A strategic framework for auditing and planning for reform of an undergraduate marketing curriculum: a practical application of the Boyer commission report.

Bateman, Connie R.

INTRODUCTION

In the late 1980s a reformation movement had taken a strong foothold in the minds of undergraduate curriculum planners. In 1987, Chickering and Gamson codified the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education which identified the principles by which the reformation movement should proceed; promoting a movement of "good practices"--defined as those that enhanced student-faculty interaction, experiences, student collaboration, and active learning techniques. The concerns expressed by curriculum planners that followed were not related to a commitment to the ideology itself or the principles put forth by Chickering and Gamson (1987), but rather were centered on what forms the changes should take. Not surprisingly, the 1990's were typified by curriculum planners who wanted more research before forging ahead with change, and/or felt it necessary to assess the effectiveness of the existing curriculum, so the importance and role of outcome-based or skill-based curriculum assessment was catapulted to the forefront of discussions (Miller et al., 1991). Research by Miller et al., (1991) identified the most commonly used and highly valued information sources accessed by curriculum planners; (1) graduate placements and rates thereof, (2) alumni, (3) recent graduates; and used less commonly (but still highly valued) were (1) employers, and (2) seniors. The National Education Goals Panel (1992) recommended outcome-based measurements on critical thinking, problem solving, effective communication, and responsible citizenship. The Association of American Colleges established the Network for Academic Renewal, which held a series of workshops, gathered information, and acted as a clearinghouse for ways to improve undergraduate education (Mooney, 1993). The Wingspread Report (1994) recommended skill-based measurements on complex thinking, the ability to analyze information and to solve problems, and interpersonal communications. The Business-Higher Education Forum (1995) released a statement to the effect that corporate leaders want college graduates to possess "leadership and communication skills; quantification skills, interpersonal relations, and the ability to work in teams; the understanding needed to work with a diverse workforce at home and abroad; and the capacity to adapt to rapid change" (p. 3). Thus, the industry of higher education appeared to agree that program level assessment, when properly done, would serve as the basis for curricula re-design. It is important to note that research is critical because faculty, employers, alumni, and students have different criterion, experience, and expectations for what they consider "effective" (Floyd & Gordon, 1998).

As the 1990s came to and end, the evidence was clear that powerful forces were transforming marketing education (Lamont & Friedman, 1997). Despite accreditation (AACSB) pressures, only forty-two percent of U.S. business schools had responded and put comprehensive outcome-based assessment programs into place (Kimmell, et al., 1998). Justifications given for non-compliance to AACSB's wishes were rooted in pressures felt by curriculum planner workloads, weak budgets (resources had not been allocated), and/or lack of ownership for the initiative (e.g., no 'assessments champion' at the departmental level. By the mid 2000s, research on curriculum assessment was picking up steam, and departments were making moves to empirically assess the effectiveness of their current curricula in meeting formalized objectives (Nicholson et al., 2005).

BOYER COMMISSION REPORT DIRECTIVES, GUIDELINES AND MARKETPLACE REACTIONS

The results of a large scale empirical study (sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning) came out in the late 1990s that served to transform thinking about undergraduate program reform. Educators across the nation turned their attention to what came to be known as the "gold standard" for curriculum re-design. Specifically, in 1998, the Boyer Commission Report entitled "Reinventing Undergraduate Education: a Blueprint for America's Research Universities" was published (The Boyer Commission, 1998). The published report was the result of a three-year research study and investigation by the National Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University. The Commission trumpeted a crisis in undergraduate education. Specific findings of the Boyer (1998) investigation were eye-opening:

* Many students graduate having accumulated whatever number of courses is required, but lack a coherent body of knowledge; i.e., any inkling as to how one sort of information might relate to others;

* Students often graduate without knowing how to think logically, write clearly, or speak coherently;

* In retrospect, the universities have given students too little that will be of real value beyond a credential that will help them get their first jobs;

* Employers are putting less weight on diplomas (a result of the above);

* Research universities react by offering new courses, majors, and curricula.

The commission called for a new integrated model for undergraduate programs at research universities where the teaching function was not undervalued and inter-disciplinary knowledge was truly gleaned by the student body in value-added ways. In their report, the Boyer Commission outlined an "Academic Bill of Rights" for research universities, which emphasized the creation of opportunities in the curriculum for students to learn through inquiry and discovery rather than as passive receivers, and for students to work with faculty researchers/mentors who guide the learning process and integrate theory and practice through multi-disciplinary perspectives (Frost & Teodorescu, 2003; Weissman & Boning, 2003). The stated goal was to produce a graduate "equipped with a spirit of inquiry and a zest for problem solving; one possessed of the skill in communication that is the hallmark of clear thinking" (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p. 13). Embedded in this goal was the development of problem-solving and critical thinking, team skills, and communication skills. As a result, the Commission Report strongly recommended that Research Universities restructure and improve their undergraduate programs and laid out seven directives that are applicable to undergraduate marketing degree program criteria: (1) remove barriers to interdisciplinary education, (2) make research-based learning the standard, (3) link communication skills and coursework, (4) use information technology creatively, (5) culminate with a capstone experience, (6) cultivate a sense of community, and (7) change faculty reward systems (three additional directives were mentioned by the commission that are out of the scope of this paper, but should receive mention--educate graduate students as apprentice teachers, construct and inquiry-based freshman year, and build on the freshman foundation). On balance, the directives given in the Boyer Commission Report and the research and insights which followed, appear to be consistent with what students care about. In Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds by Light (2001), seniors at Harvard University attributed their most beneficial experiences as ones that were consciously fostered by faculty decision; specifically collegial learning environments, leadership roles in planning and running class projects, making linkages to other disciplines and personal experiences, and challenging existing paradigms (Weissman & Boning, 2003).

In the sections that follow, each of the seven directives and associated guiding principles as defined by the Boyer Commission are discussed, examples are shared of how each directive has been operationalized in the university setting, and/or concerns or restrictions are identified relating to each area. Curriculum planners are encouraged to refer to the audit and planning tool in Table 1 and assess the status of each curriculum tactic shown as it applies to their current marketing program.

Remove Barriers to Interdisciplinary Education

"Research universities must remove barriers to and create mechanisms for much more interdisciplinary undergraduate education" (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p.23).

As early as 1974, the undergraduate business program at Indiana University was revised to facilitate integration of core courses with emphasis on interdisciplinary decision making skills (Logue & Merville, 1974). But it wasn't until the 1990s that a call rang out for marketing educators to reflect on the degree that their current curricula was interdisciplinary in nature and to take measures to facilitate students' retention of and integrative capacities of knowledge; and to ensure that motivations for these actions were in response to student needs rather than faculty skill areas or interests (Baker et al, 2003). A review of the literature by Baker et al, (2003) revealed that marketing program curriculum reformers/planners had responded, first by asking several questions about the current curriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum planners today): (1) are there 'holes' in our curriculum?, (2) on what basis are we determining these 'holes' exist?, (3) what do we desire student knowledge to be?, (4) are students integrating materials and concepts to the degree desired?, (5) are we teaching the critical foundational elements of marketing?, (6) is there a common theme or capstone or experience that integrates materials and accomplishes curricula goals?, (7) what are our fundamental values driving curriculum reform?, (8) what are the critical component areas for student knowledge and student application?, and (9) will employers value what and how our students have learned?.

Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners, specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth and implemented; recognizing that efforts to remove barriers to interdisciplinary education will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some university programs have attempted to achieve their interdisciplinary educational goals:

* Integrate a common theme of 'customer value for a sustainable competitive advantage' throughout the curriculum, thus organizing the delivery of marketing knowledge around a core concept (Baker et al., 2003);

* Develop and provide a visual of the integrated curriculum model (mentioned-above), and provide this to students in the syllabi to give them a sense of purpose, integrate the courses in their mind into a cohesive program, and show the learning outcomes of the model (Baker et al., 2003);

* Require junior-year students to take corporate finance, marketing, and operations management in the same semester; having faculty integrate the areas through common projects and case studies (Hubbard, 1999);

* Team teach courses (Bartlett, 2002);

* Creation of interdisciplinary majors; perhaps even using a tool such as Enterprise Resource Planning to help integrated learning (Kropf, 2002);

* Creation of marketing modules (Stringfellow et al., 2006);

* Creation of a data mining course to integrate relationship marketing, information technology, and marketing analytics through experiential learning tools that develop practical skill sets; helping students to position themselves with value-adding in the marketplace (Stanton, 2006).

The auditing and planning framework found in Table 1 lists the curriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners are encouraged to add additional tactics that they are currently implementing (or that they plan to implement) that will serve to remove barriers to interdisciplinary education in their programs.

Make Research-Based Learning the Standard

"Undergraduate education in research universities requires renewed emphasis on a point strongly made by John Dewey almost a century ago: learning is based on discovery guided by mentoring rather than on the transmission of information. Inherent in inquiry-based learning is the element of reciprocity: faculty can learn from students as students are learning from faculty" (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p. 15).

The early 2000s ushered in the concept that curriculums could combine some of the goals of assessment with those of research-based learning; where students, alumni, employers and/or faculty participate in research. At a national level, the Marketing Education Research Center Report issued in June 2005 revealed the following trends in university curricula (1) the adding of tracks as a response to national employer surveys, and (2) consideration of 'marketing pathways' or 'career-track recommendations' as identified by regional employers; specifically 'Product & Pricing', 'Distribution & Logistics', 'Marketing Communications & Promotions/Branding', 'Professional Sales (Management, Structure, and Relationship)', 'E-Marketing', 'International', 'Retailing/Buying/merchandising', 'Marketing Management', 'Entrepreneurship', and 'Marketing Information/Marketing Research'. Prestwich and Ho-Kim (2007) surveyed active international companies in Minnesota who disclosed that after general skill areas were met, key hiring criterion were for specific knowledge, skills, and practical abilities in the areas of direct sales-w (exporting/distributorships), importing (sourcing/purchasing), global sales (contracts/negotiations), global transportation (logistics), and strategic planning. Nicholson et al., (2005) found that administrators and faculty are driven to fit their graduates with industry needs; using a variety of research tools at their disposal. Research shows that in terms of gathering employer feedback; 17% of marketing programs collect data from employers and recruiters; 11% use employer surveys; 5.1% use Internship/Co-Op Reviews; and 2.9% use Advisory Panels/boards (the latter of which may also help with data collection). In terms of soliciting feedback from alumni; 19.7% of marketing programs use surveys, 12.4% use Placement Rates, and .25% use Focus Groups (Nicholson et al., 2005).

Curriculum reformers/planners responded, first by asking several questions about the current curriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum planners today): (1) should we implement a mandatory research requirement?, (2) how can professors serve as mentors rather than lecturers?, (3) how can we facilitate student learning by inquiry rather than absorbtion/rote?, (4) should students be involved in the creation of new knowledge?, (5) how can we measure whether curriculum objectives are being met (e.g., if student's integration skills are improving)?, (6) should the assessment of student skill be made by faculty only, or a combination of faculty, senior students, and peers?, (7) should we survey graduating students?, (8) should we survey alumni, and if so, how many years out?, and (9) what are the learning outcomes to be measured?.

Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners, specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth and implemented; recognizing that efforts to making research-based learning the standard will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some university programs have attempted to achieve their research-based learning goals:

* Adding a mandatory student research project the results of which would add to the intellectual life of the university. Professors mentor the students throughout the primary research project (Bartlett 2002);

* Community service projects may be the basis of the student research project (Baker et al., 2003);

* Measure oral communication skills by having a panel of four judges (two faculty and two graduate students) review a ten minute videotaped presentation of each senior to identify specific areas of strengths and weaknesses (Baker et al., 2003);

* Students entering the program design a presentation on what marketing is about (baseline). At the end of the capstone course, at least three faculty members evaluate their project for strengths and weaknesses relating to integration and application of program components (post-test) (Baker et al., 2003);

* Undertake email or mail surveys with seniors and alumni (one to five years out). Examples may include questions about (1) the perceptions of marketing courses with respect to knowledge and skill-based learning outcomes, and the perceived importance of each learning outcome to career success; (2) whether the common curriculum theme is being integrated throughout the curriculum across marketing courses, (3) whether students perceive an importance is placed upon quality writing, and (4) whether students perceive an importance is placed on teamwork (Baker et al., 2003);

* Use graduate students to compile the assessment research results (Baker et al., 2003).

The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows the curriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners are encouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve to make research-based learning the standard.

Link Communication Skills and Coursework

"Undergraduate education must enable students to acquire strong communication skills, and thereby create graduates who are proficient in both written and oral communications" (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p. 24).

By the end of the 1990s, the Boyer Commission (1998) reported there was a strong connection between "skill in communication that is the hallmark of clear thinking.." (p. 13). The sentiment of this statement had been echoed throughout the decade by the National Education Goals Panel (1992), the Wingspread Report (1994), the Business-Higher Education Forum (1995) (as reported by Major, 2002). Empirical research conducted by Nicholson et al., (2005) assessed the perceived gaps in marketing curricula across public and private institutions; finding that the largest gaps between actual and desired effectiveness occurred in the areas of written and oral communications. Curriculum reformers/planners responded, first by asking several questions about the current curriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum planners today): (1) do all of our students reflect mastery of, and ability to communicate, content?, (2) do we clearly express the expectations for written and verbal communication skills to our students?, (3) do the writing courses taken prior to entering the marketing program emphasize proper analytical business writing, expressing evidence of explanation, analysis, persuasion, while being succinct/clear, and writing to the appropriate audience, (4) do courses in our curriculum routinely ask for written and oral assignments?, (5) are the nature of the written and oral assignments adequately preparing students for employers?.

Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners, specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth and implemented; recognizing that efforts to link communication skills with coursework will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some university programs have attempted to achieve their communication skill enhancement goals:

* Design course assignments to include both written and verbal communication components;

* Ensure that students are engaging in written communication assignments regularly;

* Ensure that students are engaging in verbal communication assignments regularly;

* Include written and verbal communications expectations and goals on the course syllabus;

* Grade students on both written and verbal communication components;

* Work with other departments (e.g., English) to design writing projects that teach proper business writing;

* Work with other departments (e.g., Communications/Speech) to design verbal presentation projects that teach proper business presentation skills.

The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows the curriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners are encouraged to add additional items that they believe will link communication skills and coursework.

Use Information Technology Creatively

"Because research universities create technological innovations, their students should have the best opportunity to learn state-of-the-art practices--and learn to ask questions that stretch the uses of the technology" (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p. 25).

By the mid-2000s, marketing curricula planners were seeking ways to incorporate technology in its various forms into the student experience. The first goal of planners was to introduce students to the role and forms of technology used in marketing research and marketing strategy; the second goal to foster environments and projects that force students to strategically interpret database outputs, proactively conduct secondary marketing research using credible online sources, and formulate effective web-based/internet-based marketing tactics for businesses (Nicholson et al., 2005). Curriculum reformers/planners responded, first by asking several questions about the current curriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum planners today): (1) are we challenging our students to use technology to gather facts, analyze them, and create new insights from the facts?, (2) are students being taught how to critically evaluate the quality of an online source?, (3) are our faculty being rewarded for seeking out new and more effective ways of using technology in the classroom?, (4) when the full curricula flow is considered, do the assignments students complete follow a progression that will expand their skills and abilities to utilize technology?, (5) do our faculty have opportunities to network with other professionals to share ideas on how to meet learning-goals through technology use in the classroom?.

Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners, specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth and implemented; recognizing that efforts to use information technology creatively will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some university programs have attempted to achieve their technology enhancement goals:

* Frame meaning questions in assignments to force students to use critical thinking and analytical skills on information gathered through technology;

* Clearly define parameters for credible online sources;

* Allow faculty to include new technology integration into the classroom as a valid contribution for teaching assessment/employee evaluation purposes;

* Required courses in the curriculum should include technology-based projects;

* Utilize a semester long case study of a technology-based company (Spain et al., 2005);

* Use multiple pedagogical methods (case study, lectures, assignments, Oxford-style debate, and technology);

* Partner with a technology-based company to help develop courses that will add employer-defined value to students (e.g., University of Arizona partnered with IBM Corp to develop a course to teach students how to build online communities through a Web 2.0 interface (Pangburn, 2006)).

The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows the curriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners are encouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve to use technology creatively in their curriculum.

Culminate with a Capstone Experience

"The final semester(s) should focus on a major project and utilize to the fullest the research and communication skills learned in the previous semesters" (The Boyer Commission, 1998;p. 27).

As the 21st century dawned, curriculum reformers were espousing the concept of an undergraduate program that incrementally built on written and verbal communications skills, research skills, inquiry-based learning, team building and collaborative skills and culminated in a capstone experience for students (Brunel & Hibbard, 2006). Furthermore, the goal stated was to adequately prepare graduating seniors for graduate work should they choose to further their educations. An example can be found at Boston University's School of Management curriculum where required courses (marketing, operations, information system, and finance) are integrated into a one-semester sequence where teams work on a comprehensive business plan for a new product idea (Brunel & Hibbard, 2006). By 2006, a number of AACSB accredited marketing programs were using a capstone course or experience as a post-test in the curriculum assessment process; specifically, 19% were using a capstone course and 14% were using either a marketing plan, marketing portfolio of projects and/or special written or oral assignments. Curriculum reformers/planners responded, first by asking several questions about the current curriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum planners today): (1) does our marketing curriculum incrementally build written, verbal, technological skills and culminate their integration in a capstone experience?, (2) does our curriculum use our capstone experience as an assessment tool?, (3) does the capstone experience bring together efforts from the faculty member, senior students, and graduate students (assistants) synergistically?, (4) does the content in our capstone adequately prepare seniors for graduate study?, (5) does the content in our capstone adequately prepare seniors for the professional environment?, (6) does our capstone experience integrate key aspects of business and marketing?.

Once these questions have been deliberated upon by the curriculum planners, specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth and implemented. Recognizing that efforts to culminate the marketing curriculum with a capstone experience will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some university programs have attempted to achieve their capstone experience goals:

* Structure the capstone course/experience in such a way to assess all student learning goals approved by the department;

* Expectations for the foundational concepts necessary for the graduate marketing course are shared with marketing faculty teaching the senior capstone course/experience;

* Expectations for foundational concepts necessary for the capstone course/experience are shared with faculty who teach pre-requisite courses for the capstone course/experience.

The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows the curriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners are encouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve to culminate their program with a capstone experience.

Cultivate a Sense of Community

"Research universities should foster a community of learners. Large universities must find ways to create a sense of place and to help students develop small communities within the larger whole" (The Boyer Commission, 1998;p. 34).

Learning communities in a university setting are usually comprised of students with a common interest or purpose; they may be part of an educational or curricular requirement (The Boyer Commission, 1998). In a large research university members may be from a wide variety of backgrounds, cultures, ages, experiences, living conditions (off or on campus), and beliefs which can lead to an enriching if not memorable set of experiences. Student learning communities may take one of several forms, including cohort groups, paired or team-taught courses, on-site or off-site or cyberspace locations, or campus programming events (The Boyer Commission, 1998; Janusik & Wolvin, 2007). Research shows that small learning communities have been found to enhance communication and satisfaction among members, help faculty balance responsibilities of research and course management, however a noted disadvantage of online chat rooms is a less than ideal degree of interdisciplinary discussions (Janusik & Wolvin, 2007). Curriculum reformers/planners responded, first by asking several questions about the current curriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum planners today): (1) do student study groups/communities tend to be forming as a result of coursework responsibilities (e.g., team projects)?, (2) are we providing physical/cyberspace location(s) in support of ad-hoc study groups?, (3) should we accommodate the needs of the small communities if they go beyond physical location, perhaps to include the ability to practice team presentations using computer/projector/screen equipment, or accessing certain databases?, (4) are their student organizations related to our discipline that we can support (e.g., American Marketing Association or Students in Free Enterprise local chapters), and (5) are we keeping abreast of campus sponsored events that relate to our discipline and promoting them to our majors?.

Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners, specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth and implemented; recognizing that efforts to cultivate a sense of community will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some university programs have attempted to cultivate a sense of community among their majors:

* Host broad-interest events that are related to the marketing discipline;

* Involve local chapter organizations in the planning of sponsored events;

* Identify student study/meeting areas for use by marketing majors;

* Involve student groups in projects that involve experiential learning through service projects for the department, university, or community;

* Use team-based projects in class;

* Have teams present and interact with other teams during class discussions;

* Set up course-specific chat rooms for students to access.

The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows the curriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners are encouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve to cultivate a sense of community.

Change Faculty Reward Systems

Research universities must commit themselves to the highest standards in teaching as well as research and create faculty reward structures that validate commitment (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p. 31).

The crux of the issue when one is considering faculty reward systems amidst curriculum reform is striking a reasonable balance between teaching, research, and service responsibilities and rewarding faculty accordingly in both the tenure and promotion processes (The Boyer Commission, 1998). The responsibility to strike a reasonable balance does not end with a departmental leader, but pervades upward through the university levels. A case in point is the recent appointment of Drew Gilpin Faust as president of Harvard University was encapsulated by concerns of her ability to shepherd the ongoing undergraduate curriculum reform efforts while guiding expansion of the university's scientific enterprise (Wilson, 2007). Curriculum reformers/planners responded, first by asking several questions about the current curriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum planners today): (1) does our faculty philosophically value a balanced commitment to high quality teaching, research, and service work?, (2) does our department, college, and university practically value a balanced commitment to high quality teaching, research, and service work and is this evidenced in promotion and tenure processes?, (3) is there a consistency between department, college, and university standards?, (4) does our department foster a culture that desires to integrate research and teaching activities whenever appropriate to do so?, (5) are the rewards for excellence in teaching, developing interdisciplinary programs, or mentoring student research projects a onetime event, or a permanent addition to salary levels?, and (6) is there an (in)appropriate amount of faculty resources dedicated to university committee work?.

Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners, specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth and implemented; recognizing that efforts to cultivate a sense of community will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some university programs have structured faculty reward systems (The Boyer Commission, 1998; Wilson, 2007):

* Appoint department chairs and curriculum reform leaders who have a demonstrated commitment to undergraduate teaching as well as research activities;

* Redesigning the criterion for promotion and tenure to clearly identify levels of expected faculty performance in the areas of teaching, research, and service;

* Comparing departmental standards for teaching, research, and service to those of the college and university; seeking avenues to create consistency and support between criteria;

* Talk about shared values and pride in quality teaching, research, and service (breed a culture of balance and support);

* Attend professional/academic conferences to learn of new ideas and ways to structure faculty reward systems;

* Seek out external research grants that promote teaching and research activities;

* Give financial rewards for excellence in a notable area that is valued by the department (e.g., team-teaching, developing a new interdisciplinary course, teaching an overload);

* Assess whether there is an inordinate toll on the faculty as a result of university-related committee work (e.g., a faculty member may be volunteering too much at the university level and be performing at less than optimal levels in other areas valued by the department as more core to the department mission).

The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows the curriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners are encouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve to enhance faculty reward systems. It is the position of this paper that the Boyer directives identify the strategic direction for change in undergraduate programs of study and may act as a guiding structure from which to assess and reform an existing curriculum.

A thorough review of marketing curricula and surrounding issues reveals a range of stakeholder drivers and situational considerations that are inter-related and actively evolve in nature over time. The way in which universities/departments respond to the pressures caused by these drivers can vary from a pilot study or more incremental approach, to a holistic conversation of the whole program. As an example, the University of Pennsylvania ran a 'curricular experiment' or pilot study of the reformed interdisciplinary curriculum; establishing a control group (those in the traditional curriculum plan) and a test group (Bartlett, 2002). Focus groups, individual interviews, and surveys are conducted with each group along the way; majors, courses, and grades are also tracked. Outcome measures include a comparison of the two programs on (in part) experience/bonding with professors and quality of writing/communication skills (Bartlett, 2002). Paul R. Goldin, an associate professor at Penn State co-taught a pilot course and admits that "a lot of things didn't work as well as we had hoped. Many of the end-of-semester evaluations from students were negative. We underestimated how much of a challenge it is to bring three people together to teach a course" (Bartlett, 2002; A12). Goldin and others from Penn State caution against team teaching as different teaching styles can mix like oil and water, but there is some evidence that contradictory paradigms can cause 'fire' in the classroom and energize students (Bartlett, 2002). In 2001, the first Penn State pilot study cohort was heading into their junior year and their research requirement; curriculum planners discussed what the nature and depth of the research project should be, whether there would be enough professors who were willing and able to serve as research mentors, who should grade and approve the research projects, the handling of students who turn in a substandard project, whether a student's graduation could be delayed due to a failed project, and finally if the pilot proved successful how could Penn State adopt the new curriculum research requirement for all 6,355 students knowing there would not be enough faculty resources to allow it? (Bartlett, 2002). "Coming up with something that every student can do raises practical problems that may not have a solution," says Larry D. Gladney, an associate professor of physics (Bartlett, 2002, p. A12). Struggling to gain buy-in from students, Penn State made several modifications of its original pilot study, including the addition of a weekly discussion section for pilot study students (run by a graduate teaching assistant) and supported by an extensive web site.

In contrast to Penn State's pilot study, Syracuse University undertook a holistic conversion of its entire undergraduate curriculum (from freshman through senior year) with the 1999 freshman class as the first to experience it (Hubbard, 1999). Four major themes were integrated through the new curriculum; entrepreneurial management, globalization, technology management, and leadership. (Hubbard, 1999). Entrepreneurs who are also adjunct faculty with little teaching experience are paired with faculty mentors, establishing a mutual benefit for faculty whose practical knowledge base is enhanced. The program has been received extremely well by parents, who say these are the kinds of things students should be learning and doing". All new students, regardless of major, will be required to take a course in entrepreneurship. In addition, faculty is currently developing an elective entrepreneurial "capstone" experience for senior students (Hubbard, 1999). In 1997, General Electric Fund awarded the faculty at Syracuse University's School of Management a grant of $450,000, to support the joint development of entrepreneurial management courses and modules that could integrate entrepreneurship into existing courses.

Schneider (1999) reports that once the curriculum committee has come up with a reformation idea, garnering buy-in and interest from the rest of the faculty can be difficult if nearly impossible as faculty often see the resulting curriculum recommendation report as merely a rhetorical device. There is irony in the fact that while faculty uninvolved in the curriculum planning processes may perceive the plan as 'window dressing', administration typically perceives that something tangible and worthwhile has been accomplished (Schneider, 1999).

USING THE TOOL

In the previous sections of this paper seven Boyer Commission Report directives were discussed along with guiding principles for each (The Boyer Commission, 1998). These are presented in the first two columns in the curriculum audit and planning tool found in Table 1. Prior to, and after the Boyer Commission Report was released, marketplace reactions occurred from researchers, academics, and universities alike. A review of the literature found that reactions to the 'call for undergraduate curriculum reform' occurred in each area that the Boyer Commission Report had a directive, and came in many forms; ranging from the addition of interdisciplinary electives to the marketing curriculum, to encouraging students to attend university sponsored events that are related to their field of study. Marketplace reactions to each directive are listed in the third column of Table 1 along with recommendations from the Boyer Commission Report (1998). The curriculum planner should add to each categorical listing; examples may include current programming efforts or courses that are being implemented but are not pre-printed on the tool, ideas for future programming that are thought to support the directive in question. Once the tool has been customized to the undergraduate program, the planner proceeds to the right hand column of Table 1. Here five columns for curriculum reform stages are shown, however depending upon the mission and vision of the marketing department and their current curriculum plan, more or less stages may be planned. Each stage may represent a year, several years, or may be progressive based upon certain goals being met (e.g., once the goals of stage I are met, the faculty begin implementation on stage II of their curriculum plan). If a department does not have a curriculum plan for the future, then only the first column (stage I) would be used for assessment purposes. In the course of assessment, the curriculum planner begins at the top of the tool, refers to each potential action and indicates in the first column whether the current marketing curriculum includes that action or addresses that area or not. An 'NA' placed in the cell indicates that the current curriculum does not meet that directive element; shading the cell indicates that the current curriculum does meet that directive element. Once stage I column is filled in, the rest of the columns can progressively serve as a tracking/planning tool as defined timelines proceed. For example, if the stage columns were to represent years, and the marketing program had no interdisciplinary electives in the current curriculum (e.g., an 'NA' in the stage I cell), planners would discuss whether an interdisciplinary elective would be a valuable asset to the current curriculum and if so, discuss from which department the elective may come from, and after considerable discussion and research determine that they would like to introduce an interdisciplinary elective in year 2. This tool helps curriculum planners of undergraduate marketing programs assess the degree to which their current and desired curriculums meet directives as put forth in the Boyer Commission Report (1998).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Frost and Teodorescu (2003) state that successful curriculum transformation must begin with structural changes to the curriculum, be followed by behavioral changes, and ultimately result in cultural change. The alternative is to change the structure of the curriculum and assume that faculty behaviors, teaching emphasis, assignments, technology use, and collaboration with colleagues will automatically happen; which will result in unmet curriculum goals, frustrated faculty, students, and administrators, wasted efforts, and a dysfunctional culture (Frost & Teodorescu, 2003). Wasted efforts may span formation of faculty committees, conducting internal evaluations, hiring external consultants, developing new courses/majors, revising incentives for faculty (Boyer Commission, 1998; Frost and Teodorescu, 2003). Many marketing faculty see curriculum reform as a futile effort, done to check an administrative box or enhance public relations. According to Anrea Leskes, former vice president at the Association of American Colleges and Universities and an expert on curriculum reform, even when the curriculum reform effort is sincere, it's often managed poorly and fails to get faculty buy-in. In contrast, there is hope. The research by Frost and Teodorescu (2003) reveals five themes related to cultural change that must be operationalized in the curriculum through collegiality and faculty collaboration: 1) clarifying the institutional mission and educational goals, 2) making teaching a priority, 3) supporting intellectual community, 4) recognizing teaching as a multifaceted activity, and 5) understanding the responsibility of students. Several years ago, the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) expanded its curriculum reform consulting program and can provide comprehensive and instructive reviews (Karukstis and Rowlett, 2005).]. And finally, in terms of the rate of curriculum change, Stanford University's panel overseeing curriculum reform recommends 'moderate' and incremental changes that allow the university to see what works (Bartlett, 2002; Leatherman, 1994).

REFERENCES

Baker, Stacey Menzel, Susan Schultz Kleine, and Mark Bennion (2003), "What Do They Know? Integrating the Core Concept of Customer Value into the Undergraduate Marketing Curriculum and Its Assessment", Journal of Marketing Education, 25 (1), 79-89.

Bartlett, Thomas (2002), "Students Become Curriculum Guinea Pigs", Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (35), A12.

Benz, Bruce F. (2003), "Undergraduate Research a Unique Experience for Biology Students", Fort Worth Business Press, 16 (42), 7.

Brunel, Frederic F., Jonathan D. Hibbard (2006), "Using Innovations in Student Teaming to Leverage Cross-Functional and Marketing Learning: Evidence from a Fully Integrated Business Core", Marketing Education Review, 16 (3), 15-23.

Butler, Daniel D. and Katherine Straughn-Mizerski (1998), "Required and Elective Marketing Courses: How Far Have We Come in Twenty Years?", Marketing Education Review, 8 (3), 35-42.

Frost, Susan H. and Daniel Teodorescu (2003), "Teaching Excellence: How Faculty Guided Change at a Research University", The Review of Higher Education, 24 (4), Summer, 397-415.

George, Richard J. (1987), "Teaching Business Ethics: Is There a Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality", Journal of Business Ethics, 6 (7), 513-518.

Hubbard, Kim L. (1999), "SU School of Management Ready for 21st Century", Business Journal, 13 (2), 18.

Janusik, Laura A. and Andrew D. Wolvin (2007), "The Communication Research Team as Learning Community", Education, 128 (2), 169-188.

Karukstis, Kerry K. and Roger S. Rowlett (2005), "On-Site Reviews and Institutes To Assess and Strengthen Undergraduate Departments and Programs", Journal of Chemical Education, 82 (4), 512-513.

Kormondy, Edward J. (1969), "The Consultants Burear", Bioscience, 19 (11), 1007.

Kropf, Annemarie (2002), "Clarkson Redesigns, Broadens Biz Program", Business Journal, 19 (9), 11.

Lamont, Lawrence M. and Ken Friedman (1997), "Meeting the Challenges to Undergraduate Marketing Education", Journal of Marketing Education, 19 (3), 17-30.

Leatherman, Courtney (1994), "Panel on Stanford's Curriculum Recommends 'Moderate' Changes", Chronicle of Higher Education, 41 (8), A32.

Logue, Dennis E. and Larry J. Merville (1974), "The Development of an Integrative Curriculum in an Undergraduate Business Program", Decision Sciences, 5 (2), 263-267.

Light, R. J. (2000). Making the Most of College: Students Speak their Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

MacWilliams, Bryon (2007), "Turkmenistan Begins Reform of Colleges", Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 (33), A49.

Major, Claire H. (2002), "Implementing Problem-Based Learning in Undergraduate Education: A Message from the Guest Editor: Guest Editor's Note", The Journal of General Education, 51 (4), v--xii.

Mooney, Carolyn J. (1993), "Curriculum Update: Network to Help Colleges Benefit From Reform Projects", Chronicle of Higher Education, 39 (20), A16.

Moore, John W. (1998), "Editorial: The Boyer Report", Journal of Chemical Education, 75 (8), 935.

Nicholson, Carolyn Y., Stephen T. Barnett, and Paul E. Dascher (2005), "Curriculum Assessment in Marketing Programs: Current Status and Examination of AACSB Core Standards at the Program Level", Marketing Education Review, 15 (2), Summer, 13-26.

Pangburn, Joe (2006), "IBM, University of Arizona Partner for Info Technology", Inside Tucson Business, 16 (19), 9.

Prestwich, Roger, Thu-Mai Ho-Kim (2007), "Knowledge, Skill and Abilities of International Business Majors: What We Teach Them Versus What Companies Need Them to Know", Journal of Teaching in International Business, 19 (1), 29-55.

Schneider, Alison (1999), "When Revising a Curriculum, Strategy May Trump Pedagogy", Chronicle of Higher Education, 45 (24), A14, 3p.

Spain, Judith W., Allen D. Engle, and J. C. Thompson (2005), "Applying Multiple Pedagogical Methodologies in an Ethics Awareness Week: Expectations, Events, Evaluation, and Enhancements", Journal of Business Ethics, 58 (1-3), April, 7-16.

Stanton, Angela D'Auria (2006), "Bridging the Academic/Practitioner Divide in Marketing: An Undergraduate Course in Data Mining", Marketing Intelligence & Planning: Special Issue: Marketing Education: Constructing the Future, 24 (3), 233-244.

Stringfellow, Linsay, Sean Ennis, Ross Brennan, Michael John Harker, and Glasgow Strathclyde (2006), "Mind the Gap: The Relevance of Marketing Education to Marketing Practice", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24 (3), 245-256.

The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the Research University (1998, modified 2001), "Reinventing Undergraduate Education: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities", Stony Brook, NY (http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/ boyer.nsf/: accessed 04/10/06).

Turnquist, Philip H., Dennis W. Bialaszewski, and LeRoy Franklin (1991), "The Undergraduate Marketing Curriculum", Journal of Marketing Education, 13 (1), 40-47.

Weissman, Julie and Kenneth J. Boning (2003), "Five Features of Effective Core Courses", The Journal of General Education, 52 (3), 150-174.

Wilson, Robin (2000), "The Remaking of Math", Chronicle of Higher Education, 46 (18), 14.

Wilson, Robin (2007), "Harvard's Historic Choice", Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 (25), A1-A25.

Connie R. Bateman, University of North Dakota

[TABLE OMITTED]