Public relations education: Where is pedagogy?

Public Relations Review

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 55-63

  Coombs, W Timothy ^a   Rybacki, Karyn ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033096197     PISSN: 03638111     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80127-1     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. 1. The 1989 special education issue of Public Relations Review and the 1987 Commission on Public Relations Education reflect this emphasis.
2. 2. See the article on the survey by Don Stacks in this issue.
3. 3. Members of the task team included: Jerry M. Anderson, Concordia College, Mark J. Banks, Slippery Rock University, Vince Benigni, University of Georgia, Carry Bolan, Towson University, Renee Botta, Cleveland State University, Josh Boyd, Purdue University, Thomas Boyle, Susquehanna University, Patricia Chantrill, Gonzaga University, Isa Engleberg, Prince George's Community College, Denise P. Ferguson, University of Indianapolis, Steve Iseman, Ohio Northern University, Casma Now Keafor, Bowie State University, Michael Kent, Emporia State University, Debra Kernisky, Northern Michigan University, Rachel Kovas, University of Maryland, Ruth Ann Weaver Lariscy, University of Georgia, Chuck Lubbers, Kansas State University, Meera Manui, Graceland College/Washington State University, Becky McDonald, Ball State University, David Ritchey, University of Akron, Denise Rossitto, George Washington University, Valerie Terry, Boston University, Rochelle Tillery-Larking, Howard University, and Reno C. Unger, Kutztown University.
4. 4. Mary Mino and Marilynn N. Butler, "A Traditional Lecture Approach Versus a Collaborative Approach: A Comparison of Student Performance Outcomes," Communication Research Reports 14(1997), pp. 493-507.
5. 5. Dugan Laird and Ruth House, Interactive Classroom Instruction (Glenview, IL: Scott and Foresman, 1984).
6. 6. Charles A. Lubbers and Diane A. Gorcyca, "Using Active Learning in Public Relations Instruction: Demographic Predictors of Faculty Use," Public Relations Review 23(1997), pp. 67-80.
7. 7. Robert B. Barr and John Tagg, "From Teaching to Learning - A New Paradigm for Undergraduate Education," Change 27 (Nov.-Dec. 1995), pp. 12-26.
8. 8. Diane F. Witmer, "Introduction to Computer-Mediated Communication: A Master Syllabus for Teaching Communication Technology," Communication Education 47(1998), pp. 162-173.
9. 9. Ibid., pp. 168-169.
10. 10. Meaningful significance means p < .05 and either one of both means were above 4.0 or the differences between the means fairly large.
11. 11. Mary Mino and Marilynn N. Butler, op. cit., p. 497.
12. 12. Two other differences are worth noting because of their relationship to the group discussions. Practitioners were more likely to use role playing and simulations/games than educators. Educators bemoaned the lack of resources for role playing and simulations/games in the group discussions. These two IDTs are common in organizational training. It follows that practitioners might have greater exposure to and better resources for utilizing role playing and simulations/games. Educators seem eager to close the gap on these two IDTs. We must find and exploit the advantages practitioners have in utilizing role playing and simulations/games.
13. 13. Jo Sprague, "Retrieving the Research Agenda for Communication Education," Communication Education 42 (1993), pp. 106-107.
14. 14. Ibid., pp. 106-107.
15. 15. See Glen T. Cameron and Patricia A. Curtin, "An Expert Systems Approach for PR Campaigns Research," Journalism Educator 47 (Summer, 1992), pp. 13-18.
16. 16. See William B. Gudykunst, Stella Ting-Toomey, and Richard L. Wiseman, "Taming the Beast: Designing a Course in Intercultural Communication," Communication Education 40 (1991), pp. 272-285. The authors describe design features for interdisciplinary courses, emphasizing cognitive, affective, and behavioral; goals for teaching-learning.