ARTICLE
DECEMBER
JOURNAL OF2003
MARKETING EDUCATION
Virtual Communities and the Assessment of
Online Marketing Education
James W. Peltier, William Drago, and John A. Schibrowsky
Online education has created a “virtual community” learn-
ing environment. Effective assessment of this new learning
environment is paramount to providing quality education and
may provide insights to effective management of virtual com-
munities in the business world. A model of online education
effectiveness is proposed and then empirically investigated.
Dimensions included in this model are student-to-student
interactions, student-to-instructor interactions, instructor
support and mentoring, information delivery technology,
course content, and course structure. Measures of these
dimensions were then analyzed and found to be significant
predictors of the variance in students’ evaluations of the
global effectiveness of the online educational experience.
Keywords: virtual; communities; assessment; online; mar-
keting education
The paradigm shift in the management of customer rela-
tionships spawned by the advent of the Internet has forever
changed how buyers and sellers interact in the global market-
place (Peltier et al. 2002). Fundamentally, the emerging
media technologies used in e-commerce, in terms of both
information and resource exchange, have also altered the way
marketers develop relationships and how consumers partici-
pate in them (Baker, Buttery, and Richter-Buttery 1998; Hol-
land and Menzel-Baker 2001). Of particular interest is the
ability of interactive media to transform the communication
process from a solely “marketer-dominated” to an “on-
demand” channel of information exchange in which custom-
ers are allotted some degree of control (Klein 2003).
Although e-commerce is still in its infancy, marketers are
beginning to recognize that the Internet is not merely a new
channel of distribution or another mode of communication.
Instead, it represents a transition to a new business model
requiring a different set of relationship-oriented activities
(Deighton 1997; Wind and Rangaswamy 2001). In response,
many e-marketers are creating community infrastructures for
the purpose of strengthening two types of interactive rela-
260
tionships: customer to provider and customer to customer
(Hagel and Armstrong 1997; McWilliam 2000). Termed vir-
tual communities, the core benefit of these interactive infra-
structures is that they provide a computer-mediated meeting
place where customers can pursue common goals and inter-
ests (Bressler and Grantham 2000; Rheingold 2000). Strate-
gically, the multidimensional nature of virtual communities
requires Web site managers to consider a host of potential
success criteria, including the number and quality of
customer-customer interactions, site structure and content,
customer support services, information delivery technology,
and customer-provider communications (Bickart and
Schindler 2001; Hagel 1999; Mathwick 2002; Rothaermel
and Sugiyama 2001).
The e-commerce industry is not alone in its quest to under-
stand how virtual communities can be used to enhance inter-
active relationships and share of customers. Globally, insti-
tutions of higher learning are beginning to adopt teaching
technologies and infrastructures that use the unique and col-
laborative capabilities of the Internet (Lang and Zhao 2000).
It is estimated that nearly half of all U.S. colleges and univer-
sities provide Internet-based educational offerings, serving
nearly 2 million students in the United States in 2002, with
growth estimates as high as 5 million by 2006 (Wechsler
2002). The explosive growth in Internet-delivered education
can be attributed to a variety of factors, including the
increased number of working/nontraditional students seek-
ing degrees (Allen 1997), time management flexibilities
associated with participating in asynchronous learning envi-
ronments (Shea, Motiwalla, and Lewis 2001; Sullivan 2001),
the logistical advantages gained through the elimination of
travel to and from education sites (Aron 1999; Carpenter
1998; Donoho 1998), and the important fact that learning via
James W. Peltier is Arno Kleimenhagen Professor in the Department of Mar-
keting at the University of Wisconsin–Whitewater. William Drago is a pro-
fessor of management in the Department of Management at the University of
Wisconsin–Whitewater. John A. Schibrowsky is a professor of marketing in
the College of Business at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas.
Journal of Marketing Education, Vol. 25 No. 3, December 2003 260-276
DOI: 10.1177/0273475303257762
© 2003 Sage Publications

virtual communities results in employees and/or potential
new hires who have the ability to interact effectively via tech-
nology (Benbunan-Fich et al. 2001; Phillips 1998).
Although the use of the Internet in higher education and
the formation of virtual learning communities are proliferat-
ing, critics contend that distance education adversely affects
the nature of the student-to-instructor and student-to-student
interactions, thereby undermining the quality of the educa-
tional experience (Rahm and Reed 1997; Sonner 1999).
Opponents of online education are bolstered by the fact that
Web-based course instruction often has a higher drop-out rate
than that found for traditional in-class instruction (Aron
1999; Roblyer 1999). Although not established empirically,
the higher drop-out rate could be due to a variety of reasons,
including a preference for face-to-face communications over
virtual interactions and that Web-based environments may
stifle some students who excel in traditional teaching envi-
ronments (McGrath 1997-98), frustrations students often
have with learning and applying new technologies
(McCorkle, Alexander, and Reardon 2001; Siegel 1996), or
the inability of some faculty members to transition to an
online and interactive learning environment (Greco 1999;
Lee 2002).
As with the paradigm shift in how buyers and sellers inter-
act via e-commerce sites (Mathwick 2002), interactive edu-
cators will need to find ways to enhance virtual relationships
with and between their students (Leonard 1999; Looi and
Ang 2000). Undeniably, the use of the Internet as an instruc-
tional medium has a significant effect on the role that educa-
tors play in the learning experience (Atwong and Hugstad
1997). At issue is whether online learning and e-commerce
technologies will merge in a way that is conducive for im-
proving the quality of distance learning programs and the
experiences students have with others in their virtual learning
community (Abernathy 1999; Karns and Pharr 2001a; Lang
and Zhao 2000; Rheingold 2000; Young 2001).
Unfortunately, little is understood on how to best plan,
implement, and evaluate interactive Web-based courses
(Kaynama and Keesling 2000; Sweeney and Ingram 2001).
Particularly lacking is research seeking to understand the dif-
ferential needs and learning styles of online students in gen-
eral (Drago, Peltier, and Sorensen 2002; Maharg 2001) and
marketing students in particular (Celsi and Wolfinbarger
2002; Kaynama and Keesling 2000; Ponzurick, France, and
Logar 2000; L. J. Smith 2001; Sweeney and Ingram 2001;
Ueltschy 2001; Young 2001). Because of the importance of
treating students as “customers” (Haynes and Hunts 2000),
conceptual and empirical research is needed to find ways to
enhance the online educational experience of this important
target audience (Eastman and Swift 2001; Lee 2002).
With an increasing number of marketing departments
offering distance education courses and programs, online
education has become a topic of considerable importance and
interest to marketing educators. In 2001, the Journal of Mar-
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 261
keting Education published two special issues on distance
education–related topics that underscored the need to better
understand how information technology and marketing edu-
cation can come together to create quality learning experi-
ences for students (Karns and Pharr 2001b; McAlister
2001b). During the past 3 years, no less than 10 articles have
appeared in the Journal of Marketing Education on the topic
of online education.
In a recent Editors’ Corner in the Journal of Marketing
Education, Karns and Pharr (2001a) noted, “The use of tech-
nology is a burgeoning trend in all higher education, and elec-
tronic commerce is an important sector of the economy. It is
vitally important for marketing educators to explore this
topic” (p. 3). They went on to state that integrating technol-
ogy and distance learning in marketing education “is an
important aspect of our future in marketing education.” Guest
editor for the Journal of Marketing Education, Debbie
McAlister (2001) concurred that “although innovation is
taught in marketing courses around the world, less attention
has focused on the role and prospects of for innovation in
marketing education.” She further noted, “Educational tech-
nology tools are increasingly common, although relatively
little research has examined their impact and effectiveness”
(p. 167).
Without question, the marketing education community is
well suited to be a leader in online education. Not only have
marketing departments in U.S. universities and colleges been
at the forefront in developing curricula on Internet marketing,
e-marketing courses, interactive marketing, and the like, mar-
keting academics have been leaders in conducting research
on how the Web-based interactions create mutually beneficial
buyer-seller relationships.
In this article, we employ an interactive marketing
approach to the development and improvement of online edu-
cation. Viewing online education from an interactive market-
ing perspective results in a unique approach to the study of
online education. It focuses on online education as a service,
based on the use of virtual communities to enhance the ser-
vice experience. It also brings attention to the issues of online
distribution, personalization and customization, one-to-one
marketing, and interactive marketing communications
(Benbunan-Fich et al. 2001). In doing so, we take a marketing
orientation in examining the issues surrounding the develop-
ment of online education by focusing on the needs and per-
ceptions of the customers (i.e., students).
In the research reported here, we provide insight into the
types of interactive relationships online education consumers
are seeking in their pursuit of knowledge. Although our
research focus in this study is on improving the quality of
online MBA programs, the ideas we present are transferable
to a broader educational experience and also have relevance
to understanding other e-marketing relationships. Special
attention is given to understanding the role that virtual com-
munities play in enhancing student-to-instructor and student-
262 DECEMBER 2003
to-student relationships, and to the types of information con-
tent, course structure, and delivery systems that consumers
desire in the relationship. Because the theory of virtual com-
munities is underdeveloped (Mathwick 2002), especially in
the context of interactive and online education (Maharg
2001), research assessing the quality of cyber-technology
and distance education is warranted (Long et al. 2000).
In accomplishing these objectives, we briefly introduce
literature from three areas to help provide a foundation for
our model: distance education and technology, virtual com-
munities, and assessing the educational experience. We then
introduce a model of the various dimensions of effectiveness
of the online education experience. Next, we present the find-
ings of an empirical investigation of these measures and their
ability to account for variance in students’ perceptions of the
effectiveness of their online educational experiences. Finally,
we discuss the results of the study, provide insights to the
effective management of virtual communities in educational
and other business settings as they apply to teaching online
graduate marketing courses, and suggest directions for future
research.
THEORY DEVELOPMENT
Distance Education and Technology
Although graduate business education delivered online is
in the early stages of its life cycle, distance education has been
in existence for many years. Distance education has been
defined in many ways, two of which are relevant for the cur-
rent study. Carter (2001) defined distance education as a
“structured learning environment in which the teacher and
students are separated by time and geographical place with
some form of technology being used for the transmission of
all teaching and learning” (p. 250). Moore (1990) described
distance learning as all of the arrangements for providing
instruction and transmitting educational materials through
print or electronic media to geographically dispersed students
in a place or time different from that of the instructor.
Both of these definitions highlight the importance of tech-
nology in the delivery of the learning experience and the
transfer of knowledge within marketing curricula (Karns and
Pharr 2001a). Distance education has expanded in recent
years because of Internet technologies that have allowed for
the delivery of multiple types of information content and
communication that can be accessed from different locations
(O’Leary 2002). Emerging interactive technologies offer
considerable promise for bridging the gap between knowl-
edge acquisition, skill development, and real-world applica-
tions (Fitzgerald 1995). Common among these e-commerce
technologies are discussion-based virtual communities; digi-
tal libraries; electronic publishing; e-mail; and structural plat-
forms for organizing the integration of technologies, course
content, and human capital (Lang and Zhao 1999).
Undeniably, technology is transforming how businesses
operate, how marketing educators teach, and how students
learn (McCorkle, Alexander, and Reardon 2001). However,
many questions remain regarding how technology can be best
integrated into today’s rapidly changing educational environ-
ment. The traditional approach of the professor at the black-
board and students in their seats is no longer appropriate for
all learning environments (D. H. Smith 1996). Ultimately, the
advancing technologies associated with the online delivery of
graduate business education will require educators to move
away from an instructor-centered model to one of student
empowerment (Gibson 1996; Markel 1999).
Unfortunately, the technological capabilities necessary to
transition from traditional to online education is often too
much for many marketing instructors to handle (McCorkle,
Alexander, and Reardon 2001). As such, instructors’ experi-
ences in traditional classroom educational settings may not
be well suited for meeting the needs of students learning at a
distance (Kelley 1987). Like the paradigm shift in how buyers
and sellers interact via e-commerce, interactive educators
will need to find ways to best maximize the student-educator
relationship. In particular, the highly technical and interactive
nature of the online learning environment may require many
marketing instructors to adapt their teaching styles to match
the varied needs of their online learners (Eastman and Swift
2001; Lee 2002).
Virtual Communities
Clearly, online education has transformed teaching and
learning not only in marketing education but across all busi-
ness disciplines. The teacher is no longer the center of all
knowledge, nor is the student a passive recipient of infor-
mation. This shift creates new challenges and opportunities
for those educators involved with online education. Instead,
an interactive process has evolved in online education
whereby participants are assigned and often share new roles
to the mutual benefit of all parties in the virtual community
(Pye 1999). Hagel and Armstrong (1997) emphasized the
relationship-building aspects of virtual communities through
their view that this type of relational infrastructure provides
an opportunity to bring together people with similar interests,
unrestrained by time and space. Through such community
relationships, information content and intracommunity com-
munications are exchanged and members learn from each
other.
Virtual communities have been conceptualized in a num-
ber of different ways. Early work by Karp, Stone, and Yoels
(1977) focused on three elements that define communities:
sustained social interaction, shared attributes and values, and
a delineated geographic space. Building on this work,
Lawrence (1995) set forth three organizational conditions
that need to be in place to define a community: sustained
social interaction, community standards, and membership
rules. Brown and Duguid (2000) contended that virtual

commuities are social worlds in which individuals interact
through various Internet tools, exhibits, and information doc-
uments. Moreover, virtual communities are maintained
through a continual stream of discourse, communicated via
computer-mediated technologies, which are introduced,
commented upon, and shaped by members of that community
(Murphy 1997). Because virtual space limits the ability for
face-to-face encounters, the community is responsible for
evaluating the quality and reliability of the information and
discussions that exist in that space (Fombrun 1996;
Rheingold 2000).
Although research is sparse on the topic, there is a growing
consensus that to be successful, virtual communities need to
address a number of important relational criteria, including
customer-to customer interactions, provider-to-customer
interactions, information content, up-to-date cyberspace
technology, and community infrastructures, all of which must
come together under the guidance of an effective manager of
the virtual space (Bickart and Schindler 2001; Hagel 1999;
Hagel and Armstrong 1997; Mathwick 2002; Rothaermel
and Sugiyama 2001).
The learning environment experienced by students
through online education meets the definitions of a virtual
community. Sustained interaction between students and
between students and the instructor occurs throughout the
time period of the course; standards or policies as well as
membership rules are developed explicitly by the adminis-
tration of the educational program and the instructor for
the course and implicitly by students through their previous
experiences in the online program. Furthermore, all com-
munication is heavily dependent on computer-mediated tech-
nologies. The instructor or facilitator can thus be seen as a
manager of this educational virtual community, and an eval-
uation of the overall effectiveness of the online course
can also be seen as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
virtual community experience as perceived by the student.
Using an entertainment analogy, the educator in an online
environment is less of an actor and more of a director or pro-
ducer of the experience. Employing a virtual learning com-
munity perspective to online education helps to frame the
ways in which this new technology can enhance marketing
education.
Assessing the Effectiveness
of the Educational Experience
The meteoric rise in online education and virtual commu-
nities has not been accompanied by research that explores the
types of interactive experiences students are looking for or
that investigates the best ways to evaluate the quality of these
relationships (Lee 2002; Drago, Peltier, and Sorensen 2002;
Looi and Ang 2000); research has been particularly lacking in
marketing education (Celsi and Wolfinbarger 2002;
Kaynama and Keesling 2000; Mathwick 2002). Prior to pre-
senting our online education model, we examine literature
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 263
that encompasses universal concepts of a quality educational
experience.
Although there is a strong consensus that teaching and
learning are multidimensional constructs, there is little agree-
ment on the nature and number of dimensions that accurately
and completely measure the learning experience (Boex 2000;
Patrick and Smart 1998; Shevlin et al. 2000). Virtually no
studies have addressed this issue for online and interactive
education. There is growing agreement, however, that online
student customers can provide feedback on what they are
looking for in an interactive relationship (Houston and
Bettencourt 1999; Sweeney and Ingram 2001) and that their
evaluations of the experience are reliable, reasonably valid,
and relatively uncontaminated by outside factors (for a
review of teaching evaluations, see Marsh 1987; Wachtel
1998). This is important in that the need for accountability is
becoming a major issue in higher education (Ballantyne,
Borthwick, and Packer 2000).
While the teaching effectiveness literature is far too exten-
sive to review here, a short list of relevant findings suggests
that teachers and learning environments are most effective
when various criteria are met: clear instructions are given
(Fraser 1986); interpersonal rapport in the learning environ-
ment exists (Lowman and Mathie 1993); instructor feedback
is provided (Marsh 1987); the learning environment encour-
ages choice and independent thought (Feldman 1976); qual-
ity course content and learning experiences are stressed
(Entwistle and Tait 1990); a challenging and motivating aca-
demic environment is provided (Ramsden 1991); clear and
useful lectures are available (Boex 2000); there is respect for
learners (Patrick and Smart 1998); instructor-student inter-
actions are emphasized (Brightman, Elliot, and Bhada 1993);
the instructor shows strong organizational skills (Nelson and
Lynch 1984); and there is effective use of teaching technolo-
gies such as multimedia lectures, presentation software, and
interactive learning tools (Ballantyne, Borthwick, and Packer
2000).
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The preceding discussion melded the concepts of dis-
tance education, information technology, and virtual com-
munities. Although online education can be practiced in a
variety of ways, we present the following definition of online
education:
Online education uses Internet-based technology to deliver
multiple types of information content and communication,
accessible from learner-selected locations. Minimally, the
cyber classroom must contain some type of structural plat-
form (e.g., Lotus Notes, Blackboard, etc.) for organizing the
integration of technologies and course content. In more
sophisticated forms, the online education environment pro-
vides a forum for engaging in discussion-based virtual com-
munities and other forms of electronic communications
264 DECEMBER 2003
Instructor
Support &
Mentoring
Student-to- Instructor-
Student to-Student
Interaction Interaction
Overall
Perceived
Effectiveness
Information
Course
Delivery
Structure
Technology
Course
Content
FIGURE 1: Proposed Online Education Model
between class members and with the instructor, and pro-
vides access to digital libraries and electronic publishing
technologies.
A review of the distance education, virtual communities,
and teaching effectiveness literature highlighted at least six
possible dimensions of teaching effectiveness as they apply
to an online educational setting: (1) student-to-student inter-
actions, (2) student-to-instructor interactions, (3) instructor
support and mentoring, (4) information delivery technology,
(5) course content, and (6) course structure. In addition, early
on in the development of the program, the college’s distance
learning committee had clearly laid out requirements for
instructors wishing to participate in the online program, and
all faculty members participated in a 3-day training seminar.
Although these expectations were not research tested at that
point, the following specifics were mandated: (1) all courses
needed to have substantial opportunities for students to inter-
act with each other (student-student interactions), (2) course
content needed to be approved, (3) the role of the instructor as
the educator remained critical and training in this area was
provided, (4) clear expectations and learning objectives were
required for each module (course structure), (5) CD ROM
technology was mandated (information delivery technol-
ogy), and (6) rapid responses to student requests were viewed
as a key driver to course satisfaction. Consequently, the
model was based on a combination of the literature review
and the requirements imposed on the faculty members who
participated in the program. We then tested the model
accordingly.
The model is presented in Figure1. The model posits that
each of these dimensions is positively related to perceptions
of the overall quality of the online learning experience for
graduate business education. Below is a discussion of each of
the six dimensions.
Student-to-Student Interactions
In an online educational setting, the learning process is not
the top-down knowledge delivery method associated with
traditional seat time classes. Instead, marketing educators in
an online environment are more likely to rely on peer-to-peer
learning in the form of group discussions and team projects
(Eastman and Swift 2001). In this collaborative learning envi-
ronment, the discussion forum is the primary tool for inter-
activity in the online classroom. Although some marketing
educators contend that there is no replacement to face-to-face
discussions offered in traditional classes, a growing research
stream suggests that discussion forums may be used to capi-
talize on advantages not apparent in face-to-face tutorials
(Sweeney and Ingram 2001). For example, students may feel
freer and more open in online discussions, are more likely to
speak out, and develop a feeling of trust for other members in
the virtual education community (Figallo 1998; Hiltz 1986;
Sullivan 2001). Moreover, because other students have
access to their responses, online students might be motivated
to work harder to produce high-quality work (Harasim 1990).
In the virtual space, community members must play a key
role in assessing the quality and reliability of the communica-
tions and content they encounter (Fombrun 1996). In this
way, member participation in the discussion forum is a criti-
cal ingredient in weaving the fabric of the virtual community
(Rheingold 2000). A failure to achieve high-quality student-
to-student interactions in the electronic discussion forum will
likely result in an inferior educational experience for mem-
bers in the virtual learning community (Karuppan and
Karuppan 1999; Ueltschy 2001).
Like those offered in a commercial environment, virtual
communities in online education offer students the opportu-
nity to build close relationships with other students and that
are not constrained by time and space (Hagel and Armstrong
1997). Establishing and nurturing relationships with class-
mates is important in an asynchronous environment
(Benbunan-Fich et al. 2001), especially for collaborative dis-
cussions and team projects (Eastman and Swift 2001). Since
team projects and learning groups are often used as a way to
build relationships and complete assignments, students’ per-
ceptions of the appropriateness of the size and constitution of
their individual learning groups is crucial. It has been argued
that the optimal size of these learning groups, and the result-
ing impact on the quality of the interactions, is curvilinear
(Rothaermel and Sugiyama 2001). In an online education
environment where group projects and discussion forums are
used, a curvilinear relationship would suggest that too many
participants would limit the close-knit relationship of the

group (Brown and Duguid 2000), and too few would limit the
number of valuable insights that would be generated
(Rothaermel and Sugiyama 2001). The size of the groups is
especially important when a considerable amount of e-mail-
based interactions are required between group mates.
Instructor-to-Student Interactions
As the designer and manager of the virtual community, the
instructor has two types of communication roles, those activi-
ties associated with mentoring, supporting, and motivating
the community (see next section) and those associated with
communications with individual students (Benbunan-Fich
et al. 2001). Both of these communication roles highlight the
importance of interactive teaching styles (Roach, Johnston,
and Hair 1993). In contrast to the numerous student-to-
student interactions found in the virtual discussion forum,
the majority of individual student-to-instructor communica-
tions will be in the form of off-site communications, most
commonly via e-mail, and to a lesser extent, telephone.
Rothaermel and Sugiyama (2001) speculated that off-site
communication may be a stronger factor in explaining a
member’s connectedness to the virtual community than are
on-site interactions.
Critics of cyberlearning warn that this mode of communi-
cation may eliminate crucial personal interactions between
instructors and students (Navarro and Shoemaker 1999).
Because the asynchronous nature of online education places
logistical demands on instructors (Tricker et al. 2001), many
faculty members have a difficult time adjusting to the fact that
students want them to be “on-call” all the time (Greco 1999).
Although as yet relatively unexplored in a virtual education
setting, online learners desire many things regarding their
interpersonal interactions with their faculty, including fre-
quent communications with easy-to-access instructors (Baily
and Coltar 1994), quick and timely feedback (Bishop 2000),
detailed technical support (Shea, Motiwalla, and Lewis
2001), and meaningful feedback with respect (Abernathy
1999; Patrick and Smart 1998). Meeting these student-to-
instructor needs will likely lead to higher satisfaction with the
learning experience (Eastman and Swift 2001).
Instructor Support and Mentoring
The “instructor in front of the class” and “students in their
seats” model of teaching is no longer appropriate for a high-
tech learning environment (D. H. Smith 1996). Instead, Web-
based learning environments demand a transition from the
instructor’s role as the authority figure to that of one voice
among many (McGrath 1997-1998). Unfortunately, many
faculty members have resisted this transference of power
from the teacher to students (Kitchen and McDougall 1998-
1999). This may account for some of the student dissatisfac-
tion with online education. It is in this role as online mentors
and moderators that good “teachers” stimulate, guide, and
challenge their students (Sherron and Boettcher 1997). More-
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 265
over, given the importance of maintaining a strong virtual
community, the instructor must get involved with motivating
students to participate in interactive discussions with other
students (Aron 1999; Sullivan 2001). As a consequence, the
instructor is seen as having a supportive, almost pastoral role
in the learning process (Tricker et al. 2001).
Consistent with commercial-based online virtual com-
munities, the need for guidance, warmth, rapport, and moti-
vational skills are a high priority for online educators. This
guidance would logically include such activities as interme-
diation, developing the rules of the game (e.g., when activities
are due, how they are delivered and recorded, etc.), and facili-
ties management (Hagel and Armstrong 1997). The manage-
ment style of the instructor could have a substantial impact on
the quality of online education. Too little management of the
virtual learning community by the instructor could lead to
chaos, while too much site management might negatively
affect the intangible level of trust, relational bonding, and
knowledge exchange associated with virtual communities
(Brown and Eisenhardt 1998).
In addition to the expected support function of online
instructors, interactive educators will also have to instill con-
fidence in their students that they are competent and capable
tutors (Sweeney and Ingram 2001). Although as yet untested
in an online educational setting, the general teaching effec-
tiveness literature has shown that perceptions of an instruc-
tor’s charisma (Shevlin et al. 2000), intellectual capabilities
(Boex 2000; Brightman, Elliot, and Bhada 1993), ability to
explain (Marsh 1987), stimulation of student interest
(Feldman 1976), and assessment skills (Fraser 1986) are all
associated with positive course evaluations.
In summary, each of the three dimensions discussed above
was based on the interactive nature of the online learning
experience. Student-to-student interactions represented
communications between students via the discussion forum,
e-mail, and telephone; student-to-instructor interactions rep-
resented personalized and tailored communications; and
instructor support and mentoring addresses interactions
related to managing the virtual community. In the next three
sections, we explore online learning in terms of course con-
tent, structure of the virtual community, and information
delivery technology.
Course Content
As with commerce-based virtual communities (Hagel
1999; Hagel and Armstrong 1997), it is unlikely that the qual-
ity of the learning experience in an online educational setting
can rely solely on member-contributed communications. The
perceived value of instructor-delivered content (e.g., Atwong
and Hugstad 1997; Benbunan-Fich et al. 2001), Internet-
driven content (e.g., Lang and Zhao 2000), and assigned
learning and assessment activities (L. J. Smith 2001) is likely
to affect students’ perceptions of the learning experience. In
that students have some control over the pace of their learn-
266 DECEMBER 2003
ing, with the exception of unfolding events and fluid informa-
tion needs, it is critical that the planning and placement of
most of the course content be completed ahead of time
(Abernathy 1999).
There is some support in the e-marketing world that virtual
members who feel that they are receiving valuable informa-
tion content by participating in the community are more
inclined to engage in commercial transactions (Chen and
Wells 1999; Fombrun 1996) and use that content to drive rela-
tionships in that community (Kozinets 1999). Extrapolating
these arguments to an online educational community would
suggest that course content could increase student participa-
tion in the community, spark the introduction of new ideas for
further discussion, and strengthen community relationships.
Consistent with the belief that learning is a multidimen-
sional construct, perceptions of the effectiveness of what con-
stitutes a high-quality content-based relationship is multi-
faceted as well (Drago, Peltier, and Sorensen 2002). In
particular, perceptions of the quality of the design, delivery,
and assessment of course content in both a traditional and
online educational setting have been investigated in terms of
topical relevance (Ballantyne, Borthwick, and Packer 2000;
L. J. Smith 2001); students’ perceptions of outcome-oriented
activities, including tests, exercises, exams, projects, and
similar assessment techniques (Lang and Zhao 2000;
Ramsden 1991; L. J. Smith 2001); depth and clarity of lecture
content (Atwong and Hugstad 1997; Eastman and Swift
2001; Entwistle and Tait 1990); up-to-date information
(Tricker et al. 2001); and the speed and quality of instructor
feedback (Drago, Peltier, and Sorensen 2002; Fraser 1986;
Marsh 1987).
Course Structure
One of the least studied aspects of online education and
virtual communities is the structural element of the learning
experience. Although not well-defined in virtual communi-
ties of either commercial or educational Internet sites, two
types of course structure are discussed here: course expecta-
tions and course infrastructure. Although seemingly unre-
lated, both of these online structural elements address the
ease with which students understand what is expected of them
and how these expectations are communicated via the elec-
tronic course room.
Teaching effectiveness literature for traditional classes has
shown that students need and want clear structural guidance
in terms of expectations related to topical coverage, required
workload, and evaluation criteria (Boex 2000; Brightman,
Elliot, and Bhada 1993; Entwistle and Tait 1990; Ramsden
1991). For an online learning environment, it is especially
important to communicate these expectations in advance via
course syllabi (Karuppan and Karuppan 1999).
Virtual communities can be evaluated in terms of how they
are configured in various computer-mediated communica-
tion structures. In the e-commerce community, there is a gen-
eral consensus that Web sites have little value unless they are
structured in a logical and easy-to-follow manner (Chen and
Wells 1999; Nielsen 2000; Stevenson, Brunner, and Kumar
2000). The existence of an easy-to-use and clearly laid-out
course structure in an online learning environment in terms of
Web formats and computer-based infrastructures is espe-
cially important (Eastman and Swift 2001; Karuppan and
Karuppan 1999). Web-based course infrastructures that are
difficult to understand and use create the need for ongoing
technology guidance and negatively affect the clarity of the
learning environment (Palloff and Pratt 1999). Consequently,
the need for a user-friendly structure in educational offerings
cannot be ignored (Ballantyne, Borthwick, and Packer 2000;
Tricker et al. 2001).
Information Delivery Technology
Distance learning technologies are transforming the way
in which educators convey information to students
(McCorkle, Alexander, and Reardon 2001). Online discus-
sion forums and other electronic forms of communication
and information access are common components used in
Web-based courses. The primary purpose of the material
delivery format is to “simulate” the classroom experience as
close as possible in terms of what instructors provide stu-
dents. Of importance, lecture and learning materials con-
veyed to students using this technology should have real sub-
stance and not simply present lecture outlines (Eastman and
Swift 2001; Karuppan and Karuppan 1999). As a conse-
quence, the ability to convey clear and valuable lectures, in a
format that interests students, is likely to lead to a more satis-
fying learning experience for students (Smart, Kelley, and
Conant 1999).
In summary, a review of the literature identified a total of
six dimensions of the online educational experience. The first
three dimensions involved the communication aspects of
online learning, while the final three dimensions were con-
cerned with the substantive aspects of online education. Next,
we developed the measures associated with these six dimen-
sions and evaluated their ability to predict the overall effec-
tiveness of the online educational experience.
METHOD
Research Setting
The study was conducted at a large midwestern university.
U.S. News and World Report recently ranked the university’s
online MBA program in the Top 25 programs in the United
States. In delivering online education to students, all classes
contained five common elements: (1) use of the Internet to
transfer information and to provide links to cyber materials;
(2) Lotus Notes structural platform for conveying course
expectations, daily instructions, e-mail, syllabi, course
schedule, testing, online grading, and so forth; (3) use of CD-

ROMS to present audiovisual lecture materials; (4) an inter-
active discussion room; and (5) students and faculty never
formally meet face-to-face. Additional materials, techniques,
and procedures are course and instructor specific.
The university was interested in identifying the key
dimensions associated with enhancing the online MBA expe-
rience. As part of this process, the business college wanted to
survey current online MBA students regarding their educa-
tional experiences. This particular setting was ideal for study-
ing virtual communities. Since much of the graduate educa-
tion experience deals with interacting with teachers and other
students to build communities of learning, the online educa-
tion experience needed to make sure that virtual communities
of learning were present. It is important to note that online
educational formats are not identical across all universities
that use the Internet to deliver all or portions of a particular
class. As such, universities and, specifically, marketing
departments using different methods of delivery and commu-
nication tactics would not necessarily evaluate the success of
their programs in exactly the same way. With this said, the six
dimensions that we addressed in the model would likely still
apply to some degree in most online educational courses and
programs.
Questionnaire Development
Based on a review of the literature on distance education,
virtual communities, and teaching effectiveness, a survey was
developed by the College’s Graduate Studies Committee. In
the tradition of the Domain Sampling Model (Nunnally
1978), a pool of questions designed to cover the various
aspects of each of these literature bases was developed. Some
questions were generated from the Purdue Rating Scale
(Remmers 1960) and from surveys used in other online pro-
grams, while others were designed by the committee to tap
areas not addressed by secondary sources. The questions
were designed to be answered by using a 5-point Likert-type
scale, with 1 indicating strongly agree and 5 indicating
strongly disagree.
The questionnaire was pretested to identify any confusing
or misleading questions. Minor changes were made, and the
instrument was completed. The final questionnaire contained
47 questions pertaining to specific aspects of the courses.
Three questions were designed to tap the students’ evalua-
tion of the overall effectiveness of the course: (1) I would rec-
ommend this course to friends/colleagues, (2) I have learned
a lot in this course, and (3) I have enjoyed taking this course.
These dependent measures are useful for a number of rea-
sons. First, referral likelihood is an important measure in the
services marketing literature for measuring relationship
strength. Second, previous work in teaching effectiveness lit-
erature relies on measures of “amount learned.” Third,
because initial criticisms pertaining to online education sug-
gested that students would not “enjoy the experience” of tak-
ing courses outside of the traditional classroom, some assess-
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 267
ment of the enjoyment of the experience was needed. Consis-
tent with the principles outlined by Churchill (1979), the
three dependent measures loaded on one dimension in a pre-
liminary factor analysis, suggesting that they are measuring
some overall dimension of effectiveness of the online course.
A summed measured was then created.
Data Collection
The questionnaire was distributed to all students enrolled
in the college’s online MBA courses taught during the spring
and summer semester. For a course to be considered for the
study, it had to be primarily Web based and taught exclusively
at distance. Courses where students were required to come to
class on campus at anytime were excluded. In the case of the
courses considered here, it should be noted that CR-ROMs
were used to deliver the lecture material, but all courses
included substantial Web-based content associated with
them. For example, they employed digital libraries, sample
advertisements, pertinent Web sites, online video, along with
virtually all communication via the Web.
A total of 18 online courses were taught in this time period
to 548 students. The management, marketing, finance/busi-
ness law, economics, and office systems departments offered
courses. Course size ranged from a low of 15 students to a
high of 59 students. Average class size was 30.4 students.
Surveys were made available to students during the last
two weeks of each class through “LearningSpace,” a course
management software product used by all the online courses
in the MBA program. E-mail reminders were sent to students
asking them to fill out these questionnaires. Students were
assured anonymity and that all surveys would be electron-
ically delivered directly to the graduate office. A total of 299
questionnaires were returned, for a response rate of 54.6%.
ANALYSIS OF THE MEASURES
The 47 questions pertaining to the various aspects of
the courses were evaluated according to the measurement
principles outlined by Churchill (1979) and Peter (1979).
First, the items were subjected to a principal components
analysis employing varimax rotation to identify the major
commonalities in the data associated with the design and
execution of online MBA education. The resulting factor
analysis is displayed in Table 1. Twelve of the questions with
low and/or multiple factor loadings were dropped from the
assessment.
An analysis of the eigenvalues was used to determine the
appropriate number of factors to use in the study. A total of six
factors were identified with eigenvalues greater than 1.0. In
addition, there was a significant break in the scree plot after
six factors. The six factors accounted for a total of 70% of the
variance.
Next, the factors were labeled based on the questions that
loaded on each dimension. The resulting factor names were
268 DECEMBER 2003

TABLE 1
PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSIS

Instructor Student-
Support to- Instructor-
and Course Course Student Information Student
Question Mentoring Content Structure Interaction Technology Interaction

My instructor played an important role in facilitating learning. .775

My instructor helped me apply theory/applications to solve problems. .756
My instructor explained difficult material clearly. .716
My instructor readily maintained rapport with this class. .705
My instructor contributed to the discussions in this course. .675
My instructor was actively helpful when students had problems. .674
The instructor provided feedback on assignments and/or exams. .626
My instructor motivated me to do my best work. .619
My instructor identified major or important points in the course. .580
I have interacted with my professor in this course. .543
My instructor emphasized relationships between and among topics. .514
In this course, many methods were used to involve me in learning. .484
This course supplied me with an effective range of challenges. .748
Course materials stimulated my desire to learn. .726
The course emphasized understanding of concepts and principles. .709
This course effectively challenged me to think. .709
Course assignments were interesting and stimulating. .690
This course was up-to-date with developments in the field. .633
Student evaluation techniques such as projects, assignments, and
exams were related to the learning objectives of this course. .558
There were a sufficient number of applied-learning experiences. .477
The structure of the modules was well prepared and organized. .716
Projects/assignments were clearly explained. .673
Existing classroom technology was used effectively in this course. .609
I understood what was expected of me in this course. .566
The group work contributed significantly to this course. .825
Group size was appropriate for course purposes. .743
Student interaction was an important learning component. .675
This course provided an opportunity to learn from other students. .660
I had sufficient opportunity to interact with other students. .578
The content of the CD-ROMs contributed toward learning. .861
CD-ROMs contained information not covered in the text. .781
Information in the CD-ROMs was effectively communicated. .693
I felt free to ask questions throughout this course. .673
The instructor responded to my questions in a timely manner. .659
The instructor was easily accessible to me. .616
I felt free to express and explain my own views. .602

Percentage of variance 19.770 15.273 13.235 8.681 7.075 6.160

Cumulative percentage of the variance 35.043 48.278 56.959 64.034 70.194

consistent with a priori expectations and included instructor
support and mentoring, course content, course structure,
student-to-student interaction, information delivery technol-
ogy, and student-instructor interactions.
The individual items associated with each measure were
subjected to an item-to-total correlation analysis. Items with
low item-to-total correlations were eliminated. The coeffi-
cient alphas for final measures were computed to estimate the
reliabilities. They ranged from .835 to .951, indicating that
the measures were highly reliable. The specific items making
up each of the measures and the coefficient alphas are shown
in Table 2. The following discussion describes each of these
constructs.
Instructor Support and Mentoring. The 12 items included in this
measure addressed the performance of the instructor in the
course. They included questions pertaining to teaching meth-
ods, identifying key points, explaining concepts, facilitating
learning, and motivating students.
Course Content. This measure dealt with the subject matter of
the course. Eight individual items dealt with subject cover-
 JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 269

TABLE 2
ONLINE EDUCATION MEASURES

Instructor Support and Mentoring Coefficient alpha = .9513

1. My instructor played an important role in facilitating learning in this course.
2. My instructor helped me apply theory/applications to solve problems.
3. My instructor explained difficult material clearly.
4. My instructor readily maintained rapport with this class.
5. My instructor contributed to the discussions in this course.
6. My instructor was actively helpful when students had problems.
7. The instructor provided sufficient feedback on assignments and/or exams.
8. My instructor motivated me to do my best work.
9. My instructor identified major or important points in the course.
10. I have interacted with my professor in this course.
11. My instructor emphasized relationships between and among topics.
12. In this course, many methods were used to involve me in learning.

Course Content Coefficient alpha = .9250

1. This course supplied me with an effective range of challenges.
2. Course materials stimulated my desire to learn.
3. The course emphasized understanding of concepts and principles.
4. This course effectively challenged me to think.
5. Course assignments were interesting and stimulating.
6. This course was up-to-date with developments in the field.
7. Student evaluation techniques such as projects, assignments, and exams were related to
the learning objectives of this course.
8. This course included applied learning and problem-solving experiences.

Course Structure Coefficient alpha = .8358

1. The structure of the modules in the Lotus Notes environment was well prepared and organized.
2. Projects/assignments were clearly explained.
3. Existing classroom technology was used effectively in this course.
4. I understood what was expected of me in this course.

Student-to-Student Interaction Coefficient alpha = .8368

1. The group work contributed significantly to this course.
2. Group size was appropriate for course purposes.
3. Student interaction was an important learning component of this course.
4. This course provided an opportunity to learn from other students.
5. I had sufficient opportunity to interact with other students in this course.

Information Delivery Technology Coefficient alpha = .8676

1. Information in the CD-ROMs for this course was effectively communicated.
2. CD-ROMs for this course contained information not covered in the text.
3. The content of the CD-ROMs for this course contributed toward learning.

Instructor-Student Interaction Coefficient alpha = .8812

1. I felt free to ask questions throughout this course.
2. The instructor responded to my questions in a timely manner.
3. The instructor was easily accessible to me.
4. I felt free to express and explain my own views throughout this course.

Effectiveness of the Online Educational Experience Coefficient alpha = .9304

1. I would recommend this course to friends/colleagues.
2. I have learned a lot in this course.
3. I have enjoyed taking this course.

age, rigor, appropriateness of the student evaluation tech-
niques, and applied learning experiences.
Course Structure. This measure involved the structural aspects
of the course. Four items covered the structure of the mod-
ules, along with clearly defined expectations and learning
objectives.
Student-to-Student Interactions. This measure concerned the
degree to which the course encouraged student group work
and interacting with other students. A total of five ques-
tions covered items ranging from value of group work to the
degree to which the course encouraged learning from other
students.
270 DECEMBER 2003

Information Delivery Technology. This measure focused on the TABLE 3

content of the instructor-designed CDs that were an integral REGRESSION ANALYSIS
part of each course. Three questions pertaining to the value
added by the CDs were included. Standardized Standard
Student-Instructor Interactions. The four items included in this Variable Coefficient Error t-value Significance
measure dealt with communications between the student and Constant 6.582 .106 61.822 .000
instructor. They included questions about the degree to which Course Content 1.942 .107 18.205 .000
the student felt free to ask questions and express his or her Instructor Support and
views, along with questions about the accessibility and Mentoring 1.523 .107 14.281 .000
responsiveness of the instructor. Course Structure 0.888 .107 8.330 .000
Information Delivery
Finally, a measure of the students’ evaluation of the effec- Technology 0.731 .107 6.852 .000
Student-to-Student
tiveness of the online educational experience was developed Interactions 0.671 .107 6.292 .000
using three global effectiveness measures from the survey Instructor-Student
instrument. These three items were highly correlated, sug- Interaction 0.346 .107 3.246 .001
gesting that they were measuring the same thing. As such,
they were combined into a summative overall effectiveness R = .849
R 2 = .720
index. This index included the summed responses from ques- 2
Adjusted R = .714
tions pertaining to the amount of learning, enjoyment of tak-
NOTE: Dependent variable = effectiveness of the online educational
ing the course, and the likelihood of recommending it to experience.
friends and colleagues. The coefficient alpha for the three-
item measure was .930, indicating the measure is highly
reliable.
DISCUSSION
REGRESSION RESULTS This study reports a number of important findings for mar-
A regression analysis was conducted to determine the rela- keting educators interested in online education. Based on a
tive importance of the six measures discussed above to review of the literature on distance education, virtual com-
account for variance in students’ evaluation of the effective- munities, and teaching effectiveness, six dimensions of the
ness of the online educational experience. Due to the poten- online education experience were identified. The resulting
tially high multicollinearity between the measures, factor factor analysis confirmed that these six dimensions were, in
scores from the principal components analysis discussed fact, separate and important factors associated with virtual
above were used as the independent variables. The three-item online education communities as perceived by students.
measure of students’ evaluation of the effectiveness of the Three of the factors dealt with interpersonal/communication
online educational experience was used as the dependent issues, including student-to-student interactions, student-
variable. To determine the relative importance of the individ- instructor interactions, and instructor support and mentoring.
ual items, a regression was conducted. Table 3 displays the The three other factors dealt with course design and included
results of the regression analysis. course content, course structure, and information delivery
All six dimensions significantly affected the global effec- technology. Unquestionably, the results highlight the multidi-
tiveness measure and were included in the final model. The mensional nature of virtual learning communities.
order of the importance of the variables in explaining the vari- While all the factors provide insights into the design and
ance in students’ evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the execution of online programs, the instructor support and
online educational experience during the course was as mentoring dimension is by itself interesting. In particular, it
follows: underscores the importance of the instructor as an active par-
ticipant in online courses (and, perhaps the importance of
1. Course content managers as active participants in the virtual communities
2. Instructor support and mentoring they manage). Based on the questions contained in this
3. Course structure dimension, learning support by the instructor requires a mix
4. Information delivery technology of facilitative learning, providing direction and explanations,
5. Student-to-student interaction maintaining rapport with and between classmates, actively
6. Student-instructor interactions participating in discussions, motivating, and providing effec-
tive feedback.
The model accounted for 72% of the variance in the It should also be noted that many of the survey questions
dependent variable. used in this study were obtained from secondary sources,
such as the Purdue Rating Scale. While the findings suggest

that the questions were excellent predictors of the overall
effectiveness of online programs, more research is needed to
determine if these questions can be generalizable to other
educational and virtual communities settings. The excep-
tions are in the Information Delivery Technology and Course
Structure factors, where references are made to “modules in
Lotus Notes” and to the specific use of CD-ROMs in the
course delivery. Certainly, there is other courseware available
and other forms of information delivery technology that can
and are used to deliver courses and information to students.
As such, marketing educators interested in designing and
assessing online educational offerings will want to customize
the measures for their specific situations.
The factors or dimensions uncovered by this study act as a
guide for those responsible for the development and delivery
of online courses and training programs. While these factors
were identified for virtual “learning communities,” they are
likely to be similar for other types of virtual communities. As
such, marketing educators teaching Internet marketing, data-
base marketing, or other applications of virtual communities
will find this information valuable. These findings can be
incorporated into class lectures and discussions pertaining to
the use of virtual communities as an Internet-based marketing
tool for developing dialogue with and between current and
future customers, as learning support and value-adding vehi-
cles, as tools to increase consumer-to-consumer interactions
and manager-consumer interactions, as a framework for the
development of site content and structure, and for evaluating
the technology used in customer relationship management
(CRM) programs for consumer and business settings. While
these findings are valuable, future research is needed to deter-
mine how generalizable these dimensions are to virtual com-
munities in the business world.
The study also developed reliable measures of the online
education experience. This is an important step in the devel-
opment of assessment and training tools for online education
and other virtual communities. Each of the measures suggests
a variety of activities and skills that are necessary in the devel-
opment of successful online courses, for example, designing
the course content of online courses, structuring the course
and its activities, facilitating student-to-student interactions,
motivating students in a non-face-to-face environment, inter-
acting with students via written rather than verbal communi-
cations, and mastering the requisite technology. These skills
and activities are also important for training marketing fac-
ulty members to make the transition from traditional class-
room teachers to online facilitators and mentors. At some
point in time, these online educational skills and activities
may become requisite for all faculty members.
The regression analysis provided three significant find-
ings. First, the model was able to account for 72% of the vari-
ance in students’ evaluation of the effectiveness of the online
education experience. This suggests that the model is not only
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 271
reliable but also comprehensive. It provides an excellent
starting point for future research in the area of online educa-
tion and other virtual communities. It should be noted that the
effectiveness questions used to determine global effective-
ness of the virtual learning experience refer directly to
courses taught in an educational environment. This may
affect their relevance to assessment of virtual communities in
the business world. Further research is necessary to deter-
mine the comprehensiveness of these factors or dimensions
outside the educational domain.
Second, the regression analysis indicated that all six
dimensions significantly contributed to the variance
explained by the model. This provides additional evidence of
the validity of the measures and implies that each factor
affects the effectiveness of the online education experience in
different ways. As such, each factor is important in its own
right and merits further investigation. For example, the
impact of site structure and content on online learning and
other virtual communities needs additional research. In addi-
tion, the temporal and interactive combinations of these
dimensions for virtual communities need to be investigated.
Lessons learned here can be used in other virtual community
research.
Finally, the regression analysis determined the relative
importance of each variable in accounting for the variance in
the effectiveness of the education experience. Recall that the
most important factor was Course Content, followed by
Instructor Support and Mentoring, Course Structure, Infor-
mation Delivery Technology, Student-to-Student Interaction,
and Instructor-Student Interaction. This leads to a number of
implications for online marketing education.
The number one factor in determining the effectiveness of
the online education experience was the content of the course.
This is both surprising and encouraging for faculty members
who have complained for years that the degree to which a stu-
dent “liked” an instructor rather than course content or some
other more pertinent characteristic of teaching drives student
evaluations. In fact, the three substantive aspects of online
education (Course Content, Course Structure, and Informa-
tion Delivery Technology) were ranked as the first, third, and
fourth most important factors, while only Instructor Support
and Mentoring made it into the top four factors. In online
courses, the design and inclusion of well-developed materials
can do a lot to facilitate learning, to assist in the application of
theory to solve problems, to explain difficult material, and so
forth. In addition, it appears that students might credit these
materials to the abilities of the course instructor in absentia.
This supports the services marketing research that suggests
the importance of tangible cues and makes intuitive sense
since the students have few other observable signals on which
to make the evaluation. Although the credit is often given to
the educator, the process can largely occur without any “real”
interaction on the part of the instructor. Future research
272 DECEMBER 2003
should explore the extent to which these issues are more
related to course content/design as opposed to instructor sup-
port and mentoring in online educational settings.
Furthermore, the results suggest that instructor-to-student
and student-to-student interactions are the least important
factors in the evaluation of the overall effectiveness of online
courses. While many universities emphasize the importance
of these interactions as an essential part of the “educational
experience,” the results are not necessarily counterintuitive. It
seems reasonable that many students who seek out online
courses may go into the process with less need for highly
interactive learning environments or perhaps lower expecta-
tions. This suggests that marketing faculty members who
have a difficult time relating to students in face-to-face inter-
actions might fair better in an online education setting. How-
ever, it should be noted that both instructor-to-student and
student-to-student interactions were statistically significant
predictors of the overall effectiveness of the online course.
More research is needed in this area to determine if the order-
ing of importance remains constant across a variety of online
educational settings.
Also, this ordering suggests that those interested in online
teaching are likely to need to learn new skills. For example,
while little is known about the best way to structure an online
course as compared with a traditional seat time course, it is
clear that differences do exist. Similarly, it appears that the
technology is an important driver of the effectiveness of the
online education experience. As such, the online educator
must become familiar with the various technologies and
determine how to get the maximum value out of each avail-
able form. More research is needed in this area to determine
whether this ordering remains the same for undergraduate
marketing courses as well as executive and continuing educa-
tion courses and modules.
Many marketing faculty members are accustomed to
working on the content and structure of their courses during
the semester rather than prior to it. With an online course, the
content, structure, and technology have to be determined and
finalized before the course begins. This requires a consider-
able change in the approach to teaching. Educators must plan
on rearranging their schedules to include substantial
between-terms time commitments. Those marketing faculty
members who traditionally use this time for personal pur-
poses, travel, and research activities will need to make adjust-
ments. During the semester, faculty members have to be con-
cerned with learning support, student-to-student interactions,
and communicating with individual students.
Marketing educators should consider the findings here
complementary to the WebCT Exemplary Course Project
(2003). The project provides a rubric for evaluating the Web-
enhanced and Web-based courses by outside reviewers (e.g.,
peers). The criteria employed include course design, interac-
tion and collaboration, technology, assessment, and learner
support. While there is substantial overlap in terms of the cri-
teria used by the WebCT rubric and the model developed in
this study, important differences exist in the specifics items
employed. We highly recommend that marketing depart-
ments consider using both peer evaluations based on the
WebCT Exemplary Course Project rubric and student evalua-
tions based on the criteria we have identified with this empiri-
cal research. In this way, peer and student evaluations can be
considered when assessing he effectiveness of online courses
and programs.
CONCLUSION
This study starts where the Journal of Marketing Educa-
tion’s April 2001 special issue on online learning (Karns and
Pharr 2001) left off. The research reported here provides sig-
nificant findings for marketing educators and others inter-
ested in developing, evaluating, and teaching students about
virtual communities. Six dimensions of online learning vir-
tual communities were identified. Measures of each of the
dimensions were developed and purified. One of the major
contributions of this research is the development and confir-
mation of the online assessment model.
The relative importance of the dimensions in accounting
for the variance in students’ perceptions of the effectiveness
of the online experience was reported. Employing a student-
customer focus, this information provides marketing educa-
tors with direction in terms of designing and teaching online
courses. The results suggest that the most critical driver is
course content followed by course support and mentoring.
Marketing educators have long been interested in ways to
enhance marketing curricula and courses (cf. Atwong and
Hugstad 1997; Benbunan-Fich et al. 2001; Celsi and
Wolfinbarger 2002; Eastman and Swift 2001; Kaynama and
Keesling 2000; McCorkle, Alexander, and Reardon 2001;
Ponzurick, France, and Logar 2000; L. J. Smith 2001;
Sweeney and Ingram 2001). This study continues in that
tradition by offering insights into effective teaching of online
MBA-level courses. Table 4 provides a list of recommenda-
tions specific to online teaching for each of the six dimen-
sions based on insights generated from the 12 different online
graduate marketing courses at the university used in this
study.
The findings presented here are especially important for
marketing academics who are interested in the use of virtual
communities as a marketing communication and education
tools. The approach of viewing online education from a vir-
tual communities framework allows marketing academics to
blend traditional curriculum assessment with current
thoughts pertaining to the use of the Internet as a marketing
communication tool. The highlights of the study for those
interested in virtual communities include the following:
1. The development of reliable measures of virtual commu-
nities.

GUIDELINES FOR MARKETING EDUCATORS TEACHING ONLINE COURSES
Online Course Effectiveness
Course Content
Instructor Support and Mentoring
Course Structure
Information Delivery Technology
Student-to-Student Interaction
Student-Instructor Interactions
NOTE: SPSS = Statistical Package for the Social Sciences; MSN = Microsoft Network
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 273
TABLE 4
Recommendations
Students have various preferred learning styles—a range of learning tools should be used. Giving
students several options for assignments/projects is often helpful.
CD-ROMs and other material-delivery technologies need to be up-to-date, including Web linkages to
interesting information.
Step-by-step tutorials for quantitative materials are important (e.g., SPSS tutorials).
Marketing simulations work very well online.
In that online students have business experience, projects and exercises that address real-world
application receive high marks.
Emphasizing important concepts and principles is important, but the instructor also needs to challenge
students to think.
The professor as mentor is very important. Online students are dependent on the instructor to facilitate
learning through this delivery method.
Communication is vital. Frequent contacts via e-mail, phone, and live online chats are valued by
students.
Setting up a class e-mail list (i.e., list server) so that general messages can be sent to the entire class
is absolutely necessary. The instructor can then communicate efficiently to the entire class to provide
encouragement, to give course updates, and to provide feedback to all when a question is submitted
by an individual student that may be of interest to all.
Professors need to be active participants in class discussions in the virtual community. Even little
comments show involvement.
Detailed feedback to student work is needed. A detailed answer key is well received by students,
including how points were assigned.
Use multiple media—including CD-ROMS, chat rooms, Web links, PowerPoint audiovisual lectures, and
any of a host of other materials that have been developed by others.
Ease of delivery is vital. Clearly lay out expectations, assignment/project directions, due dates, and so
forth.
The technology used to deliver the course needs to be easy to use. The students need quick access to
a help desk for troubleshooting.
Prepare a training video showing students how the course works, especially in the use of the various
programs.
Introduce each learning module with an overview session of what will be covered in the module and
how learning of the materials will be evaluated.
It is helpful to maintain some consistency in developing the modules of the course so students have an
idea of what is expected after completing the first module.
The quality of the materials that students receive as part of the course greatly affects their perceptions
of the overall quality of the course. The online program discussed in this article uses CD-ROMS to
deliver audiovisual materials. These materials must be developed with up-to-date technology and
high quality in mind.
Although not necessary for all lectures, prerecorded audiovisual materials that actually have the profes-
sor talking on screen work well.
College faculty members use E-teach, which simultaneously allows the professor to be seen and/or
heard; PowerPoint slides; and a scrolling outline that lets students move back and forth through the
presentation.
Course material offered should provide additional information to students, not just reflect the same con-
tent that can be obtained from a textbook.
Group learning is critical to the success of online classes—students isolated from others tend to feel
like they are taking a correspondence course.
Encourage students to e-mail one another—especially group members.
Through class e-mail and/or the discussion room, allow students to discuss problems encountered,
solutions, sources of information, and so on that do not violate learning goals.
Require and grade student participation in discussion-based activities. This is one of the more critical
components to online learning.
It is vital that the instructor be easily available and open to students.
Turnaround time to e-mailed questions should be within 24 hours, sooner if possible. Frustration sur-
faces if students cannot proceed due to lack of contact.
Encourage students to contact you for any reason and provide multiple ways to do so.
Live chat sessions (e.g., MSN Instant Messenger) are highly successful.
274 DECEMBER 2003
2. The recognition of the multidimensional nature of virtual
learning communities.
3. The identification of multiple drivers of virtual communities’
effectiveness and that each factor affects effectiveness in a
different way.
4. The three most important factors in virtual community effec-
tiveness are content, manager support, and virtual commu-
nity structure.
5. The importance of the virtual community manager in the
success of a virtual learning community.
Virtual communities can be used for a variety of marketing
activities ranging from information dissemination to cus-
tomer educational activities to word-of-mouth communica-
tions. Marketing educators teaching Internet marketing, data-
base marketing, or other applications of virtual communities
will find this information valuable. These findings can be
incorporated into class lectures and discussions pertaining to
the use of virtual communities as an Internet-based marketing
tool for developing dialogue with and between current and
future customers, as learning support and value-adding vehi-
cles, as tools to increase consumer-to-consumer interactions
and manager-consumer interactions, as a framework for the
development of site content and structure, and for evaluating
the technology used in CRM programs for consumer and
business settings.
While this research represents an important step forward
in the development and evaluation of online learning and vir-
tual communities, it raises many additional research ques-
tions. One question is whether there are temporal relation-
ships between the dimensions. For example, does instructor
support affect perceptions of course content? This and related
interrelationships can be investigated with the use of struc-
tural equation modeling. Also of importance, can the results
be generalized to other online education settings and other
virtual communities? Although we borrowed theory and
practice from the e-marketing world, much of what was
learned can be applied and explored further in commercial
contexts. Replications and extensions of the research pre-
sented here are needed. In addition, how do the dimensions
differ from those of traditional classes? How does the order of
these differ in online settings compared with traditional
classes? What are the skills that make for successful online
educators, and do they differ from those of the traditional
classroom? Finally, how do the online courses compare with
traditional courses when it comes to accomplishing the hier-
archy of learning objectives (Bloom 1956) ranging from
knowledge acquisition up to evaluation skills? Comparisons
of online and traditional classes are needed to better under-
stand the differences between the two methods of instruction.
There are several limitations to this study that should be
noted. First, the study represented one online program at one
university that continues to serve a mostly regional market in
terms of its virtual learning community. How generalizable
its findings are to other programs in different locations ser-
ving virtual communities with different cultures and perhaps
more diverse cultures is unknown. Furthermore, while the
response rate of 55% is impressive, one must be concerned
with the 45% of students who did not respond to the survey.
Also, the data may suffer from data loss and sample selection
problems that are inherent in end-of-the-semester evalua-
tions. As noted by Becker (1997), students who fail to com-
plete the course will not be assessed but may have some
strong opinions concerning the effectiveness of the learning
environment they witnessed while in the course.
In addition, the information delivery technology that we
examined here focused on the most common form of elec-
tronic lecture presentation delivery currently being used in
online education, CD-ROMs. As other technologies emerge
as alternatives to deliver electronic course materials via the
Internet, and as students begin to adopt faster information
delivery technologies (e.g., from dial-up, to digital subscriber
line [DSL}, and beyond), CD-ROMS will likely be replaced
by on-demand student-server connections. These new forms
of information delivery technology will need to be investi-
gated in terms of their impact on the overall effectiveness of
online courses.
This study represents an important first step in providing
greater insight into the effective development and use of vir-
tual communities. The results of this study aid marketing edu-
cators in two ways. First, it provides information to help them
become better online educators and to develop better online
courses and programs. Second, this article provides insights
pertaining to the use of this new educational and business
model in marketing settings. It provides insights for market-
ing educators interested in incorporating information about
virtual communities into marketing classes. Marketing stu-
dents need to be provided with the knowledge of the effective
management of virtual communities in the business world
and how they can be used to build communication networks
with and between customers, motivate purchases, increase
spending, and strengthen relationships. It is also hoped that
the results of this study will motivate marketing educators to
continue to do research to develop a better understanding of
virtual communities.
REFERENCES
Abernathy, Donna J. 1999. www.online.learning. Training & Development
53 (9): 36-42.
Allen, Charlotte. 1997. The virtual university. Washington Post Magazine 10
(August): 16-34.
Aron, Laurie Joan. 1999. Online U. Across the Board 36 (8): 63-66.
Atwong, Catherine T., and Paul S. Hugstad. 1997. Internet technology and
the future of marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education 19
(Fall): 44-55.
Baily, E. K., and M. Coltar. 1994. Teaching via the Internet. Communication
Education 43:184-93.
Baker, M. J., E. A. Buttery, and E. M. Richter-Buttery. 1998. Relationship
marketing in three dimensions. Journal of Interactive Marketing 14
(Fall): 47-62.

Ballantyne, Roy, Jill Borthwick, and Jan Packer. 2000. Beyond student evalu-
ation of teaching: Identifying and addressing academic staff development
needs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (3): 222-336.
Becker, William E. 1997. Teaching economics to undergraduates. Journal of
Economic Literature 35 (September): 1347-73.
Benbunan-Fich, Raquel, Hector R. Lozada, Stephen Pirog, Randi Priluck,
and JoesphWiesenblit. 2001. Integrating information technology into the
marketing curriculum: A pragmatic paradigm. Journal of Marketing
Education 23 (April): 5-15.
Bickart, Barbara, and Robert M. Schindler. 2001. Internet Forums and influ-
ential sources of consumer information. Journal of Interactive Marketing
15 (Summer): 31-40.
Bishop, Ann Peterson. 2000. Communities for the new century. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy 43 (5): 472-78.
Bloom, Benjamin S. 1956. Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classifi-
cation of educational goals, by a committee of college and university
examiners. New York: Longman’s Green.
Boex, L. F. Jameson. 2000. Attributes of effective economics instructors:
An analysis of student evaluations. Journal of Economic Education 31
(Summer): 211-26.
Bressler, Stacey E., and Charles E. Grantham. 2000. Communities of com-
merce. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brightman, Harvey J., Merwyn L. Elliot, and Yezdi Bhada. 1993. Increasing
the effectiveness of student evaluations of instructor data through a factor
score comparative report. Decision Sciences 24 (1): 192-99.
Brown, John Seely, and Paul Duguid. 2000. The social life of information.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Brown, Shone L., and Kathleen M. Eisenhardt. 1998. Competing on the edge:
Strategy as structured chaos. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Carpenter, Rebecca. 1998. The anywhere MBA. Canadian Business 71
(October): 62-67.
Carter, Alex. 2001. Interactive distance education implications for the adult
learner. International Journal of Instructional Media 28 (3): 24-26.
Celsi, Richard L., and Mary Wolfinbarger. 2002. Discontinuous classroom
innovation: Waves of change for marketing education. Journal of Mar-
keting Education 24 (April): 64-73.
Chen, Qimei, and William D. Wells. 1999. Attitudes toward the site. Journal
of Advertising Research 39 (5): 27-37.
Churchill, Gilbert A. 1979. A paradigm for developing better measures of
marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 64-
73.
Deighton, John. 1997. Commentary on exploring the implications of the
Internet for consumer marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science 25:347-51.
Donoho, Ron. 1998. The new MBA. Training 35 (October): D4-D9.
Drago, William, James W. Peltier, and Don Sorensen. 2002. Course content
or instructor: Which is more important in online teaching? Management
Research News 25 (6/7): 69-83.
Eastman, Jacqueline K., and Cathy Owens Swift. 2001. New horizons in dis-
tance education: The online learner-centered marketing class. Journal of
Marketing Education 23 (April): 25-34.
Entwistle, Noel, and Hilary Tait. 1990. Approaches to learning, evaluations
of teaching, and preferences for contrasting academic environments.
Higher Education 19:169-94.
Feldman, Kenneth A. 1976. Grades and college students’ evaluations of their
courses and teachers. Research in Higher Education 18 (March): 69-111.
Figallo, Cliff. 1998. Hosting Web communities: Building relationships,
increasing customer loyalty, and maintaining a competitive edge.
Chicester, UK: Wiley.
Fitzgerald, Gail. 1995. The effects of an interactive videodisc training pro-
gram in classroom observation skills used as a teaching tool and as a
learning tool. Computers in Human Behavior 11:467-79.
Fombrun, Charles J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate
image. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Fraser, Barry J. 1986. Classroom environment. London: Croom Helm.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING EDUCATION 275
Gibson, Chere Campbell. 1996. Toward emerging technologies and distrib-
uted learning: Challenges and change. American Journal of Distance
Education 10:47-49.
Greco, JoAnn. 1999. Going the distance for MBA candidates. Journal of
Business Strategy 20 (3): 30-34.
Hagel, John. 1999. Marketplace: Net gains: Expanding markets through vir-
tual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing 13 (Winter): 55-65.
Hagel, John, and Arthur Armstrong. 1997. Net gains: Expanding markets
through virtual communities. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Harasim, Linda M. 1990. Online education: Perspectives on a new environ-
ment. New York: Praeger.
Haynes, Deborah C., and Holly Hunts. 2000. Using teaching evaluations as a
measurement of consumer satisfaction. Consumer Interests Annual
46:134-39.
Hiltz, Starr R. 1986. The virtual classroom: Using computer-mediated com-
munication for university teaching. Journal of Communication 36 (2):
95-104.
Holland, Jonna, and Stacey Menzel-Baker. 2001. Customer participation in
creating site brand loyalty. Journal of Interactive Marketing 15 (4): 34-
45.
Houston, Mark B., and Lance A. Bettencourt. 1999. But that’s not fair! An
exploratory study of student perceptions of instructor fairness. Journal of
Marketing Education 21 (August): 84-96.
Karns, Gary L., and Stephen Pharr. 2001a. Editor’s corner. Journal of Mar-
keting Education 23 (April): 3-4.
, eds. 2001b. Integrating technology and distance learning in market-
ing education. Journal of Marketing Education 23 (1).
Karp, David A., Gregory P. Stone, and William Yoels. 1977. Being urban: A
social psychological view of city life. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Karuppam, Corinne, and Muthu Karuppum. 1999. Empirically based guide-
lines for developing teaching materials on the Web. Business Communi-
cations Quarterly 62 (3): 37-45.
Kaynama, Shohreh, and Garland Keesling. 2000. Development of a Web-
based Internet marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education 22
(August): 84-89.
Kelley, M. E. 1987. Course teams and instructional design in Australian dis-
tance education. Distance Education 8 (1): 106-20.
Kitchen, David, and Douglas McDougall. 1998-1999. Collaborative learning
on the Internet. Journal of Educational Technology Systems 27:245-58.
Klein, Lisa R. 2003. Creating virtual product experiences: The role of
telepresence. Journal of Interactive Marketing 17 (Winter): 41-55.
Kozinets, Robert V. 1999. E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications
of virtual communities of consumption. European Management Journal
17 (3): 252-64.
Lang, Karl, and J. Leon Zhao. 2000. The role of electronic commerce in he
transformation of distance education. Journal of Organizational Com-
puting & Electronic Commerce 10 (2): 103-27.
Lawrence, Thomas B. 1995. Power and resources in an organizational com-
munity. Academy of Management Journal, Special Issue Best Paper Pro-
ceedings, 251-55.
Lee, June. 2002. Faculty and administrator perceptions of instructional sup-
port for distance education. International Journal of Media 29 (1): 27-45.
Leonard, David C. 1999. The Web, the millennium, and the digital evolution
of distance education. Technical Communications Quarterly 8 (Winter):
9-21.
Long, Peter, Tony Tricker, Margaret Rangecroft, and Peter Gilroy. 2000. Sat-
isfaction with distance education. Total Quality Management 11 (4-6):
530-36.
Looi, C. K., and D. Ang. 2000. A multimedia-enhanced collaborative learn-
ing environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 16:2-13.
Lowman, John, and Virginia A. Mathie. 1993. What should graduate teaching
assistants know about teaching? Teaching of Psychology 29 (2): 84-88.
Maharg, Paul. 2001. Negotiating the Web: Legal skills learning in a virtual
community. International Review of Law Computers & Technology 15
(3): 345-60.
276 DECEMBER 2003
Markel, Mike. 1999. Distance education and the myth of the new pedagogy.
Journal of Business & Technical Communication 13:208-22.
Marsh, Herbert W. 1987. Students’ evaluation of university teaching:
Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biased, and utility. Journal
of Educational Psychology 11:253-388.
Mathwick, Charla. 2002. Understanding the online consumer: A typology of
online relational norms and behavior. Journal of Interactive Marketing
14 (Winter): 40-55.
McAlister, Debbie T. 2001a. The editor’s corner. Journal of Marketing Edu-
cation 23 (December): 167-68.
. 2001b. Innovation in marketing education. Journal of Marketing
Education 23 (3).
McCorkle, Denny E., Joe F. Alexander, and James Reardon. 2001. Inte-
grating business technology and marketing education: Enhancing the dif-
fusion process through technology champions. Journal of Marketing
Education 23 (April): 16-24.
McGrath, Carolyn. 1997-98. A new voice on Interchange: Is it talking or writ-
ing? Implications for the teaching of literature. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems 26:291-97.
McWilliam, Gil. 2000. Building stronger brands through online communi-
ties. Sloan Management Review 41 (Spring): 43-54.
Moore, Michael G. 1990. Contemporary issues in American distance educa-
tion. New York: Gannon.
Murphy, Ian P. 1997. Web “communities” a target marketer’s dream. Mar-
keting News 31 (14): 2-3.
Navarro, Peter, and Judy Shoemaker. 1999. The power of cyberlearning: An
empirical test. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 11 (1): 29-54.
Nelson, Jon P., and Kathleen A. Lynch. 1984. Grade inflation, real income,
simultaneity, and teaching. Journal of Economic Education 15 (Winter):
21-37.
Nielsen, Jacob. 2000. Designing Web usability. Indianapolis, IN: New
Riders.
Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
O’Leary, Mick. 2002. E-global library advances the virtual library. Informa-
tion Today 19 (3): 19-21.
Palloff, Rena M., and K. Keith Pratt. 1999. Building learning communities in
cyberspace: Effectiveness strategies for the online classroom. San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass.
Patrick, Jeff, and Roslyn M. Smart. 1998. An empirical evaluation of teacher
effectiveness: The emergence of three critical factors. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 23 (2): 165-78.
Peltier, James W., John A. Schibrowsky, John Davis, and Donald Schultz.
2002. Interactive psychographics: Cross-selling opportunities in the
banking industry. Journal of Advertising Research 42 (2): 7-22.
Peter, J. Paul. 1979. Reliability: A review of psychometric basics and recent
marketing practices. Journal of Marketing Research 16 (February): 6-17.
Phillips, Vicky. 1998. Online universities teach knowledge beyond the books.
HR Magazine 43 (8): 120-28.
Ponzurick, Thomas G., Karen R. France, and Cyril M. Logar. 2000.
Delivering graduate marketing education: An analysis of face-to-face
versus distance education. Journal of Marketing Education 22 (Decem-
ber): 180-87.
Pye, Joe. 1999. Perspectives of ICT in professional development and educa-
tion. Information Services & Use 19 (4): 307-12.
Rahm, Diane, and B. J. Reed. 1997. Going remote: The use of distance learn-
ing, the World Wide Web, and the Internet in graduate programs of public
affairs and administration. Public Productivity and Management Review
20 (4): 459-71.
Ramsden, Paul. 1991. A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher
education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Edu-
cation 16:129-50.
Remmers, H. 1960. Manual of instructions for the Purdue Rating Scale of
Instruction. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
Rheingold, H. 2000. The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic
frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roach, Scott S., Mark W. Johnston, and Joseph F. Hair. 1993. An exploratory
examination of teaching styles currently employed in marketing educa-
tion. Journal of Marketing Education 15 (Fall): 32-38.
Roblyer, M. D. 1999. Is choice important in distance learning? A study of stu-
dent motives for taking Internet-based courses at the high school and
community college levels. Journal of Research on Computing in Educa-
tion 32 (Fall): 157-71.
Rothaermel, Frank T., and Stephen Sugiyama. 2001. Virtual Internet commu-
nities and commercial success: Individual and community-level theory
grounded in the atypical case of TimeZone.com. Journal of Management
27 (3): 297-314.
Shea, Timothy, Luvai Motiwalla, and David Lewis. 2001. Internet-based dis-
tance education: The administrator’s perspective. Journal of Education
for Business 77 (2): 112-17.
Sherron, Gene, and Judith V. Boettcher. 1997. Distance learning: The shift to
interactivity. Boulder, CO: Cause.
Shevlin, Mark, Philip Banyard, Mark Davies, and Mark Griffiths. 2000. The
validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: Love me,
love my lectures? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (4):
397-405.
Siegel, Carolyn F. 1996. Introducing marketing students to business intelli-
gence using project-based learning on the World Wide Web. Journal of
Marketing Education 18 (August): 14-24.
Smart, Denise T., Craig A. Kelley, and Jeffrey S. Conant. 1999. Marketing
education in the year 2000: Changes observed and challenges anticipated.
Journal of Marketing Education 21 (December): 206-16.
Smith, David H. 1996. Developing a more interactive classroom: A continu-
ing odyssey. Teaching Sociology 24 (1): 64-75.
Smith, Lois J. 2001. Content and delivery: A comparison and contrast of elec-
tronic and traditional MBA marketing planning courses. Journal of Mar-
keting Education 23 (April): 35-44.
Sonner, Brenda S. 1999. Success in capstone business course: Assessing the
effectiveness of distance learning. Journal of Education for Business 74
(March–April): 243-47.
Stevenson, Julie S., Gordon C. Brunner II, and Anand Kumar. 2000. Webpage
background and viewer attitudes. Journal of Advertising Research 40 (1):
51-62.
Sullivan, Patrick. 2001. Gender differences and the online classroom: Male
and female college students evaluate their experiences. College Journal
of Research & Practices 25:805-18.
Sweeney, Jillian C., and Deborah Ingram. 2001. A comparison of traditional
and Web-based tutorials in marketing education: An exploratory study.
Journal of Marketing Education 23 (April): 55-62.
Tricker, Tony, Margaret Rangecroft, Peter Long, and Peter Gilroy. 2001.
Evaluating distance education courses: The student perception. Assess-
ment & Evaluation in Higher Education 26 (2): 165-77.
Ueltschy, Linda. 2001. An exploratory study of integrating interactive tech-
nology into marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education 23
(April): 63-72.
Wachtel, Howard K. 1998. Student evaluation of college teaching effective-
ness: A brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 23
(2): 191-211.
WebCT Exemplary Course Project. 2003. http://webct.com/exemplary.
Wechsler, A. 2002. Online learning lasts an ever-widening net. Times Union,
March 3.
Wind, Jerry, and Arvind Rangaswamy. 2001. Customerization: The next rev-
olution in mass communication. Journal of Interactive Marketing 15
(Winter): 13-32.
Young, Mark R. 2001. Windowed, wired, and webbed: Now what? Journal of
Marketing Education 23 (April): 45-54.