Podcasting to Improve Delivery of a Project-Based Internet Marketing Course

References

• Agarwal, R. and J. Prasad (1999), “Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies?” Decision Sciences, 30 (Spring), 361–391.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allred, Chad and Michael Swenson (2006), “Using Technology to Increase Student Preparation for and Participation in Marketing Courses: The Random Selector Model,” Marketing Education Review, 16 (Spring), 15–21.
   Google Scholar
• Atwong, Catherine T. and Paul Hugstad (1997), “Internet Technology and the Future of Marketing Education,” Journal of Marketing Education, 19 (Fall), 44–55.
   Google Scholar
• Berger, Karen and Martin Topol (2001), “Technology to Enhance Learning: Use of a Web Site Platform in Traditional Classes and Distance Learning,” Marketing Education Review, 11 (Fall), 15–26.
   Google Scholar
• Close, Angeline G., Ashutosh Dixit, and Naresh K. Malhotra (2005), “Chalkboard to Cybercouses: The Internet and Marketing Education,” Marketing Education Review, 15 (Summer), 81–94.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, J. S. (2005), “Missed Class? Try a Podcast,” Chicago Tribune(October 20).
   Google Scholar
• Davis, F. D., R. Bagozzi, and P. Warshaw (1989), “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science, 35 (August), 982–1003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenberg, Anne (2005), “From Your Living Room to the World, Via Podcast,” New York Times (October 30).
   Google Scholar
• Evans, Joel R. (2001), “The Emerging Role of the Internet in Marketing Education: From Traditional Teaching to Technology-Based Education,” Marketing Education Review, 11 (Fall), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Garrison, D. (1993), “Quality and Access in Distance Education: Theoretical Considerations,” in Theoretical Principles of Distance Education, Desmond Keegan, ed., New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, Steve (2002), “The Internet Goes to College: How Students Are Living in the Future with Today's Technology,” The Pew Internet and American Life Project, Washington, D.C.: Pew, retrieved online February 13, 2009, 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb, D. A. (1984), Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Deveopment, Englewoods Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Laurillard, Diana L. (2002), Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technolgies, 2nd Edition, New York: Routledge Falmer.
   Google Scholar
• Malhotra, Naresh (2002), “Integrating Technology in Marketing Education,” Marketing Education Review, 12 (Fall), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Malhotra, Naresh, Ashutosh Dixit, and Can Uslay (2002), “Integrating Internet Technology in Marketing Research Education,” Marketing Education Review, 12 (Fall), 25–34.
   Google Scholar
• McBane, Donald (1996), “Using Technology to Increase Feedback when Grading Assignments,” Marketing Education Review, 6 (Summer), 47–57.
   Google Scholar
• Parasuraman, A. (2000), “Technology Readiness Index: A MultipleItem Scale to Measure Readiness to Embrace New Technologies,” Journal of Service Marketing, 2 (May), 307–320.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, Pallab and Kausiki Mukhopadhyay (2001), “Using Information Technology for Active Learning in International Business Education,” Marketing Education Review, 11 (Fall), 81–89.
   Google Scholar
• Peltier, James W., John A. Schibrowsky, and William Drago (2007), “The Interdependence of the Factors Influencing the Perceived Quality of the Online Learning Experience: A Causal Model,” Journal of Marketing Education, 29 (August), 140–153.
   Google Scholar
• Ponzurick, Thomas G., Karen F. Russo, and Cyril Logar (2000), “Deliveriing Graduate Marketing Education: An Analysis of Face-to-Face versus Distance Education,” Journal of Marketing Education, 22 (December), 180–187.
   Google Scholar
• Read, Brock (2006), “Lectures on the Go,” Chronicle of Higher Education, LII, 10 (October), A39.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, Leroy Jr. (2006), “Moving Beyond Adoption: Exploring the Determinants of Student Intention to Use Technology,” Marketing Education Review, 16 (Summer), 79–88.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, Judy and Raymond Frost (1999), “Selecting Instructional Media for the Marketing Classroom,” Marketing Education Review, 9 (Fall), 11–20.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, Judy, Raymond Frost and Donna J. Hill (2007), “Student Use and Perceptions of Web-Based Instructional Tools: Laggards in Traditional Classrooms,” Marketing Education Review, 17 (Fall), 66–79.
   Google Scholar
• Wixom, B. H. and F. D. Todd (2005), “A Theoretical Integration of User Satisfaction and Technology Acceptance,” Information Systems Research, 16 (March), 85–102.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, Y. K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Applied Social Research Methods Series (Rev. Ed. ed., Vol. 5), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Young, Mark R., Bruce R. Klemz, and J. William Murphy (2003), “Enhancing Learning Outcomes: The Effects of Instructional Technology, Learning Styles, Instructional Methods, and Student Behavior,” Journal of Marketing Education, 19 (August), 130–142.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, Jan (2002), Marketing on the Internet: Seven Steps to Succeeding in eBusiness Now that the Hype is Over, Gulf Breeze, FL: Maximum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zmud, Robert W. (1982), “Diffusion of Modern Software Practices: Influence of Centralization and Formalization,” Management Science, 28 (December), 1421–1431.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar