Journal of Marketing Education 2010 Madhavaram 197 213

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

Sreedhar Madhavaram and Debra A. Laverie
Journal of Marketing Education 2010 32: 197 originally published online 23 February 2010
DOI: 10.1177/0273475309360162
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/32/2/197
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
Citations: http://jmd.sagepub.com/content/32/2/197.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Jul 14, 2010

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 23, 2010
What is This?
Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on August 30, 2012
Developing Pedagogical Competence:

Issues and Implications for Marketing
Education
Journal of Marketing Education

32(2) 197213
2010 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0273475309360162
http://jmd.sagepub.com
Sreedhar Madhavaram1 and Debra A. Laverie2
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
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
198
Journal of Marketing Education 32(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
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
199
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)
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
200
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.
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),
201

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.
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.
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, admin
istration 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).
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
202
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.
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 through
out 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
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 manage
ment 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
203
Institutions
Educators PC
(Content Knowledge,
Knowledge of
Pedagogical Approaches,
Course Management Capability,
Classroom Management Capability,
and Student Management Capability)
Students
Educators from
Other Fields
Academic
Researchers
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.
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
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.
Marketing Educators
Instructors have much to learn from marketing educators who
actively share their research and experiences with reference
204
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.
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
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.
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
205

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
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
206
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.
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.
207
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
mentors, conferences, SoTL research, and other resources,

doctoral programs can facilitate the development of PC in
doctoral students.
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
208
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.
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, 2010, p. 50).
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., 2010) 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 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
209

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
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.
210
Appendix A
Pedagogical Competence and Teaching Marketing Strategy
Components of
Content knowledge
Knowledge of
pedagogical
approaches
Course management
capability
Classroom management
capability
Student management
capability
Exemplar Sources
Exemplar Outcomes
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
Exemplar Sources
Exemplar Outcomes
Content knowledge
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.
211

Acknowledgments
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their
helpful suggestions on revising the article.
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.
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.
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.
212
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
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
p osition among new doctorates in marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 11, 14-21.
Kaplan, M. D., Piskin, B., & Bol, B. (2010), Educational blogging:
Integrating technology into marketing experience. Journal of
Karns, G. L. (2005). An update of marketing student perceptions
of learning activities: Structure, preferences, and effectiveness.
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.
Kramer, H. E. (1988). Applying marketing strategy and personal
value analysis to career planning: An experiential approach.
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.
213

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.
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
p roduct 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.
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
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.

Journal of Marketing Education 2010 Madhavaram 197 213

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Journal of Marketing Education 2010 Madhavaram 197 213

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of http://jmd.sagepub.

Developing Pedagogical Competence: Issues and Implications for Marketing Education

>> Version of Record - Jul 14, 2010

Downloaded from jmd.sagepub.com at UNIV FEDERAL DA PARAIBA on August 30, 2012

Developing Pedagogical Competence: