Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full issue

Public Relations Education
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Journal of
JPRE
Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018
A publication of the Public Relations Division of AEJMC
ISSN 2573-1742

Volume 4, Issue 1, Spring 2018
A publication of the Public Relations Division of AEJMC
ISSN 2573-1742
© Copyright 2018 AEJMC Public Relations Division

Journal of Public Relations Education
Editorial Staff
Emily S. Kinsky, West Texas A&M University, editor-in-chief
Tiffany Gallicano, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, senior associate editor
Lucinda Austin, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, associate editor
Chuck Lubbers, University of South Dakota, associate editor of reviews
Kathleen Stansberry, Elon University, web manager
Note from the Editor-in-Chief:
This issue reflects an enormous amount of work done prior to my editorship. The previous
editor-in-chief, Chuck Lubbers, had the research articles for this issue and most of the next
issue already queued up prior to me moving into this role on Jan. 1, 2018. A special thanks to
Chuck for his work with authors and reviewers in 2017 to get us ready for Volume 4 in 2018.

Table of Contents
Research Articles
1-24 Developing a Blueprint for Social Media Pedagogy: Trials,
Tribulations, and Best Practices
Ai Zhang and Karen Freberg
25-48 Competition and Public Relations Campaigns: Assessing the
Impact of Competition on Quality of Projects, Partners, and
Students
Christopher McCollough
49-79 Score! How Collegiate Athletic Departments Are Training
Student-Athletes About Effective Social Media Use
Stephanie A. Smith and Brandi A. Watkins
80-100 Media Relations Instruction and Theory Development: A
Relational Dialectical Approach
Justin E. Pettigrew
Teaching Briefs
PRD GIFT Winners from AEJMC 2017
101-105 Public Relations Ethics, “Alternative Facts,” and Critical
Thinking, with a Side of Tuna
Jacqueline Lambiase
106-111 Improving PR Campaigns with a Roll of the Dice: Assuming
New Identities to Strengthen Diversity and Inclusion
Kelly B. Bruhn
Book Review
112-115 Public Relations and the Corporate Persona: The Rise of the
Affinitive Organization
Christie M. Kleinmann

2018, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-24
Developing a Blueprint for Social Media
Pedagogy: Trials, Tribulations, and Best
Practices
Ai Zhang, Stockton University
Karen Freberg, University of Louisville
Social media research, and particularly social media pedagogy,
has increased substantially as a domain in public relations
research. Yet, along with this increased focus on social media
pedagogy, educators and other higher education professionals
are under pressure from industry, professional communities,
and university administrations to keep their classes updated and
relevant for their students. To better understand the current state
and rising expectations facing educators teaching social media,
we interviewed 31 social media professors to explore the trials and
tribulations of their journey and to identify best practices for social
media as a pedagogical tool. The study also suggests a blueprint
for implementing social media pedagogy in the classroom. Future
implications for both research and practice are discussed.
Keywords: social media; social media pedagogy; educators;
public relations
Social media research, along with social pedagogy, has increased
substantially as a domain in public relations research (Duhé, 2015). Along
with this increased focus on social media pedagogy, educators and other
higher education professionals teaching social media classes struggle to
keep up with the latest trends, tools, and practices to incorporate relevant
digital tools into their classes.
In addition, most of the research on social media pedagogy has
focused on specific social media assignments (Anderson, Swenson,
& Kinsella, 2014; Anderson & Swenson, 2013; Gallicano, Ekachai,
& Freberg, 2014; Kinsky, Freberg, Kim, Kushin, & Ward, 2016),
opportunities for experiential learning (Fraustino, Briones, & Janoske,
2015; Madden, Winkler, Fraustino, & Janoske, 2016), addressing

2
students’ perceptions of professors who use social media in their classes
as pedagogical tools (Johnson, 2011; Merle & Freberg, 2016), or what
qualities are needed to teach social media (Kim & Freberg, 2016).
There has been little research exploring the roles, stories, and practices
of educators themselves. To fill this void, the present study examines
in greater detail the background of these educators, their trials and
tribulations in teaching social media and adopting social media pedagogy,
and best practices to implement social media pedagogy in the classroom.
Future research and implications for social media pedagogy are discussed.
Literature Review
Fundamentals in Teaching Social Media
Universities nationwide are offering an increasing number of
social media classes. Educators are also adding more components of social
media into class assignments and lectures. An important reason behind
this curricular focus on social media is that the current student body is
comprised of active social media users. They use social media platforms
extensively to communicate with their peer and family networks (Alt,
2015). Likewise, industry professionals are increasingly utilizing social
media as a key strategic tool to cultivate relationships and communicate
their key messages with target audiences (Carpenter & Lertpratchya,
2016). Within this context, it is important that students develop the
necessary skill sets to succeed in today’s digitized workplace.
In response to professional demand for social media literacy and
skills, educators have taken a number of initiatives to bridge the gap
between practice and higher education (Lipschultz, 2015). One way is
embracing the role of “social connector,” which requires an educator to
be “active on social media networks, both professionally and personally”
(Remund & Freberg, 2013, p. 3). Remund and Freberg (2013) believe that
being a social connector on social media for students requires establishing
a new mindset that involves strong leadership, a sense of community,
Zhang & Freberg

Vol. 4(1), 2018 Journal of Public Relations Education 3
patience, and persistence in curating and creating relevant professional-
focused course content. Indeed, there are professors who are actively
using social and digital platforms to promote their research and scholarly
work and to cultivate their own academic identities online (Veletsianos &
Kimmons, 2016).
Another way to connect academia and industry is through
innovative pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning, such
as social media pedagogy. Over the past several years, social media
pedagogy research has grown substantially. Some researchers in social
media pedagogy have focused primarily on a specific area within social
media, like writing (Carroll, 2014), while others have focused on specific
tactics that are created and used in the field, like crisis communication
simulations on social media (Anderson et al., 2014), blogging
opportunities (Anderson & Swenson, 2013), creation of visual images
and infographics (Gallicano et al., 2014), and participating in established
professional certification programs in social media (Kinsky et al., 2016).
Platforms like Twitter (Anderson & Swenson, 2013; DeGroot, Young, &
VanSlette, 2015; Fraustino et al., 2015) and Facebook (McCorkindale,
DiStaso, & Fussell Sisco, 2013) have historically been the most frequently
used social media pedagogical platforms. LinkedIn has also been used
(Edministon, 2014; Peterson & Dover, 2014) for the purpose of teaching
students professional business communication and etiquette.
Besides this specific tool-focused stream of research, partnering
with practicing professionals or institutions for class projects is another
method for educators to connect theory and practice in the classroom
(Childers & Levenshus, 2016; Melton & Hicks, 2011). For example,
several professors have taken advantage of the power of Twitter to connect
students from multiple institutions. One group of professors developed a
cross-institutional Twitter chat to expose students to remote learning and
collaborations with students that they had never met in person (Fraustino
et al., 2015; Madden et al., 2016). This activity helped students develop
necessary skills before heading to the workplace (Madden et al., 2016).
Another group of scholars illustrated how cross-institutional Twitter

4
activities can be used to create authentic learning communities for
undergraduate public relations students (Zhang & Yoo, 2016). In essence,
social media has benefits to both students and professors, which raises the
need for more exploration and discussion on the overall impact that social
media pedagogy has on professors and students.
A Unified Theory of Social Media Pedagogy
Unfortunately, outside of the aforementioned examinations of
specific tools or use-cases, the biggest challenge for social media usage
in the classroom is that, compared to the public relations curricula as
outlined by the Commission on Public Relations Education, there is no
unified model for how to teach social media or what to expect from a
professor teaching social media (Brodock, 2012). Educators must be able
to determine which aspects of social media, if any, need to be incorporated
in all public relations classes versus topic-specific classes (Merle &
Freberg, 2016). Kim and Freberg (2016) conducted an initial investigation
on what an ideal social media curriculum would look like. However,
one shortcoming of their study was that it did not include the voices of
full-time, tenure-track professors teaching social media. Exploring how
educators perceive their roles as social media professors is one of the
fundamental questions for the current study.
Challenges for Professors Teaching Social Media
Professors face challenges when implementing social media as
a pedagogical tool. They must have sufficient motivation, self-efficacy,
experience, and familiarity with these tools to address the growing
knowledge gap between practice and education sectors (Correa, 2016).
Educators must also be able to balance current constraints from students
and administrations with the desire to use emerging technology platforms
in the classroom (Fryer & Bovee, 2016). For example, Manca and Ranieri
(2016) found that faculty members felt social media did not fit within
Zhang & Freberg

“pre-existing instructional practices” and if it were to be integrated into
the classroom, it would take extra time and investment on behalf of
the professor when they could be spending this time on research and
other professionally established opportunities valued by their academic
institutions.
Another challenge educators face when implementing social media
into their classes is how they are perceived by their students and whether
this impacts their credibility. DeGroot et al. (2015) addressed in their
Twitter study that the professor’s use did impact the students’ perception
of the professor (DeGroot et al., 2015). Essentially, students who gained
information from the professor (e.g., links to articles), along with personal
interaction with the professor, viewed them as more credible on social
media (Johnson, 2011).
To date, little research has examined the best activities educators
can undertake to enhance their teaching of social media (Veletsianos &
Kimmons, 2016), especially when it comes to interacting with students
and gaining institutional support. Most of the social media pedagogy
research until now has explored student attitudes towards social media
assignments and specific applications of social media in and out of the
classroom. More research is needed to explore professors’ perspectives
on teaching and incorporating social media in their classes. Within this
context, this study hopes to answer the following questions:
RQ1: How do professors perceive their role in teaching social
media compared to other courses?
RQ2: How do professors effectively implement social media
pedagogy in the classroom?
Methodology
To address these research questions, the researchers conducted 31
in-depth interviews with professors who are incorporating social media

6
platforms as pedagogical tools. The research participants represented a
wide range of academic institutions, including tenured, tenure-track, and
adjunct professors from public relations, marketing, and communications
programs, with ages ranging from 30 to 50 years old. The researchers
stopped recruiting participants when they achieved a saturation point. All
the participants were from the U.S. The study was IRB approved and no
real names were used in the transcripts or analysis to protect the identity of
the participants.
All the interviews were conducted over the phone and via Google+
Hangouts based on each participant’s availability and geographic location.
The researchers used a semi-structured interview protocol that covered
questions about the educator’s social media journey, challenges and
benefits of teaching social media, and specific pedagogical practices such
as assignments, social media platforms, books, and resources that they
used for their classes. Each interview lasted one to two hours. All the
interviews were transcribed by the researchers.
Once all of the interviews were conducted and transcribed, the
researchers independently coded the transcripts to identify prominent
themes and used the constant comparitive method recommended by Glaser
and Strauss (1967), an approach used for research that has limited existing
constructs. Next, researchers used an open-coding procedure to refine the
initial themes and verify support for the themes based on quotes from the
transcripts (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002). Finally, the researchers discussed
any inconsistencies in the coding to ensure validity and reliability of the
categories, finishing with a coding scheme.
Results
According to the interview results with the 31 leading social media
professors, several themes emerged based on the two proposed research
questions.
Zhang & Freberg

RQ1: How do professors perceive their role in teaching social media
compared to other courses?
The most labor-intensive and rewarding course to teach.
Participants agreed that social media is the most labor-intensive and most
rewarding course to teach. The most labor-intensive part highlights the
ever-changing nature of social media. It challenges and requires professors
to stay updated with the latest trends and tools in the industry in order to
identify the most effective ways to integrate them into the classroom as
pedagogical tools. For example, one senior professor shared, “I’ve taught
8 to 12 classes in my field now. Social media is by far the most time
consuming one in terms of prep work. It doubles the amount of prep time
of a traditional lecture class.”
In addition, grading and returning students’ social media
assignments in a timely manner is another major undertaking for social
media professors. Participants felt overwhelmed by the amount of time it
takes to grade and to keep up with tweets, blogs, pictures, snaps, etc. As a
result, some professors had to reduce the frequency of tweets, for example,
that they required their students to do to make grading more manageable.
As one professor shared, “Instead of requiring my students to tweet
throughout the semester, I now ask them to tweet only for the duration
of four to five weeks.” Otherwise, as one professor noted, “grading that
amount would be a nightmare.”
Nevertheless, in spite of the challenges and difficulties involved
in teaching social media, participants all agreed that it was the most
rewarding course to teach. Professors said it was rewarding because they
could immediately see the results of students applying what they learned
in the classroom. As one senior professor shared, “I truly feel that the
extra time that I spend preparing for class … all gets paid back when I
hear from students who are getting jobs and internships based on their
experience in the class.” It is not uncommon to hear that students receive
jobs or internships “from things they posted or through people they have
met through their social media class on Twitter,” as one professor shared.

8
Resistance from students. To integrate social media as a
pedagogical tool, participants encountered various degrees of resistance
from students, manifested at two levels. First, students resisted using
social media platforms to do professional- and business-oriented activities
and assignments. Based on the interviews, several professors mentioned
that their students resisted when they were asked to conduct professional
activities and demonstrate professional demeanors on these platforms.
For example, one professor shared how he failed at requiring students to
build their personal brands on various social channels. “Students refused
to do the assignment,” the professor stated. This porfessor reasoned that,
“Asking students to present in a professional manner on social media
violates their personal space and use of the platforms.” Similarly, another
professor shared, “When I told my students that they had to participate in
Twitter chats and use a class hashtag, they got frustrated. And they lose
points for not spelling the class hashtag correctly, which irritates them.”
Second, there were students who feel reluctant to share personal
opinions in public via social media. Some, in one professor’s terms, were
“anti-social media.” Given that Twitter is a frequently used pedagogical
tool, almost all of the participants had students in their classes who refused
to use Twitter, either because they didn’t have a Twitter account or had a
private account. As one professor noted, “nearly 60% to 70% of the class
didn’t do the weekly tweets. They just don’t do it. They have opinions
but don’t want to share. They don’t feel comfortable tweeting.” A main
reason that students didn’t want to share their opinions with the public is
because they fear that their writing and opinions are not good enough. As
one professor commented, “They don’t even want to share their blogs with
friends and family. They don’t want their friends and family [to] know that
they have a blog. They don’t think it’s good enough.”
Lack of real-life opportunities that align well with class
goals and objectives. Professors are constantly searching for real-life
opportunities for students to practice what they learn in the classroom
and to gain hands-on experience with some of the necessary digital skills
that are hard to learn from books. Unfortunately, there are not always
Zhang & Freberg

such hands-on opportunities. This lack of real-life context is especially
problematic for professors at smaller institutions where they “don’t have
access to the financial resources or relationships or reputation that larger
programs” have to attract industry partners, as one professor commented.
In addition, when professors collaborate with local organizations
to offer their students service-learning experiences, it is difficult for them
to find clients that meet class goals and objectives. One professor shared
that many of his local organizations have such a basic understanding of
social media that the collaboration is not likely to be mutually beneficial
from the student perspective. As he shared, “It is hard to find that middle
ground of an organization that our class can partner with and feel like we
are helping the organization to learn and be creating content and analyzing
their content for them.”
Lack of peer and institutional support. Although a few
professors mentioned that their social media endeavors are well supported
by their peers, departments, and institutions, the majority experienced
much less supportive environments. For example, one professor shared
how she created a Twitter handle for professors at her department, but the
university rejected it because the department needed to seek permission
first and the handle’s content needed to be monitored and regulated.
Likewise, another professor shared how she encountered pushback from
her school when she was trying to do consulting in public relations and
social media. As she shared:
[M]any universities, mine included, don’t encourage consulting
by professors. It is not encouraged. It is discouraged. You have to
ask for permission. You have to apply for the right to do it. A great
portion of my academic development – more than 50% – needs
to be professional networking, professional engagement, and
consulting helps me immensely. For me to say, gosh, can I please
beg my university to do this? Why don’t they encourage me? If
they see all these positive outcomes, I don’t understand why it is
not encouraged across the board by many universities.
Unfortunately, professional endeavors were not deemed as reputable

10
and as impactful as traditional research. That is why, as one professor
pinpointed, “Many professors out there are independent of the professional
network… they see a scholarly interaction as more important than a
professional interaction.” Sometimes, the curriculum also reflects this lack
of buy-in from administrations. An adjunct professor stated that he was
shocked to see how many educators were not active users of social media
for professional reasons. He attributed this inactive state of professors on
social media to the lack of support from the administration and leadership
team at universities. As he shared:
Universities, in my opinion, do not take social networking
seriously. That’s where I think education is failing as far as really
teaching social networks. They view it as “students will learn it in
this or that class.” No, they are not. At my current university, they
were not planning to teach social networking until they brought
me on board. I pitched them social media analytics. They weren’t
going to do it. That’s scary to me, especially at a major university.
But if you are not teaching it, how do we really expect our students
to understand it?
Parallel to the aforementioned lack of institutional support, participants
expressed frustrations over the lack of peer support, especially among
colleagues. One senior professor pointed out, “I had some colleagues
saying that social is just a trend versus a main thing. They don’t see the
true value or the fundamental changes that social media has brought to
the area of communication.” Participants agreed that this perception is
problematic and hinders what they teach in the classroom. As the senior
professor further noted:
I can talk about social media and preach it all day long in my class
but when students go to another class and we’re told that Twitter is
going to go away or just be a trend. That makes what I talk about
in my class very difficult in terms of getting buy-in from students.
Having experienced a lot of what the professor described above, another
seasoned professional and adjunct professor bluntly stated, “You know
who really needs social media education? The professors. They need lots
Zhang & Freberg

of help.”
Professor-student divide. The majority of the interviewed
professors believed sharing their personal lives via social media has
helped personalize who they are as professors and has brought them
closer to their students. For example, one professor shared how he made
himself accessible by sharing his phone number, Snapchat, Instagram,
Facebook, and Twitter information with his students. As he noted, “social
media is the most efficient way to communicate with my students, the 18
to 24 demographic, because they pay more attention to these social media
platforms than to emails.” This closer relationship has also shrunk the
power distance between professors and students. As he further stated:
When I speak their language [social media and emojis], the
students think, “this professor gets us.” When I let them follow me
on Instagram and Twitter, they… look up my prior content. They
see my personality, and that trust and rapport-building, and the
power gap is shortened.
On the other hand, some professors shared that crossing the
teacher-student divide has brought them unexpected and negative
consequences. One professor shared how tweeting out messages related
to politics and her baby during her maternity leave affected her teaching
evaluations. As her students wrote in the evaluations, “We didn’t
appreciate you talking about democratic politics. We didn’t appreciate
you talking so much about your kids. It was boring.” She concluded,
unfortunately, that “students don’t want to know that you have a life,”
but instead “they’d like to pretend that your world stops when they stop
seeing you or interacting with you. They don’t want to see us as a three-
dimensional human being, but as teaching robots.”
The myth that digital natives are digitally savvy. One of the
biggest assumptions that social media professors encountered on a daily
basis was that digital natives are digitally savvy. Students, the so-called
digital natives, assumed that they were the experts on social media and
they knew everything about social media. However, this was far from true,
in the participants’ opinions. As one professor stated, “just because they

12
are digital natives, it doesn’t mean that they are digital experts.” As the
participants unanimously pointed out, there was a big difference between
using social media for personal reasons as opposed to professional and
business purposes. As one professor argued, “Students know how to use
social media for fun,” but they “have no clue how to use these tools as
professionals would use them for clients.”
RQ2: How do professors effectively implement social media pedagogy
in the classroom?
Lead by example. Participants shared that the most effective way
to implement social media pedagogy was professors’ active presence on
and usage of the platforms that they were incorporating into the class. An
important question grounding this perspective is: Can professors teach
social media or apply social media pedagogy effectively without being on
these platforms themselves?
The answer seems to be no based on the participants’ responses.
The biggest problem was a “credibility gap” if professors were not on
these platforms. As one adjunct argued:
If we [professors] are incorporating certain platforms and channels
into the classroom, we absolutely have to be there, to be full, to
be knowledgeable, and to be interacting with the students and
professionals. Otherwise, there will be “credibility gaps” or you
are going to have a bunch of students saying, “That’s not fair. We
all have to be here and we all have to do this. Where are you?”
Many participants agreed that when it comes to teaching social media
and applying social media pedagogy, nothing is more important than
“practicing what we preach.” As one adjunct shared, “Unless we as
educators embrace digital platforms, we are not going to influence our
students.” As a result, when professors were actively engaging on social
media sites such as Twitter or Instagram, it showed that “professors have
basic competencies on these platforms,which will make students listen and
believe us more,” circling back to the issue of credibility. One professor
Zhang & Freberg

shared how she was learning Google Analytics with her students. As she
stated, “to create buy-in from students, I am doing it with my students…
This is to show students that you are learning along with them. They
appreciate that.”
On the other hand, on certain platforms with which professors
did not have personal experience, especially with some newer apps like
Snapchat, they felt a lack of confidence in incorporating these tools into
the classroom. As one professor shared:
My lack of use of Snapchat has put me in a disadvantage. I have
to rely on my students to make sure that I am well acquainted with
the culture of the platform and with what we are doing, whereas
[with] the other social media platforms, like blogs and Twitter, I
consider myself to be pretty versed on all of them.
In situations where teachers don’t feel comfortable consulting their
students regarding the dos and don’ts of certain platforms, they choose to
not incorporate them as pedagogical tools at all.
Incentivize social-media related assignments. Participants
shared several examples of students lacking the motivation to complete
social media assignments when these assignments were given as optional,
especially on platforms that they were not personally fond of or active
users of, such as Twitter. Class hashtags on Twitter were a common
pedagogical tool mentioned by many professors that didn’t result in broad
participation without incentives.
However, when incentives were given, students were more likely
to participate in and complete the tasks. As one professor noted based
on experience, if social media sites were to be employed as pedagogical
tools, they had to “be tied to some evaluative component, an assignment
that they will be graded on and assessed in some way.” To address this
challenge, professors shared several creative ways to engage students on
Twitter via class hashtags. For example, one professor developed quiz
questions based on the articles that students posted to Twitter, while
another professor used Twitter chats to conduct exam reviews. Participants
reported that students responded extremely well to these activities; as one

14
professor noted, “Even students who don’t use Twitter for their personal
purpose typically signed up and created an account so that they can review
the review sessions.”
Furthermore, some professors had success with some newer
platforms like Snapchat and Instagram. One professor developed a
Snapchat scavenger hunt assignment for her students to participate in,
and another professor asked her graduating class to take pictures of their
campus that would resonate the most with them by using a common
hashtag.
Use social media to bridge the gap between classroom learning
and industry practice. Participants shared a number of examples of
how they used social media as a pedagogical tool to connect students to
the outside world, including being in charge of the department’s social
media accounts; following local businesses on social media, interacting
with them (one class ended up getting free pizza from Dominos), and
identifying strengths and weaknesses of these businesses’ social presence
(one student got hired as a result); and following influencers on social
media in specific fields of interest to the students.
Besides social media activities, requiring students to earn
certifications was another way to bridge the two worlds. Certifications
such as Hootsuite Platform Certification, HubSpot’s Inbound Certification,
and Google Analytics were popular recommendations. One professor
shared how one of his students got an internship because of the skills he
mastered through these certifications.
Professors as social connectors. An essential aspect to using
social media as a bridge was that professors themselves served as a bridge
as well. According to participants, professors needed to become social
connectors themselves, interlinking education and practice and sharing
resources. One professor shared how her role as a social connector had
benefited her teaching. As she said:
I see professors as connectors. Our job is to connect our students
from the academic world to the professional world. We are going
to be the bridge from academic to professional. If you don’t
Zhang & Freberg

have professional connections and if you don’t reach out to the
professional community, and make sure that they trust you as an
educator, and they trust you to send them smart students who know
how to use these digital and social media tools, then I don’t know
if you would be a good teacher.
For professors who did not have an extensive professional background,
they believed that having an active online presence or personal brand
helped them achieve similar results as social connectors. One professor
who had a strong personal brand via blogging shared how his digital
presence had helped him serve as “conduit,” connecting the two sides:
My blog is primarily talking to educators. It helps me establish
credibility by showing what I am doing and showing that I am
halfway between student and professional world, kind of see
myself as a conduit. My online presence has opened doors to get
guest speakers and so forth. Organizations and companies contact
me saying, “We heard about the things that you are doing with
your students. Would you be interested in taking on our nonprofit
org as a client?” Being online and interacting and engaging has a
ripple effect because people see your presence as credible and keep
you salient in their mind.
Furthermore, a natural byproduct of professors serving as social
connectors is that they are creating a class community. Participants shared
that social media pedagogy is an effective way to build relationships and
to create such a community. One professor noted, “Interacting with [my
students] helps me build relationships with [them]. It is rewarding to have
this kind of relationship with students.” In participants’ opnions, this could
be accomplished on any social media platform. As another experienced
professional and adjunct shared:
Social media allows you to have emotional connection with your
students. You can use social media to build your own community
and voice together and feel comfortable as a community. When
that happens, the learning increases. Collaboration is increasing.
Students are also innovating.

16
Mentorship. As participants expressed, having mentors who were
relatively more experienced with social media pedagogy was critical
to anyone embarking on this journey. Although everyone expressed a
need for mentors regardless of their levels, participants suggested that
mentorship was particularly valuable for two groups of people. One
group included those who didn’t not have any professional background.
Therefore, being mentored by other professors who were experienced in
teaching social media and adopting social media pedagogy was crucial.
For example, one professor who had no professional experience shared
that, “I really have a couple of people who were a little bit ahead of me to
thank for the initial introduction to social media pedagogy.”
Figure 1
A blueprint for implementing social media pedagogy in the classroom.
Zhang & Freberg

The second group of people that benefited from mentorship
included junior faculty members who had just joined the workforce.
As one junior faculty member mentioned, “My social media pedagogy
success has a lot to do with the outstanding connections that I have who
are colleagues and research partners – the mentorship and guidance of
people who are graduate colleagues and friends.”
Discussion
Research findings of the present study revealed how professors
perceived their role as social media educators. The following section
discusses the findings in more detail and suggests a blueprint for
implementing social media pedagogy in the classroom.
Teaching Social Media: Trials and Tribulations
Many of the challenges in teaching social media suggested in the
literature ocurred throughout the present study, such as the need to possess
sufficient self-efficacy, motivation, familiarity of the social media tools,
and balancing constraints from students and administrators. Participants
shared that many of their peers still treat social media dismissively, as “a
trend” or “a fad.” Generally, participants felt that they lacked support and
recognition from leaders in their administrations and departments with
respect to the time and effort, often doubled, that they invested in teaching
social media classes. This is especially concerning for junior faculty
members who are pursuing tenure and promotion. Just as there is no
unified method to teach social media (Brodock, 2012), there are no clear
standards guiding how social media activities and pedagogical innovations
contribute to professors’ career development. While most schools have the
end goal of preparing students for jobs, they have not sufficiently aligned
the necessary resources to achieve that goal. As one professor argued,
“Goals without resources are failures.”
Another salient point that emerged was an apparent paradigm shift

18
in the student-teacher relationship when teaching social media classes.
Participants frequently mentioned that the old model of learning and
teaching no longer works in today’s digitized classroom environment. It
is time to move away from information dissemination to a co-creation
paradigm where the relationship between professors and students is fluid
and dynamic. Unfortunately, many professors, as one participant critiqued,
“are used to their old teaching philosophy. They are stuck in their same old
way to teach things. Maybe they are tenured, no incentives to innovate.”
Best Practices of Social Media Pedagogy: A Blueprint
The importance of buy-in from professors, students, professionals,
and institutions emerged as indispensable factors to successfully
implementing social media pedagogy in the classroom. Among all,
professors may hold the ultimate influence to create buy-in from students.
When professors are using social media effectively and strategically to
build their personal brands, bridge the gap between classroom learning,
and open professional networking opportunities, they are perceived by
students as being more credible, trustworthy, and relatable. As Manca and
Ranieri’s (2016) recent study suggested, professors in general are most
likely to use social media for personal use. Likewise, students are also
accustomed to using social media as personal and entertainment tools,
as the present study has suggested. Within this context, unless educators
make a conscious effort to change their perceptions and use of social
media, they will not gain the necessary buy-in from students to practice
social media as strategic communication tools. Classroom learning is the
last stop before students graduate. Thus, teachers’ guidance and training
are essential to help students obtain and internalize the necessary social
media skills. When students have professors who are active and excited
about social media and share stories about how it has benefited them
professionally, students resonate with that strongly and learning increases
substantially.
However, educators’efforts alone are not sufficient to successfully
Zhang & Freberg

implement social media pedagogy. Additional support from both
professionals and institutions is crucial. The following graph (Figure 1)
attempts to paint a blueprint for implementing social media pedagogy in
the classroom, capturing the insights gained from RQ1 and RQ2.
The solid lines on the figure describe existing relationships,
whereas dotted lines indicate non-existing ones. Double-direction arrows
refer to two-way relationships and one-way arrows refer to one-way
relationships. There are four solid lines numbered as 1, 2, 3, and 4, and
five dotted lines numbered as 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Specifically, the first solid
two-way arrow (Number 1) describes the fluid relationship and power
dynamic between professors and students, as well as a co-creation process
of class content and the learning experience. The solid two-way arrow
between professionals and professors (Number 2) reiterates the role that
professors play as social connectors, interlinking education and practice.
The solid two-way arrow (Number 3) between professionals and students
highlights an important responsibility that practicing professionals hold
in terms of giving back to the academic community and sharing with
the students the latest tools and skills that industry demands. The solid
two-way arrow (Number 4) describes ongoing communication between
professors and administrators to inform each other of the latest updates
and challenges so that those higher-up can offer educators the necessary
support and recognition they deserve, and educators can train competent
students to boost employment rates.
In terms of the dotted lines, the dotted one-way arrows of Numbers
5, 6, and 7 on top of the figure call for a co-advocacy partnership between
professionals and professors to collaborate and advocate for themselves
and to communicate to the administrators about the positive impact that
they have created in the class as a result of their social media class and
digital pedagogy. The dotted two-way arrow (Number 8) indicates the
possibility of collaborations between professionals and administrators
to share resources. For example, some participants in the study shared
that their schools hired professionals from the industry to offer summer
workshops to teach professors the ins and outs of social media. Professors

20
benefited substantially from these workshops not just in terms of learning
how to use specific platforms, but also thinking more strategically about
integrating social media into the classroom as well. The last dotted
two-way arrow (Number 9) indicates a missing link between students
and administrators. Participants in the present study reiterated times
that universities need to communicate to students that social media is
irreplaceable in today’s business world, and it is important for them to
have at least basic digital skills. In general, these dotted lines reveal
missing links in our existing social media pedagogy in public relations
classes.
Conclusion and Future Research
This study suggests several areas for future research. First, future
scholars can examine to what extent and in what aspects professors’
self-disclosure via social media is conducive to classroom teaching and
learning. Whereas the majority of the participants shared that social
media interactions with students brought them closer to their students and
broke down the teacher-student hierarchy, others experienced negative
consequences as a result of being personal online.
Second, future studies can examine students’ and professionals’
perceptions of professors’ credibility between those who have an active
online presence and those who do not, and what social cues can make
professors more credible to students and professionals. The present
study suggested the importance of leading by example and argued that
professors need to be active, or at least moderate, users of the social media
platforms that they incorporate into the classroom. Otherwise, there will
be credibility gaps.
Third, research on social media pedagogy can start to examine the
applications and ramifications of some of the newer social platforms as
pedagogical tools such as Snapchat and Instagram, as well as channels that
have been under-utilized such as Reddit, BuzzFeed, and Facebook Live.
Lastly, scholars can conduct longitudinal studies to investigate
Zhang & Freberg

to what extent and in what aspects taking a social media class will help
students continue many of the social media behaviors they did in the
class, such as building a personal brand, participating in Twitter chats, and
interacting with professionals in the industry. Will they continue to use
these platforms after the semester is over?
References
Alt, D. (2015). Students’ academic motivation, media engagement, and
fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 111-119.
Anderson, B., & Swenson, R. (2013). What should we be teaching our
students about digital PR? Collaborating with top industry bloggers
and PR Twitter chat professionals. Teaching Public Relations, 87,
1-4.
Anderson, B., Swenson, R., & Kinsella, J. (2014). Responding in real-
time: Creating a social media crisis simulator for the classroom.
Communication Teacher, 28(2), 85-95.
Brodock, K. (2012, Feb. 10). 9 ways students can use social media to
boost their careers. Mashable. Retrieved from: http://mashable.
com/2012/02/10/students-job-search-social-media/.
Carpenter, S., & Lertpratchya, A. P. (2016). A qualitative and quantitative
study of social media communicators: An extension of role theory
to digital media workers. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 60(3), 448-464.
Carroll, B. (2014). Writing and editing for digital media. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Childers, C. C., & Levenshus, A. B. (2016). Bringing the digital world
to students: Partnering with the university communications
office to provide social media experiential learning projects.
Communication Teacher, 30(4), 190-194.
Correa, T. (2015). Digital skills and social media use: How Internet skills
are related to different types of Facebook use among ‘digital
natives.’ Information, Communication & Society, 19(8), 1095-
1107. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1084023

22
DeGroot, J. M., Young, V. J., & VanSlette, S. H. (2015). Twitter use
and its effect on student perception of instructor credibility.
Communication Education, 64(4), 419-437.
Duhé, S. (2015). An overview of new media research in public relations
journals from 1981 to 2014. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 153-
169.
Edministon, D. (2014). A personal competitive advantage by developing a
professional online presence. Marketing Education Review, 24(1),
21-24.
Fraustino, J.D., Briones, R., & Janoske, M. (2015). Can every class be
a Twitter chat? Cross-institutional collaboration and experiential
learning in the social media classroom. Journal of Public Relations
Education, 1(1), 1-18.
Fryer, L. K., & Bovee, H. N. (2016). Supporting students’ motivation for
e-learning: Teachers matter on and offline. Internet and Higher
Education, 30, 21-29.
Gallicano, T. D., Ekachai, D., & Freberg, K. (2014). The infographics
assignment: A qualitative study of students’ and professionals’
perspectives. Public Relations Journal, 8(4), 1-23.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Strategies for qualitative research. New York, NY: de Gruyter.
Johnson, K. A. (2011). The effect of Twitter posts on students’ perception
of instructor credibility. Learning, Media, and Technology, 36(1),
21-38.
Kim, C. M., & Freberg, K. (2016). The state of social media curriculum: A
proposed framework for social media pedagogy. Journal of Public
Relations Education, 2(2), 68-82.
Kinsky, E. S., Freberg, K., Kim, C., Kushin, M., & Ward, W. (2016).
Hootsuite University: Equipping academics and future PR
professionals for social media success. Journal of Public Relations
Education, 2(1), 1-18.
Zhang & Freberg

Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication
research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lipschultz, J. (2015). Social media communication: Concepts, practices,
data, law and ethics. New York, NY: Routledge.
Madden, S., Winkler, R. B., Fraustino, J. D., & Janoske, M. (2016).
Teaching, tweeting, and teleworking: Experiential and cross-
institutional learning through social media. Communication
Teacher, 30(4), 195-205.
Manca, S., & Ranieri, M. (2016). Yes for sharing, no for teaching! Social
media in academic practices. Internet and Higher Education, 29,
63-74.
McCorkindale, T. M., DiStaso, M. W., & Fussell Sisco, H. (2013).
How Millennials are engaging and building relationships with
organizations on Facebook. The Journal of Social Media in
Society, 2(1), 67-87.
Melton, J., & Hicks, N. (2011). Integrating social and traditional media
in a client project. Business and Professional Communication
Quarterly, 74(4), 494-504.
Merle, P., & Freberg, K. (2016). All about that tweet: Student perceptions
of professors’ social media use in the classroom. Journal of
Research in Interactive Marketing, 10(2), 1-25.
Remund, D., & Freberg, K. (2013, Summer). Scholar as social curator
and social connector: The escalating need for public relations
professors who successfully link theory and practice in a fast-
changing digital world. Teaching Public Relations, 1-5.
Peterson, R. M., & Dover, H. F. (2014). Building student networks with
LinkedIn: The potential for connections, internships, and jobs.
Marketing Education Review, 24(1), 15-20.
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2016). Scholars in an increasingly open
and digital world: How do education professors and students use
Twitter? Internet and Higher Education, 30, 1-10.

24
Zhang, A., & Yoo, K-H. (2016, July). Building an authentic learning
community via Twitter: Insights from a cross-institutional Twitter
activity. Paper presented at the annual conference of BledCom
Symposium, Bled, Slovenia.
Editorial Record: Original draft submitted to the AEJMC-PRD Paper Competition by
April 1, 2017. Selected as a Top Teaching Paper. Submitted to JPRE on August 18, 2017.
Final revisions completed on May 12, 2018. First published online on May 21, 2018.
Zhang & Freberg

Competition and Public Relations
Campaigns: Assessing the Impact of
Competition on Quality of Projects,
Partners, and Students
Christopher J. McCollough, Columbus State University
Abstract
Scholars in public relations pedagogy have provided a strong
body of research on the impact of service learning, community
partnerships (Daugherty, 2003), and applied learning on
campaigns, writing, and production courses common to the public
relations curriculum (Wandel, 2005). Rarely explored, however,
is the impact of competition among student groups within a
public relations course on the quality of campaigns, student
experience, client satisfaction, and achievement of learning
outcomes (Rentner, 2012). This study presents a comparative
analysis of campaign courses that employed competitive and non-
competitive campaign course models to demonstrate the impact
of incorporating competition within public relations courses.
Keywords: competition; service learning; public relations;
community outreach; benefits
Contemporary public relations pedagogy consistently employs
the use of service learning in the delivery of course content in the upper
division and capstone courses pertaining to public relations management
and campaigns. Research on the practice demonstrates social, professional,
and educational benefits among students (Bourland-Davis & Fall, 1997;
Eyler & Giles, 1999; McElhaney, 1997; Melchior & Bailis, 2002). One
key reason behind the adoption of service learning relates to the need of
students to develop professional practice with clients, as well as the need
to cultivate a professional portfolio. Scholars are adapting the practice
beyond the capstone course in professional writing courses (Wandel,
2005), introductory public relations courses (Wilson, 2012), and even
as a philosophical approach for the entire public relations curriculum at
2018, Vol. 4, No. 1, 25-48

26
institutions (Enos & Morton, 2003).
More broadly speaking, early scholarship in service learning
and its effects on students clearly articulate benefits in a variety of areas
(Bringle & Hatcher, 1995; Eyler & Giles, 1999; Kuban, O’Malley, &
Florea, 2014). Service learning proponents indicate that service learning
is a more effective application of core concepts and principles than if
simply provided in a classic lecture model (Gray, 2005), it is an engine for
strong professional development and civic development (Lewis, 2002),
and it even is a natural extension of the philosophy of John Dewey (1933,
1938). Returning to the subject of public relations education, however,
other elements of public relations practice remain largely unexplored.
One of these elements, with the exception of one study (Rentner, 2012), is
the added element of competition among teams within a public relations
campaigns course.
This paper is a comparative analysis of four public relations
campaigns courses. The first two course sections (2012 and 2013) made
use of a traditional campaigns model, in which teams worked with
different community partners, with mixed results. The second two courses
(2014 and 2015) adopted a competitive model of service learning, in
which student teams engaged in head-to-head bids for a win and the top
score. We begin with a brief review of pertinent literature about service
learning, public relations pedagogy, and competition.
Literature Review
Stated previously, service learning became a broadly accepted
part of public relations education in the 1990s (Bourland-Davis & Fall,
1997; Daugherty, 2003). To set the context for a broader audience, we will
begin by defining service learning before addressing some of its benefits
to students and discussing the rarely explored concept of incorporating
professional forms of competition in the classroom.
McCollough

Service Learning Definitions, Practices, and Challenges
In its organic development, service learning has acquired
several definitions that come back to consistent, essential practices.
Bringle and Hatcher (1995) identify service learning as an educational
experience involving organized service that meets community needs that
includes reflection on the work to gain deeper content knowledge, to
increase disciplinary understanding, and to enhance civic responsibility.
Kolb’s (1984) core elements of service learning include concrete
experience, reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and active
experimentation. Gelmon, Holland, Driscoll, Spring, and Kerrigan (2001)
explain service learning as an educational methodology that marries
community service with academic learning objectives and reflection.
Service learning is a process of development or knowledge
creation where students transform the information they receive from their
experience and make sense of it within the theoretical framework of their
academic course material (Kubin et al., 2014). Acker (2003) emphasizes
active, participatory learning and developing students’ critical-thinking,
analytical, and problem-solving skills. Service learning maintains a high
level of academic integrity, combined with a means of experiencing the
material in a way students come to see that the content of classroom
lectures holds true problem-solving potential for societal problems
(Bringle & Hatcher, 1995; Giroux, 2010; Twenge, 2013). Bransford,
Brown, and Cocking (1999) simply identified service learning as a way to
help people take control of their own learning.
Service learning is a demanding approach for instructors, as
Wandel (2005) offered up several examples commonly discussed as
instructors address challenges in delivering the approach in the classroom.
She notes a pragmatic challenge of time management on an academic
calendar, assisting students in clearly defining a community need with
partners, helping the community partner in creating goals that will
effectively help meet their need(s), effectively executing work that
progresses towards a solution, and allowing for the reflection that students

28
have to embrace to maximize experiential learning. With a sense of the
practice, the paper will now discuss the relative value of service learning
to all relevant parties.
Practical Value to Faculty, Students, and Community
Faculty members often receive student complaints that course
content has little to do with real life and, thus, is devoid of any practical
value. Service-learning components, when embedded into curriculum,
can add the level of relevance that students perceive as missing from
curriculum. Research suggests that incorporating service-learning
components into the curriculum increases levels of faculty satisfaction
not only with course content but also with student learning outcomes
(Bringle & Hatcher, 1995; Kahne, Westheimer, & Rogers, 2000). Through
the service-learning experiences, students identify with course concepts,
find the course material relevant to real-life situations, and become more
familiar with the theoretical course content and more confident in the
application of that content in the classroom and beyond. The service-
learning model also provides faculty with a means of going beyond the
basic instruction that provides a skeleton concept of the work performed
with the agency, but it also allows faculty and students the opportunity
to engage in deeper learning as they explore alternative applications for
applying course content outside of the classroom (Bringle & Hatcher,
1995).
From the student perspective, literature also offers strong examples
of how service learning can help in cultivating stronger individuals. Fritz
(2002) notes that active-learning strategies can promote metacognitive
process in most college subjects and data show increased retention in
the course and in college. Conrad and Hedin (1989) saw evidence of
improved observation techniques, open-mindedness, and aid with insight
and judgment skills (Conrad & Hedin, 1991), as well as improved problem
analysis skills and creativity, while being exposed to opportunities to enter
the service industry. Huckin (1997) found evidence of improved critical
McCollough

thinking and writing skills in adopting service learning. These findings
address the perspective of scholars who identified a clear call from
universities to cultivate problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, and
effective decision-making in students (Acker, 2003; Bransford et al., 1999;
Lynott, 1998; O’Leary, 2002; Page & Mukherjee, 2007).
Adopting a service-learning model can help meet real needs of
community agencies that include expanded capacities – both human and
resource – of local agencies (Basinger, 2015; Fletcher, Rousell, Worrell,
McLean, & Baydala, 2012); mitigate the dearth of resources in rural and
otherwise, underserved, populations (Auld, 2004; Basinger, 2015; Hall,
Lasby, Ayer, & Gibbons, 2009; Miller, 1991); and build vital sustaining
partnerships between faculty, students, university and the community
(Fletcher, et al., 2012). Research suggests that reciprocity is one of the
strongest predictors of successful partnerships resulting from service
learning opportunities, where each stakeholder gains from the experience
with an equitable exchange of resources (Cruz & Giles, 2000; Jacoby,
1996). As such, service learning provides community agencies with
knowledge, skill, and human resources they need but could not afford. In
turn, students view the community agency as experience and professional
network providers – both of which can be helpful in the job search.
Effective service-learning partnerships encourage mutuality, shared
resources and accountabilities, where each service-learning stakeholder
contributes resources to help the others (Basinger, 2015; Honadle &
Kennealy, 2011). Additional research suggests that service learning helps
build levels of confidence in content and practice (Basinger, 2015; Kahne
et al., 2000).
When viewed as such, the service-learning experience and learning
can be as rewarding for the faculty member as it is for the student. One of
the many positive outcomes of service learning is that faculty members
can incorporate these opportunities – that often come from their own
personal involvement in the community – to help students experience first-
hand how vital and relevant course content can be to meeting needs in the
community (Bringle & Hatcher, 1995).

30
Faculty can draw upon a growing body of quantitative and
qualitative research literature indicating increased content knowledge
and levels of awareness and engagement result from service-learning
components embedded into the course curriculum (Honadle & Kennealy,
2011; Kahne, et al., 2000; Kuban, et al., 2014). Furthermore, research
suggests that service-learning experience “enhances the student’s
academic development, life skill development and sense of civic
responsibility” (Astin & Sax, 1998, p. 262). McEachern (2001) makes
the point that service learning helps bridge the gap between theory and
practice in matters of civic engagement. Having established a broader
sense of the value of service learning to relevant parties, the paper will
now focus on the benefit of service learning to public relations education.
Value of Service Learning to Public Relations Pedagogy
Scholarship on service learning integration in the teaching of
public relations suggests some tangible benefits to the holistic and
professional development of college students. Scholars note that the nature
of the ever-changing media environment makes the ability to analyze,
synthesize, and evaluate information for decision-making essential for
new professionals in public relations and journalism (Lloyd, Slater, &
Robbs, 2000; Strohm & Baukus, 1995). The aforementioned literature on
personal, professional, and civic development of students speaks directly
to this.
Other scholars have looked at the benefit of service learning
in the public relations context. Strohm and Baukus (1995) identified
several benefits in the practice, including (1) flexibility to ambiguity, (2)
strengthening professional adaptability, and (3) dealing with delineation
using diagnostic thinking and evaluation. Daugherty (2003) explored the
value California State University-Long Beach students enjoyed after the
public relations program at their institution adopted service learning in not
only the campaigns course but also in the internal communication, external
communication, and the public relations publications course. She found
McCollough

that throughout the courses, students enjoyed healthy client relationships
with community partners. For clients, the working experience with
students was productive and beneficial to the organization, leaving them
interested in future partnerships.
Bollinger (2004) detailed a small class’ work on cultivating
a 5-year strategy on behalf of a local chamber of commerce. While
the formal plan’s write-up fell to the instructor, students engaged in
the research, data collection, and strategy sessions that generated the
final document over the semester-long course. In addition to students
expressing a strong sense of value in service learning, Bollinger also
noted that students refined group, organizational, and interpersonal
communication skills in the process of completing the project, as well as
practicing public speaking skills as part of the formal presentation to the
client at the end of the term.
Wandel (2005) assessed the value of using service learning in a
public relations writing course to determine if the application of additional
effort in course design and implementation elicited the kinds of benefits
her students appreciated. In her results, she noted that the students
expressed concerns over the additional work that come from collaborating
with community partners. Traditionally strong performers in the class
who assumed leadership roles expressed concerns over having to carry the
load for the team, rather than being able to rely on the group. Students,
however, found benefit in tangible portfolio materials and inspiration in
working with the nonprofit organizations with which they worked. Wandel
(2005) noted the one consistent element expressed by students was a
desire for a stronger mechanism of individual evaluation in addition to the
group project grade.
Wilson (2012) found value in service learning for public relations
students’ critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. Through pre-test
and post-test analysis, she found significant progression across a variety
of skills, most significant of which was in identifying new information
needed to solve a problem and creative thinking to support problem
solving. She notes that while the skills refined in a service-learning course

32
can be beneficial for all college students, the skills highlighted are of
particular value to those interested in entering a dynamic, challenging
field like public relations. Next, the paper will discuss the added value of
competition in public relations courses that incorporate service learning.
The Value of Competition in Public Relations Courses
Recent scholarship on service learning in public relations
education puts the focus on the value of other professional pressure,
specifically competition. As a concept, competition has gone largely
unaddressed in public relations and service-learning literature. Early
scholarship on competition in the classroom explored it as a means for
motivation (Clifford, 1972) and task accomplishment (Lowell, 1952), with
little consensus on findings that demonstrate the value of incorporating
competition in the classroom (Dowell, 1975). Rudow and Hautaluoma
(1975) noted that competition could be a strong social motivator, with both
positive and negative consequences.
Literature within public relations and communication pertaining to
the impact of competition remains largely unexplored, with the exception
of Rentner’s (2012) examination of campaign competition among classes
at different institutions during the period of two semester-long courses
working for one client: the Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation. Over
the course of 2 years, Rentner explored student motivation to succeed, the
quality of the work produced, and the pride expressed in a job well done
through the critical analysis of student evaluations and service-learning
journals produced by students. In terms of motivation to succeed, students
all expressed a high motivation to succeed and did so by putting the focus
on the client, deadlines, and the work of competition at other institutions,
rather than their individual evaluation. Students expressed a high desire to
produce quality work in light of the competition taking place with other
institutions, routinely citing the products of the competition in contrast
to their own when citing concerns over product. Finally, complaints
about the time-consuming nature of campaign work were mitigated by
McCollough

acknowledging the pride they took in seeing finished project work and the
final event they helped coordinate and run, as well as a sense of pride in
their own university.
While Rentner’s (2012) work offers a model for a broader program
among institutions that effectively implements service learning to the
benefit of students in a public relations curriculum, what is lacking is
additional scholarship reviewing the actual products of students and
exploring the impact of competition within a public relations classroom
in seeking the approval of a client. Moreover, no scholarship on pitching
clients exists in the current public relations education literature. This paper
answers Rentner’s (2012) call for exploration of the impact of competition
on the work produced in a single public relations campaigns class
employing a service-learning format.
Research Questions
Based on Rentner’s (2012) intercourse analysis as the model for
testing the value of competition within a single public relations classroom,
the researchers consider the following research questions:
RQ1: What is the quality of the product delivered to the client?
RQ2: What is the client perception of working with the student
group(s) assigned?
In addition to Renter’s original focus, the researcher is also
exploring the overall student perception of the class, which prompts the
following research question:
RQ3: What are the students’ evaluation of the public relations
course with and without the competition element?

34
Method
The study used a mixed-methods approach to analyze the products,
client perceptions, and students’ assessments of the courses. To assess the
quality of the products produced, the researcher revisited the campaign
books produced in all four classes. There were three in the 2012 course,
three in the 2013 course, six in the 2014 course, and six in the 2015
course. The research evaluated the design aesthetic of each project’s
mock-ups, the quality of student writing, the public relations logic and
application of principles of best practice, and the quality of the research
employed.
To evaluate the client perception of working with the student
groups, the instructor asked each client to provide frank assessments of
each team at four separate points in the semester, as a means of evaluating
client relations and meeting needs. The researcher reviewed each comment
on this basis to assess the quality of each team’s effort to (1) find common
ground with the client, and (2) produce work that meets client needs.
Finally, to evaluate the student perspective on the course, the
researcher reviewed the student evaluations provided for each of the four
course sections. First, students reviewed the 10 standard questions asked
of students at the university regarding all instructors. Faculty evaluations
at the institution are on a five-point Likert scale, with 5 being the strongest
assessment and 1 being the weakest. Second, since the 10 questions posed
in the institution’s final course evaluations lack depth of description and
speak very little to the course projects, team dynamics, or the experience
of working with a community partner, the instructor asked students in the
free response sections to comment on specific elements that they enjoyed
and disliked. The instructor reviewed all comments and identified key
themes reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of the course design in the
non-competitive and competitive models.
With the means of analysis established, the paper will now briefly
discuss the design of the four course sections.
McCollough

The Course Designs
The instructional presentation of content across all four sections
of public relations campaigns held true. During the first 8 weeks of
the course, students began with some light remediation about the
principles of best practice in public relations, including a review of
and thorough discussion of the application of RACE (Cutlip, Center,
& Broom, 2006), ROPES (Kelly, 2001) and the four models of public
relations communication (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). The instructor covered
assignment-specific elements in research, campaign planning, campaign
execution, evaluation, book production, and client pitching throughout the
term as well. The instructor held lectures one day a week, with an in-class
work session the second day, in which the instructor visited with each
team and discussed the weekly progression of their projects.
The second half of the course moved to a more team-driven form
of applied learning. Each team engaged in the campaign process and,
rather than hold formal lectures, the professor had one mandatory team
meeting each week, and the teams held a mandatory client meeting in lieu
of a second lecture session each week.
The fundamental difference in the 2014 and 2015 course sections
of public relations campaigns was the migration from a traditional team-
client dynamic where the sole focus was production on deadline to a pitch
competition. Whereas three student teams of 6-8 in a class size of 18-24
for three local nonprofit organizations was the framework for the 2012
and 2013 sections, the growth in popularity of the class to roughly 28-30
students enabled the instructor to adopt a competitive model of six student
teams, consisting of 4-5 members. The instructor then identified three
community partners and assigned two student teams to each client based
on student team interest in working with each client.
In a move meant to minimize disparity in student skills and
aptitude, and to enhance the parallel with a “real world” working
environment, the instructor moved to assigning the student teams on day
one of the course. Students were reminded that when they are hired by a

36
public relations firm, the agency directors assign individuals to specific
account teams based on their skills.
To control for concerns about one team member carrying all of
the work (Wandel, 2005), individual team members had to provide two
metrics of accountability. The first was a bi-weekly peer review of their
peers on the team, which the instructor maintained as a weekly assignment
and used to frame the team meetings each week. The second was an
individual portfolio turned in at the end of the term, which contained a
cover letter, resume, and 10 individual project items that were a part of
the team project. Peer evaluations and the portfolio comprised 15% of the
students’ overall grade. In essence, a good team performance would not be
enough for team members who were not active, productive contributors on
their teams.
At the end of the 15-week term, students submitted the team
campaign books, and performed professional pitches for each of the
three clients in head-to-head sessions, akin to standard practice for
public relations, advertising, or marketing firms. To assist relatively
inexperienced clients with determining the quality and long-term value of
the student projects, the instructor invited a team of four local practitioners
with experience in healthcare, nonprofit, corporate, and public sector
public relations to provide insight on the overall quality of the materials
produced and strategies proposed.
At the end of three one-hour sessions, the instructor announced
the winners of each competition. The winning teams earned automatic
A’s for the project, while the losing teams were subject to the instructor’s
evaluation of the project. The projects comprised 55% of the overall
student grade, so the competition carried a high incentive value for
each student team. With the design of the course laid out, the paper next
addresses each of the research questions.
Results
Reviewing Student Products
McCollough

Overall, the formal review of campaign books in 2012 and
2013 against the 2014 and 2015 campaign books yielded clear overall
improvement in organization of the books, attention to detail, and
adherence to public relations logic. In the 2012 and 2013 books, it was
clear that in the effort to satisfy client needs, students let go of either
a RACE or ROPES model of practice in favor of a client-specific text.
Also apparent was the relative disorganization of some student team
texts, even after careful instruction on campaign book organization. In
the effort to do so, however, most of the books still lacked a coherent
sense of organization that would enable the reader to review each section
and clearly identifying its relationship to the larger book and project.
Graphic design, media production, and attention to specific core elements
of best practice in public relations were inconsistent among the six books
presented. In fact, the two highest scoring teams in the 2012 and 2013
courses were the only teams that attended to these considerations.
There was a clear improvement in the 12 2014 and 2015 campaign
books reviewed, at least in terms of design and book organization. Student
teams delegated design work and public relations strategy more effectively
among team members, which yielded a stronger product for students to
submit to the client. Student teams made effective use of integrated media
strategies, specifically the strategic application of video production, social
and digital media messaging and distribution, and more precise event
planning in support of the media production produced on behalf of the
client partners. The general organization of the books was also largely
much cleaner, with only two of the 12 books earning poor marks on
organization.
Some elements did remain problematic, even with the application
of competition to the campaigns course model. The quality of student
writing was largely inconsistent with the exception of a few strong writers
who took the editorial role on the campaign teams. Student research was
more effective in employing secondary research sources but suffered when
students had to adopt primary research in filling knowledge gaps about

38
the clients and strategic publics or to engage in incremental or summative
evaluation of the project work.
One interesting element that was largely inconsistent in both
competitive and noncompetitive public relations campaigns models was
the application of stewardship (Kelly, 2001) with the client and on behalf
of the client with strategic publics essential to the campaign. In two
instances, the critical attention to client and publics, specifically in terms
of stewardship, made an essential difference in determining the winning
bid in the competitive campaigns courses.
Client Reception of the Teams and Products
In reviewing the comments of each client over the four course
sections, it is clear that the competitive model encouraged a larger body
of student groups to engage in two-way dialog with the clients throughout
the campaign process. In the 2012 and 2013 courses, the strongest
teams adhered to Kelly’s (2001) argument for the value of stewardship
in public relations. Specifically, the most successful teams maintained a
minimum of one meeting a week, and often maintained frequent email
communication with the client and among team members. That said, it was
largely absent from most of the team projects. Of the six student projects
reviewed, only two teams really adopted the core principle of stewardship
and merited the comments from the client reflecting this. While the
majority of community partners expressed a sense of appreciation for the
assistance, one 2013 community partner offered this candid perspective on
the work of the student team:
I could spend more time reviewing the group and its performance;
however, I wanted to tie the final assessment back to the actual
written agreement between Client and Consultant. With that said,
along with other documentation of events throughout the course of
the semester, my overall grade for group as a whole would have to
be an F. I truly hate to say that but, that is, in all honesty the grade
I have to give them as a team. The final straw with this particular
McCollough

grade is based on the fact that the group did not let me review
their campaign book at all before submitting it and I do not feel
confident that they were truthful in their report.
This report prompted the instructor to adopt direct competition, and
the results in subsequent course sections validated this decision. In
contrast, in the effort to win a competitive bid, a wide base of the 2014
and 2015 books adopted stronger stewardship and more consistent client
communication throughout the process. One client’s comments offer a
clear indication that attention to detail, stewardship, and addressing the
needs of the community partner remained top of mind for each of the two
teams collaborating with this 2015 partner:
Your students were an absolute pleasure to work with. Their
final presentations reflected a great deal of work on their part as
well as the excellent educational background received from you.
Your guidance and leadership was certainly apparent in their final
product. The experience and skills your students gained from
this “real life” experience will have a great impact on them as
they pursue their careers. The time spent with the staff from the
Georgia Department of Economic Development Tourism Product
Development Division was certainly a valuable experience as well.
The comments effectively reinforced the value of adopting
competition in terms of helping students see the need for effectively
addressing the needs of the client, either directly or by demonstrating
the value of the strategic publics clients may or may not see. Even more
indicative than the praise in the client comments is the fact that many of
the 2014 and 2015 project materials are still in use by the client partners
today.
An interesting component worth noting in this analysis is that
student groups in the competitive model also demonstrated an ad hoc
form of incremental self-evaluation and adaptation in strategies and tactics
in their interactions with clients. In using the weekly client sessions to
account for the client wants and needs, students had to confront the clients’
perceptions of the quality of the students’ work and to make necessary

40
changes to project components that did not meet client expectations. The
instructor encountered many more conversations with students who had
to part with project elements they designed after a client meeting left
them with an understanding that this would not meet needs. While not an
intentional motivation for the migration to competitive course design, the
instructor acknowledges the professional development value of having to
let go of one’s ego when producing materials and strategy for clients who
may have different aesthetics or opinions on strategic direction.
Students’Assessment of the Courses
In reviewing the course evaluations across these four sections,
there was slightly harsher criticism for the instructor from students in the
2015 course section, but not a potentially damaging assessment of the
instructor in considering teaching effectiveness for factors like annual
review and promotion and tenure. There was a slight decline in ratio from
the 2012 (4.67) and 2013 (4.69) course evaluations against the 2015 (4.49)
course evaluations; however, the first year of competition, 2014, yielded
the strongest evaluations (4.92) to date. Even with one competitive course
section trending lower in student evaluations, the overall evaluations
provide strong evidence of the value of service learning among students as
the instructor reviewed open student comments about the project work.
In review of the student comments, we see a strong emphasis
on the value of service learning in providing exposure to real clients
and acclimating students to client relations. Several students expressed
appreciation for the practical experience that working with community
partners yields. This perspective is in line with the work of scholars who
identified student perceptions of benefit (Daugherty, 2003; Wilson, 2012).
Students also expressed a strong affinity for the competition element, as
well as the excitement behind developing a strategic pitch.
Negative comments about the course were limited, with only
an occasional student over 4 years expressing a desire not to engage
in service-learning because of the extra demand and pressure it put on
McCollough

them to effectively complete the task. Specifically, in three instances
over four courses, individual students expressed frustration over the time
commitment in working with community partners and requested that the
instructor consider using hypothetical clients to facilitate more efficient
project work. This coincides with Wandel’s (2005) timing challenges,
specifically the rhythm of engaging in community outreach within the
practical limits of an academic calendar.
Another area of student frustration in three instances was the
instructor’s decision in 2015 to use assigned teams rather than to permit
students to form their own student teams. The student comments suggested
frustration over having to work with classmates whom they disliked. Other
comments cited frustration with classmates’ relative unreliability, forcing
one or two team members to carry the majority of the work. This prompted
the instructor to revisit instruction on team dynamics and professional
responsibility in task delegation, both from a manager’s and technician’s
standpoint.
Discussion and Recommendations
In reviewing the three research questions, the instructor found
support for the application of competition in service-learning courses,
specifically within the public relations curriculum. In response to the first
research question, a review of the students’ campaign books demonstrated
a general improvement in design, organization, and adherence to best
practices in public relations when dealing with the competitive pressures
in a service-learning course like campaigns. One point of interest was the
relative struggles of students with industry standards of effective writing,
reinforcing previous findings that indicated young practitioner struggles
with writing proficiency in the contemporary workplace (Todd, 2014).
Another was the disconnect between the value in primary and secondary
research, regardless of the application of competition in the course. Both
have prompted the instructor to invest time and energy in reviewing the
connection between the writing and research curriculum and the senior-

42
level public relations campaigns course. Overall, however, this is general
support for an improvement in the quality of the product produced by the
students.
The second research question called upon the clients to reflect
on their experiences in assessing the quality of student work in the
campaigns course. In general, the clients who encountered students in
competition enjoyed a more attentive group of student teams who adopted
the principles of stewardship (Kelly, 2001) and benefited from consistent
dialog with the team on the overall quality of the product. Student
teams had the added benefit of being able to better adapt the project and
materials to the needs of the client and to help the clients better understand
strategic publics that they may not have previously considered prior to
the partnership. That said, further examination of specific teams’ failings
in stewardship is a noteworthy area of inquiry for self-reflection and
improvement of the class model.
With regard to the third research question, the instructor enjoyed
generally strong student evaluations in all four course sections, but did
see an increase in criticism in the final year of evaluation (2015), while
enjoying the strongest evaluations in the first year of adopting competitive
learning models (2014). Each of the 4 years of instruction demonstrated
positive student feedback for service learning and for the adoption of
competitive modeling.
The refined emphasis on strict scrutiny in the second year of using
competitive learning models may have prompted a more critical response
from student learners. Another possibility is that in adopting the approach
in the first year, perhaps the instructor was more attentive to being specific
and thorough in providing initial and subsequent reminders on course
instruction that helped students with clarity of content and approaching
deadlines. Nevertheless, even in adopting the competitive learning models,
the instructor enjoyed a strong reception from students and was able to
blend service with teaching. Further review of course articulation and
evaluation will permit the instructor to refine the course model.
The instructor acknowledges that the data pool here is limited to
McCollough

one instructor’s course load over four semesters, and that the practice
needs exploration across a larger sample, over time. This merits a broader
analysis among instructors who have adopted a competitive model to
determine student and client satisfaction. It is also of note to consider
how differences among clients may also impact differences in the service-
learning experience, which will have merit for future adoption of service
learning in the realm of working collaboratively with partners before,
during, and after the semester-long project (Wandel, 2005).
Acknowledging the merits demonstrated among institutions in
Rentner’s (2012) study and what the instructor sees in his own courses,
further examination of the value of the practice and the balance of
competition’s impact on perception of the course and instructor is
important in considering the holistic development of aspiring public
relations practitioners (Page & Mukherjee, 2007; Wilson, 2012). More
instructors adopting competitive-learning models should engage in
scholarship on the subject to enable greater refinement in the discipline.
Those interested in adopting this approach should be mindful
of a few elements. First, in the instructor’s experience, an emphasis on
cultivating community partnerships and maintaining an instructor-level
line of communication with each partner before, during, and after the
process proved beneficial. The literature on service learning notes the time
intensive necessity for partner cultivation (Eyler & Giles, 1999; Wandel,
2005), so prospective adopters must account for this in course planning. It
not only enables a more fluid classroom application, but it facilitates future
partnerships, as well.
Instructors should also be prepared to provide consultation with
individual students on a wide variety of topics. A common topic for this
instructor has been conflict resolution with team members and clients.
Another commitment comes in remediation of core concepts with
individual students who may have struggled in the introductory public
relations, media production, design, or research courses that provide
the intellectual foundation for a strong performance in public relations
campaigns.

44
References
Acker, J. R. (2003). Class acts: Outstanding college teachers and the
difference they make. Criminal Justice Review, 28(2), 215-231.
Astin, A., & Sax, L. (1998). How undergraduates are affected by service
participation. Journal of College Student Development, 39(3), 259-
263.
Auld, C. (2004). Behavioral characteristics of student volunteers.
Australian Journal on Volunteering, 9(2), 8-18.
Barber, B. (1994). A proposal for mandatory citizen education and
community service. Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 1(1), 86-93.
Barber, B., Higgens, R., Smith, J., Ballou, J., Dedrick, J., & Downing, K.
(1997). Democratic theory and civic measurement: A report on the
measuring citizenship project. Rutgers, NJ: Walt Whitman Center.
Basinger, N. W. (2015). Incubating grassroots nonprofits: A service-
learning approach to organizational capacity building with
communities of immigrant and refugee background. Journal of
Community Engagement and Higher Education, 6(2), 19-29.
Bollinger, L. (2004). Communicative benefits in a service learning
project: How a senior-level public relations class provided a
campaign and five-year plan for a nonprofit. Teaching Public
Relations, 63. Retrieved from: http://aejmc.us/wp-content/uploads/
sites/23/2014/11/tpr63sp04.pdf.
Bourland-Davis, P. G., & Fall, L. (1997). Evaluation and assessment of
a service learning component in academia: A case study. Paper
presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication, Chicago, IL.
Bransford, J. B., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (1999). How
people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington,
DC: National Academy.
Bringle, R., & Hatcher, J. A. (1995). A service-learning curriculum for
faculty. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 2, 112-
122.
McCollough

Clifford, M. M. (1972). Effects of competition as a motivational technique
in the classroom. American Education Research Journal, 9(1),
123-137.
Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1991). School-based community service: What
we know from research and theory. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 743-
750.
Conrad, D., & Hedin, D. (1989). High school community service: A review
of research and programs. Washington, DC: National Center on
Effective Secondary Schools.
Cruz, N. I., & Giles, D. E. (2000). Where’s the community in service
learning research? Michigan Journal of Community Service
Learning, 7(1), 28-34.
Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. (2006). Effective public
relations (11th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Daugherty, E. (2003). Service-learning integration in a public relations
program: Pedagogy for enhanced learning. Teaching Public
Relations, 58. Retrieved from: http://aejmc.us/prd/wp-content/
uploads/sites/23/2015/01/tpr58wi2003.pdf.
Dewey. J. (1933). How we think. Boston, MA: Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier
Books.
Dowell, L. (1975). The effect of a competitive and cooperative
environment on the comprehension of a cognitive task. Journal of
Education Research, 68, 274-276.
Enos, S., & Morton, K. (2003). Developing a Theory and Practice of
Campus-Community Partnerships. In B. Jacoby & Associates
(Eds.), Building partnerships for service-learning (pp. 20-41). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (1999). Where’s the learning in service learning?
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fletcher, F., Rousell, D. D., Worrell, S., McLean, B., & Baydala, L.
(2012). Measuring academic capacity: Research in relationship.
Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 16(3),

46
99-102.
Fritz, M. (2002). Using a reading strategy to foster active learning in
content-area courses. Journal of College Reading and Learning,
32(2), 189-195.
Gelmon, S., Holland, B., Driscoll, A., Spring, A., & Kerrigan, S. (2001).
Assessing service-learning and civic engagement: Principles and
techniques. Providence, RI: Campus Compact.
Giroux, H. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo
Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy. Retrieved from http://
www.truthout.org/archive/item/87456.
Gray, J. (2005). Burning towers and ashen learning: September 11 and the
changes to critical literacy. The Australian Library Journal, 54(1),
6-23.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. Austin, TX:
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Hall, M., Lasby, D., Ayer, S., & Gibbons, W. (2009). Caring Canadians,
involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2007 Canada survey
of giving, volunteering and participating. Ottawa, ON: Statistics
Canada.
Honadle, B. W., & Kennealy, P. (2011). Using service learning & civic
engagement to educate students about stakeholder analysis.
Partnerships: A Journal of Service Learning & Civic Engagement,
2(1), 1-19.
Huckin, T. N. (1997). Technical writing and community service. Journal
of Business and Technical Communication, 11, 49-59.
Jacoby, B. (1996). Service learning in today’s higher education. In B.
Jacoby (Eds.), Service learning in higher education: Concepts and
practices (pp. 3-25). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kahne, J., Westheimer, J., & Rogers, B. (2000). Service-learning and
citizenship in higher education. Michigan Journal of Community
and Service Learning, Fall, S1, 42-51.
Kelly, K. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations
process. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp.
McCollough

279-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential learning: Evidence as the source of learning
and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall.
Kuban, A. J., O’Malley, M. M., & Florea, L. J. (2014). Students’
knowledge and perceived confidence in an interdisciplinary
experiential learning environment. Journal of Community
Engagement and Higher Education, 6(1), 30-38.
Lewis, A. C. (2002). Service learning. Education Digest, 67(8), 71-73.
Lloyd, C., Slater, J., & Robbs, B. (2000). The advertising marketplace and
the media planning course. Journalism and Mass Communication
Educator, 55(3), 4-13.
Lowell, E. L. (1952). The effect of need for achievement on learning and
speed performance. Journal of Psychology, 33, 31-42.
Lynott, P. A. (1998). Teaching business communication in an accelerated
program. Business Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 20-28.
McEachern, R. (2001). Problems in service learning and technical/
professional writing: Incorporating the perspective of nonprofit
management. Technical Communication Quarterly, 10(2), 211-224.
McElhaney, K. A. (1997). Outcomes of service learning: A comparative
analysis of curricular-based and non-curricular-based alternative
spring breaks. Paper presented to the National Society for
Experiential Education Conference, Kansas City, MO.
Melchior, A., & Bailis, L. N. (2002). Impact of service-learning on
attitudes and behaviors of middle and high school youth: Findings
from three national evaluations. In A. Furco & S. H. Billig (Eds.)
Service-learning: The essence of the pedagogy (pp. 201-222).
Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Miller, B. (1991). Service-learning in support of rural community
development. In A. Waterman (Ed.), Service-learning: Applications
from the research (pp. 107-126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
O’Leary, R. (2002). Advice to new teachers: Turn it inside out. PS:
Political Science and Politics, 35(1), 91-92.

48
Page, D., & Mukherjee, A. (2007). Promoting critical-thinking skills by
using negotiation exercises. Journal of Education for Business,
82(5), 251-257.
Rentner, T. L. (2012). Beyond the classroom: Developing statewide
competitive public relations campaigns. Teaching Public
Relations, 82. Retrieved from: http://aejmc.us/wp-content/uploads/
sites/23/2014/11/tpr82wi11.pdf.
Rudow, E., & Hautaluoma, J. (1975). Competition with oneself versus
others as a facilitator in the classroom. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 95, 281-282.
Strohm, S. M., & Baukus, R. A. (1995). Strategies for fostering critical-
thinking skills. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator,
50, 55-62.
Todd, V. (2014). Public relations supervisors and millennial entry-
level practitioners rate entry-level job skills and professional
characteristics. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 789-797.
Twenge, J. (2013). Teaching generation me. Teaching of Psychology,
40(1), 66-69.
Wandel, T.L. (2005). Outcomes of utilizing the service-learning
pedagogical approach in public relations writing. Does the benefit
outweigh the effort? Teaching Public Relations, 67. Retrieved
from http://aejmc.us/prd/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2014/11/
tpr67fall05.pdf
Wilson, B. (2012). Service learning in the public relations classroom: An
experiential approach to improving students’ critical-thinking and
problem-solving skills. Teaching Public Relations, 83. Retrieved
from: http://aejmc.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2014/11/
tpr83sp12.pdf.
McCollough
Editorial Record: Original draft submitted to the AEJMC-PRD Paper Competition by
April 1, 2017. Selected as a Top Teaching Paper. Submitted to JPRE on July 21, 2017.
Final revisions completed on May 5, 2018. First published online on May 21, 2018.

Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full issue

Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full issue

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full issue

Similar to Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full issue (20)

More from AEJMC Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE)

More from AEJMC Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Journal of Public Relations Education (JPRE) Vol. 4, Issue 1 Spring 2018 full issue