Luis Vaz, Nuno David


Professionals in electronic marketing make intensive use of information and communication technologies. An intensity that makes the teaching of electronic marketing somewhat challenging and specific when compared with other disciplines. Teaching electronic marketing will only be effective if the learning environment reaches similar levels of technological intensity as the discipline itself. This suggests that electronic marketing might be particularly appropriate to the use of e-learning as a teaching instructional model. However, this carries risks and further challenges, resulting from difficulties in obtaining positive results whenever learning is supported by e-learning platforms. If one wants to achieve lower failure risks and effective and motivated learning, the e-learning model should be provided with features that strengthen it pedagogically. This paper proposes a practice field for teaching electronic marketing, embedded and tested in an e-learning platform provided with learning activities that implement a practice field.


  1. Barab, S., Landa A., 1997. Designing effective interdisciplinary anchors. Educational Leadership 54(6), 52-55.
  2. Barab, S., Duffy, T., 2000. From practice fields to communities of practice. Theoretical foundation of learning environments. Lawrence Erlbaum.
  3. Barab, S., Duffy, T., Kenneth H., 1998. Grounded constructions and how technology can help. CRLT Technical Report no. 12-00.
  4. Biggs, J., 2003. Aligning Teaching and Assessing to Course Objectives. Teaching and Learning Education: New Trends and Innovations. University of Aveiro, 13-17 April, 2003.
  5. Brennan, R., 2003. One size doesn't fit all - Pedagogy in the online environment. NCVER, Adelaide.
  6. Bundy A., 1998. Information Literacy: The Key Competency for the 21st Century. IATUL Conference, Pretoria, South Africa, volume 18.
  7. Cashin, W.E., Downey, R.G., 1992. Using global student rating items for summative evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1992, 84(4), pp.563-572.
  8. Conole, G., Thorpe M., Weller M., Wilson P., Nixon S., Grace P., 2007. Capturing practice and scaffolding learning design. The open University, UK.
  9. Dalziel. J, 2005. From reusable e-learning content to reusable learning designs: Lessons from LAMS. http://www.lamsfoundation.org, 2006.
  10. Dickey, M., 2006. Game design narrative for learning: approaching adventure game design narrative devices and techniques for the design of interactive learning environments. ETR&D, 54(3), 245-263.
  11. Dowes, S., 2005. E-learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine.
  12. Garde, S., Bauch, M., Haag, M., Heid, J., Huwendiek S., Ruderich, F., Singer, R., Leven, F., 2005. CAMPUS - Computer based training in medicine as part of a problem-oriented educational strategy. Studies in LEID, 2(1), 10-19.
  13. Govindasamy, T., 2002. Successful implementation of elearning. Pedadagogical considerations. Internet and Higher Education 4, 287-299.
  14. Floto C., Huk T., Lipper T., Steinke M., 2002. The role of navigation and motivation in e-learning - the crimpapproach within a swedish-german research cooperation. In Procs of the EDEN Annual Conference, Granada, Spain, 364-369.
  15. Kofman F., Senge P., 1993. Communities of commitment: the heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics 22(3)..
  16. Law, N., Chow, A., Yuen, H.K., 2004. Methodological approaches to comparing pedagogical innovations using technology. Education and Information Technologies, 10(1-2):7-20.
  17. Lee G., 2009. E-learning Practice: A Framework for the implementation of Online Learning. ANZMAC conference.
  18. Linder, J., 1990. Writing cases: tips and pointers. Harvard Business School Press, 9-391-026, 1-9, Harvard College, Boston USA.
  19. Miller, R., Stace, R., Howell G., 2003. A developmental approach to teaching internet marketing. Proceedings of ANZMAC'2003, Adelaide, Australia.
  20. Murray, T., 1999. Authoring intelligent tutoring systems: an analysis of state of the art. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 10, 98-129.
  21. Oliveira ED, GuimarĂ£es IC, 2010. Employability through competencies and curricular innovation: a Portuguese account. Faculty of Economics and Management, Catholic University of Portugal.
  22. Penna, M., Stara, V., 2007. The failure of e-learning: why should we use a learner centred design. Journal of eLearning and Knowledge Society 3(2), pp. 127-135.
  23. Romiszowski, A., 2004. How's the E-learning Baby? Factors Leading to Success or Failure of an Educational Technology Innovation. Educational Technology, 44(1), pp. 5-27.
  24. De Wulf K., Schillewaert N., Van Vooren E., 2000. Simulating the Principle of Database Marketing through DARTS. Journal of Database Marketing. 7(3).
  25. Wenger, E., 1987. Artificial Intelligence and Tutoring System: Computational and Cognitive Approaches to the Communication of Knowledge. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, California.
  26. Winston L., Spiro M., 1998. Improving project performance with simulation and practice. In the 29th annual project management institute, seminars & symposium. Long Beach, CA, USA.

Paper Citation

in Harvard Style

Vaz L. and David N. (2012). A PRACTICE FIELD FOR TEACHING ELECTRONIC MARKETING . In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: ESEeL, (CSEDU 2012) ISBN 978-989-8565-07-5, pages 484-489. DOI: 10.5220/0003981704840489

in Bibtex Style

author={Luis Vaz and Nuno David},
booktitle={Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: ESEeL, (CSEDU 2012)},

in EndNote Style

JO - Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Computer Supported Education - Volume 2: ESEeL, (CSEDU 2012)
SN - 978-989-8565-07-5
AU - Vaz L.
AU - David N.
PY - 2012
SP - 484
EP - 489
DO - 10.5220/0003981704840489