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

A strategic framework for auditing and planning for reform of an undergraduate marketing curriculum: a practical application of the Boyer commission report. INTRODUCTION In the late 1980s a reformation movement had taken a strongfoothold in the minds of undergraduate curriculum planners. In 1987,Chickering and Gamson codified the Seven Principles for Good Practice inUndergraduate Education which identified the principles by which thereformation movement should proceed; promoting a movement of "goodpractices"--defined as those that enhanced student-facultyinteraction, experiences, student collaboration, and active learningtechniques. The concerns expressed by curriculum planners that followedwere not related to a commitment to the ideology itself or theprinciples put forth by Chickering and Gamson (1987), but rather werecentered on what forms the changes should take. Not surprisingly, the1990's were typified by curriculum planners who wanted moreresearch before forging ahead with change, and/or felt it necessary toassess the effectiveness of the existing curriculum, so the importanceand role of outcome-based or skill-based curriculum assessment wascatapulted to the forefront of discussions (Miller et al., 1991).Research by Miller et al., (1991) identified the most commonly used andhighly 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) recommendedoutcome-based measurements on critical thinking, problem solving,effective communication, and responsible citizenship. The Association ofAmerican Colleges established the Network for Academic Renewal, whichheld a series of workshops, gathered information, and acted as aclearinghouse for ways to improve undergraduate education (Mooney,1993). The Wingspread Report (1994) recommended skill-based measurementson complex thinking, the ability to analyze information and to solveproblems, and interpersonal communications. The Business-HigherEducation Forum (1995) released a statement to the effect that corporateleaders want college graduates to possess "leadership andcommunication skills; quantification skills, interpersonal relations,and the ability to work in teams; the understanding needed to work witha diverse workforce at home and abroad; and the capacity to adapt torapid change" (p. 3). Thus, the industry of higher educationappeared to agree that program level assessment, when properly done,would serve as the basis for curricula re-design. It is important tonote that research is critical because faculty, employers, alumni, andstudents have different criterion, experience, and expectations for whatthey consider "effective" (Floyd & Gordon, 1998). As the 1990s came to and end, the evidence was clear that powerfulforces were transforming marketing education (Lamont & Friedman,1997). Despite accreditation (AACSB) pressures, only forty-two percentof U.S. business schools had responded and put comprehensiveoutcome-based assessment programs into place (Kimmell, et al., 1998).Justifications given for non-compliance to AACSB's wishes wererooted in pressures felt by curriculum planner workloads, weak budgets(resources had not been allocated), and/or lack of ownership for theinitiative (e.g., no 'assessments champion' at thedepartmental level. By the mid 2000s, research on curriculum assessmentwas picking up steam, and departments were making moves to empiricallyassess the effectiveness of their current curricula in meetingformalized objectives (Nicholson et al., 2005). BOYER COMMISSION REPORT DIRECTIVES, GUIDELINES AND MARKETPLACEREACTIONS The results of a large scale empirical study (sponsored by theCarnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning) cameout in the late 1990s that served to transform thinking aboutundergraduate program reform. Educators across the nation turned theirattention to what came to be known as the "gold standard" forcurriculum re-design. Specifically, in 1998, the Boyer Commission Reportentitled "Reinventing Undergraduate Education: a Blueprint forAmerica's Research Universities" was published (The BoyerCommission, 1998). The published report was the result of a three-yearresearch study and investigation by the National Commission on EducatingUndergraduates in the Research University. The Commission trumpeted acrisis in undergraduate education. Specific findings of the Boyer (1998)investigation were eye-opening: * Many students graduate having accumulated whatever number ofcourses is required, but lack a coherent body of knowledge; i.e., anyinkling 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 littlethat will be of real value beyond a credential that will help them gettheir first jobs; * Employers are putting less weight on diplomas (a result of theabove); * Research universities react by offering new courses, majors, andcurricula. The commission called for a new integrated model for undergraduateprograms at research universities where the teaching function was notundervalued and inter-disciplinary knowledge was truly gleaned by thestudent body in value-added ways. In their report, the Boyer Commissionoutlined an "Academic Bill of Rights" for researchuniversities, which emphasized the creation of opportunities in thecurriculum for students to learn through inquiry and discovery ratherthan as passive receivers, and for students to work with facultyresearchers/mentors who guide the learning process and integrate theoryand practice through multi-disciplinary perspectives (Frost &Teodorescu, 2003; Weissman & Boning, 2003). The stated goal was toproduce a graduate "equipped with a spirit of inquiry and a zestfor problem solving; one possessed of the skill in communication that isthe hallmark of clear thinking" (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p.13). Embedded in this goal was the development of problem-solving andcritical thinking, team skills, and communication skills. As a result,the Commission Report strongly recommended that Research Universitiesrestructure and improve their undergraduate programs and laid out sevendirectives that are applicable to undergraduate marketing degree programcriteria: (1) remove barriers to interdisciplinary education, (2) makeresearch-based learning the standard, (3) link communication skills andcoursework, (4) use information technology creatively, (5) culminatewith a capstone experience, (6) cultivate a sense of community, and (7)change faculty reward systems (three additional directives werementioned by the commission that are out of the scope of this paper, butshould receive mention--educate graduate students as apprenticeteachers, construct and inquiry-based freshman year, and build on thefreshman foundation). On balance, the directives given in the BoyerCommission Report and the research and insights which followed, appearto be consistent with what students care about. In Making the Most ofCollege: Students Speak Their Minds by Light (2001), seniors at HarvardUniversity attributed their most beneficial experiences as ones thatwere consciously fostered by faculty decision; specifically collegiallearning environments, leadership roles in planning and running classprojects, 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 andassociated guiding principles as defined by the Boyer Commission arediscussed, examples are shared of how each directive has beenoperationalized in the university setting, and/or concerns orrestrictions are identified relating to each area. Curriculum plannersare encouraged to refer to the audit and planning tool in Table 1 andassess the status of each curriculum tactic shown as it applies to theircurrent marketing program. Remove Barriers to Interdisciplinary Education "Research universities must remove barriers to and createmechanisms for much more interdisciplinary undergraduate education"(The Boyer Commission, 1998; p.23). As early as 1974, the undergraduate business program at IndianaUniversity was revised to facilitate integration of core courses withemphasis on interdisciplinary decision making skills (Logue &Merville, 1974). But it wasn't until the 1990s that a call rang outfor marketing educators to reflect on the degree that their currentcurricula was interdisciplinary in nature and to take measures tofacilitate students' retention of and integrative capacities ofknowledge; and to ensure that motivations for these actions were inresponse 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 hadresponded, first by asking several questions about the currentcurriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum plannerstoday): (1) are there 'holes' in our curriculum?, (2) on whatbasis are we determining these 'holes' exist?, (3) what do wedesire student knowledge to be?, (4) are students integrating materialsand concepts to the degree desired?, (5) are we teaching the criticalfoundational elements of marketing?, (6) is there a common theme orcapstone or experience that integrates materials and accomplishescurricula goals?, (7) what are our fundamental values driving curriculumreform?, (8) what are the critical component areas for student knowledgeand student application?, and (9) will employers value what and how ourstudents have learned?. Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners,specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth andimplemented; recognizing that efforts to remove barriers tointerdisciplinary education will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles ofplanning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examplesof how some university programs have attempted to achieve theirinterdisciplinary educational goals: * Integrate a common theme of 'customer value for asustainable competitive advantage' throughout the curriculum, thusorganizing 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 givethem a sense of purpose, integrate the courses in their mind into acohesive program, and show the learning outcomes of the model (Baker etal., 2003); * Require junior-year students to take corporate finance,marketing, and operations management in the same semester; havingfaculty integrate the areas through common projects and case studies(Hubbard, 1999); * Team teach courses (Bartlett, 2002); * Creation of interdisciplinary majors; perhaps even using a toolsuch 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 relationshipmarketing, information technology, and marketing analytics throughexperiential learning tools that develop practical skill sets; helpingstudents to position themselves with value-adding in the marketplace(Stanton, 2006). The auditing and planning framework found in Table 1 lists thecurriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners areencouraged to add additional tactics that they are currentlyimplementing (or that they plan to implement) that will serve to removebarriers to interdisciplinary education in their programs. Make Research-Based Learning the Standard "Undergraduate education in research universities requiresrenewed emphasis on a point strongly made by John Dewey almost a centuryago: learning is based on discovery guided by mentoring rather than onthe transmission of information. Inherent in inquiry-based learning isthe element of reciprocity: faculty can learn from students as studentsare learning from faculty" (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p. 15). The early 2000s ushered in the concept that curriculums couldcombine some of the goals of assessment with those of research-basedlearning; where students, alumni, employers and/or faculty participatein research. At a national level, the Marketing Education ResearchCenter Report issued in June 2005 revealed the following trends inuniversity curricula (1) the adding of tracks as a response to nationalemployer surveys, and (2) consideration of 'marketingpathways' or 'career-track recommendations' as identifiedby 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 andHo-Kim (2007) surveyed active international companies in Minnesota whodisclosed that after general skill areas were met, key hiring criterionwere for specific knowledge, skills, and practical abilities in theareas of direct sales-w (exporting/distributorships), importing(sourcing/purchasing), global sales (contracts/negotiations), globaltransportation (logistics), and strategic planning. Nicholson et al.,(2005) found that administrators and faculty are driven to fit theirgraduates with industry needs; using a variety of research tools attheir disposal. Research shows that in terms of gathering employerfeedback; 17% of marketing programs collect data from employers andrecruiters; 11% use employer surveys; 5.1% use Internship/Co-Op Reviews;and 2.9% use Advisory Panels/boards (the latter of which may also helpwith 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 severalquestions about the current curriculum (these questions should be askedby curriculum planners today): (1) should we implement a mandatoryresearch requirement?, (2) how can professors serve as mentors ratherthan lecturers?, (3) how can we facilitate student learning by inquiryrather than absorbtion/rote?, (4) should students be involved in thecreation of new knowledge?, (5) how can we measure whether curriculumobjectives are being met (e.g., if student's integration skills areimproving)?, (6) should the assessment of student skill be made byfaculty 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 outcomesto be measured?. Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners,specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth andimplemented; recognizing that efforts to making research-based learningthe standard will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning,implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of howsome university programs have attempted to achieve their research-basedlearning goals: * Adding a mandatory student research project the results of whichwould add to the intellectual life of the university. Professors mentorthe students throughout the primary research project (Bartlett 2002); * Community service projects may be the basis of the studentresearch project (Baker et al., 2003); * Measure oral communication skills by having a panel of fourjudges (two faculty and two graduate students) review a ten minutevideotaped presentation of each senior to identify specific areas ofstrengths and weaknesses (Baker et al., 2003); * Students entering the program design a presentation on whatmarketing is about (baseline). At the end of the capstone course, atleast three faculty members evaluate their project for strengths andweaknesses relating to integration and application of program components(post-test) (Baker et al., 2003); * Undertake email or mail surveys with seniors and alumni (one tofive years out). Examples may include questions about (1) theperceptions of marketing courses with respect to knowledge andskill-based learning outcomes, and the perceived importance of eachlearning outcome to career success; (2) whether the common curriculumtheme is being integrated throughout the curriculum across marketingcourses, (3) whether students perceive an importance is placed uponquality writing, and (4) whether students perceive an importance isplaced 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 thecurriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners areencouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve to makeresearch-based learning the standard. Link Communication Skills and Coursework "Undergraduate education must enable students to acquirestrong communication skills, and thereby create graduates who areproficient in both written and oral communications" (The BoyerCommission, 1998; p. 24). By the end of the 1990s, the Boyer Commission (1998) reported therewas a strong connection between "skill in communication that is thehallmark of clear thinking.." (p. 13). The sentiment of thisstatement had been echoed throughout the decade by the NationalEducation Goals Panel (1992), the Wingspread Report (1994), theBusiness-Higher Education Forum (1995) (as reported by Major, 2002).Empirical research conducted by Nicholson et al., (2005) assessed theperceived gaps in marketing curricula across public and privateinstitutions; finding that the largest gaps between actual and desiredeffectiveness occurred in the areas of written and oral communications.Curriculum reformers/planners responded, first by asking severalquestions about the current curriculum (these questions should be askedby curriculum planners today): (1) do all of our students reflectmastery of, and ability to communicate, content?, (2) do we clearlyexpress the expectations for written and verbal communication skills toour students?, (3) do the writing courses taken prior to entering themarketing program emphasize proper analytical business writing,expressing evidence of explanation, analysis, persuasion, while beingsuccinct/clear, and writing to the appropriate audience, (4) do coursesin our curriculum routinely ask for written and oral assignments?, (5)are the nature of the written and oral assignments adequately preparingstudents for employers?. Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners,specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth andimplemented; recognizing that efforts to link communication skills withcoursework will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning,implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of howsome university programs have attempted to achieve their communicationskill enhancement goals: * Design course assignments to include both written and verbalcommunication components; * Ensure that students are engaging in written communicationassignments regularly; * Ensure that students are engaging in verbal communicationassignments regularly; * Include written and verbal communications expectations and goalson the course syllabus; * Grade students on both written and verbal communicationcomponents; * Work with other departments (e.g., English) to design writingprojects that teach proper business writing; * Work with other departments (e.g., Communications/Speech) todesign verbal presentation projects that teach proper businesspresentation skills. The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows thecurriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners areencouraged to add additional items that they believe will linkcommunication skills and coursework. Use Information Technology Creatively "Because research universities create technologicalinnovations, their students should have the best opportunity to learnstate-of-the-art practices--and learn to ask questions that stretch theuses of the technology" (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p. 25). By the mid-2000s, marketing curricula planners were seeking ways toincorporate technology in its various forms into the student experience.The first goal of planners was to introduce students to the role andforms of technology used in marketing research and marketing strategy;the second goal to foster environments and projects that force studentsto strategically interpret database outputs, proactively conductsecondary marketing research using credible online sources, andformulate effective web-based/internet-based marketing tactics forbusinesses (Nicholson et al., 2005). Curriculum reformers/plannersresponded, first by asking several questions about the currentcurriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculum plannerstoday): (1) are we challenging our students to use technology to gatherfacts, analyze them, and create new insights from the facts?, (2) arestudents being taught how to critically evaluate the quality of anonline source?, (3) are our faculty being rewarded for seeking out newand more effective ways of using technology in the classroom?, (4) whenthe full curricula flow is considered, do the assignments studentscomplete follow a progression that will expand their skills andabilities to utilize technology?, (5) do our faculty have opportunitiesto network with other professionals to share ideas on how to meetlearning-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 andimplemented; recognizing that efforts to use information technologycreatively will likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning,implementation, assessment, and so on. Following are examples of howsome university programs have attempted to achieve their technologyenhancement goals: * Frame meaning questions in assignments to force students to usecritical thinking and analytical skills on information gathered throughtechnology; * Clearly define parameters for credible online sources; * Allow faculty to include new technology integration into theclassroom as a valid contribution for teaching assessment/employeeevaluation purposes; * Required courses in the curriculum should includetechnology-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 coursesthat will add employer-defined value to students (e.g., University ofArizona partnered with IBM Corp to develop a course to teach studentshow to build online communities through a Web 2.0 interface (Pangburn,2006)). The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows thecurriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners areencouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve to usetechnology creatively in their curriculum. Culminate with a Capstone Experience "The final semester(s) should focus on a major project andutilize to the fullest the research and communication skills learned inthe previous semesters" (The Boyer Commission, 1998;p. 27). As the 21st century dawned, curriculum reformers were espousing theconcept of an undergraduate program that incrementally built on writtenand verbal communications skills, research skills, inquiry-basedlearning, team building and collaborative skills and culminated in acapstone experience for students (Brunel & Hibbard, 2006).Furthermore, the goal stated was to adequately prepare graduatingseniors for graduate work should they choose to further theireducations. An example can be found at Boston University's Schoolof Management curriculum where required courses (marketing, operations,information system, and finance) are integrated into a one-semestersequence where teams work on a comprehensive business plan for a newproduct idea (Brunel & Hibbard, 2006). By 2006, a number of AACSBaccredited marketing programs were using a capstone course or experienceas 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 oralassignments. Curriculum reformers/planners responded, first by askingseveral questions about the current curriculum (these questions shouldbe asked by curriculum planners today): (1) does our marketingcurriculum incrementally build written, verbal, technological skills andculminate their integration in a capstone experience?, (2) does ourcurriculum use our capstone experience as an assessment tool?, (3) doesthe 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 forgraduate study?, (5) does the content in our capstone adequately prepareseniors for the professional environment?, (6) does our capstoneexperience integrate key aspects of business and marketing?. Once these questions have been deliberated upon by the curriculumplanners, specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth andimplemented. Recognizing that efforts to culminate the marketingcurriculum with a capstone experience will likely be ongoing, requiringcycles of planning, implementation, assessment, and so on. Following areexamples of how some university programs have attempted to achieve theircapstone experience goals: * Structure the capstone course/experience in such a way to assessall student learning goals approved by the department; * Expectations for the foundational concepts necessary for thegraduate marketing course are shared with marketing faculty teaching thesenior capstone course/experience; * Expectations for foundational concepts necessary for the capstonecourse/experience are shared with faculty who teach pre-requisitecourses for the capstone course/experience. The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows thecurriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners areencouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve toculminate 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 helpstudents develop small communities within the larger whole" (TheBoyer Commission, 1998;p. 34). Learning communities in a university setting are usually comprisedof students with a common interest or purpose; they may be part of aneducational or curricular requirement (The Boyer Commission, 1998). In alarge research university members may be from a wide variety ofbackgrounds, cultures, ages, experiences, living conditions (off or oncampus), and beliefs which can lead to an enriching if not memorable setof experiences. Student learning communities may take one of severalforms, including cohort groups, paired or team-taught courses, on-siteor off-site or cyberspace locations, or campus programming events (TheBoyer Commission, 1998; Janusik & Wolvin, 2007). Research shows thatsmall learning communities have been found to enhance communication andsatisfaction among members, help faculty balance responsibilities ofresearch and course management, however a noted disadvantage of onlinechat 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 (thesequestions should be asked by curriculum planners today): (1) do studentstudy groups/communities tend to be forming as a result of courseworkresponsibilities (e.g., team projects)?, (2) are we providingphysical/cyberspace location(s) in support of ad-hoc study groups?, (3)should we accommodate the needs of the small communities if they gobeyond physical location, perhaps to include the ability to practiceteam presentations using computer/projector/screen equipment, oraccessing certain databases?, (4) are their student organizationsrelated to our discipline that we can support (e.g., American MarketingAssociation or Students in Free Enterprise local chapters), and (5) arewe keeping abreast of campus sponsored events that relate to ourdiscipline and promoting them to our majors?. Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners,specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth andimplemented; recognizing that efforts to cultivate a sense of communitywill likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation,assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some universityprograms have attempted to cultivate a sense of community among theirmajors: * Host broad-interest events that are related to the marketingdiscipline; * Involve local chapter organizations in the planning of sponsoredevents; * Identify student study/meeting areas for use by marketing majors; * Involve student groups in projects that involve experientiallearning through service projects for the department, university, orcommunity; * Use team-based projects in class; * Have teams present and interact with other teams during classdiscussions; * Set up course-specific chat rooms for students to access. The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows thecurriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners areencouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve tocultivate a sense of community. Change Faculty Reward Systems Research universities must commit themselves to the higheststandards in teaching as well as research and create faculty rewardstructures that validate commitment (The Boyer Commission, 1998; p. 31). The crux of the issue when one is considering faculty rewardsystems amidst curriculum reform is striking a reasonable balancebetween teaching, research, and service responsibilities and rewardingfaculty accordingly in both the tenure and promotion processes (TheBoyer Commission, 1998). The responsibility to strike a reasonablebalance does not end with a departmental leader, but pervades upwardthrough the university levels. A case in point is the recent appointmentof Drew Gilpin Faust as president of Harvard University was encapsulatedby concerns of her ability to shepherd the ongoing undergraduatecurriculum reform efforts while guiding expansion of theuniversity's scientific enterprise (Wilson, 2007). Curriculumreformers/planners responded, first by asking several questions aboutthe current curriculum (these questions should be asked by curriculumplanners today): (1) does our faculty philosophically value a balancedcommitment to high quality teaching, research, and service work?, (2)does our department, college, and university practically value abalanced commitment to high quality teaching, research, and service workand is this evidenced in promotion and tenure processes?, (3) is there aconsistency between department, college, and university standards?, (4)does our department foster a culture that desires to integrate researchand teaching activities whenever appropriate to do so?, (5) are therewards for excellence in teaching, developing interdisciplinaryprograms, or mentoring student research projects a onetime event, or apermanent addition to salary levels?, and (6) is there an(in)appropriate amount of faculty resources dedicated to universitycommittee work?. Once these questions have been deliberated by curriculum planners,specific ideas for curriculum change should be put forth andimplemented; recognizing that efforts to cultivate a sense of communitywill likely be ongoing, requiring cycles of planning, implementation,assessment, and so on. Following are examples of how some universityprograms have structured faculty reward systems (The Boyer Commission,1998; Wilson, 2007): * Appoint department chairs and curriculum reform leaders who havea demonstrated commitment to undergraduate teaching as well as researchactivities; * Redesigning the criterion for promotion and tenure to clearlyidentify levels of expected faculty performance in the areas ofteaching, research, and service; * Comparing departmental standards for teaching, research, andservice to those of the college and university; seeking avenues tocreate 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 ideasand ways to structure faculty reward systems; * Seek out external research grants that promote teaching andresearch activities; * Give financial rewards for excellence in a notable area that isvalued by the department (e.g., team-teaching, developing a newinterdisciplinary course, teaching an overload); * Assess whether there is an inordinate toll on the faculty as aresult of university-related committee work (e.g., a faculty member maybe volunteering too much at the university level and be performing atless than optimal levels in other areas valued by the department as morecore to the department mission). The auditing and planning tool found in Table 1 shows thecurriculum reform tactics listed above. Curriculum planners areencouraged to add additional items that they believe will serve toenhance faculty reward systems. It is the position of this paper thatthe Boyer directives identify the strategic direction for change inundergraduate programs of study and may act as a guiding structure fromwhich to assess and reform an existing curriculum. A thorough review of marketing curricula and surrounding issuesreveals a range of stakeholder drivers and situational considerationsthat are inter-related and actively evolve in nature over time. The wayin which universities/departments respond to the pressures caused bythese drivers can vary from a pilot study or more incremental approach,to a holistic conversation of the whole program. As an example, theUniversity of Pennsylvania ran a 'curricular experiment' orpilot study of the reformed interdisciplinary curriculum; establishing acontrol group (those in the traditional curriculum plan) and a testgroup (Bartlett, 2002). Focus groups, individual interviews, and surveysare conducted with each group along the way; majors, courses, and gradesare also tracked. Outcome measures include a comparison of the twoprograms on (in part) experience/bonding with professors and quality ofwriting/communication skills (Bartlett, 2002). Paul R. Goldin, anassociate professor at Penn State co-taught a pilot course and admitsthat "a lot of things didn't work as well as we had hoped.Many of the end-of-semester evaluations from students were negative. Weunderestimated how much of a challenge it is to bring three peopletogether to teach a course" (Bartlett, 2002; A12). Goldin andothers from Penn State caution against team teaching as differentteaching styles can mix like oil and water, but there is some evidencethat contradictory paradigms can cause 'fire' in the classroomand energize students (Bartlett, 2002). In 2001, the first Penn Statepilot study cohort was heading into their junior year and their researchrequirement; curriculum planners discussed what the nature and depth ofthe research project should be, whether there would be enough professorswho were willing and able to serve as research mentors, who should gradeand approve the research projects, the handling of students who turn ina substandard project, whether a student's graduation could bedelayed due to a failed project, and finally if the pilot provedsuccessful how could Penn State adopt the new curriculum researchrequirement for all 6,355 students knowing there would not be enoughfaculty resources to allow it? (Bartlett, 2002). "Coming up withsomething that every student can do raises practical problems that maynot have a solution," says Larry D. Gladney, an associate professorof physics (Bartlett, 2002, p. A12). Struggling to gain buy-in fromstudents, Penn State made several modifications of its original pilotstudy, including the addition of a weekly discussion section for pilotstudy students (run by a graduate teaching assistant) and supported byan extensive web site. In contrast to Penn State's pilot study, Syracuse Universityundertook a holistic conversion of its entire undergraduate curriculum(from freshman through senior year) with the 1999 freshman class as thefirst to experience it (Hubbard, 1999). Four major themes wereintegrated through the new curriculum; entrepreneurial management,globalization, technology management, and leadership. (Hubbard, 1999).Entrepreneurs who are also adjunct faculty with little teachingexperience are paired with faculty mentors, establishing a mutualbenefit for faculty whose practical knowledge base is enhanced. Theprogram has been received extremely well by parents, who say these arethe kinds of things students should be learning and doing". All newstudents, regardless of major, will be required to take a course inentrepreneurship. In addition, faculty is currently developing anelective entrepreneurial "capstone" experience for seniorstudents (Hubbard, 1999). In 1997, General Electric Fund awarded thefaculty at Syracuse University's School of Management a grant of$450,000, to support the joint development of entrepreneurial managementcourses and modules that could integrate entrepreneurship into existingcourses. Schneider (1999) reports that once the curriculum committee hascome up with a reformation idea, garnering buy-in and interest from therest of the faculty can be difficult if nearly impossible as facultyoften see the resulting curriculum recommendation report as merely arhetorical device. There is irony in the fact that while facultyuninvolved in the curriculum planning processes may perceive the plan as'window dressing', administration typically perceives thatsomething tangible and worthwhile has been accomplished (Schneider,1999). USING THE TOOL In the previous sections of this paper seven Boyer CommissionReport directives were discussed along with guiding principles for each(The Boyer Commission, 1998). These are presented in the first twocolumns 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, anduniversities alike. A review of the literature found that reactions tothe 'call for undergraduate curriculum reform' occurred ineach area that the Boyer Commission Report had a directive, and came inmany forms; ranging from the addition of interdisciplinary electives tothe marketing curriculum, to encouraging students to attend universitysponsored events that are related to their field of study. Marketplacereactions to each directive are listed in the third column of Table 1along with recommendations from the Boyer Commission Report (1998). Thecurriculum planner should add to each categorical listing; examples mayinclude current programming efforts or courses that are beingimplemented but are not pre-printed on the tool, ideas for futureprogramming that are thought to support the directive in question. Oncethe tool has been customized to the undergraduate program, the plannerproceeds to the right hand column of Table 1. Here five columns forcurriculum reform stages are shown, however depending upon the missionand vision of the marketing department and their current curriculumplan, more or less stages may be planned. Each stage may represent ayear, several years, or may be progressive based upon certain goalsbeing met (e.g., once the goals of stage I are met, the faculty beginimplementation on stage II of their curriculum plan). If a departmentdoes not have a curriculum plan for the future, then only the firstcolumn (stage I) would be used for assessment purposes. In the course ofassessment, the curriculum planner begins at the top of the tool, refersto each potential action and indicates in the first column whether thecurrent marketing curriculum includes that action or addresses that areaor not. An 'NA' placed in the cell indicates that the currentcurriculum does not meet that directive element; shading the cellindicates that the current curriculum does meet that directive element.Once stage I column is filled in, the rest of the columns canprogressively serve as a tracking/planning tool as defined timelinesproceed. For example, if the stage columns were to represent years, andthe marketing program had no interdisciplinary electives in the currentcurriculum (e.g., an 'NA' in the stage I cell), planners woulddiscuss whether an interdisciplinary elective would be a valuable assetto the current curriculum and if so, discuss from which department theelective may come from, and after considerable discussion and researchdetermine that they would like to introduce an interdisciplinaryelective in year 2. This tool helps curriculum planners of undergraduatemarketing programs assess the degree to which their current and desiredcurriculums meet directives as put forth in the Boyer Commission Report(1998). CONCLUDING REMARKS Frost and Teodorescu (2003) state that successful curriculumtransformation must begin with structural changes to the curriculum, befollowed by behavioral changes, and ultimately result in culturalchange. The alternative is to change the structure of the curriculum andassume that faculty behaviors, teaching emphasis, assignments,technology use, and collaboration with colleagues will automaticallyhappen; which will result in unmet curriculum goals, frustrated faculty,students, and administrators, wasted efforts, and a dysfunctionalculture (Frost & Teodorescu, 2003). Wasted efforts may spanformation of faculty committees, conducting internal evaluations, hiringexternal consultants, developing new courses/majors, revising incentivesfor faculty (Boyer Commission, 1998; Frost and Teodorescu, 2003). Manymarketing faculty see curriculum reform as a futile effort, done tocheck an administrative box or enhance public relations. According toAnrea Leskes, former vice president at the Association of AmericanColleges and Universities and an expert on curriculum reform, even whenthe curriculum reform effort is sincere, it's often managed poorlyand fails to get faculty buy-in. In contrast, there is hope. Theresearch by Frost and Teodorescu (2003) reveals five themes related tocultural change that must be operationalized in the curriculum throughcollegiality and faculty collaboration: 1) clarifying the institutionalmission and educational goals, 2) making teaching a priority, 3)supporting intellectual community, 4) recognizing teaching as amultifaceted activity, and 5) understanding the responsibility ofstudents. Several years ago, the Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR)expanded its curriculum reform consulting program and can providecomprehensive and instructive reviews (Karukstis and Rowlett, 2005).].And finally, in terms of the rate of curriculum change, StanfordUniversity's panel overseeing curriculum reform recommends'moderate' and incremental changes that allow the universityto 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 ofCustomer Value into the Undergraduate Marketing Curriculum and ItsAssessment", Journal of Marketing Education, 25 (1), 79-89. Bartlett, Thomas (2002), "Students Become Curriculum GuineaPigs", Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (35), A12. Benz, Bruce F. (2003), "Undergraduate Research a UniqueExperience for Biology Students", Fort Worth Business Press, 16(42), 7. Brunel, Frederic F., Jonathan D. Hibbard (2006), "UsingInnovations in Student Teaming to Leverage Cross-Functional andMarketing Learning: Evidence from a Fully Integrated BusinessCore", 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 inTwenty Years?", Marketing Education Review, 8 (3), 35-42. Frost, Susan H. and Daniel Teodorescu (2003), "TeachingExcellence: 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 Therea Gap Between Rhetoric and Reality", Journal of Business Ethics, 6(7), 513-518. Hubbard, Kim L. (1999), "SU School of Management Ready for21st Century", Business Journal, 13 (2), 18. Janusik, Laura A. and Andrew D. Wolvin (2007), "TheCommunication Research Team as Learning Community", Education, 128(2), 169-188. Karukstis, Kerry K. and Roger S. Rowlett (2005), "On-SiteReviews and Institutes To Assess and Strengthen UndergraduateDepartments 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 BizProgram", Business Journal, 19 (9), 11. Lamont, Lawrence M. and Ken Friedman (1997), "Meeting theChallenges to Undergraduate Marketing Education", Journal ofMarketing Education, 19 (3), 17-30. Leatherman, Courtney (1994), "Panel on Stanford'sCurriculum Recommends 'Moderate' Changes", Chronicle ofHigher Education, 41 (8), A32. Logue, Dennis E. and Larry J. Merville (1974), "TheDevelopment of an Integrative Curriculum in an Undergraduate BusinessProgram", Decision Sciences, 5 (2), 263-267. Light, R. J. (2000). Making the Most of College: Students Speaktheir Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. MacWilliams, Bryon (2007), "Turkmenistan Begins Reform ofColleges", Chronicle of Higher Education, 53 (33), A49. Major, Claire H. (2002), "Implementing Problem-Based Learningin Undergraduate Education: A Message from the Guest Editor: GuestEditor's Note", The Journal of General Education, 51 (4),v--xii. Mooney, Carolyn J. (1993), "Curriculum Update: Network to HelpColleges Benefit From Reform Projects", Chronicle of HigherEducation, 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: CurrentStatus and Examination of AACSB Core Standards at the ProgramLevel", Marketing Education Review, 15 (2), Summer, 13-26. Pangburn, Joe (2006), "IBM, University of Arizona Partner forInfo Technology", Inside Tucson Business, 16 (19), 9. Prestwich, Roger, Thu-Mai Ho-Kim (2007), "Knowledge, Skill andAbilities of International Business Majors: What We Teach Them VersusWhat Companies Need Them to Know", Journal of Teaching inInternational 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 AwarenessWeek: Expectations, Events, Evaluation, and Enhancements", Journalof Business Ethics, 58 (1-3), April, 7-16. Stanton, Angela D'Auria (2006), "Bridging theAcademic/Practitioner Divide in Marketing: An Undergraduate Course inData Mining", Marketing Intelligence & Planning: Special Issue:Marketing Education: Constructing the Future, 24 (3), 233-244. Stringfellow, Linsay, Sean Ennis, Ross Brennan, Michael JohnHarker, and Glasgow Strathclyde (2006), "Mind the Gap: TheRelevance of Marketing Education to Marketing Practice", MarketingIntelligence & Planning, 24 (3), 245-256. The Boyer Commission on Educating Undergraduates in the ResearchUniversity (1998, modified 2001), "Reinventing UndergraduateEducation: A Blueprint for America's Research Universities",Stony Brook, NY (http://naples.cc.sunysb.edu/Pres/ boyer.nsf/: accessed04/10/06). Turnquist, Philip H., Dennis W. Bialaszewski, and LeRoy Franklin(1991), "The Undergraduate Marketing Curriculum", Journal ofMarketing Education, 13 (1), 40-47. Weissman, Julie and Kenneth J. Boning (2003), "Five Featuresof Effective Core Courses", The Journal of General Education, 52(3), 150-174. Wilson, Robin (2000), "The Remaking of Math", Chronicleof 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]