Revisiting Marketing Management Teaching Pedagogy: A Study Based on the Voice of Indian Marketing Professionals

Abstract

Marketing management is one of the practical-oriented subjects in management education, which is very dynamic. In this changing and newly emerging business and marketing ecosystem, the challenge of marketing teaching pedagogy is increasing day by day. In marketing management teaching pedagogical research, there is a scarcity of integrated blended framework consisting of teaching technology and augmented learning exposure in supporting classroom teaching methodology. The study attempts to identify how various factors like theoretical knowledge, practical orientation, teaching technology and augmented learning can impact marketing management education’s learning outcome in the Indian context. Current research has also tried developing and examining a structured framework that may strengthen the classroom teaching environment. This article is based on empirical data of 693 marketing and sales professionals who are mostly alumni from topmost Indian B-schools. Exploratory factor analyses and structural equation modelling, and path analysis are being done to test the conceptual research model. The results of this article demonstrate how contemporary integrated classroom teaching can boost the marketing management learning outcomes with a proper blend of augmented learning exposure, out-of-class exercises and teaching technology in an Indianized way.

Keywords

Management education learning approaches marketing management pedagogy new-age learning structured equation modelling

Introduction

Management education is interpreted as the conjunction point or platform for conveying a set of knowledge or information, skills or abilities, ethics and professional morals to promising management professionals. There must be a proper equilibrium between knowing and doing (or between knowledge and Implementation) to achieve a successful transfer. Management education helps in increasing the potential and performance abilities of the management professionals. In this current scenario, management education and the B-schools are taking the leading role of imparting knowledge, but as many have observed that business management institutions are not able to schooling the requirements of the modern business world (Elmuti, 2004). The condition fronting by the business management institutes is well demonstrated by the words of Paul Valery, a French symbolist writer, who has voiced long ago: The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be. With the changing time frame and complex business situations, the need for management education is also changing very fast. Knowledge or an organized set of information is no simpler to know, but a means to receive a fruitful living. Thus, education is rehabilitated into a sought-after commodity in this competitive marketplace (Datar et al., 2011).

Datar et al. (2011) have thoughtfully deliberated in their amazing book Rethinking the MBA that the practical and applied revelation, the need for outcome-based management education and the technological mixture are becoming an essential requirement the expectation of the potential recruiters. The industry has been hankering about the skills that management graduates should possess. Graduate Management Admission Council has highlighted a few of the aspects that recruiters want from management graduates and by and large, those are Decision Making Ability, Analytical Skill, Problem Solving Skill and Creativity. It has been observed that marketing management is one of the most preferred specializations in Indian business schools because of its vast job market opportunities and higher pay packages. One of the reports published by the Times of India (Jan 12, 2019) has demonstrated that marketing management graduates get higher pay packages. Monster.com has supported this. As one of the popular MBA specialties, marketing management is a highly dynamic field in nature (Erdoğan et al., 2021; Estelami, 2020; Khan, 2017; Rana, 2017; Rana et al., 2017). Marketing management teaching pedagogy is being researched in a diverse way to find and support the most effective method to produce budding efficient marketing managers (Erdoğan et al., 2021; Estelami, 2020; Ferrell & Ferrell, 2020; Khan, 2017; Rana et al., 2020; Shah et al., 2019; Shah et al., 2020). Researchers have established that marketing executives and managers are often vain to comprehend how the suitable strategy is to implement, and they also demonstrate the ineffectiveness in linking with the organization’s general vision and strategic directions (Erdoğan et al., 2021; Estelami, 2020; Khan, 2017). Policy implementation remains an ineffective act with less focus. In this context, marketing education and pedagogy cannot overlook its responsibility to revisit and find out gaps (Naidoo & Wu, 2011).

This current article can be seen as a thoughtful try to find out how to design and achieve the best marketing teaching pedagogy. This article allows us to revisit existing marketing teaching pedagogy in the Indian context from the marketing and sales professionals’ perspective. The research has tried to incorporate various opinions of the marketing and sales professionals who are mostly the alumni of India’s premier business schools to find out the Indianized way to look into marketing management’s pedagogical issues in the Indian context. The findings have profound implications for developing countries where the emphasis is placed on rote-learning or marks rather than on practical skill sets. The findings will also boost the learning outcomes in relation to marketing acumen for producing future high skills in marketing and sales.

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework

Marketing Management is one of the most practical-oriented subjects in management education, which is very dynamic (Borin et al., 2008). He described the ‘hands-on’ and ‘minds-on’ learning are very much essential components in Marketing Management education to enhance the students’ competency in this changing marketing environment. Researchers have emphasized ‘learning by doing’ for better understanding the consumer and marketing processes.

Technology Integration with Augmented Learning and Out-of-Class Exercise in Marketing Education

Eminent researchers have contributed sincerely related to the pedagogical issues to boost up management education as a whole. Some of the researchers have emphasized the management teaching technology and tools such has been mentioned as follows: Audiovisual learning aids are having substantial impacts on learning, and that can engage the students in a better way (Bento, 2011; Nees & Berry, 2013; Rasul et al., 2011). Smart Class is the new addition to the teaching and learning ecosystem that increases the clarity of knowledge projection with relevant educational resources and inputs (Brigham, 2013; Martin et al., 2014; Piccoli et al., 2001; Preston & Mowbray, 2008). Information and communications technology and E-learning are the growing areas of concern, which have been so relevant to connect the knowledge seeker with the appropriate information source more quickly and easily (Bhaumik, 2012; Donnelly & McSweeney, 2008; Pheeraphan, 2013; Seman et al., 2012). In this rapidly growing technology-led teaching and learning environment, higher education moves towards the Interactive learning Module for better engagement and augment learning outcomes (Booth & James, 2001; Lee & Osman, 2012; Mukti & Hwa, 2004). The online digital lecture is increasing the convenience of the students that also promotes the remote learning ethos and value (Drouin et al., 2013; Geith & Vignare, 2019; Grabe & Christopherson, 2008; Hiltz & Turoff, 2005; McMartin et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2012). In this world where the main population portion is occupied by the millennials who are more inclined towards Mobile learning culture, this is a rapidly growing phenomenon (Keengwe & Bhargava, 2014; Korucu & Alkan, 2011; Parsons, 2016; Rajasingham, 2011; Zawacki-Richter, 2009). The change of technology and digitization growth has boosted the management education ecosystem, wherein the teaching and learning process is immensely benefited (Ferrell & Ferrell, 2020; Müller & Wulf, 2020; Tas & Yeloglu, 2018). The application of information technology, the internet contains smart classrooms and the different audiovisual aids positively transformed the knowledge dissemination process. Various researches demonstrated that teaching technology has a significant positive impact on management education (Abdellatif, 2019; Amponsah et al., 2021; Aryani & Siahaan, 2020; Banerjee, 2021; Jain & Chawla, 2021; Lamine et al., 2021; Machumu et al., 2018; Prilop et al., 2021; Riabova & Pogodin, 2021; Shahroom & Hussin, 2018; Wei, 2021). But there is little evidence in explaining how technology can boost classroom teaching with an integrated combination with augmented learning exposes and out of the class activities. This gap has inspired us to formulate the following hypotheses.

H1: In marketing education, teaching technology is significantly related to augmented learning exposure.

H3: In marketing teaching, teaching technology is connected to out-of-class exercise.

H7: Classroom teaching is influenced by teaching technology in marketing education.

Integrated Classroom Teaching in Marketing

Several scholarly research articles have critically emphasized the diverse dimensions of the teaching methodology for the betterment of management education and its positive outcomes related to skill enhancement. In the education teaching methodology domain, the scholars have underlined issues like the Lecture method is the best way to disseminate knowledge (Burkill et al., 2008; Churchill & John, 1958; Griffin & Cashin, 1989; Roy & Banerjee, 2012). Researchers believe that the lecture method is the old schools of thought the learning by doing better way to generate the better learning outcome and also has the power to connect and involve the students (Bauer et al., 2011; Bhattacharya & Chattopadhyay, 2019; Gibbs, 1988; Joyce, 2012; Kolb & Kolb, 2009; Zhao & Jiang, 2009). Some researchers have emphasized outcome-based learning irrespective of any pedagogy(Borin et al., 2008; Davis, 2003; Kaliannan & Chandran, 2012). Another thought of the researchers is that Problem-Based teaching is more superior because this boosts the knowledge’s operation skills and applicability (Anderson & Lawton, 2005; Brownell & Jameson, 2004; Carriger, 2015; Hallinger & Lu, 2011; Roh & Kim, 2015). The Case Study based teaching pedagogy helps long-term retention of knowledge of the concepts and theories learned in class and applies their learning to real business context (Berrell et al., 2001; Christensen & Carlile, 2009; Dixit et al., 2005; Jain, 2005; Mesny, 2013). Critical thinking is another efficient teaching approach to enhance an in-depth understanding of the concepts and theories through application orientation (Athanassiou et al., 2003; Bhattacharya & Chattopadhyay, 2019; Hammer & Green, 2011; Lloyd & Bahr, 2010; Mulnix, 2012). Simulation-based teaching helps the students to understand the logical progression of problem-solving in context to a replicated virtual situation (Grossman et al., 2013; Lu et al., 2014; Salas et al., 2009; Steadman et al., 2006).

Augmented learning exposure has become another significant new section in the teaching methodology research domain related to higher education. Management education is also highly influenced by this new age of teaching and learning. The researchers have brought out the multiple components under the area of augmented learning exposure which can be as follows: Use of research articles and evidence-based literature in management education (Bhattacharya & Chattopadhyay, 2019; Burke & Rau, 2010; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2006; Van Lacum et al., 2014). Experiential learning is a new-age approach that helps in blend knowledge with self-experience (Kayes, 2002; Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Action-based learning improves experimentation habits and learning by self-contribution and participation (Howell, 1994; O’Hara et al., 1996; Reynolds & Vince, 2004). The use of management simulation Games has become one of the popular new-age learning tools to boost decision-making aptitudes (Günther et al., 2011; Korman & Johnston, 2013). Social media headed group, or individual learning is becoming another new-age learning methodology (De Andreav et al., 2012; Kumar & Nanda, 2019; Sobaih et al., 2016; Wankel, 2009) as the teaching and learning process in recent days is changing drastically by keeping a balance with new-age students learning attitude. Many academicians are using augmented exposure as the tools to engage the students for better learning experiences. But how this is helping the classroom teaching and how that is also connected with out of the class activities is not well research area. By observing this aspect, we have formulated the following hypotheses.

H2: In marketing, education augmented learning exposure is significantly related to out-of-class exercise.

H4: In marketing, teaching augmented learning exposure significantly impact the teaching methodology.

H8: Classroom teaching is significantly influenced by augmented learning exposure in marketing education.

Blended Learning in Marketing Education

In this changing and newly emerging business and marketing ecosystem, the challenge of marketing teaching pedagogy is increasing day by day (Madhavaram & Laverie, 2010; Teklehaimanot et al., 2017). In this era, teaching technology and augmented learning exposure is a growing phenomenon in the field of marketing education, and this is also getting its proper outcome with the help of out of class exposure (Chang & Hwang, 2018; Dunleavy & Dede, 2014; Guo, 2011; Kesim & Ozarslan, 2012; Nincarean et al., 2013; Tobias et al., 2014). The article argues that classroom teaching for marketing education needs to be more technology-oriented and augmented learning environment is to be promoted for better teaching and learning experience (Becker, 2007; Chang & Hwang, 2018; Guo, 2011; Herreid & Schiller, 2013; Leese, 2009; Shieh, 2012; Wilson, 2013). Numerous scholars have critically demonstrated that today’s education domain out of the class activity significantly impacts generating high learning outcomes (Rajesh & Reena, 2015; Shi et al., 2002). Out-of-the-class activity blended with technology may boost the classroom teaching experience (Rajesh & Reena, 2015; Wilson, 2013). The researchers have also shown that teaching methodology supported by technology and out of the class activity can increase the horizon of learning with experimentation and enjoyment (Rajesh & Reena, 2015; Wilson, 2013; Zualkernan et al., 2008). But there is a scarcity of integrated investigation on how out-of-the-classroom activities can give a better score in classroom teaching and teaching methodology blended with augmented learning and use of teaching technology. Considering the above-stated arguments, in this article, we have conceptualized the following hypotheses.

H5: In the marketing teaching out of class exercise significantly impacts the teaching methodology.

H9: Classroom teaching is significantly influenced by augmented learning exposure in marketing education.

Impact of Teaching Methodology on Classroom Teaching and Learning Outcomes

Numerous studies demonstrated that there is a synergistic approach between classroom teaching and teaching methodology. Teaching methodology can create a better environment in facilitating the knowledge dissemination process in management education and allows the instructors to engage the students and motivate them to understand the subject matter. This also broadens the horizon of application orientation of the management students. Marketing is one of the highly applied subjects in domain management where the main objective of the course is to develop the skill set of the future managers to address the challenges of today’s volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) business ecosystem (Horney et al., 2010; Popova et al., 2018; Sarkar, 2016; Schoemaker et al., 2018). That requires their decision-making ability, analytical skill, problem-solving and creativity (Gersel & Thaning, 2020; Ungaretti et al., 2015). Studies so far in the marketing education domain rightly explore these above-stated issues, but there is a lack of an integrated approach. This has stimulated us to develop the following hypotheses.

H6: In marketing education, the teaching methodology significantly impacts classroom teaching.

H10: Managerial ability of the students is significantly influenced by classroom teaching in marketing schooling.

Based on the hypotheses described above, a conceptual research model is being formulated (see Figure 1) that has tried to unfold how the present-days marketing management teaching and learning ecosystem can be developed to the budding new age managers with a high level of competency to be more industry.

Research Gap

The times that we live in today are in a state of flux thanks to the ever-changing technology and technical enhancements that are happening almost on a daily basis. Technology has invaded almost all areas of our lives and has also crept into the education sector. However, one area which still needs an improvement or instead awaits a transformation is classroom teaching. Age-old practices of classroom teaching in management education still dominate. In India, we still positively focus on the theoretical aspect of things rather than the practical application. And added to this is the fact that the foundations of the theory are mostly either American or European, having very little to do with how Indian consumers act. With the change of the technology, attitude and lifestyle of the Indian youths, the teaching pedagogy in the domain of Marketing Management has to shape-up with the changing market demand. As the student are the core consumers of the management education industry, in rethinking contemporary Marketing Management pedagogy, the dynamism of the management students’ learning attitude and liking has to be investigated. The aforementioned research has sincerely contributed to finding the diverse components unswervingly and indirectly connected to the enhancement of management and higher education. But the researchers have discussed the diverse individual factors in an unintegrated manner. In the existing pieces of literature, there is a lack of integrated framework in explaining how the management education pedagogy can help the budding managers to acquire the skills set to attain the expectation and requirements of the potential recruiter in this changing and competitive marketing environment. In the Marketing Management teaching pedagogical research domain, there is a scarcity of integrated blended framework consisting of teaching technology and augmented learning exposure in supporting classroom teaching methodology. There is a lack of research studies on the management students’ opinion in creating an exciting teaching and learning environment for producing highly competent marketing professionals. The existing literature shows a lack of research on alumni’s opinion-led Marketing Management teaching pedagogical issues in an Indian situation. This gap has motivated us to develop different hypotheses and research objectives. The proposed research model has been conceptualized and constructed and the research objective in this study.

Research Objectives and Conceptual Model

This article focuses on post-graduate Marketing Management teaching in a classroom environment. The study is a thoughtful, honest attempt to identify the various factors involved in theoretical, practical, technological and augmented dimensions of Marketing Management education in the Indian context. Current research has also tried developing and examining a structured framework that may strengthen the classroom teaching environment. The hypotheses-based proposed model (see Figure 1) of the current research demonstrates how these different direct and indirect factors can be instrumental in growing an exciting and comprehensive atmosphere to produce high skilful marketing professionals with enhanced decision-making ability skills, problem-solving skills and creativity. The research model (see Figure 1) of this study has emphasized ‘students learning’ instead of ‘teaching’ to better redesign contemporary and sustainable marketing education pedagogy. In Figure 1, we have conceptualized a hypothesis-based model to capture the marketing and sales professionals’ perspective to revisit and construct systematic marketing management pedagogy in an Indianized way. In our conceptual model, we have explored the interrelationship among teaching technology, augmented learning exposure and class exposure in connection with the marketing education domain.

Figure 1.

Proposed Integrated Model of Marketing Teaching Pedagogy and Learning Outcomes

On the one hand, our proposed model also attempted to verify the impacts of augmented learning exposure and out-of-class exposure on teaching methodology. On the other hand, we have tried to measure teaching technology influences, augmented learning exposure, out of the class exposure and teaching methodology on classroom teaching. Finally, our proposed model has attempted to demonstrate the overall contribution of classroom teaching in building managerial ability.

Research Methodology

This study is comprehensively founded on review literature to, directly and indirectly, identify the factors or variables linked to the projected research model. This research is grounded on first hand observed data accumulated from the interaction with marketing and sales professionals who are the alumni of Indian top B-schools. To be more specific, we have considered alumni as students graduating from a business school and having worked for at least two years in the domain of sales and marketing in the industry in this research. A set of responses has been accumulated from the online survey using a list-based sample frame frequently used and is a popular method in online consumer research. To prepare the initial list, we have interacted with the alumni network’s cells and alumni relations cells of the various premier business schools. This stage allowed us to create a curated list of 1475 B-school alumni. Out of the initial list, 735 potential responders were randomly selected (using the random selection module of MS Excel) and were requested to respond to an online structured questionnaire. A Likert scale of five-points (1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree) has been used in recording the sample responses. A total of 693 responses (94.28% out of 735 online questionnaire communications) were received in the process of an online survey. A structural equation modelling (SEM) is performed to evaluate the empirical data and validate the proposed research model.

Data Analysis and Results

Reliability and Normality Analysis

We have done the SEM process with the maximum likelihood estimation technique to do justice with statistical testing that is typically be considered a comparatively robust estimation alternative. From Table 2, this can be viewed that all the value of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are meeting the minimum required level of .70 in gross this can be said that the reliability of the model is achieved.

Construct Validity

All the factor loadings in this study are having higher value (.50 and above) and which are to be considered as significant at the 0.01 level indicating convergent validity.

From Table 2, it can be said that composite reliability (CR) values are meeting the minimum average (with values .70 and above, which supports the interior constancy of the tested model. The CR of all factors or dimensions is.784 (Teaching Technology), .903 (Augmented Learning Exposure), .802 (Out of Class Exercise), .846 (Class Room Teaching), .890 (Teaching Methodology) and .843 (Managerial Ability).

Table 1.

Model Fit Indices of the Current Research Model

Model Fit Indices	Value
Chi-square statistic	596.516 (Probability level=.000)
χ²/d.f.	2.475
Normed fit index (NFI)	.916
Comparative fit index (CFI)	.93
Tucker Lewis index (TLI)	.92
Relative fit index (RFI)	.892
RMSEA	.0547
PCLOSE	.008

Table 2 also allows us to have the exposure of the different values of average variance extracted (AVE) of all constructs, which are: .548 (Teaching Technology), .570 (Augmented Learning Exposure), .504 (Out of Class Exercise), .580 (Class Room Teaching), .619 (Teaching Methodology) and .574 (Managerial Ability). This can be observed that all the construct maintained the minimum standards of statistical convergent (AVE = 0.50).

Table 2.

Measurement Model Fit Indices

Factors/Items	Standardized Factor Loading	Cronbach’s Alpha	AVE	CR
Teaching technology
ICT technology	.775	.682	.548	.784
Smart class	.726
Audiovisual aids	.718
Augmented learning exposure
Interactive learning module	.752	.806	.570	.903
Use of research articles	.746
Role plays	.731
Involvement in research	.774
Interactive session with industry expert	.752
Use of management simulation game	.769
Use of self-evolution module	.758
Out of class exercise
Experience sharing by corporate experts	.764	.719	.504	.802
Stories on corporate strategies and success	.671
Industry exposure and corporate Interaction	.727
Briefing before and after the class	.673
Class room teaching
Class room environment	.747	.735	.580	.846
Interaction between teacher and students	.814
Live project	.769
Discussion about the contemporary issue	.713
Teaching methodology
Group assignment	.759	.773	.619	.890
Mental exercise	.728
Practical oriented learning	.826
Case study	.831
Problem solving group discussion	.784
Managerial ability
Decision-making ability	.729	.728	.574	.843
Analytical skill	.806
Problem-solving skill	.788
Creativity	.703

Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Measurement Model

The model fit indices also provide a reasonable model fit for the structural model.

SEM Procedures

The statistical results shown in Tables 3(a–d) demonstrates that Teaching Technology and Augmented Learning Exposure are having significantly affirmative association (Correlations = .638, Path Coefficient =.263, t = 5.049, p value <.01), this has also been observed that Teaching Technology and Out of the Class Exposure are positively connected to each other (correlations = .758, path coefficient = .282, t = 5.719, p value <.01) and Augmented Learning Exposure and Out of the Class Exposure are positively related (correlations = .871, path coefficient = .312, t = 5.944, p value <.01). The outcome of the SEM has established that Teaching Technology is having a significant positive influence on Class Room Teaching (path coefficient =.689, t = 6.366, p value <.01), Augmented Learning Exposure is having a substantial positive impact on Class Room Teaching (path coefficient =.635, t = 5.525, p value <.01) and Out of the Class Exposure is having a strong positive effect on Class Room Teaching (Path Coefficient =.816, t = 7.414, p value <.01). SEM outcome has demonstrated that Augmented Learning Exposure is having a significant positive influence on the Teaching Methodology (path coefficient =.722, t = 6.844, p value <.05), Out of the Class Exposure is having a substantial positive impact on Teaching Methodology (path coefficient =.715, t = 6.699, p value <.01). Finally, the tested model has strongly depicted Teaching Methodology is having a significant positive influence on the Class Room Teaching (path coefficient =.850, t = 8.023, p value <.01) and Class Room Teaching substantially influences the Managerial Ability of the management students (path coefficient =.891, t = 8.155, p value <.01).

The result summary of the above SEM demonstrates that teaching technology, augmented learning exposure, and out of the class exposure is significantly related to each other. That validates that to develop a cosy marketing management teaching and learning ecosystem teaching technology, augmented learning exposure and out of the class exposure can jointly impact classroom teaching. The SEM model outcome has also guided that if the teaching methodology is blended with augmented learning exposure and out-of-the-class exposure can generate enhanced support to classroom teaching, which eventually contributes to growing with the marketing’s higher managerial ability management graduates.

From the empirical evidence, it can be said that teaching technology, augmented learning exposure and out of the class exposure are strongly associated with each other (see Tables 3a and 3b). From the statistical outcome of this article, it can be concluded that Indian alumni favour technology blended learning and cases or experiences given in the Indian context. The results have also demonstrated that augmented learning exposure and outside of class exercise strongly influence the teaching methodology. This is also noticeable because classroom teaching is highly dependent on teaching methodology, teaching technology, class exercise and augment learning exposure (see Table 3c). From Table 3c, this can be said that teaching methodology backed by augmented learning exposure and outside class exercise can boost the classroom teaching method where teaching technology will contribute favourably to make this teaching and learning environment more attractive. Considering the outcome of Tables 3c and 3d standardized model with path coefficients (shown in Figure 2) has critically examined that the classroom teaching process will substantially impact budding marketing professionals’ managerial ability.

Table 3a.

Testing of Covariances

Covariances	Estimate	S.E.	t Value	p Value
Teaching technology ↔ Augmented learning exposure	.263^**	.052	5.049	.000
Teaching technology ↔ Out of the class exposure	.282^**	.049	5.719	.000
Augmented learning exposure ↔ Out of the class exposure	.312^**	.052	5.944	.000

(*p<.05; ^**p<.01).

Table 3b.

Testing of Correlations

	Correlations
Teaching technology ↔ Augmented learning exposure	.597^**
Teaching technology ↔ Out of the class exposure	.638^**
Augmented learning exposure ↔ Out of the class exposure	.871^**

(*p<.05; ^**p<.01).

Table 3c.

Testing of Hypotheses

Hypotheses	Standardized Path Coefficients	S.E.	t Value	p Value
Teaching technology → Class room teaching	.689^**	.305	6.366	.002
Augmented learning exposure → Class room teaching	.635^**	.117	5.525	.006
Out of the class exposure → Class room teaching	.816^**	.46	7.414	.000
Augmented learning exposure → Teaching methodology	.722^*	.305	6.844	.02
Out of the class exposure → Teaching methodology	.715^**	.34	6.699	.000
Teaching methodology → Class room teaching	.85^**	.335	8.023	.003
Class room teaching → Managerial ability	.891^**	.473	8.155	.000

(*p<.05; ^**p<.01).

Table 3d.

Estimation of Squared Multiple Correlations

Squared Multiple Correlations (R²)	Estimate
Class room teaching	.891
Teaching methodology	.825
Managerial ability	.794

Figure 2.

(**p < .05; *p < .01).

Discussion

From the interaction with the marketing and sales professionals, we realized that the principles and theories used in the textbooks are either too Americanized or European in nature, which creates a significant gap in understanding. This is because most of the students in Indian business schools are not exposed to foreign media and culture and therefore find it challenging to comprehend the examples. For example, the concept of equity and equality has different interpretations in the Indian context. An example of the point using religion to sell products is considered perfectly acceptable in the Indian context, but such blatant use of religion in American or European societies may lead to a massive hue and cry in the Caucasian culture. Many alumni have complained to the authors that the ethics that are taught in business schools are not even close to what is practiced in Indian markets. There seems to be an exact requirement for an Indianized marketing management course that brings into focus the Indian way of doing business.

This research has perfectly proved that Teaching Technology, Augmented Learning Exposure and Out-of-the-Class Exercise are strongly connected, showing that today’s management student who learns Marketing Management prefers technology blended learning and cases experiences given in the pure Indian context. The statistical results clearly established that the Augmented Learning Exposure and Outside of Class Exercise strongly influence the Teaching Methodology related to Marketing Management teaching and learning. This research data analysis has significantly established that Teaching Methodology and Teaching Technology positively impact classroom Teaching. Hear, this is clear that teaching methodology backed by augmented learning exposure and outside class exercise can boost the class room teaching method where teaching technology will contribute positively to make this teaching and learning environment more attractive. Technologically updated, out-of-class exercise-oriented augmented learning exposure and blended teaching methodology-based classroom teaching process will substantially impact the budding marketing professionals’ managerial ability backed with decision-making ability, analytical skill, problem-solving skill and creativity.

Implications

This study demonstrates how the different B-schools’ engaged in imparting marketing education must focus on strengthening managerial ability backed by four core skill, namely decision-making ability, analytical skill, problem-solving skill and creativity. This study has unfolded that in the process of nurturing the future marketing managers’ managerial ability, the role of classroom teaching is truly imperative. This changing business ecosystem combined approach is recurred wherein teaching methodology must be blended with teaching technology, augmented learning exposure and out-of-class exercise. This research is based on the voice of alumni of top B-schools, which has highlighted that Indianized viewpoints must be brought into the class discussion to be more market-relevant. This article shows that profound implications for developing countries like India must emphasize the practical skill sets instead of rote-learning or the occidental teaching approach. The study was conducted within India and based on the responses of marketing graduate professionals who are alumni of the topmost B-schools. With the larger sample size, the statistical result may get changed. For better model validation, this study can be replicated in other developed countries or in other developing and underdeveloped countries to make it more generalizable.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this can be firmly said the need of the hour is to integrating teaching technology, augmented learning exposure, and out of the class exposure to boost the overall learning outcome to produce high-impact marketing professionals in Indian. Promising new-age marketing managers will benefit from more outside-of-classroom exposure and augmented learning exposure. So, this is high time that the Indian B-school teachers of the marketing management domain need to develop better skills in connecting out-of-classroom exposure and different ways of augmented learning exposure with classroom teaching. Contemporary Marketing Management teaching pedagogy can be improved with the proper blend of augmented learning exposure, out-of-class exercises, use of advanced technology and Indian examples. This has been observed in this complex and highly digitized situation where all businesses’ challenge is becoming extraordinarily high wherein the practical orientation is becoming so much crucial with the strategic use of online platforms and resources for better and fast knowledge dissemination. So, the marketing management teaching pedagogy must incorporate tools and techniques from the digital and analytical framework for a better learning outcome. This study contributes to the domain of Marketing Management teaching and pedagogical research. This research can be considered one of the significant works that has tried to propose an integrated model that can boost tomorrow’s outcome-based marketing management teaching with comprehensive pedagogical solutions based on the opinions of the marketing and sales professionals who graduated from topmost Indian B-schools. This article has demonstrated that contemporary integrated marketing management teaching pedagogy can be improved with the proper blend of augmented learning exposure, out-of-class exercises, use of advanced technology and Indianized theory. Promising new age marketing managers will be highly benefited from the proposed teaching pedagogical framework in acquiring the knowledge and skills set to fulfil the expectations of the potential recruiters who are in the process of talent acquisitions to optimize their human resource-led competitive advantages for greater marketing sustainability.

Future research can be conducted to capture the responses from other stakeholders of the B-schools to see how the research results differ. A large-scale replication of this study may broaden the understanding of how the marketing management blended pedagogy can be more helpful in standing the managerial abilities of future managers. Future research can also replicate this study in other specialization domains of management education to find out the best pathway to train future managers to be more job fit.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Abdellatif

(2019). Towards a novel approach for designing smart classrooms. 2019 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies, ICICT 2019 (pp. 280–284). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCT.2019.8711355

Amponsah

, Ussher

, & Benjamin

K. A.

(2021). Availability and access to support services in a blended learning environment. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 17(1), 57–71.

Anderson

P. H.

, & Lawton

(2005). The Effectiveness of simulation exercise for integrating problem-based learning in management education. Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning, 32, 10–18.

Aryani

, & Siahaan

L. H.

(2020). Information technology-based management education in vocational high schools. Sosiohumaniora, 22(3), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.24198/sosiohumaniora.v22i3.28377

Athanassiou

, Mcnett

J. M.

, & Harvey

(2003). Critical thinking in the management classroom: Bloom’s taxonomy as a learning tool. Journal of Management Education, 27(5), 533–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562903252515

Bahr

(2010). Thinking critically about critical thinking in higher education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4(2),9. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2010.040209

Banerjee

(2021). To capture the research landscape of lecture capture in university education. Computers and Education, 160,104032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.104032

Bauer

, Viola

, & Strauss

(2011). Management skills for artists: ‘Learning by doing’? International Journal of Cultural Policy, 17(5), 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2010.531716

Becker

(2007). Digital game-based learning once removed: Teaching teachers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(3), 478–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.00711.x

10.

Bento

(2011). Developing a class session using audio and video streaming. Web-based learning and teaching technologies: Opportunities and challenges(pp. 103–116). IGI Global.

11.

Berrell

, Wrathall

, & Wright

(2001). A model for Chinese management education: Adapting the case study method to transfer management knowledge. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 8(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527600110797182

12.

Bhattacharya

, & Chattopadhyay

(2019). Eliminating thought boundaries through fiction movies and books. South Asian Journal of Business and Management Cases, 8(3), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/2277977919876731

13.

Bhaumik

P. K.

(2012). Use of ICT in the classroom teaching of management. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective, 16(4), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972262912460180

14.

Booth

K. M.

, & James

B. W.

(2001). Interactive learning in a higher education level 1 mechanics module. International Journal of Science Education, 23(9), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690119817

15.

Borin

, Metcalf

L. E.

, & Tietje

B. C.

(2008). Implementing assessment in an outcome-based marketing curriculum. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(2), 150–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475308317706

16.

Brigham

T. J.

(2013). Smart boards: A reemerging technology. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 32(2), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2013.776903

17.

Brownell

, & Jameson

D. A.

(2004). Problem-based learning in graduate management education: An integrative model and interdisciplinary application. Journal of Management Education, 28(5), 558–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562904266073

18.

Burke

L. A.

, & Rau

(2010). The research-teaching gap in management. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9(1), 132–143. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2010.48661196

19.

Burkill

, Dyer

S. R.

, & Stone

(2008). Lecturing in higher education in further education settings. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 32(4), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098770802392915

20.

Carriger

M. S.

(2015). Problem-based learning and management development - Empirical and theoretical considerations. International Journal of Management Education, 13(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2015.07.003

21.

Chang

S. C.

, & Hwang

G. J.

(2018). Impacts of an augmented reality-based flipped learning guiding approach on students’ scientific project performance and perceptions. Computers and Education, 125, 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.007

22.

Christensen

C. M.

, & Carlile

P. R.

(2009). Course research: Using the case method to build and teach management theory. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8, 240–251. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2009.41788846

23.

Churchill

, & John

(1958). Conservation of teaching time through the use of lecture classes and student assistants. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(6), 324–327.

24.

Datar

S. M.

, Garvin

D. A.

, & Cullen

P. G.

(2011). Rethinking the MBA: Business education at a crossroads. Journal of Management Development, 30(5), 451–462.

25.

Davis

M. H.

(2003). Outcome-based education. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 30(3), 258–263.

26.

Deandrea

D. C.

, Ellison

N. B.

, Larose

, Steinfield

, & Fiore

(2012). Serious social media: On the use of social media for improving students’ adjustment to college. Internet and Higher Education, 15(1), 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.05.009

27.

Dixit

M. R.

, Manikutty

, Rao

S. S.

, Monippally

M. M.

, Bijapurkar

, Raghuram

, Krishnan

R. T.

, Mitra

, Murthy

, Joseph

, Jain

A. K.

, & Srinivasan

S. K.

(2005). What is the future of the case method in management education in India? Vikalpa, 30(4), 87–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920050408

28.

Donnelly

, & McSweeney

(2008). Applied e-learning and e-teaching in higher education. Applied e-learning and e-teaching in higher education (pp. 1–415). IGI Global.

29.

Drouin

, Hile

R. E.

, Vartanian

L. R.

, & Webb

(2013). Student preferences for online lecture formats does prior experience matter? The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 14(3), 151–162.

30.

Dunleavy

, & Dede

(2014). Augmented reality teaching and learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology(4th ed., pp. 735–745). Springer.

31.

Elmuti

(2004). Can management be taught: If so, what should management education curricula include and how should the process be approached? Management Decision, 42, 439–453. https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740410523240

32.

Erdoğan

B. Z.

, Doğan

, & İşlek

M. S.

(2021). A longitudinal study of the Turkish marketing academia: What has changed and what has not in a decade? YuksekogretimDergisi, 10(3), 301–311.

33.

Estelami

(2020). The effects of need for cognition, gender, risk preferences and marketing education on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 22(1), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRME-04-2018-0023

34.

Ferrell

O. C.

& Ferrell

(2020) Technology challenges and opportunities facing marketing education, marketing education review, 30(1), 3–14, https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2020.1718510

35.

Geith

, & Vignare

(2019). Access to education with online learning and open educational resources: Can they close the gap? Online Learning, 12(1), 105–126. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v12i1.1710

36.

Gersel

, & Thaning

M. S.

(2020). The plight to choose: Cultivating practical deliberation in management learning and education. Journal of Management Education, 44(5), 663–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562920937034

37.

Gibbs

(1988). Learning by doing: A guide to teaching and learning methods. Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 161–181). Psychology Press

38.

Grabe

, & Christopherson

(2008). Optional student use of online lecture resources: Resource preferences, performance and lecture attendance: Original article. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00228.x

39.

Griffin

R. W.

, & Cashin

W. E.

(1989). The lecture and discussion method for management education: Pros and cons. Journal of Management Development, 8(2), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000001339

40.

Grossman

, Salas

, Pavlas

, & Rosen

M. A.

(2013). Using instructional features to enhance demonstration-based training in management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 12(2), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0527

41.

Günther

, Kiesling

, & Stummer

(2011). Game-based learning in technology management education: A novel business simulation. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 6, 20–25. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v6i1.1522

42.

Guo

(2011). Impact of an out-of-class activity on students’ English awareness, vocabulary, and autonomy. Language Education in Asia, 2(2), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/11/V2/I2/A07/Guo

43.

Hallinger

, & Lu

(2011). Assessing the instructional effectiveness of problem-based management education in Thailand: A longitudinal evaluation. Management Learning, 42(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507610388596

44.

Hammer

S. J.

, & Green

(2011). Critical thinking in a first year management unit: The relationship between disciplinary learning, academic literacy and learning progression. Higher Education Research and Development, 30(3), 303–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.501075

45.

Herreid

C. F.

& Schiller

N. A.

(2013). Case studies and the flipped classroom. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42(5), 62–66.

46.

Hiltz

S. R.

, & Turoff

(2005). Education goes digital: The evolution of online learning and the revolution in higher education. Communications of the ACM, 48(10), 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1145/1089107.1089139

47.

Horney

, Pasmore

, & O’Shea

(2010). Leadership agility: A business imperative for a VUCA world. Human Resource Planning, 33(4), 34–42.

48.

Howell

(1994). Action learning and action research in management education and development: A case study. The Learning Organization, 1(2), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/09696479410060955

49.

Jain

A. K.

(2005). Management education and case method as a pedagogy. Vikalpa, 30(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920050107

50.

Jain

, & Chawla

(2021). A smart education model for future learning and teaching using IoT. Smart innovation, systems and technologies (Vol. 196, pp. 67–75). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH.

51.

Joyce

(2012). Learning as doing: Common goals and interests across management and education. Journal of Nursing Management, 20(1), 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01316.x

52.

Kaliannan

, & Chandran

S. D.

(2012). Empowering students through outcome-based education (OBE). Research in Education, 87(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.7227/RIE.87.1.4

53.

Kayes

D. C.

(2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2002.8509336

54.

Keengwe

, & Bhargava

(2014). Mobile learning and integration of mobile technologies in education. Education and Information Technologies, 19(4), 737–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-013-9250-3

55.

Kesim

, & Ozarslan

(2012). Augmented Reality in Education: Current Technologies and the Potential for Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.654

56.

Khan

(2017). Marketing for business education in India: Perspectives, issues and challenges. Global Journal of Commerce & Management Perspective, 6(6), 47–55.

57.

Kolb

A. Y.

, & Kolb

D. A.

(2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4(2), 193–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.17268566

58.

Kolb

A. Y.

, & Kolb

D. A.

(2009). Experiential learning theory: A dynamic, holistic approach to management learning, education and development. The SAGE handbook of management learning, education and development (pp. 42–68). SAGE Publications Inc.

59.

Korman

T. M.

, & Johnston

(2013). Using game-based learning and simulations to enhance engineering and management education. Oklahoma City, USA, 23-26 Oct 2013. In Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference, FIE (pp. 701–703). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2013.6684916

60.

Korucu

A. T.

, & Alkan

(2011). Differences between m-learning (mobile learning) and e-learning, basic terminology and usage of m-learning in education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 1925–1930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.04.029

61.

Kumar

, & Nanda

(2019). Social media in higher education: A framework for continuous engagement. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 15(1), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2019010108

62.

Lamine

, Mian

, Fayolle

, & Linton

J. D.

(2021). Educating scientists and engineers for technology entrepreneurship in the emerging digital era. Technological forecasting and social change. Elsevier Inc. 1–4 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120552

63.

Lee

T. T.

, & Osman

(2012). Interactive multimedia module with pedagogical agents: Formative evaluation. International Education Studies, 5(6), 50–64. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n6p50

64.

Leese

(2009). Out of class - Out of mind? The use of a virtual learning environment to encourage student engagement in out of class activities. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 70–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00822.x

65.

, Hallinger

, & Showanasai

(2014). Simulation-based learning in management education: A longitudinal quasi-experimental evaluation of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 33(3), 218–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2011-0115

66.

Machumu

, Almasi

, & Zhu

(2018). Context-based blended learning models and implementation in Sub- Saharan Africa: A literature review. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 5(1), 190–199. https://doi.org/10.18844/prosoc.v5i1.3414

67.

Madhavaram

, & Laverie

D. A.

(2010). Developing pedagogical competence: Issues and implications for marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 32(2), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475309360162

68.

Martin

S. F.

, Shaw

E. L.

, & Daughenbaugh

(2014). Using smart boards and manipulatives in the elementary science classroom. TechTrends, 58(3), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-014-0756-3

69.

McMartin

, Iverson

, Wolf

, Morrill

, Morgan

, & Manduca

(2008). The use of online digital resources and educational digital libraries in higher education. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 9(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-008-0036-y

70.

Mesny

(2013). Taking stock of the century-long utilization of the case method in management education. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 30(1), 56–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1239

71.

Mukti

N. A.

, & Hwa

S. P.

(2004). Malaysian perspective: Designing interactive multimedia learning environment for moral values education. Educational Technology and Society, 7(4),143–152.

72.

Müller

F. A.

, & Wulf

(2020). Technology-supported management education: A systematic review of antecedents of learning effectiveness. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17, 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-020-00226-x

73.

Mulnix

J. W.

(2012). Thinking critically about critical thinking. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 44(5), 464–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-5812.2010.00673.x

74.

Naidoo

, & Wu

(2011). Marketing strategy implementation in higher education: A mixed approach for model development and testing. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(11–12), 1117–1141. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2011.609132

75.

Nees

M. A.

, & Berry

L. F.

(2013). Audio assistive technology and accommodations for students with visual impairments: Potentials and problems for delivering curricula and educational assessments. Performance Enhancement and Health, 2(3), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2013.08.016

76.

Nincarean

, Alia

M. B.

, Halim

N. D. A.

, & Rahman

M. H. A.

(2013). Mobile augmented reality: The potential for education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 657–664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.385

77.

O’Hara

, Webber

, & Reeve

(1996). Action learning in management education. Education Training, 38(8), 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/00400919610146289

78.

Parsons

(2016). The future of mobile learning and implications for education and training. Transforming education in the gulf region: Emerging learning technologies and innovative pedagogy for the 21st century (pp. 224–236). Taylor and Francis.

79.

Pfeffer

& Robert

(2006). Evidence-based management. Harvard Business Review, 84(1),62–74.

80.

Pheeraphan

(2013). Enhancement of the 21st century skills for Thai higher education by integration of ICT in classroom. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 365–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.346

81.

Piccoli

, Ahmad

, & Ives

(2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: A research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic it skills training. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 25(4), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250989

82.

Popova

, Kryvoruchko

, Shynkarenko

, & Zéman

(2018). Enterprise management in VUCA conditions. Economic Annals-XXI, 170(3–4), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.21003/ea.V170-05

83.

Preston

& Lee

(2008). Use of SMART boards for teaching, learning and assessment in kindergarten science. Teaching Science, 54(2), 50–53.

84.

Prilop

C. N.

, Weber

K. E.

, & Kleinknecht

(2021). The role of expert feedback in the development of pre-service teachers’ professional vision of classroom management in an online blended learning environment. Teaching and Teacher Education, 99, 103276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103276

85.

Rajasingham

(2011). Will mobile learning bring a paradigm shift in higher education? Education Research International, 2011, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/528495

86.

Rajesh

, & Reena

(2015). A review on work system interactions in a technology enabled class room. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 7(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2015.072026

87.

Rana

(2017). International marketing education in India: An assessment and looking forward. Journal of International Business Education, 12, 3–6.

88.

Rana

, Anand

, Prashar

, & Haque

M.M.

(2020). A perspective on the positioning of Indian business schools post COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Markets, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOEM-04-2020-0415

89.

Rana

, Prashar

, & Anand

(2017). IMRPs and advancing international marketing education. Journal of International Business Education,12, 267–290.

90.

Rasul

, Bukhsh

, & Batool

(2011). A study to analyze the effectiveness of audio visual aids in teaching learning process at university level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 78–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.016

91.

Reynolds

, & Vince

(2004). Critical management education and action-based learning: Synergies and contradictions. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 3(4), 442–456. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2004.15112552

92.

Riabova

, & Pogodin

(2021). Challenges of contemporary higher education. Springer geography (pp. 3–12). Springer Science and Business Media Deutschland GmbH.

93.

Roh

Y. S.

, & Kim

S. S.

(2015). Integrating problem-based learning and simulation: Effects on student motivation and life skills. Computers Informatics Nursing, 33(7), 278–284. https://doi.org/10.1097/CIN.0000000000000161

94.

Roy

, & Banerjee

(2012). Understanding students’ experience of transition from lecture mode to case-based teaching in a management school in India. Journal of Educational Change, 13(4), 487–509.

95.

Salas

, Wildman

, & Piccolo

(2009). Using simulation-based training to enhance management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 8(4), 559–573. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.8.4.zqr559

96.

Sarkar

(2016). We live in a VUCA World: The importance of responsible leadership. Development and Learning in Organizations, 30(3), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/DLO-07-2015-0062

97.

Schoemaker

P. J. H.

, Heaton

, & Teece

(2018). Innovation, dynamic capabilities, and leadership. California Management Review, 61(1), 15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618790246

98.

Seman

S. A. A.

, Wan Rashid

W. E.

, & Nasir

H. M.

(2012). E-teaching portfolio implementation using Maharaopen source management system. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 65, 974–979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.229

99.

Shah

, Laverie

D. A.

, & Madhavaram

(2020). Summative and formative evaluation of marketing teaching portfolios: A pedagogical competence-based rubric. Marketing Education Review, 30(4), 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2020.1823235

100.

Shah

, Madhavaram

, & Laverie

D. A.

(2019). Developing and demonstrating effective pedagogy in marketing education: Pedagogical competence as an organizing framework for teaching portfolios. Marketing Education Review, 29(4), 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2019.1657775

101.

Shahroom

A. A.

, & Hussin

(2018). Industrial revolution 4.0 and education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(9), 314–319. https://doi.org/10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i9/4593

102.

Shi

, Xie

, & Xu

(2002). Smart remote classroom: Creating a revolutionary real-time interactive distance learning system. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics)(Vol. 2436, pp. 130–141). Springer Verlag.

103.

Shieh

R. S.

(2012). The impact of technology-enabled active learning (TEAL) implementation on student learning and teachers’ teaching in a high school context. Computers and Education, 59(2), 206–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.016

104.

Sobaih

A. E. E.

, Moustafa

M. A.

, Ghandforoush

, & Khan

(2016). To use or not to use? Social media in higher education in developing countries. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.002

105.

Steadman

R. H.

, Coates

W. C.

, Yue

M. H.

, Matevosian

, Larmon

B. R.

, McCullough

, & Ariel

(2006). Simulation-based training is superior to problem-based learning for the acquisition of critical assessment and management skills. Critical Care Medicine, 34(1), 151–157. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000190619.42013.94

106.

Tas

, & Yeloglu

H. O.

(2018). The need for technology management education for undergraduate programs: A conceptual framework. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(2), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060206

107.

Teklehaimanot

M. L.

, Ingenbleek

P. T. M.

, Tessema

W. K.

, & van Trijp

H. C. M.

(2017). Moving toward new horizons for marketing education: Designing a marketing training for the poor in developing and emerging markets. Journal of Marketing Education, 39(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475316688318

108.

Times of India (January 12, 2019). What are highest paying MBA specialisations? https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/what-are-highest-paying-mba-specialisations-bu/articleshow/67506200.cms

109.

Tobias

, Fletcher

J. D.

, & Wind

A. P.

(2014). Game-based learning. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology(4th ed., pp. 485–503). Springer.

110.

Ungaretti

, Thompson

K. R.

, Miller

, & Peterson

T. O.

(2015). Problem-based learning: Lessons from medical education and challenges for management education. Academy of Management Learning and Education. George Washington University. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2013.0245

111.

Van Lacum

E. B.

, Ossevoort

M. A.

, & Goedhart

M. J.

(2014). A teaching strategy with a focus on argumentation to improve undergraduate students’ ability to read research articles. CBE Life Sciences Education, 13(2), 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-06-0110

112.

Wankel

(2009). Management education using social media. Organisation Management Journal, 6(4), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1057/omj.2009.34

113.

Wei

(2021). Efficient teaching management based on information technology. Advances in intelligent systems and computing (Vol. 1234 AISC, pp. 486–492). Springer.

114.

Williams

, Birch

, & Hancock

(2012). The impact of online lecture recordings on student performance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(2), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.869

115.

Wilson

S. G.

(2013). The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an undergraduate statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 193–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628313487461

116.

Zawacki-Richter

(2009). Mobile learning: Transforming the delivery of education and training. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 10(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v10i4.751

117.

Zhao

, & Jiang

(2009). Learning by doing: Emerging paths of Chinese management research. Management and Organization Review, 5(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-8784.2008.00138.x

118.

Zualkernan

I. A.

, Darmaki

H. A.

, & Shouman

(2008, December 16–18). A methodology for building simulation-based e-Learning environments for scrum (pp. 357–360). 2008 International Conference on Innovations in Information Technology, IIT 2008, Al Ain, UAE. IEEE Computer Society