoral students in particular develop PC? Specific to doctoral students, several articles address doctoral students on gaining the most benefit from doctoral programs (e.g., Alpert & Eyssell, 1995; Alpert & Perner, 1996), becoming marketing academicians (e.g., Berry, 1989), getting socialized into the academic world (e.g., Trocchia & Berkowitz, 1999), selecting first academic position (e.g., Johnston, Clark, & Boles, 1989), creating successful careers (e.g., Lusch, 1982), and teaching techniques (e.g., Henke, Locander, Mentzer, & Nastas, 1988). However, except for the articles of Berry (1989), Lusch (1982), Henke et al. (1988), and Karns (2005), there is not a great deal of research that specifically addresses the importance of teaching knowhow. In fact, Alpert and Eyssell (1995) report that many
1 2
Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA
Corresponding Author: Sreedhar Madhavaram, Cleveland State University, Department of Marketing, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA Email: s.madhavaram@csuohio.edu
2 graduates are surprised to find that they receive little instruction about teaching. Alpert and Eyssell (1995) and Alpert and Perner (1996) list four essential tasks that doctoral students are required to accomplish: specialize and plan a dissertation, prepare for and pass the qualifying exam, complete the dissertation, and secure a tenure track faculty position. Ironically, learning how to teach is conspicuous by its absence in the list. Previous research on pedagogy in marketing does not provide specific guidelines pertaining to teaching proficiency for doctoral students. Berrys (1989) article offers an outline for a course on Becoming a Marketing Academician, and is directed more toward faculty helping doctoral students think more about their academic careers. Lusch (1982) provides some general guidelines and suggestions for achieving success in teaching. However, the specifics of teaching know-how for doctoral students are missing. Finally, the article by Henke et al. (1988) discusses supplemental pedagogical techniques such as bringing guest speakers, videotapes, marketing films, field trips, computer-based cases, and projects, so that new marketing instructors can overcome their lack of teaching experiences and have more time to do research and write articles, while enriching the marketing course for the students. Therefore, given that universities are in the knowledge business and that they should disseminate or retail knowledge through their teaching function (Hunt, 1992), pursuing teaching excellence is more challenging than ever in the new millennium (Smart, Kelly, & Conant, 2003), doctoral education somewhat falls short of providing adequate training in teaching (American Marketing Association [AMA] Task Force, 1988; Butler, Laumer, & Moore, 1994; Griffith, 1997), and competence and scholarship as the essential goals of PhD education (Pelikan, 1989), we propose that doctoral students and marketing educators should consciously focus on developing PC. How does one develop PC? Lusch (1982) suggests that the responsibility of creating successful careers is on how marketing doctorates make things happen by themselves, not doctoral programs. Alpert and Eyssell (1995) and Alpert and Perner (1996) also suggest self-reliance as an essential ingredient to succeeding in doctoral education. Furthermore, Robbins (2001) suggests self-observation as a method that can improve teaching effectiveness. Analogously, given the shortcomings of doctoral education, we also propose that the onus of becoming an efficient and effective teacher is on the individual. However, doctoral programs and marketing departments can certainly facilitate the development of PC. Furthermore, we argue that marketing faculty in general and doctoral students in particular should continuously strive to develop PC through accessing and learning from educationrelated scholarly work by institutions, business and marketing educators, practitioners, and interactions with business and
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X) marketing educators, educators from other fields, and students. Our proposition of developing PC is based on a consciously planned transfer of both explicit and tacit knowledge to the educator intending to develop the competence. The remainder of the article is organized as follows. First, we provide a brief historical overview of doctoral education and pedagogical trainingrelated issues. Second, we provide a brief discussion of responsible parties for improving the doctoral students teaching. Third, we define the concept of PC and discuss how an individual can develop PC. Here, we deconstruct PC into five components, with each component having three different types of knowledge and each type of knowledge in both tacit and explicit forms. In addition, we detail six sources of knowledge that can help in developing PC. To our knowledge, this is the first article that explicitly deconstructs PC and describes how individuals can go about developing PC. Fourth, we discuss the implications of PC for marketing education. Specifically, we discuss issues and implications for doctoral students, doctoral programs, marketing departments, and marketing faculty. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of the contributions of our article to marketing academe.
Doctoral Education and Pedagogical Training

The century-old issue of whether universities should be preparing doctoral candidates in business to be primarily researchers or teachers still remains unsolved (Hershey, Gargeya, & Eatman, 1996). Throughout the last century, there have been numerous references to the deficiencies in pedagogical training with reference to business doctoral education in general and marketing doctoral education in particular. In the 1930s, Bossard and Dewhurst (1931) identified two major defects with business PhD graduates: lack of interest in teaching and ignorance of the art of teaching. In the 1950s, according to the 1956 AACSB (The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business) Aspen House report, George Baker and David Tyack listed whether training in teaching should be required, as one of the most pressing issues facing doctoral programs in business (Graduate Management Admissions Council, 1992). In the 1990s, at the Current Issues in Business Doctoral Education Conference, the opening speaker James G. Howell, coauthor of the influential 1959 Ford Foundation Report, noted that except where there is research, the training of most professors is completely orthogonal to the job at which they spend most of their timeteaching students who themselves are not going to be scholars (Graduate Management Admissions Council, 1992). In fact, the results of Hershey et al.s (1996) study suggest that most business doctoral programs do not put enough emphasis on teaching preparation and offer very little formal preparation to develop teaching competencies
Madhavaram and Laverie and that the new business faculty appear to have serious voids in their preparation for teaching. Leavitt (1993) opines that it is unconscionable that business schools put so little emphasis on teaching doctoral students how to teach. He further complains that business schools treat teaching as a peripheral skill that doctoral students can pick up if they choose to. Similarly, Madansky (1994) observes that the critics of business PhDs argue that graduates of business PhD programs cannot teach. Madansky also notes that, currently, the onus of training the entry-level assistant professors is on institutions that hire PhDs and not on the institutions that produce them. In addition, he notes that although the knowledge base a doctoral student learns is to impart a set of research findings to ones research peers, the new assistant professors are suddenly thrust into the job of teaching marketing to undergraduate and MBA students. On similar lines, Alutto (1993) suggests that too many schools are seeking to produce students for the smaller set of truly research-oriented schools rather than adapting programs to meet the needs of the larger set of teaching-oriented or mixed focus schools, where teaching is a strong component. AACSB standards on doctoral degrees explicitly state that doctoral programs should include preparation for teaching responsibilities in higher education. In many programs, minimal effort is put forth to assure this type of learning. Often, doctoral students pedagogical training is restricted to one course on college teaching. Rarely are students exposed to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) in their discipline. This minimal training is in spite of the fact that AASCSB standards requires individual faculty to place a lot of emphasis on teaching effectiveness. Certainly, doctoral students would benefit from more training in teaching because as faculty members, as the AACSB states, they should operate with integrity with students, keep current in their teaching, actively involve students in learning, encourage collaboration in learning, and ensure prompt and frequent feedback on student performance. Furthermore, exposure to SoTL would be beneficial for doctoral students as learning and pedagogical contributions are among the mix of intellectual contributions that faculty can make to satisfy AACSB academic qualifications. Developing as an educator while a doctoral student will be valuable throughout ones career in view of the fact that as a faculty member they will be expected, by AACSB standards, to share the responsibility for devoting time to learning activities for students, adequate studentfaculty contact across learning experiences, evaluating student achievement, continuously improving instruction, and being innovative in instruction. We argue that business schools, specifically marketing doctoral programs, are not producing graduates who can routinely meet these standards. With reference to marketing doctoral education, when asked to comment on the weaknesses of their doctoral programs, respondents to the AMA Task Force survey (1988)
3 most frequently mentioned the failure to train doctoral candidates to become teachers. The respondents also commented that although some programs required doctoral candidates to neither teach nor receive any instruction in teaching practices, other programs allowed students to teach but without supervision or formal training. Similarly, Conant, Smart, and Redkar (1998) note that most doctoral students in marketing teach without the benefit of sufficient training. Furthermore, their study revealed that weak teaching preparation stems from poor faculty support for teaching, lack of constructive feedback, and resource constraints. In fact, new marketing faculty spend greatest amount of time on teaching, despite the fact that research is more important in promotion, tenure, and salary decisions (Boya & Robicheaux, 1992). In addition, there is limited integration of formal educator training into marketing doctoral programs (West, 1992). For Peterson (1999), much of what new doctorates teach is based on their reading of academic journals and textbooks from which they teach. As a result, they lack depth, and their knowledge of the marketing field is often quite sparse. The quality of instruction that results can be limited, with students acquiring meaningful material from their textbooks and practical experience rather than from their instructor. (p. 12) Furthermore, doctoral programs rarely gauge their success by examining the effectiveness of doctoral graduates in teaching (Bearden, Ellen, & Netemeyer, 2000). However, this problem is not limited to business doctoral education. For example, Golde and Dore (2001) surveyed doctoral students in 11 arts and sciences disciplines at 27 universities and concluded that doctoral students persist in pursuing careers as faculty members, and graduate programs persist in preparing them for careers at research universities, despite the well-publicized paucity of academic jobs and efforts to diversify the options available for doctorate-holders. The result: students are not well prepared to assume the faculty positions that are available, nor do they have a clear concept of their suitability of work outside of research. (p. 5) Given that the problem of inadequate pedagogical training in marketing doctoral programs exists, how should the problem be solved and who should solve it?
Improving Doctoral Students Teaching: Whose Responsibility?

In the past, there have been efforts to improve teaching in general and teaching of doctoral students in particular. For
4 example, after 1960, Ford Foundation looked into encouraging teaching through new developments seminars designed to make the teacher aware of new developments in the field and suggest how they can be used and written materials, essentially texts describing recent important research results and new applications of the techniques and concepts underlying disciplines, background information leading to an understanding of their significance, and suggestions for pedagogical presentation. Also, for example, Littlefield and Shawver (1977) described how various business schools, particularly marketing departments, have attempted to introduce the doctoral students to the skills of testing, curricular design, classroom teaching, and so forth. But who is and/or should be responsible for improving teaching of doctoral students? There are plenty of answers suggested by various researchers: business schools that produce doctoral students, business schools that hire doctoral students, relevant departments, and faculty. Leavitt (1993) suggests that, as part of the doctoral program, business schools set up more teaching seminars, involve students in designing courses and developing materials, and get students to do supervised teaching. At a minimum, business schools should bring doctoral students into the classrooms of experienced faculty (Leavitt, 1993). According to the AMA Task Force (1988), the hiring school should assist new faculty in learning how to teach effectively. Thus, the onus of training entry-level assistant professors is on the institutions that hire PhDs and not the degree granting institutions (Madansky, 1994). Others argue that the onus is on the degree granting institutions. Specifically, the faculty should take up the efforts because doctoral programs are more than any other program, the purview of the faculty at their institution (Cavusgil, 1998). Specifically, Griffith (1997) recommends a two-stage framework for integrating marketing educator training into doctoral programs: coursework focused on teaching philosophy and training on instructional techniques coupled with an active teaching assistantship where the student attends his or her assigned professors classes and meets regularly with the professor to discuss teaching ideas and allowing the student to assume full-time responsibilities for teaching in the second year of the students doctoral training. Conant, Smart, and Redkar (1998) suggest that the following can improve the teaching preparation of doctoral students: formal teacher training programs be offered to doctoral students, development of seminars and/or courses that would expose doctoral students to the fundamentals of college teaching, requiring the training of teaching just like the training of research, providing sufficient teaching opportunities, assigning faculty to serve as teaching mentors, ensuring candidates are given constructive feedback on their strengths and weaknesses, creating opportunities for recognized teachers to be observed, and establishing departmental cultures that value teaching.
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X) Hair (1995) recommends the following: more research on education-related topics should be conducted and shared with marketing faculty, departments must invest in teaching excellence by developing teaching excellence training seminars and scheduling them on a regular basis, and departments should cultivate relationships with the business community that enhances teaching excellence not only through financial commitments but also through nonfinancial support activities. Furthermore, according to the 1988 AMA Task Force study, the marketing department of the hiring schools should help new faculty by giving them course outlines, lecture notes, opportunities to observe established successful teachers, and constructive teaching critiques (using devices such as videotaping) as well as, perhaps most importantly, assigning a coach who will meet with them on a regular basis during their first year to discuss teaching strategy and ways to overcome teaching problems. (p. 12) However, it seems that many of the recommendations that are suggested assume a very passive role for doctoral students. We argue that doctoral students take a more active role in developing their pedagogical skills. Also, we do not limit the scope of this article to just doctoral students. As marketing educators have a responsibility to provide education that prepares tomorrows workforce that functions in a knowledge-intensive, dynamic, and highly competitive world of marketing, marketing educators, new or old, should continuously strive to learn and revise their pedagogy-related knowledge.
Pedagogical Competence
Before we define pedagogical competence, we would like to briefly discuss the concept of competence. In the literature, a competence or a competency has been conceptualized both at the individual (e.g., Herling, 2000; Keen, 1992) as well as the organizational levels (Hunt, 2000; Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Sanchez, 2001a). Furthermore, it has been discussed in the context of human resources (Herling, 2000), instruction (Keen, 1992), training (Mirabile, 1997; Parry, 1996), and competitive advantage. In this article, we conceptualize PC at the individual level and then discuss in detail how individuals can develop PC. Herling (2000, p. 20) states that human competence . . . is displayed behavior within a specialized domain in the form of consistently demonstrated actions of an individual that are both minimally efficient in their execution and effective in their results. For Parry (1996), a competence is a cluster of related knowledge, skills and attributes that affects a major part of one job (a role or responsibility),
Madhavaram and Laverie that correlates with performance on the job, that can be measured against well-accepted standards, and that can be improved via training and development. (p. 50) Spencer and Spencer (1993) argue that a competency is fairly enduring and actually causes or predicts behavior and performance. In organizational literature, Sanchez (2001a) defines competence as the ability of an organization to sustain coordinated deployments of assets and capabilities in ways that help the organization achieve its goals (p. 7). However, for Sanchez (2001b), knowledge ultimately resides in the minds of individuals, and individual knowledge and competence is the foundation for firm-level competence; hence, his work accommodates competence at the individual level. Therefore, in this article, following Sanchez (2001a) and Hunt (2000), we define pedagogical competence as the ability of an individual to use a coordinated, synergistic combination of tangible resources (e.g., instruction material such as books, articles, and cases and technology such as software and hardware) and intangible resources (e.g., knowledge, skills, experience) to achieve efficiency and/or effectiveness in pedagogy. Furthermore, following Bhada (2002), Garda (1988), Hershey et al. (1996), Hunt and Madhavaram (2006), and Rossiter (2001), we conceptualize PC as having five components: content knowledge (or knowledge of subject matter), knowledge of pedagogical approaches, course management capability, classroom management capability, and student management capability. That is, more of each of these components will improve the instructors teaching effectiveness.
Knowledge of Pedagogical Approaches

Marketing educators should also have thorough knowledge of different pedagogical approaches that can be used for teaching. For example, pedagogical approaches such as career planning, cases, computer-assisted simulated marketing cases, experiential projects, life history analysis, product management projects, projects, scenario planning, shareholder value analysis, simulation, Web-based cases, and Web-based business intelligence tools make teaching more effective and/or efficient (Hunt & Madhavaram, 2006). If educators have a good knowledge of theses pedagogical approaches and the various advantages and disadvantages associated with these pedagogical approaches, they can make better decisions with reference to when to use them, how to use them, how to adapt them to different classes, and in which classes to use them.
Course Management Capability

Often, academics have several responsibilities with reference to teaching, research, and service, and course management should be conducive to the fulfillment of both teaching and nonteaching responsibilities. Specifically, course management involves planning the course, preparing a course, searching for resources, developing the syllabus, preparing lectures, monitoring and evaluating student work, maintaining the grades, communicating and ensuring course requirements, maintaining interactions with students and colleagues, administration of course-related issues, archiving course-related material, and, last but not the least, assessing student performance and course performance for future revisions (Nijhuis & Collis, 2003). In addition, as business schools are increasingly integrating technologies that can assist in course management (Martins & Kellermanns, 2004), marketing educators should become well versed with the use of technologies and their influence on teachers and students. In fact, recently, based on a survey of 182 professors who used course management technology, Yueh and Hsu (2008) reported that 95% of the respondents were satisfied with the technologys instructional and management functions. Furthermore, many professors had to change their instructional strategies and teaching styles because technology integration and usage is becoming a critical component of course management capability (Yueh & Hsu, 2008).
Content Knowledge
Knowledge of subject matter is essential for marketing educators. Furthermore, this knowledge should be based on the different kinds of knowledge that marketing students need. Marketing students should be provided concepts, theories, conceptual frameworks, analytical techniques, and market/competitive data because these are the kinds of marketing knowledge that they will need as marketing practitioners (Garda, 1988). Similarly, Rossiter (2001) suggests that marketers need concepts, structural frameworks, strategic principles, and research principles. Therefore, marketing educators should have a thorough knowledge of concepts, theories, conceptual frameworks, and analytical techniques that, in turn, need to be disseminated to marketing students.
Classroom Management Capability

For Lemlech (1979, p. 5), classroom management is the orchestration of classroom life: planning curriculum, organizing procedures and resources, arranging the environment to maximize efficiency, monitoring student progress, and anticipating potential problems. Therefore, marketing educators
6 need knowledge of managing the classroom in a manner that facilitates maximum learning for the students. Furthermore, close attention should be given to adjusting instruction to the size of the class, level of the class (freshman vs. graduate), level of the students (majors vs. nonmajors), and nontraditional students (e.g., older students and executives/business managers). The classroom should be managed by taking into account the needs of students in terms of individual learning capabilities, knowledge requirements for future jobs, and classroom environment that facilitates learning. Among other things, this capability involves effective utilization of technology in classroom, interaction with students, and adapting teaching material such as in-class exercises, cases, projects, and so on.
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X) certain things enables a given task to be accomplished. Furthermore, know-why is essential for competence building, that is, learning how to do new things or learning how to do familiar things in new ways. All the five components of PC can be developed from know-why knowledge. For example, through learning by analysis, educators can improve their knowledge of the subject matter. Educators can accomplish this by analyzing content knowledge in textbooks, academic publications, and professional publications. In addition, educators can develop know-why by observing master teachers in action and analyzing their teaching and analyzing the teachings of all the instructors that they have been exposed to during their lifetime. Similarly, educators can also develop know-why about pedagogical approaches, course management capability, classroom management capability, and student management capability. Whereas know-why knowledge is developed through learning by analysis, know-how is usually acquired through learning by doing (Sanchez, 2001a). Know-how leads to practical, hands-on knowledge of how to perform a given task consistently. If an educator were to become consistent and effective with reference to using pedagogical approaches such as cases, projects, and simulation, learning by doing is perhaps the only option. This knowledge is essential with reference to leveraging an individuals competence. Furthermore, with the third type of knowledge, know-what, educators may be able to generate new ideas for new kind of things (techniques) they could do with current and new capabilities. Often, know-what knowledge results in instructional and pedagogical innovations that can make educators more efficient and/or effective. These three types of knowledge contribute toward improving PC by contributing to each of the five components. It is important to note the components of these three different types of knowledge. They have two components to them: explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Whereas explicit knowledge can be codified and can be stored (Nonaka, 1994), some knowledge may remain tacit and uncodified because it is difficult to articulate (Polanyi, 1966). For example, experiential knowledge and circumstantial knowledge are two forms of tacit knowledge. Whereas experiential knowledge is characterized by transferability through active participation (Penrose, 1959), circumstantial knowledge is characterized by high context dependency (Hayek, 1945). Therefore, often, tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in action, commitment, and involvement in a specific context (Nonaka, 1994, p. 16). It can be seen that much of the content knowledge in marketing is explicit in the form of textbooks and articles in academic and professional journals. Similarly, knowledge of pedagogical approaches, course management capability, classroom management capability, and student management capability involves some knowledge that is explicit. However, know-why, know-how, and know-what of
Student Management Capability

In addition to managing the classroom in general, educators should also manage the students in terms of assessing students achievement and reactions and then motivating, advising, counseling, and mentoring students accordingly. This requires a different kind of capability than managing the classroom and requires educators to carefully consider aspects of their rapport with students, their communication ability, their ability to treat all students with respect and fairness, their ability to make students enthusiastic about the subject, and their ability to motivate student accomplishment. Specifically, effective student management should lead to desirable student behaviors such as (a) adequate preparation by student of assigned material prior to classroom attendance; (b) full attention to be given to ongoing classroom activities while class is in session; (c) active participation in the learning process through note-taking, involvement in class discussion, the asking of relevant questions, and the contribution of pertinent observations and comments; (d) the maintenance of regular class attendance throughout the semester. (Brender, 1981, p. 95) In addition, effective student management can potentially reduce the perceived studentprofessor distance and help students become more intrinsically motivated (Lilly & Tippins, 2002).
Developing PC
Developing PC involves three different types of knowledge: know-why, know-how, and know-what. Through these three different types of knowledge, an educator can develop each of the five components of PC. For Sanchez (2000), knowwhy can be developed from learning by analysis. This know-why gives theoretical understanding about why doing
Madhavaram and Laverie
Institutions
Students
Educators PC (Content Knowledge, Knowledge of Pedagogical Approaches, Course Management Capability, Classroom Management Capability, and Student Management Capability)
Academic Researchers
Educators from Other Fields
Marketing Educators
Practitioners
: Represents tacit and/or explicit knowledge transfer
Figure 1. Developing pedagogical competence (PC)

Source: Madhavaram (2009).
content, pedagogical approaches, course management capability, classroom management capability, and knowledge management capability can sometimes be tacit. This knowledge could be tacit and/or uncodified because it is difficult to articulate and transfer (Polanyi, 1966) or because it changes with rapidly changing circumstances (Hayek, 1945). So how does one develop a PC that has five components and involves three different types of knowledge that are explicit and/or tacit? We propose that an educator can develop a PC through consciously working on explicit and tacit knowledge transfer involving the five components, from various resources that are available. That is, an educator can develop a PC through learning from (explicit knowledge transfer) and/or interacting (tacit knowledge transfer) with institutions, academic researchers, marketing educators, practitioners, educators from other fields, and students. In the following paragraphs, we discuss all the six sources that instructors can use for developing a PC.
transfer. Educators should willingly and consciously take advantage of all such opportunities. In addition, some universities have also established centers that promote excellence in teaching and research on teaching. Furthermore, corporate sponsored foundations such as Ford Foundation have much to offer to the instructors. Last but not the least, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching can be a great resource for educators through its research and publications on how to succeed in the classroom, how best to achieve lasting student learning, how to assess the impact of teaching on students, and the scholarship of teaching and learning.
Academic Researchers
Much of the content knowledge in marketing that is available for marketing educators to teach is from our colleagues who have been active in research. As educators who are responsible for preparing tomorrows competent workforce, we have a responsibility to keep ourselves knowledgeable with cutting edge research in the field. Educators can access the (a) explicit knowledge through academic publications and national conferences and (b) tacit knowledge through personal interactions at national conferences and through telecommunications and/or the World Wide Web.
Institutions
Educators have much to learn from institutions such as universities, teaching centers, and corporate sponsored foundations. Many universities provide explicit knowledge in the form teaching manuals/guidelines and lectures from master teachers so that instructors can become more proficient. Similarly, they also provide brown bag lunches and other opportunities for instructors to get together and interact with each other. Such opportunities provide fertile grounds for tacit knowledge
Marketing Educators
Instructors have much to learn from marketing educators who actively share their research and experiences with reference
8 to teaching in publications such as Journal of Marketing Education and Marketing Education Review. Similarly, teaching-related sessions at AMA Educators Conferences, SMA Conference, and Annual Marketing Educators Conferences provide excellent opportunities for educators to learn more about pedagogical approaches, classroom management, and student management. Specifically, articles by Chonko (2007), Gagnon (2007), Mohr (2007), and Sautter (2007a) provide great foundations as to what we can learn from our colleagues. Chonko (2007) attempts to provide a philosophic answer to the question Why am I teaching? by presenting nine principles of servant teachership and discussing his teaching approaches. Similarly, Sautter, Gagnon, and Mohr, the winners of the 2005 CASE (Council for the Advancement and Support of Education) professor of the year awards, present their teaching philosophies that focus on innovation, experimentation, creating a culture of learning, the first day of class, and maintaining high academic standards. In fact, for Sautter (1998, p.7), speaking to and learning from the experiences of other educators has been a constant source of inspiration.
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X) commitment to the university to an area of involvement, creative innovation, and research that is engaging and challenging. In fact, sharing ideas across disciplines can be a great way to discover innovative pedagogical approaches. We, as marketing educators, owe it our students and ourselves to continuously look for innovative pedagogical approaches, classroom management innovations, and research on student motivation from other fields.
Students
For Day (2003, p. 30), education is a coproduction activity where you have to have all participants involved. One thing I am not is someone who stands up and lectures. I want to teach people to think, gain insights and solve their own issues. Furthermore, being interviewed on the occasion of receiving AMA/Irvin/McGraw-Hill Distinguished Marketing Educator Award, Day (2003) claimed that his is a very demanding teaching style that gives him and his students a lot of pleasure from learning jointly. Such a teaching style helps students see things differently and offers new insights, new frameworks, and new ways to address their problems. Often, such a teaching style teaches a few things to instructors themselves: it can provide a starting point for research, it can provide better ways to manage the class, it can guide instructors in planning subsequent classes, and it can direct the instructors in terms of better ways to motivate students. As Hunt (1992) notes, we owe our students an obligation to listen, and our students expressed needs should serve as inputs to pedagogy. In the next section, we focus on the issues and implications of PC for marketing education. In the context of marketing education, we specifically focus on doctoral students, doctoral programs, marketing departments, and marketing faculty. As noted earlier, though PC has implications for both new and senior marketing educators, we believe that doctoral days provide the best opportunities for future educators to work on PC. In addition, although doctoral programs, marketing departments, and senior marketing educators can facilitate PC development of doctoral students, we envisage a very active role for doctoral students in PC development. Consequently, we first focus on the implications of PC for doctoral students and then for doctoral programs, marketing departments, and senior marketing faculty.
Practitioners
As we need to provide our students with education that will prepare them for entry, middle, and upper-level positions in marketing, often, practitioners can give good inputs on the kinds of knowledge and skills that the students require for them to be competent in the marketing profession. For example, Walker et al. (2009), through in-depth interviews of employers, find that more should be done by marketing educators so that marketing graduates can organically fit the organization and are capable in the application of theoretical knowledge and its implementation in practice. Furthermore, practitioners can also provide content knowledge and/or research ideas that contribute to the overall knowledge base.
Educators From Other Fields

Educators in most disciplines are relatively unaware of or indifferent to communities of education researchers in their field as well as from researchers in other fields (Huber & Morreale, 2004). We propose that marketing educators, as in other fields, should actively pursue scholarship of teaching and learning. The distinctive character of the SoTL lies in its invitation to mainstream faculty to treat teaching as a form of inquiry into student learning, to share results of that inquiry with colleagues, and to critique and build on one anothers work (Huber & Morreale, 2004). But do perspectives of educators in different field help instructors in a particular field? Benson (2001) answers in the affirmative and claims that his view of teaching changed from that of an activity as a part of
Implications of PC Doctoral Students

The concept of PC has specific implications for marketing doctoral students. As noted earlier, PC has five components and involves know-why, know-how, and know-what, which have explicit and tacit components. Furthermore, an educator
Madhavaram and Laverie can develop a PC through consciously working on explicit and tacit knowledge transfer involving the five components, from various resources that are available. Also, as noted earlier, whereas explicit knowledge transfer occurs through codified knowledge, tacit knowledge transfer occurs through interaction and observation. For doctoral students, a majority of their time is spent on taking seminars on marketing and research methods, developing research ideas and skills, and working on the dissertation project. Therefore, whether or not the doctoral programs have a teaching seminar and/or mandatory teaching requirements, first, doctoral students should actively seek teaching mentors. Here, potentially, doctoral students can have opportunities for explicit and tacit knowledge transfer for a prolonged period of time. Furthermore, if doctoral programs have teaching requirements, doctoral students can integrate their learning into teaching know-how. Second, doctoral students should attend the classes of master teachers in their universities and should proactively seek opportunities to apprentice master teachers. Furthermore, doctoral students should access syllabi of master teachers from other universities and analyze how they teach and conduct their classes. Here, in analyzing the syllabi, students could focus on the different dimensions of PC and how they correspond to the teachings of master teachers. Third, doctoral students should take more interest in attending teaching tracks at major marketing conferences of AMA (American Marketing Association), AMS (Academy of Marketing Science), MMA (Marketing Management Association), and SMA (Society for Marketing Advances). Furthermore, doctoral students should actively participate in the conference of MEA (Marketing Educators Association). Fourth, doctoral students should learn from the SoTL research in journals on marketing pedagogy. Both the Journal of Marketing Education and Marketing Education Review can be highly useful for developing teaching knowhow. For example, articles published in the Journal of Marketing Education by Chonko (2007), Gagnon (2007), Mohr (2007), and Sautter (2007b) are highly informative. Similarly, the pedagogical innovations special issues published by Marketing Education Review since 2005 are potentially significant for developing teaching know-how. Fifth, akin to writing a dissertation, doctoral students will benefit from developing teaching portfolios based on their teaching interests. Here, we strongly encourage the doctoral students to have and develop common research and teaching interests. Here, to further illuminate the implications of PC for doctoral students, we provide an example of how a doctoral student interested in developing PC and teaching marketing strategy can go about it. This example is based on the experience of the first author who was mentored by the second author. As discussed earlier, PC has five components: content
9 knowledge (or knowledge of subject matter), knowledge of pedagogical approaches, course management capability, classroom management capability, and student management capability. See Appendix A for details of how a doctoral student could go about developing PC. Content knowledge. Much of the marketing strategy specific content knowledge can be learned from academic journals and textbooks. Most of the content knowledge in marketing strategy is fairly well established. There are several books available that provide a good discussion of content knowledge related to marketing strategy. Furthermore, there are several seminal research articles that provide a good overview of the evolution of the marketing strategy research (e.g., Biggadike, 1981; Day, 1994; Hunt & Morgan, 1995; Keller & Aaker, 1992; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Varadarajan & Jayachandran, 1999; Vargo & Lusch, 2004). However, a good introduction to competition and strategy is central to teaching a marketing strategy course. That is, students need to be informed on dynamic competition, the central role of marketing in business, and relevant, specific marketing strategyrelated knowledge. Furthermore, with reference to specific marketing strategies, the first author noticed that although there are several marketing strategy textbooks, they have little specific detail on the four different forms of marketing strategy: brand equity strategy, market orientation strategy, market segmentation strategy, and relationship marketing strategy. In addition, the first author closely observed a master teacher of marketing strategy educator for 1 years. Therefore, six specific lectures on competition, marketing strategy, and the four different forms of marketing strategy were developed based on extant academic and practitioner research. These six lectures are not readily available and were developed from a variety of sources that involved several months of work. Knowledge of pedagogical approaches. Researchers have discussed several approaches that one can use in teaching a marketing strategy course: career planning (Haynes & Helms, 1991; Kramer, 1988), cases (Ward & Stasch, 1980), experiential projects (Razzouk, Seitz, & Rizkallah, 2003), life history analysis (Peterson & Mcquitty, 2001), projects (Haas & Wotruba, 1990), scenario planning (Van Doren & Smith, 1999), shareholder value analysis (V. Miller & Hoover, 1999), Web-based cases (Henson, Kennett, & Kennedy, 2003), and Web-based business intelligence tools (Heinrichs, Lim, & Hudspeth, 2002). These articles provide specific discussions of these approaches for teaching a marketing strategy course. Hence, they are more relevant than any other general articles that may discuss how cases are appropriate for teaching. Consequently, based on the course objectives, cases and a comprehensive project were chosen for use in teaching the marketing strategy course. Also, specific guidelines were developed for cases and the project, consistent with the focus of the
10 course and the content that was specifically developed for the course. Course management capability. With reference to course management, the first author observed the second author managing two courses (consumer behavior and market promotions) for a period of 1 year that involved about 700 students, drew from several publications on course management, and drew from personal experiences from several course. Specifically, Laveries (2002) article that addressed the issue of how course portfolios can be used to increase teaching effectiveness was used. In addition, the second author, a winner of several prestigious teaching awards, at that time was conducting research on integrating active learning into pedagogy and developing specific guidelines for course management that focus on active learning. Accordingly, the first author picked up course management knowledge from the second author, integrated that into course management, and continues to work on becoming better at course management. Among other things, as a specific example, the first author maintains a folder for group work that (a) maintains the in-class case analyses, (b) accounts for attendance, and (c) provides specific feedback for each of the case analysis. For each case day, the folder is taken to the class, and the students are required to sign in and work on the case and leave their analysis in the folder. Subsequently, the first author grades the case, provides specific feedback on the case, and discusses the case in class. Throughout the semester, the cases remain in the folder. Students are positive about this course management technique. Classroom management capability. One key to successful teaching is classroom management capability. Students and faculty have to understand their roles and a system for classroom logistics needs to be developed (Millis & Cottell, 1998). The faculty member needs to develop an environment that can ensure that every individual in the team develops his/her academic and social skills. Setting the ground rules for the classroom is important to ensure a sound learning environment (Slavin, 1980). In addition, faculty must create an environment where learning can be effective and efficient (Millis & Cottell, 1998). Therefore, specific to case analyses, students were divided into groups of four, and throughout the semester, they work on 11 cases. The members of the groups are required to read the cases outside the classroom and bring notes to the classroom. On the case analysis day, the groups are given questions in the class, and the groups are required to provide written answers to the questions and then the instructor facilitates a discussion of the case that includes the entire class. The members in the groups are required to write their answers as it forces them to reason with other members and externalize their answers. For doctoral students, classroom management is one of the most difficult things to master.
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X) The first author learnt by observing methods and strategies the second author employed in terms of classroom management. This experience with another marketing educator greatly influenced the development of PC for the first author. Student management capability. Students need to be challenged to think, talk, listen, read, write, and reflect about course content through problem-solving exercises, simulations, case studies, role playing, and other activities, all requiring students to apply what they are learning (Meyer, 1993). The professor needs to assist . . . students in giving birth to their own ideas, in making tacit knowledge explicit and elaborating on it (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986, p. 217). Students need to learn disciplinebased information and skills for the kinds of job situations they will encounter (Sims, 2002). Faculty, then, are charged with creating complex and comprehensive active learning experiences. Active learning does not necessarily mean group-based, in-class work. As long as teachers can make their students active in their learning goals and approaches, they could use lectures, in-class exercises, cases, projects, and so on. Furthermore, teachers need to assess students achievement and reactions and then motivate, advise, counsel, and mentor students. Sautter (2007a, p. 86) notes that helping students find the right answer in front of their peers brings rewards to both the instructor and the students and has a net effect of making it safer for others to engage in future dialogue. Gagnon (2007) advocates creating a culture of learning through enthusiasm and motivation and details specific guidelines, and Mohr (2007) recommends maintaining high standards, making the standards fair and attainable, being approachable and supportive for the extra assistance needed in attaining standards, and handling negative students reactions. Among other things, the first author gives the students the opportunities to challenge the teachers knowledge and ideas in front of the class. For example, the first author gives the students the opportunity to challenge the teachers answers to the exam questions and provides double the credit for questions successfully challenged. This opportunity, successful or unsuccessful, gives students confidence and motivates them to do well. Of course, on the instructors part, this opportunity requires thorough knowledge of the content and careful development of exam questions. In summary, in addition to discussing the implications of PC for doctoral students, we have also provided a model of how a doctoral student can go about developing PC. Developing PC while in doctoral programs could actually help doctoral students when they graduate and take up jobs as they can focus and spend more time on research that, unfortunately, is the more important factor for promotion and tenure decisions.
11 mentors, conferences, SoTL research, and other resources, doctoral programs can facilitate the development of PC in doctoral students.
Doctoral Programs
The concept of PC also has implications for marketing doctoral programs. As seen in the review of literature on doctoral programs and pedagogical training, many of the problems of marketing educators PC can be traced backed to doctoral programs. In fact, we believe that doctoral programs have a major role to play in marketing educators valuing teaching as much as research. The more value doctoral programs place in teaching, the more doctoral students focus on and become competent in teaching. In addition, one can see that doctoral programs are heavily loaded in favor of research through several seminar courses, research assistantships, and mandatory dissertation research of one to three essays. Also, as part of the dissertation research, doctoral students have a minimum of four mentors for 2 to 3 years. On the other hand, with regard to teaching, doctoral students have one general seminar course and may be required to teach. Consequently, though our article places the responsibility of becoming effective teachers on doctoral students, marketing doctoral programs could facilitate the processes that can help doctoral students become effective teachers. First, marketing doctoral programs could evolve from a strictly research focus to a research and teaching focus. As part of this, doctoral programs could develop more seminar courses for teaching. We recommend that in addition to the general purpose on teaching, doctoral programs can develop a semester to yearlong seminar course wherein doctoral students can be required, based on their teaching interests, to develop one to two teaching portfolios with actual lecture notes, details of pedagogical approaches, likely learning outcomes, and assessment details. Here, the five components of PC can be useful in guiding the development of the teaching portfolios. Second, marketing doctoral programs could make teaching mentors mandatory for doctoral students. Third, marketing doctoral programs could redesign their teaching seminars specific to the five components of PC. Fourth, marketing doctoral programs could provide more support for doctoral students teaching needs. In particular, doctoral programs could also (a) make it mandatory for doctoral students to attend and observe different marketing professors, (b) match doctoral students as teaching assistants to specific professors based on their teaching interests for part of their doctoral program, (c) encourage and (financially) support doctoral students to attend teaching tracks at major marketing conferences and teaching conferences, (d) provide marketing-related teaching resources, (e) monitor the performance of doctoral students in classroom and provide opportunities to get specific help, and (f) integrate the Journal of Marketing Education and Marketing Education Review into their curriculum. In summary, by providing opportunities to doctoral students for explicit and/or tacit knowledge transfer from faculty
Marketing Departments
Marketing departments, in addition to shaping doctoral programs, have an important role in facilitating newly recruited marketing educators PC. Although marketing departments are often categorized as teaching, research, and balance (i.e., equal emphasis on research and teaching), even at research intuitions many faculty spend more time teaching than researching. However, often, even at teaching and balanced schools, although faculty are required to do more teaching in terms of course preparations and number of courses, promotion and tenure decisions still hinge on research productivity. Therefore, first and foremost, we believe that marketing departments can ensure the new faculty members development of PC through articulation of a bigger role for teaching in promotion and tenure decisions. Often, given the notoriety of teaching evaluation instruments, a difficulty that marketing departments face is judging the quality of a candidates teaching. Accordingly, many a time, the quality of an instructors teaching can get masked by the results of evaluation instruments. Here, the components of PC can be used for developing standards for evaluation of new faculty members for promotion and tenure. In fact, candidates going up for tenure and promotion can be asked to develop teaching statements based on the five components of PC. Second, marketing departments, just like how they encourage new faculty members to get research help from senior faculty through feedback on research presentations and drafts of research papers, mentorship, and coauthorships, should encourage new faculty to seek feedback on teaching philosophies and methods and mentors. Given the cultural differences between institutions marketing educators come from and institutions that they join, it is essential for new faculty to gain insights into differences between student bodies, teaching philosophies and methods, and teaching expectations. Accordingly, marketing departments could organize orientations for new hires and require senior faculty to give presentations on their teaching experiences as to how their teaching evolved over time to suit the requirements of students and the department. Again, the five components of PC can be used to provide support and guidance to new faculty. For example, if a marketing educator comes from a residential school to an urban, nonresidential school, student management and classroom management capabilities could become critical to teaching effectiveness. Third, marketing departments should encourage their new and existing faculty to engage in SoTL research, provide support to attend teaching tracks at major marketing
12 conferences and teaching conferences, and provide marketingrelated teaching resources. In addition, for promotion and tenure purposes, marketing departments could develop specific guidelines for evaluating teaching aspects using the five components of PC. Also, for new faculty, marketing departments could require senior faculty to periodically visit classes and critically review classes, syllabi, and teaching materials to give specific feedback with reference to the five components of PC. Fourth, marketing departments could revise their teaching evaluation instruments to reflect the five components of PC. In summary, the concept of PC, its five components that involve know-why, know-how, and know-what, which have explicit and tacit components, and how it can be developed can guide marketing departments to develop guidelines for evaluating teaching effectiveness of faculty and for facilitating the development of new and existing faculty members PC.
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X) students as traditional lecture-based approaches may not be enough to keep their interest. In addition, senor faculty may also be averse to adopting new technology that can facilitate course and classroom management. Furthermore, marketing faculty can periodically assess the written component of their teaching evaluations and do content analysis to find out which of the five components of PC needs attention. Alternatively, instructors could develop and administer qualitative teaching evaluation instruments based on the five components of PC that can be used for assessing their PC. In the next few paragraphs, based on the experiences of the second author, we show how a senior faculty member could go about continuously working on PC in teaching the consumer behavior course (see Appendix B). Content knowledge. Consumer behavior is a deeply rooted and well established area of marketing. There are several books available that provide a good discussion of content knowledge related to consumer behavior (Mowen & Minor, 2001; Solomon, 2004). Furthermore, there are several seminal works that provide a good overview of the evolution of consumer behavior research (e.g., Alba & Hutchinson, 1988; Baumgartner, 2002; Belk, 1988; Bettman & Park, 1980; Cialdini, 1993; Dichter, 1964; Fournier, 1998; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Robertson & Kassarjian, 2001; Rogers, 2003; Sirgy, 1982). However, consumer behavior is in a constant state of flux, and a good introduction to key topics from psychology, sociology, and anthropology with a practical focus is central to teaching a consumer behavior course. That is, as students need to be able to apply theories to current business situations, they need a solid foundation in motivation, perception, knowledge, attitudes, and memory. This foundation then can be used to go in-depth into decision making, consumer culture, consumer behavior outcomes, and experiences. Therefore, senior faculty need to continuously update their content knowledge and keep abreast of research in consumer behavior, psychology, sociology and anthropology. Knowledge of pedagogical approaches. There are a wide variety of approaches that can be used effectively in a consumer behavior course. Cases are a popular and a fairly traditional approach in consumer behavior, either end of chapter or end of section cases that ask students to apply what they have learned to a current business situation. Although the second author has been highly successful in teaching consumer behavior using traditional approaches such as cases and exercises, realizing that service learning can be very powerful in a consumer behavior class, an effort was made to integrate a service learning component into the course. For instance, students working with a community partner that is a homeless shelter for families can use the consumer behavior concepts and to understand how these
Senior Marketing Faculty

The concept of PC has implications for senior marketing faculty in two ways: (a) they can provide guidance and support to new faculty members and (b) they can use the concept for continuously working on their PC. This is not to imply that senior faculty members need to be reminded as to how to go about developing PC. However, from their doctoral days through their professional careers, marketing educators go from teaching different courses at the bachelors, masters, and doctoral levels. As an educator goes through these at different times, components of PC such as pedagogical approaches, course management capability, classroom management capability, and student management capability will need constant work to keep things in perspective. In addition, senior faculty also need work on their PC when (a) they change their jobs between universities with different sensibilities and cultures, (b) student characteristics change in terms of maturity and knowledge and skill levels, and (c) they have taught the same course for a very long time and have become set on a particular way of teaching in terms of content, pedagogical approaches, student management, course management, and classroom management. The component of PC that probably needs the least amount of attention from senior faculty is content knowledge. However, marketing approaches and practices once new rapidly become old and many texts grow outdated in a short period of time (Kaplan, Piskin, & Bol, 2009). Also, senior faculty, even if they are very good at teaching, need to look out for new pedagogical approaches. For example, new approaches such as educational blogging (Kaplan et al., 2009) and interactive technology for student work inside and outside the classroom (Paladino, 2008) can be looked at as options to continuously engage the new generation
Madhavaram and Laverie families maintain a sense of family, the role of possessions in their life, and how to help the shelter obtain more volunteers (Petkus, 2000). The students work can be used by the homeless agency involved and will foster deep learning if paired with student reflection. Another technological innovation that was incorporated into teaching is a student response system that will make it easy to conduct understanding checks of the complex material in a consumer behavior class. Course management capability. The consumer behavior course is a difficult course to manage due to the psychology, sociology, and anthropology material that is needed to build the foundation of the students understanding. Therefore, the adoption of new strategies can be beneficial, as compared to traditional lecture and testing. For example, a team quiz can be followed with an experiential learning activity (Bacon & Stewart, 2006). These approaches foster deep learning but take more time than lecturing. Thus, the faculty member learns to sacrifice breadth for depth (Bacon & Stewart, 2006). Furthermore, Sautter (2007b) explores the use of discussion in a consumer behavior course and finds that higher order learning is related to structured discussion that set rules of engagement. Thus, the second author continuously looks for practical approaches that can enhance course management of a consumer behavior class. Classroom management capability. In a successful classroom, students and faculty have to understand their roles and a system for classroom logistics should be in place (Millis & Cottell, 1998). The faculty member needs to develop an environment to ensure that every individual in the team develops his/her academic and social skills. Setting the ground rules for the classroom is important to create an environment where learning can be effective and efficient (Millis & Cottell, 1998). A clear understanding of what is expected from students in a classroom is important (e.g., the format, the application of course material, and a persuasive recommendation). In service learning, a memo of understanding is often used to make sure class expectations are managed (see Klink & Athaide, 2004). Consequently, when integrating service learning into teaching, the second author had to develop new ways to manage the classroom. Student management capability. Students need to be challenged to think, talk, listen, read, write, and reflect about course content through experiential learning activities (Meyer, 1993). The professor facilitates learning in the experiential approach, and students become responsible for learning by dealing with complex issues in a variety of pedagogical approaches (Hernandez, 2002). Often, it is powerful in a consumer behavior course to balance lectures with team-based experiential learning. Specifically, this approach allows faculty to reach students with diverse learning styles. For example, the second author now uses
13 service learning to immerse students in the concepts they are learning. Work with a homeless shelter for families elicited many emotions in students that improved their motivation and dedication to the service learning project. The affect associated with the project led to deep learning, incredible products of students learning, a benefit to the agency, and deep reflection that influenced many individuals in the class. It is likely that this deep learning will last in the minds of students (Bacon & Stewart, 2006; Klink & Athaide, 2004). Consequently, student management becomes easier.
Concluding Remarks
As universities are responsible for students knowledge and skills that can prepare them for workplace challenges, marketing educators have the responsibility to develop competence in pedagogy. This article, after discussing the lacunae of pedagogical training in marketing doctoral programs, introduces the concept of PC, proposes how individuals can go about developing a competence in pedagogy, and discusses the implications of PC for marketing education. We firmly believe that, in addition to the role of individual characteristics such as personality, natural ability, intelligence, and physical attributes, individuals can develop PC through the model proposed in this article. Given that teaching is an important responsibility of marketing educators, from their doctoral days through their professorial careers, we argue that doctoral days are the best time for starting work on PC. As to future research, within each component, that is, content knowledge (or knowledge of subject matter), knowledge of pedagogical approaches, course management capability, classroom management capability, and student management capability, there is scope for specificity and improvement. In the future, researchers could look into investigating the specific components and how to improve each of them. For example, one could potentially look at the impact of technological advances and adoption on course management and investigate what kind of specific technologies are appropriate for what kind of classes. In addition, researchers could look into the specific resources that are available and could potentially investigate what kinds of resources are effective for what kinds of components, courses, and instructors. Furthermore, researchers could focus on developing teaching assessment techniques and their impact using the five components of PC. In conclusion, we believe that marketing educators owe it to themselves, their students, their universities, and the employers of their students to continually pursue developing PC. As a result, the discipline benefits from faculty with well-developed PC.
14
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X)
Appendix A Pedagogical Competence and Teaching Marketing Strategy

Components of Pedagogical Competence Content knowledge Exemplar Sources Exemplar Outcomes
Knowledge of pedagogical approaches
Course management capability
Classroom management capability
Student management capability
Biggadike (1981), Day (1994), Hunt and Lecture material on competition, marketing strategy, and the four Morgan (1995), Keller (1992), Kohli different forms of marketing strategy: brand equity strategy, and Jaworski (1993),Varadarajan and market orientation strategy, market segmentation strategy, and Jayachandran (1999),Vargo and Lusch relationship marketing strategy. (2004) Haynes and Helms (1991), Kramer (1988), Cases and a comprehensive project as pedagogical approaches for Ward and Stasch (1980), Razzouk, Seitz, teaching the marketing strategy course. Also, specific guidelines and Rizkallah (2003), Peterson and can be developed consistent with the focus of the course and Mcquitty (2001), Haas and Wotruba the content that was specifically developed for the course. (1990),Van Doren and Smith (1999), V. Miller and Hoover (1999), Henson, Kennett, and Kennedy (2003), Heinrichs, Lim, and Hudspeth (2002) Laverie (2002), Martins and Kellermanns Adoption of new strategies and technologies for course (2004), Nijhuis and Collis (2003),Yueh management. For example, maintaining a folder for group work and Hsu (2008) that (a) maintains the in-class case analyses and, (b) accounts for attendance, and (c) provides specific feedback for each of the case analyses. Lemlech (1979), Millis and Cottell (1998), Specific techniques can be developed and used for classroom Slavin (1980) management. For example, guidelines for case analysis that take into account the needs of students in terms of individual learning capabilities, knowledge requirements for future jobs, and classroom environment that facilitates learning. Belenky et al. (1986), Brender (1981), Pedagogical techniques that challenge students to think, talk, listen, Gagnon (2007), Lilly and Tippins (2002), read, write, and reflect about course content. For example, Meyer (1993), Mohr (2007), Sautter giving the students the opportunity to challenge the teachers (2007a), Sims (2002) answers to the exam questions and providing double the credit for questions successfully challenged.
Appendix B Pedagogical Competence and Teaching Consumer Behavior

Components of Pedagogical Competence Content knowledge Exemplar Sources Exemplar Outcomes
Alba and Hutchinson (1988), Belk (1988), A solid foundation in central theories from psychology, Bettman and Park (1980), Cialdini sociology, and anthropology. Ability to apply theories to (1993), Dichter (1964), Holbrook and real-world situations for todays business environment. A Hirschman (1982), Mowen and Minor solid grasp of motivation, perception, knowledge, attitudes, (2001), Robertson and Kaassarjian and memory. In addition, knowledge of the decision-making (2001), Rogers (2003), Solomon (2004) process, consumer culture, and consumer behavior outcomes. Knowledge of pedagogical Bacon and Stewart (2006), Laverie (2002), Cases, discussion, exercises, service learning project, and student approaches Hoyer and MaCinnis (2010), Sautter response system, and team learning as pedagogical approaches (2007b) for teaching the consumer behavior course. Also, specific guidelines can be developed consistent with the focus of the course and the content that was specifically developed for the course. Course management Bacon and Stewart (2006), Laverie (2002), Adoption of new strategies and approaches for deep learning capability Millis and Cottell (1998), Petkus (2000), in the course. For example, sacrifice breadth for depth, use Sautter (2007b) of group quizzes, in-class experiential learning, structured discussions (in-class and online). Classroom management Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (1991), Klink Specific techniques can be developed and used for classroom capability and Athaide (2004), Millis and Cottell management. For example, guidelines for case analysis and (1998) service learning that take into account the needs of students in terms of individual learning capabilities, knowledge requirements for future jobs, and classroom environment that facilitates learning.
Madhavaram and Laverie Acknowledgments

The authors thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful suggestions on revising the article.
15
Biggadike, E. R. (1981). The contributions of marketing to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6, 621-632. Bossard, J. H. S., & Dewhurst, J. F. (1931). University education for business. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Boya, U. O., & Robicheaux, R. A. (1992). Teaching, research, service, and external compensation activities: Expected versus actual workstyles among marketing professors. Journal of Marketing Education, 14, 68-81. Brender, M. (1981). The tactical use of psychology to facilitate college teaching and student management. Teaching of Psychology, 8, 95-97. Butler, D. D., Laumer, J. F., & Moore, M. (1994). Graduate teaching assistants: Are business schools focusing on increasing teaching excellence? Marketing Education Review, 4, 14-19. Cavusgil, S. T. (1998). Internationalizing doctoral education in business: A call for action. Thunderbird International Business Review, 40, 77-85. Chonko, L. B. (2007). A philosophy of teaching . . . and more. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 111-121. Cialdini, R. B. (1993). Influence: The psychology of persuasion. New York: William Morrow. Conant, J. S., Smart, D. T., & Redkar, D. (1998). Success in academia: Navigating the introduction stage of the faculty career life cycle. Marketing Education Review, 8, 73-93. Day, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58, 37-52. Day, G. S. (2003, July 7). Popular Wharton professor with Socratic style wins Irwin award. Marketing News, p. 30. Dichter, E. (1964). The handbook of consumer motivations: The psychology of the world of objects. New York: McGraw-Hill. Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373. Gagnon, G. B. (2007). Creating a culture of learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 87-88. Garda, R. A. (1988). Comment by Robert A. Garda. Journal of Marketing, 52, 32-41. Golde, C. M., & Dore, T. M. (2001). At cross purposes: What the experience of todays doctoral students reveal about doctoral education (www.phd-survey.org). Philadelphia: Pew Charitable Trusts. Graduate Management Admissions Council. (1992). Current issues in business doctoral education: A report on the Dallas invitational conference. Selections, 9(1), 10-26. Griffith, D. (1997). An examination of marketing educator training in U.S. doctoral programs. Marketing Education Review, 7, 81-95. Haas, R. W., & Wotruba, T. R. (1990). The project approach to teaching the capstone marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 12, 37-48. Hair, J. F., Jr. (1995). Marketing education in the 1990s: A chairpersons retrospective assessment and perspective. Marketing Education Review, 5, 1-6.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.
References
Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1988). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411-454. Alpert, F., & Eyssell, T. H. (1995). Getting the most from your doctoral program: Advice for the Ph.D. student in finance. Journal of Financial Education, 21, 12-20. Alpert, F., & Perner, L. (1996). Getting the most out of marketing doctoral education: Advice for new and prospective Ph.D. students in marketing. In E. A. Blair & W. A. Kamakura (Eds.), American Marketing Association Summer Educators conference proceedings (pp. 391-399). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Alutto, J. (1993). Whither doctoral business education? An exploration of program models. Selections: The Magazine of the Graduate Management Admissions Council, 9(1), 37-43. American Marketing Association Task Force. (1988). Developing, disseminating, and utilizing marketing knowledge. Journal of Marketing, 52, 1-25. Bacon, D. R., & Stewart, K. A. (2006). How fast do students forget what they learn in consumer behavior? A longitudinal study. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 181-192. Baumgartner, H. (2002). Toward a personology of the consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 29, 286-292. Bearden, W. O., Ellen, P. S., & Netemeyer, R. G. (2000). Challenges and prospects facing doctoral education in marketing. Marketing Education Review, 10, 1-14. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Womens ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 139-168. Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman. Berry, L. (1989). Becoming a marketing academician: A strategic career planning seminar for doctoral students. Journal of Marketing Education, 11, 2-6. Bettman, J. R., & Park, C. W. (1980). Effects of prior knowledge and experience and phase of the choice process on consumer decision processes: A protocol analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 7, 234-248. Bhada, Y. (2002). Top of the class. BizEd, 2(1), 22-27.
16
Hayek, F. A. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35, 519-530. Haynes, P. J., & Helms, M. M. (1991). Strengthening the relevance of the marketing strategy course by using a career planning exercise. Journal of Marketing Education, 13, 66-75. Heinrichs, J. H., Lim. J. S., & Hudspeth, L. J. (2002). Teaching strategic marketing models with web-based business intelligence tools: Innovative guided marketing analysis. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 135-142. Henke, J. W., Jr., Locander, W. B., Mentzer, J. T., & Nastas, G., III. (1988). Teaching techniques for the new marketing instructor: Bringing the business world into the classroom. Journal of Marketing Education, 10, 1-10. Henson, S. W., Kennett, P. A., & Kennedy, K. N. (2003). Web-based cases in strategic management. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 250-259. Herling, R. W. (2000). Operational definitions of expertise and competence. In R. W. Herling & J. Provo (Eds.), Strategic perspectives of knowledge, competence, and expertise (pp. 8-21). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Hernandez, S. A. (2002). Team learning in a marketing principles course: Cooperative structures that facilitate active learning and higher level thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 73-85. Hershey, G., Gargeya, V., & Eatman, J. (1996). Are business doctoral graduates prepared to teach? Selections, 13(1), 17-26. Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings, and fun. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140. Hoyer, W. D., & MacInnis, D. A. (2010). Consumer behavior. Andover, UK: Cengage. Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. (Eds.). (2004). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: Exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Hunt, S. D. (1992). Marketing is . . . Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 301-311. Hunt, S. D. (2000). The competence-based, resource-advantage, and neoclassical theories of competition: Toward a synthesis. In R. Sanchez & A. Heene (Eds.), Theory development for competence-based management (pp. 177-209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Hunt, S. D., & Madhavaram, S. (2006). Teaching marketing strategy: Using resource-advantage theory as an integrative theoretical foundation. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 93-105. Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. Journal of Marketing, 59, 1-15. Johnson, D. E., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty productivity (ASH_ ERIC Higher Education Rep. No. 4). Washington, DC: George Washington University. Johnston, M., Clark, T., & Boles, J. (1989). An exploration of choice criteria used in the selection of a first academic
Journal of Marketing Education XX(X)

position among new doctorates in marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 11, 14-21. Kaplan, M. D., Piskin, B., & Bol, B. (in press), Educational blogging: Integrating technology into marketing experience. Journal of Marketing Education. Karns, G. L. (2005). An update of marketing student perceptions of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 163-172. Keen, K. (1992). Competence: What is it and how can it be developed? In J. Lowyck, P. de Potter, & J. Elen (Eds.), Instructional design: Implementation issues (pp. 111-112). Brussels, Belgium: IBM Education Center. Keller, K. L., & Aaker, D. A. (1992). The effect of sequential introduction of brand extensions. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 35-50. Klink, R. R., & Athaide, G. A. (2004). Implementing service learning in the principles of marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 145-153. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1-18. Kramer, H. E. (1988). Applying marketing strategy and personal value analysis to career planning: An experiential approach. Journal of Marketing Education, 10, 69-73. Laverie, D. A. (2002). Improving teaching through improving evaluation: A guide to course portfolios. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 104-113. Leavitt, H. J. (1993). The business school and the doctorate. Selections, 9, 12-21. Lemlech, J. K. (1979). Classroom management. New York: Harper & Row. Lilly, B., & Tippins, M. J. (2002). Enhancing student motivation in marketing classes: Using student management groups. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 253-264. Littlefield, J. E., & Shawver, D. I. (1977). Doctoral programs in marketing. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Lusch, R. F. (1982). Creating a successful career: Guidelines and suggestions for recent doctoral graduates. Journal of Marketing Education, 4, 2-6. Madansky, A. (1994). Fine-tuning business doctoral education: Who should do it? Selections, 11, 4-7. Madhavaram, S. (2009). A competence approach to teaching excellence (Working Paper). Cleveland, OH: Cleveland State University. Martins, L. L., & Kellermanns, F. W. (2004). A model of business school students acceptance of a web-based course management system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3, 7-26. Meyer, J. H. F. (1993). The individual-difference modelling of student learning: IStatic and dynamic aspects of causal attribution. Paper presented at the fifth European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction conference, Universite de Provence, Aix-en-Provence, France.

Miller, V., & Hoover, R. (1999). The application of shareholder value analysis to the marketing strategy case. Marketing Education Review, 9, 5-14. Millis, B. J., & Cottell, P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx. Mirabile, R. J. (1997). Everything you wanted to know about competency modeling. Training & Development, 51, 73-77. Mohr, J. J. (2007). Maintaining high standards with our students. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 88-90. Mowen, J. C., & Minor, M. S. (2001). Consumer behavior: A framework. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nijhuis, G. G., & Collis, B. (2003). Using a web-based coursemanagement system: An evaluation of management tasks and time implications for the instructor. Evaluation & Program Planning, 26, 193-202. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 14-37. Paladino, A. (2008). Creating an interactive and responsive teaching environment to inspire learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 185-188. Parry, S. B. (1996). The quest for competencies. Training Magazine, 33, 48-56. Pelikan, P. (1989). Evolution, economic competence, and the market for corporate control. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 12, 279-303. Penrose, E. T. (1959). The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley. Peterson, R. T. (1999, August 2). Ph.D. pitfalls: Doctoral programs should teach marketing. Marketing News, 33, 12. Peterson, R. T., & McQuitty, S. (2001). An assessment of the effectiveness of life history analysis in the MBA marketing management class. Marketing Education Review, 11, 53-61. Petkus, E. (2000). A theoretical and practical framework for servicelearning in marketing: Kolbs experiential learning cycle. Journal of Marketing Education, 22, 64-70. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. New York: Doubleday. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, May-June, 79-91. Razzouk, N. Y., Seitz, V., & Rizkallah, E. (2003). Learning by doing: Using experiential projects in the undergraduate marketing strategy course. Marketing Education Review, 13, 35-41. Robbins, L. (2001). Self-observation in teaching: What to look for. Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 19-37. Robertson, T. S., & Kassarjian, H. H. (2001). Handbook of consumer behavior. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (3rd ed.). New York: Free Press. Rossiter, J. R. (2001). What is marketing knowledge? Stage 1: Forms of marketing knowledge. Marketing Theory, 1, 9-26. Sanchez, R. (2000). Modular architectures, knowledge assets, and organizational learning: New management processes for
17
product creation. International Journal of Technology Management, 19, 610-629. Sanchez, R. (Ed.). (2001a). Knowledge management and organizational competence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sanchez, R. (2001b). Resources, dynamic capabilities, and competences: Building blocks of integrative strategy theory. In T. Elfring & H. Volberda (Eds.), Rethinking strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sautter, E. (1998). SMA great teacher comments: A grab bag of teaching tricks and tools. In J. D. Herrington & R. D. Taylor (Eds.), Marketing advances in theory, practice, and education (p. 7). Radford, VA: Society for Marketing Advances. Sautter, E. (2007a). On being an innovative marketing educator. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 86-87. Sautter, E. (2007b). Designing discussion activities to achieve desired learning outcomes: Choices using mode of delivery and structure. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 122-131. Sims, R. (2002). Teaching business ethics for effective learning. Westport, CT: Quorum Books. Sirgy, J. (1982). Self-concept in consumer behavior: A critical review. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 287-300. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning in teams: State of the art. Educational Psychologist, 15, 93-111. Smart, D. T., Kelley, C. A., & Conant, J. S. (2003). Mastering the art of teaching: Pursuing excellence in a new millennium. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 71-79. Solomon, M. R. (2004). Consumer behavior: Buying, having, and being (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models for superior performance. New York: John Wiley. Trocchia, P., & Berkowitz, D. (1999). Getting doctored: A proposed model of marketing doctoral student socialization. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 746-759. Van Doren, D. C., & Smith, D. B. (1999). Scenario planning: A new approach to teaching marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 146-155. Varadarajan, P. R., & Jayachandran, S. (1999). Marketing strategy: Evolution, state of the field, and outlook. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 120-143. Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1-17. Walker, I., Tsaranko, Y., Wagstaff, P., Powell, I., Steel, M., & Brace-Govan, J. (2009). The development of competent marketing professionals. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 253-263. Ward, J. L., & Stasch, S. F. (1980). A conceptual framework for analyzing marketing strategy cases. Journal of Marketing Education, 2, 57-63. West, R. (1992). Doctoral education in business: Improving the teacher of our teachers. Selections: The Magazine of the Graduate Management Admissions Council, 9(1), 27-31. Yueh, H.-P., & Hsu, S. (2008). Designing a learning management system to support instruction. Communications of the ACM, 51, 59-63.

Developing Pedagogical Competence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Developing Pedagogical Competence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing Education

Developing Pedagogical Competence: Issues and Implications for Marketing Education

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Journal of Marketing Education OnlineFirst, published on February 23, 2010 as doi:10.1177/0273475309360162

Developing Pedagogical Competence: Issues and Implications for Marketing Education

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Doctoral Education and Pedagogical Training

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Improving Doctoral Students Teaching: Whose Responsibility?

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Knowledge of Pedagogical Approaches

Course Management Capability

Classroom Management Capability

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Student Management Capability

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Madhavaram and Laverie

Educators from Other Fields

: Represents tacit and/or explicit knowledge transfer

Figure 1. Developing pedagogical competence (PC)

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Educators From Other Fields

Implications of PC Doctoral Students

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Madhavaram and Laverie

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Senior Marketing Faculty

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Journal of Marketing Education XX(X)

Appendix A Pedagogical Competence and Teaching Marketing Strategy

Knowledge of pedagogical approaches

Course management capability

Classroom management capability

Student management capability

Appendix B Pedagogical Competence and Teaching Consumer Behavior

Madhavaram and Laverie Acknowledgments

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Journal of Marketing Education XX(X)

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

Madhavaram and Laverie

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at CAPES on July 30, 2010

You might also like