752452

research-article2018
JMEXXX10.1177/0273475317752452Journal of Marketing EducationDahl et al.

Article

Journal of Marketing Education

Critical Thinking and Reflective Learning

2018, Vol. 40(2) 101­–116
© The Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
in the Marketing Education Literature: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0273475317752452
https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475317752452

A Historical Perspective and Future journals.sagepub.com/home/jmed

Research Needs

Andrew J. Dahl1, James W. Peltier1, and John A. Schibrowsky2

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 considerable void exists in the business education literature

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 abil-
ity 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 develop-
ment of students’ critical thinking as a key accreditation objec-
tive (AACSB, 2017). As such, critical thinking has important
ramifications in pedagogy and learning outcomes (Whitten &
Brahmasrene, 2011). However, despite this importance, a
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 ori-
entation in designing a pedagogical structure for dissemi-
nating opportunities for learning critical thinking skills
across the marketing curriculum. With this orientation in
mind, we utilize an historical approach to explore the vari-
ous ways educators have defined and operationalized the
critical thinking construct. In doing so, we review the criti-
cal thinking literature published in three prominent market-
ing education journals and the leading management
education journal. In this review, we first summarize criti-
cal thinking research across a number of unifying pedagog-
ical topics in the marketing education literature and then
1
University of Wisconsin–Whitewater, WI, USA
2
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA
Corresponding Author:
James W. Peltier, Department of Marketing, University of Wisconsin–
Whitewater, 800 West Main St, Whitewater, WI 53190, USA.
Email: peltierj@uww.edu
102 Journal of Marketing Education 40(2)
Table 1.  Critical Thinking Dimensions, Cognitive Skills, and Subskills.
Dimension Cognitive skills
Technical reasoning Interpretation
Analysis
Evaluation
Inference
Explanation
Philosophical assessment Self-regulation
Note. Skills and subskills adapted from Abrami et al. (2015, p. 306).
narrow our focus to articles incorporating empirical met-
rics. 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 “cog-
nitive 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 judg-
ment.” Specific to conclusion drawing, Carlson (2013) frames
critical thinking as applying intellectual values including rel-
evance, accuracy, and rigorous reasoning. Similarly, Baldwin,
Pierce, Joines, and Farouk (2011) define critical thinking
based on a decision maker’s ability to identify issues, deter-
mine 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 think-
ing 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 criti-
cal 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 cogni-
tive abilities. These cognitive abilities encompass a contin-
uum of critical thinking skills across two primary dimensions
acknowledged in the literature—technical reasoning and
Subskills
Categorization, decoding significance, clarifying meaning
Examining ideas, identifying arguments, analyzing arguments
Assessing claims, assessing arguments
Querying evidence, conjecturing alternatives, drawing conclusions
Stating results, justifying procedures, presenting arguments
Self-examination, self-correction
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 assess-
ment 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).
Methodology and Article
Categorization
Following the methodology established by Gray et al. (2012),
we utilized a four-step process to identify and classify criti-
cal 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
Dahl et al. 103
Table 2.  Categorization of Critical and Reflective Thinking Articles.
Primary
Learning strategies 25
Experiential 32
Curriculum development 17
Technology 2 7
Global 6 0
Assessment 5 0
Career development 4 1
subject areas. All articles were then examined to deter-
mine 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 pedagogi-
cal application.
Initial Classification Scheme
Articles were coded into a database to include the volume,
issue, author(s), title, and abstract. Software reviews, intro-
ductions 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 identi-
fies the key issue areas for each category.
In addition to uncovering the topical areas receiving the
most attention in the critical thinking literature, two addi-
tional 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
Secondary Primary or secondary
9 34
1 33
1 18
9
6
5
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 General program/curriculum design
development issues: marketing analytics; ethics/
social responsibility; sales curriculum
Others Technology; assessment; global; career
development
direct measures of the outcome of the critical thinking edu-
cational 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 quantita-
tive 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 catego-
ries of articles including quantitative data.
104 Journal of Marketing Education 40(2)

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
Globala 6 1 0

Note. CT = critical thinking.

a
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 learn-
ing, 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 achieve-
ment of a specific learning goal.” In contrast, indirect mea-
sures “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-anal-
yses 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 vari-
ables 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 mea-
sures 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 high-
lights the need for critical thinking research in the marketing
domain that includes more quantitative data in general, espe-
cially 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 market-
ing pedagogy that engages students in more active process-
ing to develop higher-level learning (Alvarez, Taylor, &
Rauseo, 2015; Laverie, 2006). Although different approaches
categorize learning styles or an individual’s depth of infor-
mation processing (Bacon & Hartley, 2015), improving stu-
dents’ 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 activi-
ties 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 learn-
ing strategies. Of note, all secondary-focused articles primar-
ily 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 topi-
cal 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 mea-
sures of critical thinking. These articles primarily address
two subtopic issues identified in the marketing education lit-
erature on critical thinking learning strategies. We identified
seven articles that examine psychosocial issues associated
Dahl et al. 105
with motivating students to go beyond surface-level study
habits to a deeper level of learning. The research stream con-
tributes to the critical thinking literature by examining the
relationships between psychosocial factors such as students’
perceptions of their self-efficacy, self-identity, and their per-
ceived 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 reflec-
tion (Peltier et al., 2005, 2006). We also identified two arti-
cles 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 familiar-
ity 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 com-
pared 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 con-
structs 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 indi-
cate 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 stu-
dents’ 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 nor-
mative 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 criti-
cal 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 stu-
dents’ critical thinking self-identity. When designing peda-
gogies, 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 reflec-
tive 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’ evalua-
tion 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 reflec-
tive 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 condi-
tions for reflective learning. The marketing education litera-
ture 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 learn-
ing 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’ epistemo-
logical beliefs of knowledge acquisition may evolve on their
own as they move through college, Young asserts that
106 Journal of Marketing Education 40(2)
through the teaching and assessment methods employed,
educators can influence students to view knowledge acqui-
sition 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 rein-
force “naïve” beliefs of knowledge acquisition (e.g., learn-
ing is simple, certain, and occurs when knowledge is handed
down from authority). Young asserts that these unidirec-
tional 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 opportu-
nities 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 learn-
ing activities (e.g., discussion/debate, journaling) may pro-
vide 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 reflec-
tive 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; Saut-
ter, 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 opin-
ions 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 mea-
sures) 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 high-
light 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 nega-
tively affect students’ perceptions of faculty-to-student inter-
actions when employing more of a discussion facilitator role
in the online learning environment. Although the study is
somewhat exploratory, Sautter concludes that structured dis-
cussion design issues are critical to building students’ critical
thinking skills.
Likewise, Paladino (2009) outlines a lecture-based teach-
ing innovation in a consumer behavior course. Paladino
describes how an animated character and outside-class dis-
cussions (facilitated via an online discussion tool) increased
interactions and knowledge integration. Paladino found that
students’ scores increased on an essay assignment, case anal-
ysis, 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 com-
pare 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 tradi-
tional 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 mea-
sure 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 prog-
ress sequentially from lower to higher levels of learning, the
study finds that critical thinking assessment scores were sig-
nificantly higher in a personal selling class that used scaf-
folding 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
Dahl et al. 107
and online students in different sections of the personal sell-
ing 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 compre-
hensive 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 technol-
ogy 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 stu-
dents’ 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. How-
ever, 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 infor-
mation 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 strate-
gies 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 instruc-
tion 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 stu-
dents in evaluating course content in relationship to their
own experiences to create personally meaningful connec-
tions 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 reflec-
tion 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 reflec-
tive 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 addi-
tional understanding (Dyer & Hurd, 2016). Future research
may also assess the extent to which journaling engages stu-
dents 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 instruc-
tional approach in marketing education for attempting to
develop critical thinking and reflective learning skills
108 Journal of Marketing Education 40(2)
(Marshall, Plumly, Iyer, & Fadil, 2005). The marketing edu-
cation 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, experi-
ential 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 learn-
ing 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 learn-
ing directly relate to critical/reflective learning, and they uti-
lize 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 quantita-
tive 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 primar-
ily 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 mar-
keting research course, Graeff (1997) used D. A. Kolb’s
(1984) experiential learning theory in developing a coopera-
tive learning project. The activity used an intergroup tech-
nique 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 inter-
group 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 market-
ing 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 stu-
dents’ 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 learn-
ing, 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 par-
ticipating 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 think-
ing and application skills (deemed “practical” skills), service
learning leads to increased students’ motivations to volun-
teer. In particular, perceived critical thinking service learning
benefits were more strongly related to career, esteem, under-
standing, and (altruistic) value motivations to volunteer. The
findings demonstrate that perceived critical thinking skill
Dahl et al. 109
development is an important motivator that explains volun-
teering for service learning projects.
Ashley (2013) developed an immersive experiential proj-
ect 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 con-
text 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 con-
straints where principles of marketing students apply mar-
keting concepts learned during the semester. The project was
intended to develop creativity, critical thinking, and innova-
tion. 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 indi-
cated that the project positively enhanced their value percep-
tions 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), simula-
tions (Cadotte & MacGuire, 2013; Lovelace et al., 2016),
and traditional cases (Wheeler, 2008). While gains in knowl-
edge were primarily used in the experiential learning articles,
both simulation subtopic articles incorporate direct assess-
ments 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 men-
tal 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 exer-
cise’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 tradi-
tional 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-aware-
ness 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 mod-
els taken prior to the learning intervention, and by the short-
term nature of the examined effects.
Live Cases/Projects.  Heinrichs et al. (2002) provided mar-
keting strategy students with a live project using current
business intelligence databases and tools to reduce knowl-
edge 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 writ-
ten case exam). First, the indirect pre- and posttest mea-
sures 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 per-
formance 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 stu-
dents’ 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.
110 Journal of Marketing Education 40(2)
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 longitudi-
nally score students’ effectiveness on critical thinking–
related traits exhibited during “executive briefings” with
business coaches. The executive briefing rubric scored stu-
dents’ 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 differ-
ent strategic/tactical decisions prior to each simulation deci-
sion 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 sig-
nificant given that most students scored at least an “effec-
tive” 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; confi-
dence 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 indi-
vidual 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) exam-
ined a problem-based learning (PBL) pedagogy and a proj-
ect-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 feel-
ings and thoughts about the course, and student course evalu-
ations. 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 peda-
gogy (control group). Wheeler also found that the PBL
method increased critical thinking more than the PJL peda-
gogy. 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 think-
ing”) 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 mar-
keting education literature, we propose the integrative frame-
work 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.
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 exam-
ines 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 discus-
sion 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 influ-
ence their development of critical thinking skills. The mar-
keting education literature has investigated students’
epistemological beliefs about learning (Young, 2005), self-
identity as a critical thinker and related attitudes/beliefs
Dahl et al. 111
Figure 1.  Antecedents and outcomes of developing marketing students’ critical thinking skills.
(Celuch et al., 2009; Celuch & Slama, 2002), and self-effi-
cacy (Celuch et al., 2010). In combination, these studies
suggest that students’ attitudes, beliefs, and other psychoso-
cial 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 match-
ing teaching interventions/course design to students’ pre-
ferred 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 dif-
ferent 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 activi-
ties 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 frame-
work 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 busi-
ness 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–stu-
dent interactions may lead to improvements in critical think-
ing 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
112 Journal of Marketing Education 40(2)
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 for-
mal feedback (Cadotte & MacGuire, 2013). Along a similar
line, Young (2005) suggests that traditional lectures and mul-
tiple-choice exams may lead students to adopt surface learn-
ing 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, creat-
ing and verbalizing strong arguments, and analytical reason-
ing (Arslan & Demirtas, 2016). Although lower-level
learning processes involve some critical thinking, they pri-
marily 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, reflec-
tion, 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 behav-
iors and alter firmly held beliefs if change is needed.
Integrating elements of Bloom’s learning taxonomy and crit-
ical thinking theory, Peltier et al. (2006) extended their
reflective learning hierarchy along six sequential stages: (1)
basic understanding, (2) habitual action, (3) deep under-
standing, (4) deep processing, (5) reflection, and (6) inten-
sive 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 mar-
keting 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 lit-
erature on critical thinking lacks direct measures of the criti-
cal 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 litera-
ture 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 develop-
ment and influence other related outcomes. We acknowledge
many conceptual definitions of critical thinking exist, but
follow Abrami et al. (2015) in identifying six cognitive criti-
cal 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 agree-
ment 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 identify-
ing 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 stu-
dents’ 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
Dahl et al. 113
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 develop-
ment 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 envi-
ronment (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 learn-
ing 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 cat-
egory 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 encour-
age 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’ episte-
mological 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 fac-
ulty-to-student modeling, and technology’s role in modeling
critical thinking efficacy will enhance educators’ understand-
ing of the relationship between critical thinking pedagogy,
related skill development, dispositions, and identity forma-
tion (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 process-
ing and critical thinking skills (Laverie, 2006). In this regard,
researchers should also examine how to best incorporate
self-directed learning activities into the learning environ-
ment (Boyer et al., 2014). Studies should also directly mea-
sure 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 exer-
cises 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 feed-
back 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 learn-
ing and develop and test new models and approaches.
Five experiential learning studies attempted to directly
measure the quality of critical thinking by students who par-
ticipated in the learning activity. The measures included
graded assignments that were part of the experiential learn-
ing activity and a comparison of performance on a simula-
tion and the performance in the class. Clearly, research
114 Journal of Marketing Education 40(2)
should focus on how experiential learning activities should
be effectively measured to accurately capture critical/reflec-
tive 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 mar-
keting 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 mar-
keting 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 incorpo-
rating 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 par-
ticular value.
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, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
AACSB. (2017). AACSB curriculum development: Critical think-
ing. Retrieved from http://www.aacsb.edu/events/seminars/
curriculum-development-series/critical-thinking
Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Wade, A., Surkes,
M. A., Tamim, R., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interven-
tions 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, E., Waddington, D.
I., Wade, C. A., & Persson, T. (2015). Strategies for teaching
students to think critically: A meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 85, 275-314.
Ackerman, D. S., & Hu, J. (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 criti-
cal thinking skills in traditional and online sales education.
Marketing Education Review, 25, 233-243.
Arbaugh, J. B., Asarta, C. J., Hwang, A., Fornaciari, C. J., & Bento,
R. F. (2017). Key authors in business and management edu-
cation research: Productivity, topics, and future directions.
Decision Sciences Journal of Innovation Education, 15, 268-
302.
Arslan, S., & Demirtas, Z. (2016). Social emotional learning and
critical thinking disposition. Studia Psychologica, 58, 276-285.
Ashley, C. (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.
Bacon, D. R. (2016). Reporting actual and perceived student learning
in education research. Journal of Marketing Education, 38, 3-6.
Baglione, S. L., & Nastanski, M. (2007). The superiority of online
discussion. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8, 139-
150.
Bailin, S., & Siegel, H. (2003). Critical thinking. In N. Blake, P.
Smeyers, R. Smith, & P. Standish (Eds.), The Blackwell guide
to the philosophy of education (pp. 181-193). Oxford, England:
Blackwell.
Baldwin, T. T., Pierce, J. R., Joines, R. C., & Farouk, S. (2011).
The elusiveness of applied management knowledge: A critical
challenge for management educators. Academy of Management
Learning & Education, 10, 583-605.
Black, G. S., Daughtrey, C. L., & Lewis, J. S. (2014). The impor-
tance of course design on classroom performance of marketing
students. Marketing Education Review, 24, 213-226.
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.
Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (2013). Reflection: Turning
experience into learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Boyer, S. L., Edmondson, D. R., Artis, A. B., & Fleming, D. (2014).
Self-directed learning: A tool for lifelong learning. Journal of
Marketing Education, 36, 20-32.
Bridges, E. (1999). Experiential learning and customer needs
in the undergraduate marketing research course. Journal of
Marketing Education, 21, 51-59.
Burns, D. J. (2011). Motivations to volunteer and benefits from ser-
vice learning: An exploration of marketing students. Journal
for Advancement of Marketing Education, 18, 10-23.
Cadotte, E. R., & MacGuire, C. (2013). A pedagogy to enhance the
value of simulations in the classroom. Journal for Advancement
of Marketing Education, 21, 38-52.
Calco, M., & Veeck, A. (2015). The markathon: Adapting the
hackathon model for an introductory marketing class project.
Marketing Education Review, 25, 33-38.
Dahl et al. 115
Carlson, S. C. (2013). Instructional methods influence criti-
cal thinking: Do students and instructors agree? Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 17, 27-32.
Carter, P., Hickman, J., McDonald, P., Patton, R., & Powell, D.
C. (1986, March). Memorandum on applied and experien-
tial learning curriculum development (AACSB Task Force
Report). Tampa, FL: AACSB.
Celuch, K., Black, G., & Warthan B. (2009). Student self-identity as
a critical thinker: The influence of attitudes, attitude strength,
and normative beliefs. Journal of Marketing Education, 31, 31-
39.
Celuch, K., Kozlenkova, I., & Black, G. (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.
Celuch, K., & Slama, M. (1998). Critical thinking as an integra-
tive theme for teaching lifelong learning skills in marketing.
Marketing Education Review, 8, 1-12.
Celuch, K., & Slama, M. (2000). Student perceptions of a marketing
course taught with the Critical Thinking Approach. Marketing
Education Review, 10, 57-64.
Celuch, K., & Slama, M. (2002). Promoting critical thinking and
life-long learning: An experiment with the theory of planned
behavior. Marketing Education Review, 12, 13-22.
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 sell-
ing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 17, 25-34.
Clark, G. L., King, M. E., & Jurn, I. (2012). A tutorial guide about
how to manage a client-financed project. Journal of Marketing
Education, 34, 265-283.
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.
Corrigan, H., & Cracium, G. (2012). Wearing more than one hat:
Improving student-authored case longevity while encouraging
additional student roles. Marketing Education Review, 22, 33-
38.
Crittenden, V. L., Crittenden, W. F., & Hawes, J. M. (1999). The
facilitation and use of student teams in the case analysis pro-
cess. Marketing Education Review, 9, 15-23.
Cummins, S., Peltier, J. W., Erffmeyer, R., & Whalen, J. (2013). A
critical review of the literature for sales educators. Journal of
Marketing Education, 35, 68-78.
Dyck, B., Walker, K., Starke, F. A., & Uggerslev, K. (2012).
Enhancing critical thinking by teaching two distinct approaches
to management. Journal of Education for Business, 87, 343-
357.
Dyer, S. L., & Hurd, F. (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.
Elbeck, M., & Bacon, D. (2015). Toward universal definitions
for direct and indirect assessment. Journal of Education for
Business, 90, 278-283.
Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and
assessability. Informal Logic, 18, 165-182.
Feiner, S., & Roberts, B. (1995). Using alternative paradigms to
teach about race and gender: A critical thinking approach to
introductory economics. American Economic Review, 85, 367-
371.
Fontenot, R. J., Schwartz, J., 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.
Foster, M. K., West, B., & Bell-Angus, B. (2016). Embracing your
inner “guide on the side”: Using neuroscience to shift the focus
from teaching to learning. Marketing Education Review, 26,
78-92.
Fowler, K., & Bridges, E. (2012). An experiential exercise in ser-
vice environment design. Journal of Marketing Education, 34,
156-164.
Gentry, J. W. (1990). What is experiential learning (pp. 9-20). In
J. W Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business gaming and experiential
learning. London, England: Nichols/GP Publishing.
Geringer, S. D., Stratemeyer, A. W., Canton, A., & Rice, W.
(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.
Glen, R., Suciu, C., & Baughn, C. (2014). The need for design think-
ing in business schools. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 13, 653-667.
Graeff, T. R. (1997). Bringing reflective learning to the marketing
research course: A cooperative learning project using inter-
group critique. Journal of Marketing Education, 19, 53-64.
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.
Hay, A., Peltier, J. W., & Drago, W. A. (2004). Reflective learn-
ing and on-line management education: A comparison of
traditional and on-line MBA students. Strategic Change, 13,
169-182.
Heinrichs, J. H., Jeen-Su, L., & Hudspeth, L. J. (2002). Teaching
strategic marketing models with Web- based business intelli-
gence tools: Innovative guided marketing analysis. Journal of
Marketing Education, 24, 135-142.
Hill, M. E., & McGinnis, J. (2007). The curiosity in marketing
thinking. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 52-62.
Hopkins, C. D., Raymond, M. A., & Carlson, L. (2011). Educating
students to give them a sustainable competitive advantage.
Journal of Marketing Education, 33, 337-347.
Hyllegard, K. H., Ogle, J. P., Rudd, N. A., Littrell, M. A., & Bickle,
M. (2012). Course development in socially responsible adver-
tising and promotion: An interdisciplinary and stakeholder
approach. Marketing Education Review, 22, 225-240.
Karns, G. L. (2006). Learning style differences in the perceived
effectiveness of learning activities. Journal of Marketing
Education, 28, 56-63.
Kitchener, K. S., Wood, P. K., & Jensen, L. (2000). The develop-
ment 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.
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.
116 Journal of Marketing Education 40(2)
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source
of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall.
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.
Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information
technology to enhance management school education: A theo-
retical view. MIS Quarterly, 19, 265-291.
Lopez, T. B., & Gravois, R. L. (2005). Five principles for work-
able client-based projects: Lessons from the trenches. Journal
of Marketing Education, 27, 172-188.
Lovelace, K. J., Eggers, F., & 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.
Maher, J. K., & Hughner, R. (2005). Experiential marketing proj-
ects: Student perceptions of live case and simulation methods.
Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education, 7, 1-10.
Marcos-Cuevas, J., Critten, P., Squire, P., & Speakman, J. I. F.
(2014). Enhancing the professional mindset of future sales pro-
fessionals: Key insights from a master in sales transformation.
Journal of Marketing Education, 36, 144-155.
Marshall, L. L., Plumly, L. W., Iyer, R., & Fadil, P. A. (2005).
Bridging the gap: A business start-up experience. Journal for
Advancement of Marketing Education, 6, 28-42.
Morrison, M., Sweeney, A., & Heffernan, T. (2003). Learning
styles of on-campus and off-campus marketing students: The
challenge for marketing educators. Journal of Marketing
Education, 25, 208-217.
Morrison, M., Sweeney, A., & Hoffman, T. (2006). Karns’ learn-
ing styles and learning effectiveness: A rejoinder. Journal of
Marketing Education, 28, 64-68.
Muncy, J. A. (2014). Blogging for reflection: The use of online
journals to engage students in reflective learning. Marketing
Education Review, 24, 101-114.
Paladino, A. (2009). Squeeze that intellectual! Encouraging inter-
actions in the lecture theater to enhance skill development and
student performance. Marketing Education Review, 19, 81-88.
Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2005). The reflective learn-
ing continuum: Reflecting on reflection. Journal of Marketing
Education, 27, 250-263.
Peltier, J. W., Hay, A., & Drago, W. (2006). Reflecting on reflec-
tion: Scale extension and a comparison of undergraduate busi-
ness students in the United States and the United Kingdom.
Journal of Marketing Education, 28, 5-16.
Petkus, E. (2010). Historical perspectives in marketing educa-
tion: Justification and implementation. Journal of Marketing
Education, 32, 64-74.
Priluck, R. (2004). Web-assisted courses for business education:
An examination of two sections of principles of marketing.
Journal of Marketing Education, 26, 161-173.
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.
Roy, A., & Macchiette, B. (2005). Debating the issues: A tool
for augmenting critical thinking skills of marketing students.
Journal of Marketing Education, 27, 264-276.
Ryan, M., & Ryan, M. (2013). Theorising a model for teaching
and assessing reflective learning in higher education. Higher
Education Research & Development, 32, 244-257.
Sautter, P. (2007). Designing discussion activities to achieve
desired learning outcomes: Choices using mode of delivery and
structure. Journal of Marketing Education, 29, 122-131.
Schibrowsky, J. A., Peltier, J. W., & Boyt, T. E. (2002). A pro-
fessional school approach to marketing education. Journal of
Marketing Education, 24, 43-55.
Schroeter, C., & Higgins, L. (2015). The impact of guided vs.
self-directed instruction on student’s information literacy
skills. Journal for Advancement of Marketing Education,
23, 1-10.
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice
of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday
Currency.
Sitzmann, T., Ely, K., Brown, K., & Bauer, K. (2010). Self-assessment
of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure?
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169-191.
Spiller, L., & Tuten, T. (2015). Integrating metrics across the mar-
keting curriculum: The digital and social media opportunity.
Journal of Marketing Education, 37, 114-126.
Treleaven, L., & Voola, R. (2008). Integrating the development of
graduate attributes through constructive alignment. Journal of
Marketing Education, 30, 160-173.
Toncar, M., Reid, J., Burns, D., Anderson, C., & Nguyen, H.
(2006). Uniform assessment of the benefits of service learn-
ing: The development, evaluation, and implementation of the
SELEB scale. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14,
223-238.
Wheeler, R. (2008). Experiential learning: Impact of two instruc-
tional methods on student-instructor interaction, student
critical thinking, and student course evaluations. Journal for
Advancement of Marketing Education, 12, 63-78.
Whitten, D., & Brahmasrene, T. (2011). Predictors of critical
thinking skills of incoming business students. Academy of
Educational Leadership Journal, 15, 1-13.
Wilson, T. (2014). It takes one to know one: A class exercise in
mental models. Marketing Education Review, 24, 63-68.
Woolfolk, A. E. (1998). Educational psychology. Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Wynd, W. R. (1989). An experiential approach to marketing educa-
tion. Journal of Marketing Education, 11, 64-71.
Young, M. R. (2005). Personal epistemological beliefs and their
relationship to learning. Journal for Advancement of Marketing
Education, 6, 63-76.
Young, M. R., Caudill, E. M., & Murphy, J. W. (2008). Evaluating
experiential learning activities. Journal for Advancement of
Marketing Education, 13, 28-40.