Critical Thinking and Reflective Learning in the Marketing Education Literature: A Historical Perspective and Future Research Needs

Abstract

Marketing educators have long espoused the importance of critical thinking as a means of developing students’ higher-order problem-solving skills. In this article, we utilize an historical approach to investigate how educators have defined, operationalized, and empirically evaluated the critical thinking construct. To accomplish this, we review the critical thinking literature from three prominent marketing education journals and the leading management education journal. In doing so, we summarize extant critical thinking research across varied pedagogical topics, review empirical findings, and present a conceptual framework for motivating future research.

Keywords

experiential learning techniques learning styles critical thinking cases creativity creative problem solving

Introduction

Marketing education scholars and the business community have long recognized the importance of exposing students to pedagogical experiences that develop higher-order critical thinking skills necessary for life-long learning (Clabaugh, Forbes, & Clabaugh, 1995; Hill & McGinnis, 2007; Hopkins, Raymond, & Carlson, 2011; Ronchetto & Buckles, 1994). Critical thinking theory, which has its roots in the works of Socrates, views knowledge acquisition through the lens of higher-order cognitive skills such as analysis, evaluation, reflection, and inference (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956; Celuch, Black, & Warthan, 2009; D. A. Kolb, 1984). A key component of critical thinking is the ability to utilize data for learning purposes (Spiller & Tuten, 2015). This learning process requires decision makers to seek information, extend their personal views, question assumptions, and reflect on their actions (Ennis, 1996; Peltier, Hay, & Drago, 2005).

There is widespread agreement that critical thinking merits greater attention and emphasis in higher education, especially in the areas of management and marketing (Lovelace, Eggers, & Dyck, 2016). The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) has established the development of students’ critical thinking as a key accreditation objective (AACSB, 2017). As such, critical thinking has important ramifications in pedagogy and learning outcomes (Whitten & Brahmasrene, 2011). However, despite this importance, a considerable void exists in the business education literature concerning how critical thinking is developed in students and how it should be taught and measured (Cummins, Peltier, Erffmeyer, & Whalen, 2013; Gray, Peltier, & Schibrowsky, 2012; Lovelace et al., 2016; Spiller & Tuten, 2015). Notably absent are unifying themes and comprehensive frameworks that help students deal with complex and ill-defined problems (Glen, Suciu, & Baughn, 2014).

Petkus (2010) advocates for assuming an historical orientation in designing a pedagogical structure for disseminating opportunities for learning critical thinking skills across the marketing curriculum. With this orientation in mind, we utilize an historical approach to explore the various ways educators have defined and operationalized the critical thinking construct. In doing so, we review the critical thinking literature published in three prominent marketing education journals and the leading management education journal. In this review, we first summarize critical thinking research across a number of unifying pedagogical topics in the marketing education literature and then narrow our focus to articles incorporating empirical metrics. We conclude by offering an integrative framework for expanding the critical thinking paradigm.

Critical Thinking and Critical Reflection: A Primer

Critical thinking remains a complex topic encompassing a range of conceptual definitions investigated across varied fields of inquiry (Abrami et al., 2015). Whitten and Brahmasrene (2011, p. 1) define critical thinking as the “cognitive engine which drives problem solving and decision making.” Abrami et al. (2008, p. 1102) view critical thinking as “the ability to engage in purposeful, self-regulatory judgment.” Specific to conclusion drawing, Carlson (2013) frames critical thinking as applying intellectual values including relevance, accuracy, and rigorous reasoning. Similarly, Baldwin, Pierce, Joines, and Farouk (2011) define critical thinking based on a decision maker’s ability to identify issues, determine relevant courses of action, and apply decisions to varied problem scenarios.

Two schools of thought emerge when defining critical thinking in the general education literature (Abrami et al., 2008). The psychological perspective considers critical thinking to involve mastering cognitive skills such as interpretation, analysis, and evaluation. Once learned, these critical thinking skills are transferable across different contexts (Woolfolk, 1998). Conversely, the philosophical perspective views critical thinking to be context-specific and requires an individual to have a firm grasp on content knowledge to evaluate specific beliefs, claims, or actions (Bailin & Siegel, 2003).

Critical Thinking Dimensions and Critical Thinking Skills

Although considerable debate remains about how critical thinking should be defined and measured, we advocate for adopting Abrami et al.’s (2015) perspective that critical thinking is an activity and critical thinking skills are cognitive abilities. These cognitive abilities encompass a continuum of critical thinking skills across two primary dimensions acknowledged in the literature—technical reasoning and philosophical assessment (Dyck, Walker, Starke, & Uggerslev, 2012; Hay, Peltier, & Drago, 2004). Critical thinking as technical reasoning involves a range of cognitive processing activities such as active processing, logical assessment, analytical thinking, and problem resolution. The technical reasoning dimension closely aligns with the first five critical thinking skills identified by Abrami et al. (2015) ranging from interpretation to explanation and is shown in Table 1. Philosophical assessment involves critical reflection to understand and evaluate underlying assumptions and change one’s perspective as a result of assumption testing (Peltier, Hay, & Drago, 2005, 2006). Philosophical assessment is “inherently comparative and self-consciously value-laden” (Feiner & Roberts, 1995, p. 367). Accordingly, it aligns with the sixth cognitive skill (self-regulation) and its subskills (self-examination and self-correction).

Table 1.

Critical Thinking Dimensions, Cognitive Skills, and Subskills.

Dimension	Cognitive skills	Subskills
Technical reasoning	Interpretation	Categorization, decoding significance, clarifying meaning
	Analysis	Examining ideas, identifying arguments, analyzing arguments
	Evaluation	Assessing claims, assessing arguments
	Inference	Querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, drawing conclusions
	Explanation	Stating results, justifying procedures, presenting arguments
Philosophical assessment	Self-regulation	Self-examination, self-correction

Note. Skills and subskills adapted from Abrami et al. (2015, p. 306).

Methodology and Article Categorization

Following the methodology established by Gray et al. (2012), we utilized a four-step process to identify and classify critical thinking/reflective learning papers published in three marketing education journals: Journal of Marketing Education (JME), Marketing Education Review (MER), and the Journal of Advancement of Marketing Education (JAME). We also included the Academy of Management Learning & Education (AMLE), which is widely regarded as the top management education journal (Arbaugh, Asarta, Hwang, Fornaciari, & Bento, 2017). We used the following process to derive our categorization rubric:

Journals considered: All articles published in JME, MER, JAME, and AMLE

Search database included: EBSCO Host, ABI Inform, and Google Scholar

Search terms used: Critical thinking, critical reflection, reflection, and active processing

Time period covered: From inception of the journal through the end of 2016

Search process: We used a sequential search process: identifying titles, then abstracts, then author-identified subject areas. All articles were then examined to determine if the content was in the context of critical thinking and/or critical reflection. Our standard for inclusion in the review was articles with substantial theoretical coverage of critical thinking/reflection and/or addressed pedagogical application.

Initial Classification Scheme

Articles were coded into a database to include the volume, issue, author(s), title, and abstract. Software reviews, introductions to special issues, and editor notes were excluded. The initial coding scheme was based on a content analysis of the author-identified subject terms to determine potential categories. Based on this initial categorization scheme, we each independently identified the primary, secondary, and tertiary topics of each article.

Discussed and Refined Coding Rubric

After the independent assessments, we met to finalize the primary and secondary topics for each article. Approximately 20% of the articles had some disagreement among us. In most cases, the discrepancy centered on whether a subject area was the respective paper’s “primary or secondary” topic (e.g., experiential learning vs. learning strategies). Consequently, we decided that articles would be categorized as primary, secondary, and primary or secondary. As Table 2 shows, learning strategies (34 articles) and experiential learning (33 articles) represented approximately 60% of all categorized articles. The remaining articles were categorized as curriculum development (18), technology (9), global (6), assessment (5), and career development (4). While others might choose a different categorization scheme, we believe that we captured the essence of these articles. Table 3 identifies the key issue areas for each category.

Table 2.

Categorization of Critical and Reflective Thinking Articles.

	Primary	Secondary	Primary or secondary
Learning strategies	25	9	34
Experiential	32	1	33
Curriculum development	17	1	18
Technology	2	7	9
Global	6	0	6
Assessment	5	0	5
Career development	4	1	4

Table 3.

Key Issue Areas for each Critical Thinking Category.

Category	Key issue areas
Learning strategies	Psychosocial issues related to surface versus deep learning; self-directed/cooperative learning; journaling/blogging; discussion and debate
Experiential	Traditional cases and in-class exercises; live cases, exercises and projects; service learning; role-plays, internships, and blogging
Curriculum development	General program/curriculum design issues: marketing analytics; ethics/social responsibility; sales curriculum
Others	Technology; assessment; global; career development

In addition to uncovering the topical areas receiving the most attention in the critical thinking literature, two additional discoveries are worth noting and elaborating on. First, the critical thinking literature in marketing education has primarily been conceptual in nature. Second, even when empirical data were available, only a few studies had direct measures of the outcome of the critical thinking educational interventions. We address both of these issues below.

Overview of Articles Containing Quantitative Data by Primary Topic Area

A growing stream of educational research utilizes quantitative studies to determine the impact of teaching strategies on students’ critical thinking skills (Abrami et al., 2015). After our initial classification, we narrowed our scope to focus solely on articles with quantitative measures. Less than one third (n = 29) of the articles categorized in our search included quantitative data. The other articles either included no data, included content analysis of students’ journaling activities, provided only qualitative student feedback on the critical thinking learning activities described in the article, or the quantitative measures were not relevant to developing critical thinking skills or its outcomes. Table 4 provides a breakdown of the 29 articles containing quantitative data according to our categorization scheme. Learning strategies (n = 14, including one article with a secondary focus) and experiential learning (n = 10) represent the top two categories of articles including quantitative data.

Table 4.

Categorization of Articles With Quantitative Data and CT Direct Measures.

	Primary topic	Include quantitative data	Include CT direct measure
Learning strategies	25	13	5
Experiential	32	10	5
Career development	4	2	0
Assessment	5	1	1
Technology	2	1	1
Curriculum development	17	1	0
Global^a	6	1	0

Note. CT = critical thinking.

We discuss Peltier et al. (2006) under learning strategies, but classify it under global in this table.

In our review of the literature, following Bacon (2016), we carefully distinguish between direct measures of learning, which capture actual learning, and indirect measures of learning, which often capture perceived learning. For the purpose here, we adopt Elbeck and Bacon’s (2015, p. 282) definition of direct assessment as “scoring a student’s task performance or demonstration as it relates to the achievement of a specific learning goal.” In contrast, indirect measures “are assumed to be related to learning that do not involve scoring learner task performance or demonstration.” Student self-reports are a commonly used indirect measure of learning. Importantly, emerging evidence from meta-analyses suggests that there is little or no correlation between actual learning and perceived learning (Clayson, 2009; Sitzmann, Ely, Brown, & Bauer, 2010). In one provocative study in the critical thinking domain, Kitchener, Wood, and Jensen (2000) found a negative correlation between self-reported gains in reflective judgment skills and actual gains in those same skills. Therefore, to fully understand the variables that affect actual critical thinking, we must carefully distinguish between studies using direct measures and those using indirect measures.

Our analysis also identified relatively few articles (n = 12) that include direct measures of critical thinking. Again, learning strategies (n = 5) and experiential learning (n = 5) topics account for nearly all the articles with direct measures of critical thinking. In the following sections, we discuss the 24 critical thinking articles that include quantitative measures from the learning strategies and experiential learning areas. We organize our discussion by examining studies in two groups—those that use indirect measures and those that use direct measures of critical thinking. Our analysis highlights the need for critical thinking research in the marketing domain that includes more quantitative data in general, especially in terms of direct measures of critical thinking.

Learning Strategies

Learning strategies commonly refer to students’ means of acquiring and refining their knowledge, attitudes, or related skills (Ackerman & Hu, 2011). Higher-level learning occurs when students go beyond knowledge creation and apply their newfound knowledge as part of problem solving (A. Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005). There has been an increased focus on marketing pedagogy that engages students in more active processing to develop higher-level learning (Alvarez, Taylor, & Rauseo, 2015; Laverie, 2006). Although different approaches categorize learning styles or an individual’s depth of information processing (Bacon & Hartley, 2015), improving students’ critical thinking skills may require that educators guide students through different levels of active processing (Peltier et al., 2005, 2006). Actively engaging students in their own learning via thoughtfully designed learning activities and self-reflection accommodates differing learning strategies (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 2013; Boyer, Edmondson, Artis, & Fleming, 2014).

The categorization process identified 34 articles with either a primary (n = 25) or secondary (n = 9) focus on learning strategies. Of note, all secondary-focused articles primarily focused on experiential learning. The four most common themes in the learning strategies articles are psychosocial issues related to surface versus deep learning (n = 8), self-directed/cooperative learning (n = 7), journaling/blogging (n = 6), and discussion/debate (n = 6). We focus our discussion on the learning strategies articles with quantitative measures. Only 14 learning strategies articles incorporate quantitative measures including five articles with direct measures. (Of note, we discuss one article primarily classified as global that had a secondary classification in the learning strategies topical area.)

Learning Strategies and Indirect Measures of Critical Thinking

Most of the learning strategies articles (9/14) that utilize quantitative measures only provide indirect perceptual measures of critical thinking. These articles primarily address two subtopic issues identified in the marketing education literature on critical thinking learning strategies. We identified seven articles that examine psychosocial issues associated with motivating students to go beyond surface-level study habits to a deeper level of learning. The research stream contributes to the critical thinking literature by examining the relationships between psychosocial factors such as students’ perceptions of their self-efficacy, self-identity, and their perceived role in the learning/critical thinking process (Celuch et al., 2009; Celuch & Slama, 2002; Young, 2005) while also investigating outcomes of differing levels of intensive reflection (Peltier et al., 2005, 2006). We also identified two articles within the discussion/debate subtopic that discuss design issues in increasing student engagement in critical reflection (Paladino, 2009; Sautter, 2007). Unfortunately, both of these research streams employ only indirect perceptual measures. Most of the studies do not utilize pre- and postmeasures that are necessary to identify the potential effects of pedagogical interventions (e.g., cases, simulations, online innovations).

Surface Versus Deep-Level Learning

Celuch and Slama (2000) provide students’ pre- and postperceptions of their familiarity and ability with using a critical thinking approach in a consumer behavior course that required students to assess and improved how they were learning and thinking compared with other classes that they were taking. The results indicate that the students’ perceptions of the critical thinking approach increased relative to other courses in terms of openness to new ideas, capacity to make informed decisions, and problem-solving skills. Celuch and Slama (2002) also studied the relationships of theory of planned behavior constructs such as self-efficacy measures of students’ critical thinking abilities, perceived control of using critical thinking skills, and self-identity as a critical thinker. The results indicate that employing the critical thinking approach positively influences students’ attitudes about the importance of critical thinking skills and their perceptions of their ability to be critical thinkers. The study provides evidence of positive effect that the critical thinking approach can have on students’ self-identification as critical thinkers. However, Celuch and Slama caution that the self-identity effects will be small from any single course using a critical thinking approach. Marketing educators thus need to consider how the critical thinking approach can be employed across the marketing curriculum.

More recent contributions from Celuch and colleagues examine factors and related processes affecting students’ self-identification as critical thinkers. Celuch et al. (2009) find that strong, positive attitudes regarding critical thinking lead to strong normative beliefs about critical thinking skills that in turn affect self-identification as a critical thinker. The study also found that the perceived importance of critical thinking (attitude strength) moderates the relationship between students’ attitudes toward critical thinking and normative beliefs about critical thinking. Extending the research on critical thinking self-identity, Celuch, Kozlenkova, and Black (2010) found that critical thinking self-efficacy mediates the relationship between students’ beliefs about their critical thinking skills and their self-identity as a critical thinker. The study was conducted in a critical thinking–oriented class that utilized higher-order approaches to critical thinking.

Celuch and colleagues’ findings suggest that educators should consider the psychosocial factors that influence students’ critical thinking self-identity. When designing pedagogies, educators should also consider the processes that may affect students’ critical thinking–related attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. Pedagogies should explicitly identify and model relevant skills. Educators should continuously highlight the value of critical thinking skills to students and work to create an integrative approach to developing critical thinking across the marketing and business curriculum.

Peltier et al. (2005) developed a continuum of reflective learning strategies ranging from (1) habitual action, (2) understanding, (3) and reflection, leading to (4) intensive reflection, and they created a scale for measuring each reflective learning level. They later extended their study and adapted the scale for a global setting (Peltier et al., 2006). Findings from the two studies indicate that students’ evaluation of perceived learning outcomes is positively associated with the two higher levels of reflective learning (reflection and intensive reflection) and negatively associated with the two lower levels (habitual action and understanding). The results also indicate that each ascending stage of the reflective learning hierarchy exhibited an increased importance in explaining perceived learning outcomes. The findings align with the extant research on learning strategies that suggests at least two levels of learning or information processing, which is similar to other articles outlined here. Additionally, the findings demonstrate that faculty-to-student interaction and peer-to-peer (student) interaction are important conditions for reflective learning. The marketing education literature has paid increased attention to self-directed learning, peer-to-peer learning, and related approaches (Boyer et al., 2014). Accordingly, both instructors and students co-create value by establishing a conducive learning environment and jointly constructing knowledge as part of the reflective learning process.

In another study, Young (2005) outlines the connection between students’ epistemological beliefs about knowledge acquisition/learning and their use of superficial versus deeper learning strategies. The study’s findings suggest that students with more “sophisticated” views of knowledge acquisition are more likely to employ deep cognitive and metacognitive learning strategies involving critical thinking and knowledge integration, which in turn may lead to higher perceived performance levels. Students with “naïve” belief systems are more likely to employ surface-level learning strategies such as memorization. While students’ epistemological beliefs of knowledge acquisition may evolve on their own as they move through college, Young asserts that through the teaching and assessment methods employed, educators can influence students to view knowledge acquisition as more complex and relative, requiring substantial time and effort associated with deep learning strategies. Young notes that unidirectional lecture-based teaching styles along with multiple-choice exams are likely to reinforce “naïve” beliefs of knowledge acquisition (e.g., learning is simple, certain, and occurs when knowledge is handed down from authority). Young asserts that these unidirectional pedagogical approaches lower students’ intrinsic motivation for learning and lead to greater adoption of short-term learning strategies. Educators may encourage deeper learning by engaging students in experiential (Young, Caudill, & Murphy, 2008) or self-directed learning opportunities that help students build knowledge by integrating their own and their peers’ prior learning experiences via internal reflection and discussion (Boyer et al., 2014).

Educators need to design learning activities to ensure that attention is paid not just to the learning “experience” but also to knowledge acquisition (Young, 2005; Young et al., 2008). Young (2005) recommends concept maps as one tool that can explicitly guide students in organizing and integrating knowledge. Incorporating concept mapping into other learning activities (e.g., discussion/debate, journaling) may provide a mechanism for students to construct and integrate knowledge at a higher level of learning and enhance the development of their critical thinking skills.

Critical Reflection via Discussion/Debate

Peltier et al. (2005, 2006) note the importance of interaction to improving reflective learning and other outcomes. Engaging students to actively contribute to discussions and increasing faculty-to-student and student-to-student interactions is a challenge in both face-to-face and online settings (Paladino, 2009; Sautter, 2007). Enhancing students’ perceptions of their critical thinking skills can benefit from an online discussion/debate format as students are exposed to a more diverse set of opinions and gain the time to engage in reflective thinking to develop their arguments (Baglione & Nastanski, 2007; Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995). The primary focus of articles in the discussion/debate subtopic point to specific design and facilitation issues that may influence students’ preparation, engagement, application of critical thinking, and ultimately retention of marketing concepts. Unfortunately, the articles provide little evidence (only two employ quantitative measures) that empirically validates the authors’ conclusions, suggesting that research is needed that directly measures the effects of these interactive learning strategies.

Sautter (2007) provides perceptual measures that highlight the importance of considering design issues when employing a structured discussion approach. The survey results indicate that students perceive structured face-to-face discussions better than structured online discussions for improving faculty-to-student interactions, student-to-student interactions, and the overall quantity and quality of student participation. Findings also suggest that educators may negatively affect students’ perceptions of faculty-to-student interactions when employing more of a discussion facilitator role in the online learning environment. Although the study is somewhat exploratory, Sautter concludes that structured discussion design issues are critical to building students’ critical thinking skills.

Likewise, Paladino (2009) outlines a lecture-based teaching innovation in a consumer behavior course. Paladino describes how an animated character and outside-class discussions (facilitated via an online discussion tool) increased interactions and knowledge integration. Paladino found that students’ scores increased on an essay assignment, case analysis, and comprehensive exams over a two-year period. Year 1 was the baseline and Year 2 was after critical thinking interventions were implemented. However, a direct measure was not used to determine if the increased scores were solely attributable to the teaching innovations. While Sautter (2007) and Paladino (2009) provide some quantitative evidence of enhancements to students’ critical reflection, engagement, and knowledge, more research is needed to empirically compare the impact of discussion/debate and other interactive pedagogies and their impact on students’ development of critical thinking and reflection skills.

Learning Strategies and Direct Measures of Critical Thinking

Only five learning strategies articles provide direct measures of critical thinking skill development and/or related learning outcomes. The articles explore differences in learning about critical thinking that are identified in online versus traditional course delivery (Alvarez et al., 2015; Priluck, 2004), student-directed learning (Fontenot, Schwartz, Goings, & Johnson, 2012; Schroeter & Higgins, 2015), and reflective journaling (Muncy, 2014). Only two of these studies employ pre- and postmeasures that provide empirical evidence of skill development attributable to the respective learning intervention.

Online Versus Traditional Course Delivery

Alvarez et al. (2015) use an objective assessment tool designed to directly measure critical thinking skills. Their study uses the Critical Thinking Assessment test (CAT instrument) as a pre- and posttest to measure changes in students’ critical thinking skills in the context of both face-to-face and online course formats. Using scaffolding, a process where students progress sequentially from lower to higher levels of learning, the study finds that critical thinking assessment scores were significantly higher in a personal selling class that used scaffolding than in a negotiations course that did not (control group). The results show no significant differences in the improvement of critical thinking skills between face-to-face and online students in different sections of the personal selling course.

Priluck (2004) examines differences in perceived critical thinking skill development and actual concept mastery between a traditional, face-to-face course format versus a hybrid course format for a principles of marketing course. Priluck indirectly measures students’ critical thinking skill development with a single perceptual item. He found that students in a traditional, face-to-face course reported greater skill development than did students in the hybrid course. Priluck also found that marketing concept mastery was not significantly different between the course delivery formats using a direct measure of student performance on a comprehensive final exam. Future critical thinking research will benefit from employing objective measures such as the CAT instrument along with pre- and postmeasures (Alvarez et al., 2015). Additionally, rapidly changing educational technology offers an important area of investigation regarding how to effectively engage both face-to-face and online students in critical thinking skill development.

Student-Directed Learning

Recent learning strategies research has explored students’ evolving role in the teaching and learning process (Boyer et al., 2014; Foster, West, & Bell-Angus, 2016; Schroeter and Higgins, 2015). Fontenot et al. (2012) found that test scores over six semesters were higher in principles of marketing courses using expert-to-matrix learning (a cooperative learning strategy designed to develop higher-level thinking skills) than in those that did not use the technique (control group). Schroeter and Higgins (2015) utilized both indirect and direct measures to compare the effects of self-directed versus guided instruction on students’ information literacy skills across different sections of a principles of marketing course. The study did not directly focus on developing students’ critical thinking skills given its primary focus on students’ information literacy. However, self-directed learning is reflective of engaging students in applying critical thinking skills and dispositions (Abrami et al. 2015).

In Schroeter and Higgins’ study, guided learners followed a scaffolding assignment approach that provided students with guided practice and feedback in applying relevant information from multiple marketing databases (Schroeter & Higgins, 2015). Self-directed learners did not receive these guided assignments, thus requiring students to actively engage in problem solving and critical thinking to determine relevant information needs. Schroeter and Higgins (2015) found that both the guided and self-directed learning strategies significantly enhanced students’ perceptions of their information literacy skills and confidence in their abilities. However, the self-directed group exhibited higher initial self-reported abilities and confidence levels, and so they did not experience as large an improvement as the guided instruction group. The direct measures of students’ knowledge/application of information literacy also significantly increased across both learning strategies, but the guided approach surprisingly led to greater improvement.

Based on our review of the critical thinking literature, a key question remains concerning which learning strategies have the greatest long-term benefits of enabling students to apply critical thinking across different contexts such as future courses, internships, and ultimately their marketing careers. Self-directed learning and peer-to-peer learning appear to offer promising value in terms of students taking a more active role in the learning process and consequently; both types of learning may enhance students’ critical thinking skills (Boyer et al., 2014; Fowler & Bridges, 2012). Future research needs to explore students’ role in the teaching and learning process and their role’s effects on critical thinking skill development and related learning outcomes (Boyer et al., 2014; Foster et al., 2016; Schroeter & Higgins, 2015).

Reflective Journaling

Our initial classification identified six articles discussing a reflective learning, critical thinking approach via journaling. Reflective journaling engages students in evaluating course content in relationship to their own experiences to create personally meaningful connections between topics and enhances students’ self-awareness (Dyer & Hurd, 2016; Muncy, 2014). Learning strategies that engage students in critical reflection can help students develop a higher-order critical thinking skill known as self-regulation (Abrami et al., 2015).

Muncy (2014) directly assessed the level of critical reflection in students’ blog entries using a four-point rating scale. Although based on only one instructor’s assessment, the results suggested that journaling activities may encourage students to engage in reflective learning across a range of courses. The study included blog entries from a lower-level perspectives course, a principles of marketing course, and a sales course. Muncy also used a student survey to indirectly measure the perceived benefits to students’ critical thinking. The survey results indicate that students perceive that reflective writing assignments offer benefits beyond simply remembering course material, and they help students apply and critically think about course material. Recent research highlights that engaging students in intensive reflection is more complex than previously understood and requires additional understanding (Dyer & Hurd, 2016). Future research may also assess the extent to which journaling engages students in different critical thinking skills beyond the intensity of critical reflection including the different cognitive skills and subskills noted in Table 1 (Abrami et al., 2015).

Experiential Learning

Experiential learning is the most commonly used instructional approach in marketing education for attempting to develop critical thinking and reflective learning skills (Marshall, Plumly, Iyer, & Fadil, 2005). The marketing education literature has documented experiential learning’s value in facilitating student engagement and higher-order learning (Bridges, 1999; Graeff, 1997; Maher & Hughner, 2005; Wynd, 1989). While traditional teaching methods (e.g., lectures, readings, multiple-choice exams) are effective and efficient tools to teach students about marketing, experiential learning activities may teach students the critical thinking skills necessary to learn how to “do” marketing (Schibrowsky, Peltier, & Boyt, 2002).

In its simplest form, experiential learning is “learning by doing.” In 1986, an AACSB Task Force coined the term “applied” experiential learning, referring to the application of principles, concepts, and theories to interactive “real-world” situations. The task force defined applied experiential learning as “a business curriculum-related endeavor which is interactive (other than between teacher and pupil) and is characterized by variability and uncertainty” (Carter, Hickman, McDonald, Patton, & Powell, 1986, p. 3). The task force created a continuum of pedagogies (Gentry, 1990) that categorized approaches according to their experiential learning potential. Pedagogies with high experiential learning potential included extensive group case projects, analytic and consulting field projects, service learning projects, and simulation games.

The 32 articles primarily classified as experiential learning directly relate to critical/reflective learning, and they utilize a variety of hands-on activities. The most common activities described in the marketing education literature include traditional cases and in-class exercises (n = 11), live cases, exercises and projects (n = 10), service learning (n = 3), simulations (n = 3), and role-plays, internships, and blogging (n = 5). D. A. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model is the dominant framework for investigating critical/reflective thinking. More than 40% of the experiential learning articles reference Kolb’s work. Less than one third (10/32) of the experiential learning articles utilize some type of quantitative measure of critical thinking skills or related outcomes. Only half of these (n = 5) studies include relevant direct measures.

Experiential Learning and Indirect Measures of Critical Thinking

Half of the experiential learning articles with quantitative measures (5/10) include only indirect measures of critical thinking learning outcomes. All of these articles deal with some form of experiential assignments (live cases, exercises, or projects) and obtain the indirect measures via self-reported responses to survey questions. The indirect measures primarily focus on student perceptions of the learning experience and the activity’s engagement of students in the development of critical thinking skills. Although these measures provide some insight into the way students view the experiential learning activities, they provide little evidence about the amount or quality of critical or reflective thinking that occurred or about the improvement in critical thinking skills. Notably, none of the articles include pre- and postmeasures, which precludes the valid indication of perceptual changes resulting from the experiential learning activity. Uncertainty also exists concerning whether students understood the meaning of the critical thinking construct.

In an initiative to implement reflective learning in a marketing research course, Graeff (1997) used D. A. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning theory in developing a cooperative learning project. The activity used an intergroup technique designed to provide feedback that encourages students to reflect on their project experience and to develop new skills and ways of thinking. The results from a postproject student survey found that students perceived that the intergroup critique helped them reflect on their group project. Young et al. (2008) explored the effectiveness of experiential learning activities by examining the learning processes induced by semester-long experiential learning activities. Three sections of a principles of marketing course utilized different experiential activities including a personal marketing plan, marketing simulation, and live project (creating and implementing a bake sale marketing plan). Following the underpinnings of D. A. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model, Young et al.’s (2008) study contributes insights about the process for developing students’ deeper-level learning reflective of critical thinking skills. In order to measure students’ engagement in the experiential learning model, Young et al. (2008) capture students’ perceptions of how well the experiential learning activities included each of the four stages of Kolb’s model. The results suggest that students who complete the four stages utilize a deeper approach to learning, and they perceive that they learn more than students who are involved in abbreviated learning activities. The findings suggest that experiential activities should incorporate all four stages of Kolb’s learning model, and they should undergo systematic assessment to ensure that the desired learning processes and outcomes are achieved.

Burns (2011) examines the relationship between students’ perceived benefits (including critical thinking skills) of participating in service-learning activities and their motivations to volunteer. He surveyed students in marketing classes across five colleges and universities. Burns used Toncar, Reid, Burns, Anderson, and Nguyen’s (2006) SELEB scale to measure students’ perceived benefits of service learning for developing critical thinking and application. Burns found that when viewed as beneficial to developing critical thinking and application skills (deemed “practical” skills), service learning leads to increased students’ motivations to volunteer. In particular, perceived critical thinking service learning benefits were more strongly related to career, esteem, understanding, and (altruistic) value motivations to volunteer. The findings demonstrate that perceived critical thinking skill development is an important motivator that explains volunteering for service learning projects.

Ashley (2013) developed an immersive experiential project for a retail management course in an effort to enhance critical thinking skills and provide hands-on learning about marketing strategy. The project required student teams to create, promote, and manage an actual online store on Zazzle.com, thus providing a “live case project” in an e-retail context where students could apply marketing strategy. Results from a postproject student survey suggest that the exercise improved perceived critical thinking and understanding of key concepts.

Calco and Veeck (2015) designed a “Markathon” project that incorporated a hackathon’s spontaneity and time constraints where principles of marketing students apply marketing concepts learned during the semester. The project was intended to develop creativity, critical thinking, and innovation. A postproject student survey assessed perceptions of the project’s contributions to learning objectives and the overall project value to the course. The results show that students felt the project was best for improving their application of marketing concepts. However, students rated the project’s contributions to improving their critical thinking the lowest of the six learning objectives. Student perceptions also indicated that the project positively enhanced their value perceptions of the course.

Experiential Learning and Direct Measures of Critical Thinking

Only five of the experiential learning articles provide direct measures of critical thinking. The five articles relate to four experiential learning subtopics identified in our search: active learning in-class exercises (Wilson, 2014), live cases/projects (Heinrichs, Jeen-Su, & Hudspeth, 2002), simulations (Cadotte & MacGuire, 2013; Lovelace et al., 2016), and traditional cases (Wheeler, 2008). While gains in knowledge were primarily used in the experiential learning articles, both simulation subtopic articles incorporate direct assessments via critical thinking rubrics.

Active Learning Exercises

Wilson’s (2014) direct assessment focuses on student learning related to mental models, which may help students self-regulate how their subconscious mental models influence their critical reasoning skills. Mental models are “deeply held internal images of how the world works” (Senge, 1990, p. 174). Wilson proposed an active learning exercise where students experience the decision-making limitations of mental models. The exercise prompts students’ common and subconscious mental models to emerge in a principles of marketing course. Wilson utilized an experimental design methodology with a control group of classes that featured a traditional lecture on mental models and test group of classes exposed to an active learning case exercise. Wilson directly assessed the active learning exercise’s impact on students’ learning at the end of the class period and two days after the class. Student learning was assessed using three closed-book, open-ended test questions about the definition, theory, and practical implications of mental models. Compared with students exposed to the traditional lecture on mental models, the active learning exercise increased student learning through a greater understanding of how mental models affected problem-solving skills and led to higher retention of knowledge two days later. Indirect assessment measures confirmed that students exposed to the active learning exercise had a high perceived value of the exercise and belief that the exercise increased their mastery of the concept. The study’s results suggest that this type of active learning exercise can enhance students’ self-awareness of how their mental models affect their analysis of potential solutions to a business problem, including possible misconceptions. Consistent with reflective thinking, the results suggest that students’ self-regulation skills may improve vis-à-vis a greater awareness of their own mental models. However, Wilson’s conclusions are limited by the absence of a measure of students’ knowledge of mental models taken prior to the learning intervention, and by the short-term nature of the examined effects.

Live Cases/Projects

Heinrichs et al. (2002) provided marketing strategy students with a live project using current business intelligence databases and tools to reduce knowledge gaps and prepare students for business’ knowledge-intensive decision-making environment. The authors assessed the project’s effectiveness in improving students’ skills using a variety of measures (e.g., pre- and posttests of students’ perceived business intelligence skills, pre- and posttests of marketing concept knowledge, and a final written case exam). First, the indirect pre- and posttest measures of students’ perceived skills showed significant increases in students’ perceived skills. Second, the concept pre- and posttest scores indicate that students’ scores remained similar except for a significant improvement in students’ strategic planning knowledge. However, the authors note that this result was expected given the course’s focus on teaching the application of marketing models and not marketing concepts. The final exam scores indicated that students performed best at lower-order critical thinking skills including identifying issues and discovering meaning from the data. This finding is in comparison to student performance on two higher-order skills—developing possible reasons/causes to explain the data and creating alternative courses of action/recommendations. Unfortunately, the authors did not conduct a pretest to directly measures students’ critical thinking skills prior to the course. Overall, the results provide only limited evidence of the impact on improving students’ critical thinking skills and rely heavily on indirect skill measures.

Simulations

Two studies incorporating simulation-based experiential learning included direct assessments of students’ critical thinking skills using critical thinking rubrics. Cadotte and MacGuire (2013) provide evidence that an enhanced simulation pedagogy featuring value-added activities (e.g., business coaching, executive briefings) increases students’ learning experiences and critical thinking skills. Cadotte and MacGuire used an “executive briefing” rubric to longitudinally score students’ effectiveness on critical thinking–related traits exhibited during “executive briefings” with business coaches. The executive briefing rubric scored students’ effectiveness on three traits—depth of understanding, breadth of understanding, and management by the numbers (using tools of management) in line with Bloom’s taxonomy (see Cadotte & MacGuire, 2013, p. 40, for full rubric details). “Executive briefings” required students to present relevant performance data while outlining the team’s logic for different strategic/tactical decisions prior to each simulation decision period.

Students’ scores on the three traits improved over time; most students achieved a “very effective/strong” rating by the final measurement period. However, a key question is whether the improvement in critical thinking skills was significant given that most students scored at least an “effective” rating on all three traits at the study’s initial stage. The authors also included indirect pre- and posttest measures of students’ perceived decision-making confidence. They found that students’ perceived confidence in their decision making significantly increased across six functional areas; confidence in making sales management, team management, and marketing decisions showed the largest improvement.

In a second simulation-related article, Lovelace et al. (2016) analyzed the relationship between critical thinking and students’ simulation performance and the extent to which students used a collaborative versus competitive problem-solving approach in the simulation context. The authors used a direct measure of critical thinking—the evaluation of individual written case analyses using a critical thinking rubric. They found that critical thinking was related to performance in one of the three simulations, and the problem-solving approach did not mediate the relationship between critical thinking and performance. Students using a collaborative approach to problem solving performed better than those who used a competitive approach.

Problem-Based Versus Project-Based

Wheeler (2008) examined a problem-based learning (PBL) pedagogy and a project-based learning (PJL) pedagogy to determine which experiential pedagogy produced more student–instructor interaction and critical thinking. The study compared the two methods in terms of levels of student–instructor interaction and student critical thinking, student comments on their feelings and thoughts about the course, and student course evaluations. Wheeler (2008) reported that the frequency of student–instructor interactions was higher in principles of marketing course sections using the PBL critical thinking pedagogy than in those sections that did not use the pedagogy (control group). Wheeler also found that the PBL method increased critical thinking more than the PJL pedagogy. However, it is important to note that Wheeler only indirectly assessed the level of critical thinking using (1) a single-item Likert scale question (“Compared to other courses I felt that this course required more critical thinking”) and (2) a qualitative analysis of response to an open-ended question (“Think back through the entire course, and tell us of some of your most relevant thoughts, questions or feelings experienced during the [term]”).

Integrative Framework for Investigating Critical Thinking Skill Development

Based on our extensive review of critical thinking in the marketing education literature, we propose the integrative framework of the antecedents and outcomes shown in Figure 1 related to developing students’ critical thinking skills. In the following section, we provide an integrative review of the marketing education literature as it relates to this framework and potential directions for future research.

Figure 1.

Antecedents and outcomes of developing marketing students’ critical thinking skills.

Critical Thinking Antecedents

Enhancing students’ critical thinking skills likely requires efforts from both educators and students (Boyer et al., 2014). Educators can help students develop critical thinking skills and enhance students’ abilities to apply these skills across contexts (Woolfolk, 1998). The marketing educator’s role is to create learning experiences and assessment tools that require and track key cognitive processes to enable students to stand back from a situation, engage in purposeful inquiry, and resolve problems (Marcos-Cuevas, Critten, Squire, & Speakman, 2014). Peltier et al. (2005, 2006) demonstrate the importance of engaging students in multiple levels of active processing to develop students’ perceived critical thinking skills. Although empirical research in the business education literature is lacking (Lovelace et al., 2016), a growing stream of research from nonbusiness disciplines empirically examines the impact of different pedagogical approaches (Abrami et al., 2008; Abrami et al., 2015). For example, Abrami et al.’s (2015) meta-analysis shows that instructor-led discussion and applied problem-solving/role-playing tend to be two of the more effective strategies for developing students’ critical thinking skills.

Students’ psychosocial factors are also likely to influence their development of critical thinking skills. The marketing education literature has investigated students’ epistemological beliefs about learning (Young, 2005), self-identity as a critical thinker and related attitudes/beliefs (Celuch et al., 2009; Celuch & Slama, 2002), and self-efficacy (Celuch et al., 2010). In combination, these studies suggest that students’ attitudes, beliefs, and other psychosocial constructs may not only serve as antecedents to critical thinking but might also serve as moderating influences. Students’ roles in developing critical thinking skills also should be considered given the rise in cooperative (Laverie, 2006) and self-directed learning strategies (Boyer et al., 2014). Debate exists in the literature on the value of matching teaching interventions/course design to students’ preferred learning strategies (Karns, 2006; Morrison, Sweeney, & Heffernan, 2003; Morrison, Sweeney, & Hoffman, 2006). However, exploratory research suggests there is value in utilizing a variety of activities to engage students with different learning strategies (Black, Daughtrey, & Lewis, 2014). Actively engaging students in their own learning via thoughtfully designed learning activities and self-reflection accommodates differing learning strategies and can enhance perceptions of critical thinking (Boud et al., 2013; Boyer et al., 2014). The findings of Fontenot et al. (2012) and Schroeter and Higgins (2015) support this perspective, and suggest that engaging students in student-focused learning strategies such as cooperative learning or self-directed learning may enhance skill development.

The extant marketing education literature highlights a variety of learning strategies and experiential learning activities that may encourage students to take a more active role in the learning process and thus enhance critical thinking/reflection. Dyer and Hurd (2016) and Muncy (2014) indicate reflective writing exercises like blogging/journaling engages students in deeper learning by encouraging students to reflect on the relationships between concepts while also examining their personal beliefs. Structured discussion/debate may encourage critical thinking skill development and reflection through argumentative reasoning and exposure to diverse perspectives (Paladino, 2009; Sautter, 2007).

Schibrowsky et al. (2002) assert that critical thinking, problem-solving, and decision-making skills are a central part of the marketing curriculum and suggest students would benefit from a consistent problem-solving framework. The case teaching method is well recognized in the marketing education literature as offering a problem-solving framework that many believe helps students develop decision-making critical thinking skills (Crittenden, Crittenden, & Hawes, 1999). The marketing pedagogy introduces a number of case teaching approaches, although research is lacking that empirically evaluates the effectiveness of many of these approaches for improving students’ critical thinking skills. For example, experiential learning activities such as “live” or “real-world” cases, exercises, or projects offer a promising variation to the traditional case method (Corrigan & Cracium, 2012). These activities foster perceptions of critical thinking skills by situating students’ problem solving in a real business environment (Clark, King, & Jurn, 2012), thereby increasing students’ motivation for learning (Lopez & Gravois, 2005). Similarly, service learning projects help engage students in reflection, critical thinking, knowledge application, and practical lessons in civic responsibility (Geringer, Stratemeyer, Canton, & Rice, 2009). Business simulations may help develop critical thinking skills through practice, experimentation, performance feedback, and the opportunity for reflection (Lovelace et al., 2016).

Critical reflection is generally accepted as a learning tool that promotes lifelong learning and professional practice, but it takes time to do well and can be difficult to implement and assess (Ryan & Ryan, 2013). We posit that the frequency and level of detail of performance feedback or other faculty–student interactions may lead to improvements in critical thinking and reflective learning. Simulations are unique in that students make a series of decisions in a dynamic, complex environment that replicates the workplace (Lovelace et al., 2016). Students must use critical thinking skills to analyze and evaluate the situation and make decisions that take into account each decision’s consequences and implications. Then based on performance feedback, students reflect on their early decisions and determine what to do next. Simulations drive practice in critical and reflective thinking. Consequently, developing students’ critical thinking skills may benefit from pedagogical approaches that incorporate similar elements of repetition, ongoing assessment, and formal feedback (Cadotte & MacGuire, 2013). Along a similar line, Young (2005) suggests that traditional lectures and multiple-choice exams may lead students to adopt surface learning strategies as opposed to more active processing associated with deeper levels of learning. Hence, in addition to the teaching approach, the assessment tools (e.g., multiple-choice exams, written case analyses), and grading process (e.g., use of rubrics, detail/frequency of feedback) may affect students’ development of critical thinking skills.

Critical Thinking Processes and Outcomes

Critical thinking and reflective thinking comprise elements of deep/active processing and signify internal learning based on what was learned and how the learner was changed. Critical and reflective thinking are fundamental elements of education because they proactively affect an immense array of educational experiences and learning contexts (Petkus, 2010). Conceptual and empirical investigations of critical thinking and technical reasoning have their foundations in Bloom’s taxonomy of learning (Bloom et al., 1956). Bloom’s learning hierarchy suggests that critical thinking requires technical learning skills such as identifying and solving problems, organizing information, forming objectives, creating and verbalizing strong arguments, and analytical reasoning (Arslan & Demirtas, 2016). Although lower-level learning processes involve some critical thinking, they primarily comprise foundational elements of cognition (Roy & Macchiette, 2005).

Consistent with D. A. Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning model and incorporating Bloom’s learning taxonomy, Boud et al. (2013) posited that reflection is an integrated learning process with multiple nonlinear dimensions. Along these lines, Peltier et al. (2005) developed a four-stage reflective learning hierarchy (habitual action, understanding, reflection, intensive reflection). In their framework, reflection involves challenging assumptions, seeking alternatives, and identifying areas for improvement. Intensive reflection occurs when learners internalize their thoughts and behaviors and alter firmly held beliefs if change is needed. Integrating elements of Bloom’s learning taxonomy and critical thinking theory, Peltier et al. (2006) extended their reflective learning hierarchy along six sequential stages: (1) basic understanding, (2) habitual action, (3) deep understanding, (4) deep processing, (5) reflection, and (6) intensive reflection.

Engaging students in these higher-order critical thinking processes may enhance students’ critical thinking skills and leads to a number of related outcomes. For example, the marketing education literature indicates that critical thinking is associated with knowledge acquisition/retention (Wilson, 2014), exam or task performance (Heinrichs et al., 2002; Lovelace et al., 2016), and self-awareness (Celuch et al., 2009). Additionally, educators who engage students and increase interactions are likely to enhance perceptions of programs, courses, and/or instructors (Peltier et al., 2005, 2006). Unfortunately, much of the marketing education literature on critical thinking lacks direct measures of the critical thinking construct.

Conclusion

The key takeaway from our extensive review of critical thinking articles in the marketing education literature is that many research opportunities remain. Researchers need to continue to identify ways to develop critical thinking and reflective learning skills in our students. Based on our literature review, we provide an integrative framework for future research on critical thinking (see Figure 1). We first identify the antecedents that lead to critical thinking skill development and influence other related outcomes. We acknowledge many conceptual definitions of critical thinking exist, but follow Abrami et al. (2015) in identifying six cognitive critical thinking skills that require further investigation. In light of the varying definitions noted earlier, a critical first step to enhancing our understanding of the processes that lead to critical thinking skill development is to create shared agreement within the marketing education community on the meaning of “critical thinking skills.” We might also address how we can better define critical thinking skills by identifying the most effective ways to communicate to students the meaning of critical thinking skills and our expectations when we identify “improve your critical thinking skills” as a key course learning objective across the marketing curriculum. Finally, we note outcomes associated with enhancing students’ critical thinking skills.

Past review articles in marketing education have noted the general lack of research that shows how marketing pedagogy directly affects student performance (Cummins et al., 2013; Gray et al., 2012). This concern also applies to the research on critical thinking and critical reflection given that only a few studies used adequate direct measures of learning. As noted by Bacon in Gray et al. (2012), “While manuscripts describing novel ideas for improving the effectiveness of marketing faculty and pedagogy are always welcome at JME, we are particularly excited by manuscripts that include direct measures of learning” (p. 233). Bacon (2016) further noted in his editorial that perceived learning has essentially no correlation with actual learning. Research is thus needed to better assess how critical and reflective thinking improves outcomes. Employing objective pre- and postmeasures are essential to validating the impact of different educational interventions on students’ critical thinking skills (Abrami et al., 2008; Abrami et al., 2015). Yet with the exception of a few studies in the marketing education literature, there is limited research that employs this experimental design along with direct measures of critical thinking skills. The development of effective and efficient ways to assess the amount of high-level learning using objective measures is one area that provides research opportunities.

Future Research on Learning Strategies

Today’s marketers increasingly rely on analytics to make data-driven decisions. This requires that students capably and confidently transfer core critical thinking skills learned in the classroom to the professional decision-making environment (Celuch et al., 2010). Educators need to design learning activities that encourage students to examine their reasoning in clarifying a problem, identifying and evaluating alternative solutions using supporting evidence, drawing conclusions, and recognizing the related consequences/implications (Celuch & Slama, 1998). This form of reflective learning thus involves an active cognitive and/or affective process that draws on personal experiences with a topic to create new understanding (Boud et al., 2013).

The studies by Celuch and colleagues provide insights on how to effectively leverage critical thinking pedagogies to help students with different learning strategies apply critical thinking skills beyond the classroom (Celuch et al., 2009; Celuch et al., 2010). Future research should examine the relative value of different pedagogical approaches for enhancing self-identity. Studies are also needed that better link these perceptual measures of critical thinking and learning strategies to more objective measures of critical thinking skills (Bacon, 2016). Consistent with our findings across all topic areas, few studies (n = 5) in the learning strategies category focus on direct measures of students’ critical thinking/reflective learning. Studies examining the relationship between students’ psychosocial attitudes and beliefs about learning and knowledge acquisition offer some insights into the antecedents and processes educators can use to encourage students to employ higher-level learning strategies. However, future research should empirically examine how different design approaches influence actual learning and performance (Ackerman & Hu, 2011). Importantly, studies should utilize direct measures of learning, critical thinking, and reflection as the lack of direct measures is a primary shortcoming of empirical research in this area.

Studies are needed that examine the effect that various pedagogical approaches have on developing students’ epistemological beliefs about knowledge acquisition and their self-motivation (Ackerman & Hu, 2011; Young, 2005). Research exploring the relationship of learning strategies such as experiential versus rational, student-to-student versus faculty-to-student modeling, and technology’s role in modeling critical thinking efficacy will enhance educators’ understanding of the relationship between critical thinking pedagogy, related skill development, dispositions, and identity formation (Celuch et al., 2010). Finally, learning activities that incorporate cooperative or peer-to-peer learning may offer one method for increasing students’ levels of active processing and critical thinking skills (Laverie, 2006). In this regard, researchers should also examine how to best incorporate self-directed learning activities into the learning environment (Boyer et al., 2014). Studies should also directly measure the impact of this teaching methodology on critical thinking and how to best structure self-directed learning activities to meet differences in students’ learning preferences.

Future Research on Experiential Learning

Experiential learning activities are a common approach that marketing educators use in their attempts to develop critical thinking skills. While we identified 32 articles that primarily dealt with this topic, many research areas remain to be addressed. One area for future research is identifying the types of experiential learning activities that best drive critical thinking development. Traditional and live cases and exercises that are most often used by marketing educators should be compared to other experiential activities in experimental settings with control and treatment groups (Maher & Hughner, 2005). More research is also needed to compare more diverse alternatives such as role-playing versus live cases. Simulations provide results from each round that are likely to drive reflective assessment of prior choices, while live cases require critical thinking in assessing data and developing a solution that that best fits the circumstances. When should each activity be used and why?

Research is needed that identifies which elements of each type of experiential learning activity lead to critical thinking development. For example, most educators agree that feedback is critical for reflective thinking, but what about critical thinking? When we compare journaling to other more organic reflective activities, which activities lead to more critical thinking? Of the studies we reviewed, only a few included reflective thinking activities. Future studies should focus on the relationship between experiential learning activities and reflective assessment and learning. Marketing researchers should test and expand existing models of experiential learning and develop and test new models and approaches.

Five experiential learning studies attempted to directly measure the quality of critical thinking by students who participated in the learning activity. The measures included graded assignments that were part of the experiential learning activity and a comparison of performance on a simulation and the performance in the class. Clearly, research should focus on how experiential learning activities should be effectively measured to accurately capture critical/reflective thinking outcomes. In particular, direct measures are needed that capture actual instead of student-perceived changes in learning outcomes.

Future Research on Critical/Reflective Thinking in Other Topical Areas

Incorporating critical thinking and reflective learning into the marketing curriculum remains a key issue across the marketing curriculum. The articles in the “other” topical areas of our review point to different program/curriculum design choices and emerging marketing topic areas that align with the need to improve students’ critical thinking/reflection skills. The consistent theme across our review is the lack of empirical evidence that evaluates different approaches for assessing the impact of critical thinking exercises in the marketing curriculum. This is also an issue within the curriculum development articles.

Emerging topics of interest such as analytics (Spiller & Tuten, 2015), ethics/social responsibility (Hyllegard, Ogle, Rudd, Littrell, & Bickle, 2012), and sales (Cummins et al., 2013) also warrant further investigation of pedagogical frameworks for improving and assessing students’ critical thinking and analytical reasoning skills. The articles often provide only one approach or framework and do not offer a direct assessment. Future research should examine the value of different approaches and frameworks related to incorporating critical thinking in curriculum development issues. Finally, we find that many articles advocate for integrating critical thinking across the marketing curriculum (Spiller & Tuten, 2015; Treleaven & Voola, 2008). Research that explores different approaches to integration would be of particular value.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

AACSB. (2017). AACSB curriculum development: Critical thinking. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/events/seminars/curriculum-development-series/critical-thinking

Abrami

P. C.

Bernard

R. M.

Borokhovski

Wade

Surkes

M. A.

Tamim

Zhang

(2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78, 1102-1134.

Abrami

P. C.

Bernard

R. M.

Borokhovski

Waddington

D. I.

Wade

C. A.

Persson

(2015). Strategies for teaching students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 275-314.

Ackerman

D. S.

(2011). Effect of type of curriculum on educational outcomes and motivation among marketing students with different learning styles. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 273-284.

Alvarez

C. M. O.

Taylor

K. A.

Rauseo

N. A.

(2015). Creating thoughtful salespeople: Experiential learning to improve critical thinking skills in traditional and online sales education. Marketing Education Review, 25, 233-243.

Arbaugh

J. B.

Asarta

C. J.

Hwang

Fornaciari

C. J.

Bento

R. F.

(2017). Key authors in business and management education research: Productivity, topics, and future directions. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovation Education, 15, 268-302.

Arslan

Demirtas

(2016). Social emotional learning and critical thinking disposition. Studia Psychologica, 58, 276-285.

Ashley

(2013). E-tailing on Zazzle.com. Marketing Education Review, 23, 73-80.

Bacon

D. R.

Hartley

S. W.

(2015). Exploring antecedents of performance differences on visual and verbal test items: Learning styles versus aptitude. Marketing Education Review, 25, 205-214.

10.

Bacon

D. R.

(2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning in education research. Journal of Marketing Education, 38, 3-6.

11.

Baglione

S. L.

Nastanski

(2007). The superiority of online discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8, 139-150.

12.

Bailin

Siegel

(2003). Critical thinking. In Blake

Smeyers

Smith

Standish

(Eds.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of education (pp. 181-193). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

13.

Baldwin

T. T.

Pierce

J. R.

Joines

R. C.

Farouk

(2011). The elusiveness of applied management knowledge: A critical challenge for management educators. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 10, 583-605.

14.

Black

G. S.

Daughtrey

C. L.

Lewis

J. S.

(2014). The importance of course design on classroom performance of marketing students. Marketing Education Review, 24, 213-226.

15.

Bloom

B. S.

Engelhart

M. D.

Furst

E. J.

Hill

W. H.

Krathwohl

D. R.

(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York, NY: David McKay.

16.

Boud

Keogh

Walker

(2013). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Boyer

S. L.

Edmondson

D. R.

Artis

A. B.

Fleming

(2014). Self-directed learning: A tool for lifelong learning. Journal of Marketing Education, 36, 20-32.

18.

Bridges

(1999). Experiential learning and customer needs in the undergraduate marketing research course. Journal of Marketing Education, 21, 51-59.

19.

Burns

D. J.

(2011). Motivations to volunteer and benefits from service learning: An exploration of marketing students. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 18, 10-23.

20.

Cadotte

E. R.

MacGuire

(2013). A pedagogy to enhance the value of simulations in the classroom. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 21, 38-52.

21.

Calco

Veeck

(2015). The markathon: Adapting the hackathon model for an introductory marketing class project. Marketing Education Review, 25, 33-38.

22.

Carlson

S. C.

(2013). Instructional methods influence critical thinking: Do students and instructors agree? Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 17, 27-32.

23.

Carter

Hickman

McDonald

Patton

Powell

D. C.

(1986, March). Memorandum on applied and experiential learning curriculum development (AACSB Task Force Report). Tampa, FL: AACSB.

24.

Celuch

Black

Warthan

(2009). Student self-identity as a critical thinker: The influence of attitudes, attitude strength, and normative beliefs. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 31-39.

25.

Celuch

Kozlenkova

Black

(2010). An exploration of self-efficacy as a mediator of skill beliefs and student self-identity as a critical thinker. Marketing Education Review, 20, 70-80.

26.

Celuch

Slama

(1998). Critical thinking as an integrative theme for teaching lifelong learning skills in marketing. Marketing Education Review, 8, 1-12.

27.

Celuch

Slama

(2000). Student perceptions of a marketing course taught with the Critical Thinking Approach. Marketing Education Review, 10, 57-64.

28.

Celuch

Slama

(2002). Promoting critical thinking and life-long learning: An experiment with the theory of planned behavior. Marketing Education Review, 12, 13-22.

29.

Clabaugh

M. G.

Forbes

J. L.

Clabaugh

J. P.

(1995). Bloom’s cognitive domain theory: A basis for developing higher levels of critical thinking skills in reconstructing a professional selling course. Journal of Marketing Education, 17, 25-34.

30.

Clark

G. L.

King

M. E.

Jurn

(2012). A tutorial guide about how to manage a client-financed project. Journal of Marketing Education, 34, 265-283.

31.

Clayson

D. E.

(2009). Student evaluations of teaching: Are they related to what students learn? A meta-analysis and review of the literature. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 16-30.

32.

Corrigan

Cracium

(2012). Wearing more than one hat: Improving student-authored case longevity while encouraging additional student roles. Marketing Education Review, 22, 33-38.

33.

Crittenden

V. L.

Crittenden

W. F.

Hawes

J. M.

(1999). The facilitation and use of student teams in the case analysis process. Marketing Education Review, 9, 15-23.

34.

Cummins

Peltier

J. W.

Erffmeyer

Whalen

(2013). A critical review of the literature for sales educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 35, 68-78.

35.

Dyck

Walker

Starke

F. A.

Uggerslev

(2012). Enhancing critical thinking by teaching two distinct approaches to management. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 343-357.

36.

Dyer

S. L.

Hurd

(2016). “What’s going on?” Developing reflexivity in the management classroom: From surface to deep learning and everything in between. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15, 287-303.

37.

Elbeck

Bacon

(2015). Toward universal definitions for direct and indirect assessment. Journal of Education for Business, 90, 278-283.

38.

Ennis

R. H.

(1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and assessability. Informal Logic, 18, 165-182.

39.

Feiner

Roberts

(1995). Using alternative paradigms to teach about race and gender: A critical thinking approach to introductory economics. American Economic Review, 85, 367-371.

40.

Fontenot

R. J.

Schwartz

Goings

D. A.

Johnson

J. J.

(2012). Expert-to-matrix: Improved learning and improved outcomes in principles of marketing. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 20, 11-18.

41.

Foster

M. K.

West

Bell-Angus

(2016). Embracing your inner “guide on the side”: Using neuroscience to shift the focus from teaching to learning. Marketing Education Review, 26, 78-92.

42.

Fowler

Bridges

(2012). An experiential exercise in service environment design. Journal of Marketing Education, 34, 156-164.

43.

Gentry

J. W.

(1990). What is experiential learning (pp. 9-20). In Gentry

J. W

(Ed.), Guide to business gaming and experiential learning. London, England: Nichols/GP Publishing.

44.

Geringer

S. D.

Stratemeyer

A. W.

Canton

Rice

(2009). Assessing service-learning outcomes in a Principles of Marketing course: A team-based vs. individual-based approach. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 14, 1-12.

45.

Glen

Suciu

Baughn

(2014). The need for design thinking in business schools. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 653-667.

46.

Graeff

T. R.

(1997). Bringing reflective learning to the marketing research course: A cooperative learning project using intergroup critique. Journal of Marketing Education, 19, 53-64.

47.

Gray

D. M.

Peltier

J. W.

Schibrowsky

J. A.

(2012). The Journal of Marketing Education: Past, present, and future. Journal of Marketing Education, 34, 217-237.

48.

Hay

Peltier

J. W.

Drago

W. A.

(2004). Reflective learning and on-line management education: A comparison of traditional and on-line MBA students. Strategic Change, 13, 169-182.

49.

Heinrichs

J. H.

Jeen-Su

Hudspeth

L. J.

(2002). Teaching strategic marketing models with Web- based business intelligence tools: Innovative guided marketing analysis. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 135-142.

50.

Hill

M. E.

McGinnis

(2007). The curiosity in marketing thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 52-62.

51.

Hopkins

C. D.

Raymond

M. A.

Carlson

(2011). Educating students to give them a sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 337-347.

52.

Hyllegard

K. H.

Ogle

J. P.

Rudd

N. A.

Littrell

M. A.

Bickle

(2012). Course development in socially responsible advertising and promotion: An interdisciplinary and stakeholder approach. Marketing Education Review, 22, 225-240.

53.

Karns

G. L.

(2006). Learning style differences in the perceived effectiveness of learning activities. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 56-63.

54.

Kitchener

K. S.

Wood

P. K.

Jensen

(2000). The development and assessment of complex problem solving in college age students (Final report on Award Number R309F700860). Washington, D.C., United States: National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries and Lifelong Learning, U.S. Department of Education.

55.

Kolb

A. Y.

Kolb

D. A.

(2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4, 193-212.

56.

Kolb

D. A.

(1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

57.

Laverie

D. A.

(2006). In-class active cooperative learning: A way to build knowledge and skills in marketing courses. Marketing Education Review, 16, 59-76.

58.

Leidner

D. E.

Jarvenpaa

S. L.

(1995). The use of information technology to enhance management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19, 265-291.

59.

Lopez

T. B.

Gravois

R. L.

(2005). Five principles for workable client-based projects: Lessons from the trenches. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 172-188.

60.

Lovelace

K. J.

Eggers

Dyck

L. R.

(2016). I do and I understand: Assessing the utility of web-based management simulations to develop critical thinking skills. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15, 100-121.

61.

Maher

J. K.

Hughner

(2005). Experiential marketing projects: Student perceptions of live case and simulation methods. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 7, 1-10.

62.

Marcos-Cuevas

Critten

Squire

Speakman

J. I. F.

(2014). Enhancing the professional mindset of future sales professionals: Key insights from a master in sales transformation. Journal of Marketing Education, 36, 144-155.

63.

Marshall

L. L.

Plumly

L. W.

Iyer

Fadil

P. A.

(2005). Bridging the gap: A business start-up experience. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 6, 28-42.

64.

Morrison

Sweeney

Heffernan

(2003). Learning styles of on-campus and off-campus marketing students: The challenge for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing Education, 25, 208-217.

65.

Morrison

Sweeney

Hoffman

(2006). Karns’ learning styles and learning effectiveness: A rejoinder. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 64-68.

66.

Muncy

J. A.

(2014). Blogging for reflection: The use of online journals to engage students in reflective learning. Marketing Education Review, 24, 101-114.

67.

Paladino

(2009). Squeeze that intellectual! Encouraging interactions in the lecture theater to enhance skill development and student performance. Marketing Education Review, 19, 81-88.

68.

Peltier

J. W.

Hay

Drago

(2005). The reflective learning continuum: Reflecting on reflection. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 250-263.

69.

Peltier

J. W.

Hay

Drago

(2006). Reflecting on reflection: Scale extension and a comparison of undergraduate business students in the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 5-16.

70.

Petkus

(2010). Historical perspectives in marketing education: Justification and implementation. Journal of Marketing Education, 32, 64-74.

71.

Priluck

(2004). Web-assisted courses for business education: An examination of two sections of principles of marketing. Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 161-173.

72.

Ronchetto

J. R.

Buckles

T. A.

(1994). Developing critical thinking and interpersonal skills in a services marketing course employing total quality management concepts and techniques. Journal of Marketing Education, 16, 20-31.

73.

Roy

Macchiette

(2005). Debating the issues: A tool for augmenting critical thinking skills of marketing students. Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 264-276.

74.

Ryan

(2013). Theorising a model for teaching and assessing reflective learning in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 244-257.

75.

Sautter

(2007). Designing discussion activities to achieve desired learning outcomes: Choices using mode of delivery and structure. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 122-131.

76.

Schibrowsky

J. A.

Peltier

J. W.

Boyt

T. E.

(2002). A professional school approach to marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 24, 43-55.

77.

Schroeter

Higgins

(2015). The impact of guided vs. self-directed instruction on student’s information literacy skills. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 23, 1-10.

78.

Senge

P. M.

(1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday Currency.

79.

Sitzmann

Ely

Brown

Bauer

(2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169-191.

80.

Spiller

Tuten

(2015). Integrating metrics across the marketing curriculum: The digital and social media opportunity. Journal of Marketing Education, 37, 114-126.

81.

Treleaven

Voola

(2008). Integrating the development of graduate attributes through constructive alignment. Journal of Marketing Education, 30, 160-173.

82.

Toncar

Reid

Burns

Anderson

Nguyen

(2006). Uniform assessment of the benefits of service learning: The development, evaluation, and implementation of the SELEB scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14, 223-238.

83.

Wheeler

(2008). Experiential learning: Impact of two instructional methods on student-instructor interaction, student critical thinking, and student course evaluations. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 12, 63-78.

84.

Whitten

Brahmasrene

(2011). Predictors of critical thinking skills of incoming business students. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 15, 1-13.

85.

Wilson

(2014). It takes one to know one: A class exercise in mental models. Marketing Education Review, 24, 63-68.

86.

Woolfolk

A. E.

(1998). Educational psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

87.

Wynd

W. R.

(1989). An experiential approach to marketing education. Journal of Marketing Education, 11, 64-71.

88.

Young

M. R.

(2005). Personal epistemological beliefs and their relationship to learning. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 6, 63-76.

89.

Young

M. R.

Caudill

E. M.

Murphy

J. W.

(2008). Evaluating experiential learning activities. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 13, 28-40.