A Team-Teaching Approach to Advertising Campaigns Capstone Course

Abstract

Undergraduate advertising campaigns courses are known for their integration of knowledge, application of different skills, and group work. This capstone class partners with a real-world client and may be considered the last professional experience in an educational setting before students graduate. Using a multi-methods approach, this study describes a team-teaching method developed by advertising campaigns instructors at a mid-size private university in Florida, gauges students’ perceptions on several learning dimensions, and maps out how this course is taught in American universities.

Keywords

advertising education campaigns capstone empowerment team teaching

Undergraduate advertising campaigns, like other capstone courses, have at least three main objectives. First, it seeks to integrate students’ knowledge acquired throughout most of their undergraduate degree. Second, it encourages the application of learned skills to a real-world problem that must be solved using group work skills. Third, it seeks to prepare students for the opportunities and challenges they will face when they exit university into the real world (Beard, 1997). This class, therefore, is often taught as a practicum exercise (Whitlow, 2014) where the class (or teams) works on developing a full-scale advertising campaign for a real-world client.

Advertising campaigns courses are usually demanding and rewarding for both students and instructors. Students immerse themselves into the professional world by following tight deadlines and working on iterations at a very fast pace. When students take the campaigns class, it is expected that they know how to conduct research and develop a strategy, define a target market, plan a media strategy, generate social media and promotion strategies, and design creative executions. During this course, they have to stop thinking like students and embark into the professional world. This is rewarding, but at the same time challenging for students as they are still developing their skills and maturing as professionals in the field of advertising. Similarly, instructors are tasked with guiding students to complete work in a professional manner, as well as critique that work, all while making sure deadlines are followed. Furthermore, the planning of the course is challenging and resembles putting together a very large puzzle, where a missing piece can delay the completion of other parts of the puzzle. Oftentimes, this class is taught by a single instructor, who needs to oversee every detail of the campaign and make sure information is factual and “on strategy.”

Although not often applied in advertising courses, and specifically in campaign courses, some research has documented the value of team teaching (Everett, Siegal, & Marchant, 1999) in courses that merge advertising and public relations (Morris, 2016), or health communication (Mccain & Miller, 2013), and which incorporate a campaign element. This research posits that team teaching can blur disciplinary boundaries, helping integrate a variety of perspectives, as well as make the courses more relevant to industry (Gaytan, 2010; Helms et al., 2005; McCabe & Grant, 2007; Smith Ducoffe et al., 2006). This is especially important in courses such as advertising campaigns as NACE’s Job Outlook 2021 survey revealed that employers are seeking graduates that have strong ability to work in teams and problem-solving skills (Gray, 2021). Although the benefits of team teaching are evident, it is important to note that research also has documented the challenges associated with this method. In particular, marketing and business courses which have utilized the team-teaching method more frequently (Helms et al., 2005; Stafford, 1996), cite issues such as disagreements on course content (Conn, 2010; Gaytan, 2010; McCabe & Grant, 2007), power differences and struggles between instructors (Scherpereel & Bowers, 2006), and institutional difficulties (i.e., compensation, resources, evaluation) (Everett, Siegal, & Marchant, 1999).

The focus of an advertising campaigns course is usually on completing the campaign, acquiring professional experience, establishing a relationship with the client, and practicing hands-on assignments. While these course objectives facilitate the post-university careers of advertising students, advertising campaigns instructors rarely dedicate time to understanding how much these classes impact students’ affective and cognitive learning (Bloom, 1956; Kearney, 2004). Affective learning deals with the development of interests, attitudes, opinions, emotions, and values rather than the intellectual abilities associated with cognitive learning (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Rovai et al., 2009). In addition, we have limited information on how this course is taught in universities and colleges across the United States. Therefore, the purpose of this research is threefold: (1) we detail a team-teaching approach of an advertising campaigns capstone course developed by two advertising instructors, (2) we report the results of a survey with former students of advertising campaigns to understand how learner empowerment impacts affective and cognitive learning, and (3) we map out how advertising campaigns courses are taught in the United States by analyzing course descriptions available at the school’s website or online syllabi.

Literature Review

Early essays on advertising education document that advertising teaching started within business schools and marketing departments (Mandell, 1975), but after 1959, because of a reevaluation of their curriculum, business schools started to move away from technical training (which included advertising) to focus on managerial decision-making courses (Mandell, 1975). While these schools started to focus more and more on business courses, the availability of advertising courses was reduced considerably. Luckily, as journalism departments started to establish themselves as independent journalism schools, they also started to encompass other areas of mass communication, such as sequences or separate departments focused on advertising and public relations (Mandell, 1975; Ross, 1973; Ross et al., 2006).

These same early essays expose the challenges and divergent opinions related to what and how advertising should be taught (Moore & Leckenby, 1973; Ross, 1973; Sandage, 1955), which one can still see in today’s discussions (Banning & Schweitzer, 2007). In particular, discussions relate to the divide between teaching students advertising skills and techniques and/or a more conceptual, theoretical approach to advertising. In fact, Sandage (1955) explicitly mentioned in his article that his philosophy of advertising education was to “minimize strictly skills courses and to place emphasis on the “why” of advertising in its business and social environment” (p. 209).

Moore and Leckenby (1973) report in their early article that “advertising agencies and advertisers are finding that many of the college graduates entering our business are, in many cases, not adequately prepared for a career in advertising” (p. 6). However, this preoccupation still permeates recent discussions among advertising “practitioners” (Lee & Ryan, 2005) and educators in general (Succi & Canovi, 2020). For example, Succi and Canovi (2020) assert that employer groups have “blamed” and criticized higher education for not adequately preparing students to enter the workforce for over three decades. Their study further revealed that in the last 5–10 years, employers placed much more value on soft or transferable skills (Hurrell, 2016) and continuously highlighted graduates’ lack of such skills (Succi & Canovi, 2020). The NACE 2021 Survey (Gray, 2021) corroborates this trend and indicates that soft skills such as ability to work in teams, problem-solving, and communication are paramount for employers seeking to hire new talent. In the field of advertising specifically, Kerr and Proud’s (2005) study further validates the emphasis on soft skills (i.e., communication skills, personality traits) for entry-level jobs. Ducoffe and Ducoffe (1990) describe that industry professionals tend to appreciate the “real-world” learning experiences related to advertising education. Thus, courses such as advertising campaigns, courses that emphasize decision-making and organizational skills, and internships, are usually stressed by recruiters as a “must” during job interviews. Furthermore, advertising campaigns courses offer the opportunity to combine conceptual and practical work by adopting a team-teaching approach where a team of instructors might bring both perspectives based on their educational training and professional experience.

The Team-Teaching Approach

Team teaching is not a novel concept in education, but one that is not often applied or researched in advertising education (for examples of reported cases, please see Grau & Wilson, 2015; McCain & Miller, 2013). Team teaching can have a few variants, such as interdisciplinary teaching (Smith Ducoffe et al., 2006), teacher collaboration (Morris, 2016), co-teaching (Wang, 2012), joint teaching (Gaytan, 2010), and shared teaching (van Amelsvoort et al., 2010). Regardless of the operational variant used, Davis (1995) defines this approach as “all arrangements that include two or more faculty in some level of collaboration in the planning and delivery of a course” (p.8). It allows instructors to share responsibilities and to be equally present and available throughout the entire course (Davis & Winter, 2019).

van Amelsvoort et al. (2010) describe three forms of team teaching: parallel, rotational, and interactive. Parallel teaching refers to the primary type of team teaching, where several instructors teach the same course, but each one of them manages the content, logistics of the course, and independently delivers the content in the classroom. Rotational involves two instructors (usually from the same academic unit) in the development of the course but they split their time in the classroom, so only one instructor is lecturing at a time. Interactive teaching is the style of teaching that most closely relates to Davis’ (1995) definition: instructors develop, plan, and deliver the content together. Although not accounted in van Amelsvoort et al. (2010) types of team teaching, a fourth approach, interdisciplinary teaching centers on two or more instructors from different disciplines, training, or professions planning and delivering content in a classroom setting (Davis, 1995; McCabe & Grant, 2007; Morris, 2016; Smith Ducoffe et al., 2006). The present study reports on a blend of interactive and interdisciplinary team-teaching modality as this methodology was executed in the classroom by the authors.

Previous studies have presented and discussed the benefits of team teaching (Davis, 1995; Morris, 2016; Smith Ducoffe et al., 2006), such as the role of instructors’ different personalities and teaching styles in fulfilling students’ varied learning styles (Buckley, 2000), more elaborated feedback (Gaytan, 2010; Wadkins et al., 2006), more engaging and effective lectures and discussions (Buckley, 2000; van Amelsvoort et al., 2010), fostering students’ critical thinking and independent thought (Buckely, 2000; van Amelsvoort et al., 2010), and more holistic learning (Smith Ducoffe at al., 2006). Although these outcomes are unquestionably important, the present research focuses on understanding how student motivation and learner empowerment impacts affective and cognitive learning in a team-taught advertising campaigns class. The next section elucidates these concepts.

Motivation and Learner Empowerment

Previous research in educational psychology proposes that student motivation to learn is conceptualized either as trait or state (Brophy, 1987; Christophel, 1990). Trait motivation refers to an enduring predisposition toward learning, be it related to a specific class, topic, or in general. State motivation, on the other hand, refers to attitudes toward a specific class. While both constructs have been positively associated with learning, state motivation was a better predictor (Christophel, 1990).

Similarly, learner empowerment has been conceptualized within the domain of motivation, where the learner can experience it at the task level (state) or at a general level (trait). Empowerment has been defined as “the process of creating intrinsic task motivation by providing an environment and tasks which increase one’s feeling of self-efficacy and energy” (Frymier et al., 1996, p. 182–183). Overall, empowerment consists of four dimensions (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990): meaningfulness, competence, impact, and choice. Meaningfulness refers to the value of the task in relation to one’s own beliefs. If a task is not perceived to be meaningful, then one might not be motivated to generate quality work (Glasser, 1990; Frymier et al., 1996). Competence relates to one’s own ability to perform a task. Empowerment is lessened when a student lacks self-confidence or is intimidated by the proposed task (Frymier et al., 1996; Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Impact refers to how much one believes what they do can make a difference. The more impact the student believes they have, the more motivated they should feel (Frymier et al., 1996). Choice refers to one’s self-determination of the tasks and goals to accomplish them. The more choice one has, the greater the empowerment (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Spreitzer (1995) conceptualizes empowerment in a similar fashion as the research just discussed. However, for the last dimension (i.e., choice), Spreitzer (1995) conceptualized choice as self-determination, or “an individual’s sense of having choice in initiating and regulating actions” (p. 1443).

In this study, we seek to understand how motivational factors (such as state motivation and learner empowerment) impact student’s cognitive and affective learning in the context of a team-taught advertising campaigns class. The learning construct has been conceptualized by Bloom (1956) and encompasses three dimensions: affective, which is the development of favorable or unfavorable attitudes toward learning; behavioral, the development of psychomotor skills or observable behavior change as a function of learning, and cognitive, one’s comprehension and retention of knowledge (Bloom, 1956; Richmond et al., 1987). We will focus on affective and cognitive learning. As such, in this study, we seek to understand how much students feel empowered after taking a hands-on team-taught course, and how their level of empowerment impacts their affective and cognitive learning. Specifically, we propose the following research question and hypotheses:

RQ1

What is students’ level of empowerment and motivation after taking an advertising campaigns course?

H1a

The more learner empowerment, the higher students’ affective learning toward content, class, and instructor.

H1b

The more state motivation, the higher students’ affective learning toward content, class, and instructor.

H2a

The more learner empowerment, the higher students’ cognitive learning.

H2b

The more state motivation, the higher students’ cognitive learning.

Before we delve into the methodological aspects of this research, it is important to present a description of the team-teaching approach utilized by the instructors. The next section delineates the team-teaching approach.

Description of a Team-Teaching Approach in an Advertising Campaigns Course

The team-teaching method described here is a blend of the interactive approach reported by van Amelsvoort et al. (2010) with the interdisciplinary approach. The course is considered interactive because both instructors developed, planned, and taught the course together. It is considered interdisciplinary because the instructors come from different backgrounds. One has an academic background, with a Ph.D. in mass communication as a terminal degree, and the other has extensive experience in the field of advertising with a MFA in graphic design as a terminal degree. Next, we delineate our team-teaching approach of the advertising campaigns course.

Course Structure of the Educational Ad Agency (“Ed Ad Agency”)

During a 16-week period, students work with a real-world client to develop a full-scale advertising campaign and are divided into two teams: Account Planning & Media and Creative teams. Each team is further broken down to encompass specific functions, such as research, data analysis, design, photography, social media, and others. Students are placed into a team based on an initial survey asking about their major (and minor if applicable) and their skill level on a series of software and previous experiences (i.e., SPSS, Adobe Creative Suite, photography, writing, among others). After students are placed into their assigned team and specific functions, each team elects a director and associate director. These students are the point of contact between the rest of the team and the professors, as well as the other team. Therefore, the goal is for students to work as if they are part of an advertising agency, or the “Ed Ad Agency” (i.e., short for Educational Advertising Agency) where they hold meetings (in and outside of class), develop presentation decks, and keep each other updated on the progress of the campaign. Once a client is selected for the class, the client visits the classroom where they deliver the client brief which delineates the problem students should focus on throughout the semester. During the semester, the client might be contacted for inquiries such as social media reports, interviews, and when feasible, a visit from the students to a store or headquarters. The client also commits to visiting the classroom at the end of the semester when students deliver the final presentation and plans books.

Campaigns Handbook and Completion of Components

At the beginning of the semester, students receive two documents: the class syllabus and the Campaigns Handbook. The handbook is a 45-page document delineating every aspect of the course, from class expectations, detailed explanation of assignments, to examples of previous campaigns and useful resources. During the semester, each team is responsible for completing 12 components (see Table 1 for a brief description of the components) which will later be included in the final plans book. For each component, a small group of students works together and then delivers a presentation to the entire class. Therefore, every single student in the class presents in front of the class. These presentations are called “weekly briefs” where students report the progress on a given component, ask for feedback, brainstorm, and discuss next steps. Depending on the scope of the component, students might have a turnaround of one or 2 weeks to prepare for the weekly briefings. Most of the class time is dedicated to these briefs where students from both teams have an opportunity to stay up to date with the overall development of the campaign. After each weekly brief, the instructors provide feedback. The feedback ranges from presentation skills and delivery of information on deck slides, content presented to suggestions for improvement. Students also receive written feedback on reports. Since this class is team-taught, each instructor oversees the development and completion of components of one team. However, both instructors attend every class, presentation, and provide feedback in every weekly briefing and written report.

Table 1.

Components Assigned to the Account Planning & Media and Creative Teams

Component #	Account Planning & Media	Creative Team
Component 1	Situation analysis + SWOT + media research	Agency branding
Component 2	Focus groups analysis and write-up	Review of client’s and competitors past and current campaigns
Component 3	Survey analysis and write-up (including visuals)	Concepts/moodboard pitch 1
Component 4	Creative research analysis and write-up (including visuals)	Concepts pitch 2
Component 5	Creative brief + insights file	Social/Promo ideas + rationale pitch 1
Component 6	Concept/Copy testing presentation and report	Social/Promo ideas + rationale pitch 2
Component 7	Social media monitoring study due	Book design templates
Component 8	Target market media usage + vehicle list + media dimensions + social media features analysis report	Rough executions for concept/copy testing
Component 9	Calendar and budget breakdown	Art direction plan
Component 10	Reach and frequency flowchart	Social media brand guide
Component 11	Media strategy write-up	Creative + social media/promotions strategy write-up
Component 12	Executive summary + campaign evaluation + campaign objectives	Final executions

Peer Evaluations

To maintain student engagement and accountability for their work and performance in the campaign, every student completes a midterm and a final peer evaluation, assessing their teammates on topics such as collegiality, quality of work, and meeting attendance. These peer evaluations help instructors spot any issues and discuss with the team the best strategy to solve them.

Plans Book and Campaign Presentation

The semester-long work on the campaign culminates with a summary of all components packed into a plans book which describes all research, strategy, creative executions, media plan, and evaluation. Once finished, the plans book is sent to print and copies are distributed to the client, as well as any digital file with creative executions. In addition to the plans book, a group of five students delivers the final presentation of the campaign to the client on behalf of the entire class. The presenters are chosen based on their presentation skills during the weekly briefs.

Methods

Student Survey

Participants and Procedure

To answer the research question and hypotheses, we conducted a survey with a sample of former students from several semesters (from Spring 2016 to Fall 2018). During this period, we have taught 160 students in the advertising campaigns course. An email invitation was sent to each student containing a brief introduction to the survey and a link to take the survey. We also contacted students via the Facebook groups created at the time of each class. As an incentive for students' time taking the survey, personalized t-shirts were designed and sent to each participant as a token of appreciation. A total of 48 students participated in the survey, resulting in a 30% response rate. Once students read the informed consent and agreed to participate, the survey loaded the questions.

Independent Variables

Learner empowerment was measured using Frymier et al. (1996) measure. This scale consists of 30 items using a 5-point scale that ranges from never (0) to very often (4). The scale measures four dimensions of empowerment: meaningfulness (“I work hard for class because I want to, not because I have to”), competence (“I feel confident that I can adequately perform my duties”), impact (“My participation is important to the success of the class”), and choice (“I typically do more work than is required by the syllabus”). Cronbach alpha for the scale was 0.90.

State motivation was measured using Richmond’s (1990) motivation scale which consisted of 12 bipolar items measured with 7-points. Sample items were “interested-not interested,” “involved-not involved.” Cronbach alpha for the scale was 0.91.

Dependent Variables

Affective learning was measured using McCroskey’s (1994) Affective Learning Scale and asked respondents to rate their attitudes toward the (1) the content of the course ( $α = .65)$ , (2) the class ( $α = .86)$ , and (3) instructors of the course ( $α = .72)$ . Items one and three were measured using a 4-item, 7-point bipolar scale (bad–good, valuable–worthless, unfair–fair, positive–negative), and item two used the following bipolar terms: unlikely–likely, possible–impossible, improbable–probable, would–would not.

Cognitive learning was measured using the learning loss scale (Richmond et al., 1987). This measure consists of two questions: “How much did you learn in this class?” and “How much do you think you could have learned in the class had you had an ideal instructor?” Both items used a 0 (nothing) to 9 (more than in any other class) point scale. The score is obtained by subtracting the response from the first question from the second (McCroskey, 1994).

Additional Measures

To assess the value of the team-teaching method, students were asked to complete a 4-item scale centered on their perceived value of a team-taught class. Scale items included: “Having two professors teach a single course is unusual,” “The team-teaching approach serves students’ needs,” “Two professors in the same classroom for each session provides twice the value of the learning experience,” “I would take another team-taught course.” Items were measured with a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Morris, 2016). Students were asked to report their age, gender, and the team they worked in during the campaign.

Analysis of Course Descriptions

To map out advertising campaign courses in the United States, we conducted a small-scale content analysis. Using Ross and Richards’ (2017) “Where shall I go to study Advertising and Public Relations” publication and a search on Google for colleges and universities that offer advertising degrees, we searched for each university or college advertising campaigns course (in the school’s or department’s website, as well as any available online syllabi) and coded (0—absent; 1—present) for the following, when available: (1) undergraduate course integration (course description explicitly mentions that students would integrate lessons from previous courses, using vocabulary such as “capstone,” “synthesize,” and “integrate”), (2) full-scale campaign creation (explicitly mentions that students will create an advertising campaign), and (3) real-world preparation (explicit mentions of real-world preparation, either in the form of interacting with a real client, constructing an ad campaign for a real product/brand, offering real-world experiences such as pitches to real clients). NSAC courses were not included in the sample because they follow a set of guidelines, rules, and deadlines that are different from traditional advertising campaigns courses.

Results

Student Survey

Most participants were female (52.1%), had an average age of 23 years old, and while taking advertising campaigns, 43.8% (n = 21) were assigned to the Creative team. The first research question asked about the level of learner’s empowerment and motivation after taking an advertising campaigns course. Descriptive statistics show that of the four dimensions of empowerment, students scored highest in meaningfulness (M = 4.21, SD = 0.67), followed by choice (M = 4.09, SD = 0.75) and impact (M = 4.07, SD = 0.73), and finally competence (M = 3.46, SD = 0.42). Overall, students reported high levels of motivation toward the class (M = 5.69, SD = 1.08).

H1a predicted the more learner empowerment, the higher students’ affective learning would be. To test this prediction, we ran three multiple logistic regression models for each of the dimensions of affective learning: content, class, and instructor. Overall, the results showed that two predictors (meaningfulness and competence) explained 61.7% of the variance for content (R² =.38, F (4,43) = 6.617, p < .001), 60.2% of the variance for class (R² =.36, F (4,43) = 6.125, p < .01), and 69.1% of the variance for instructor (R² =.47, F (4,43) = 9.816, p < .001). In all three models (Figure 1, Panel A, B, and C), meaningfulness positively predicted affective learning (content: β = 0.52, p < .01; class: β = 0.82, p < .01, instructor: β = 0.66, p < .01), while competence negatively predicted affective learning (β = −0.53, p < .01; class: β = −0.28, p < .05, instructor: β = −0.56, p < .001) (Figure 1, Panel D, E, and F). H1a was supported for the learner empowerment dimension of meaningfulness only. When state motivation (H1b) was entered into the model as an independent variable, it significantly predicted students’ affective learning toward content (R² = .52, F (1,45) = 49.244, p < .001, β = .72, p < .001), class (R² = .59, F (1,45) = 65.899, p < .001, β = .77, p < .001), and instructor (R² =.54, F (1,45) = 53.280, p < .001, β = .73, p < .001). H1b was supported.

Figure 1.

Logistic regression results for meaningfulness and competence dimensions on affective learning measures.

H2a predicted the more learner empowerment, the higher students' cognitive learning would be. The results of the regression did not yield significant results. H2a was not supported. When state motivation (H2b) was entered into the model as an independent variable, it significantly predicted students’ cognitive learning (R² = .14, F (1,45) = 7.442, p < .01, β = .37, p < .01). H2b was supported.

Students’ perceptions of the value of a team-teaching course were especially high for their willingness to take another team-taught course (M = 4.33, SD = .92), that this methodology serves students’ needs (M = 4.30, SD = 1.08), and that it offers twice the value of the learning experience (M = 3.97, SD = 1.18).

Analysis of Course Descriptions

We identified a total of 118 colleges and universities in the United States that teach advertising at the undergraduate level. Of those, the majority offered an advertising campaigns course (86.5%, n = 103). Based on the description of the course, 59.6% (n = 71) of these courses do not refer to advertising campaigns as an integration or capstone course, but 66.3% (n = 79) of the institutions that offer the class, require students to create a campaign. However, the majority (55.4%, n = 66) of these course descriptions do not mention real-world prep, such as interacting with clients or developing pitches.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to detail a team-teaching approach for an undergraduate advertising campaigns class, to assess students’ affective and cognitive learning as a function of their learner empowerment and motivation, and to map out how advertising campaigns courses are taught in colleges and universities in the United States.

The results of the student survey revealed that learner empowerment among students is particularly high for the dimensions of meaningfulness and choice. The advertising campaigns class was seen as in line with students’ value system and meaningful to be applied later in their careers (Glasser, 1990). In addition, students felt that they had freedom to accomplish tasks related to the campaign and the work they were executing (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Students’ reported state motivation toward the class was also high.

In terms of affective learning toward content, class, and instructor, both meaningfulness and competence were revealed to be predictors, but in different ways. As seen in Figure 1 (Panels A, B, and C), as meaningfulness increased, so did affective learning for the three dimensions, while the opposite was seen for competence (Figure 1, Panels D, E, and F). The more competent the student felt, the lower the affective learning toward the course, class, and instructor. As meaningfulness represents the value of the task in relation to one’s own beliefs and standards, it is safe to conclude that the advertising campaigns class is highly useful for students as it employs practical and real exercises. As such, because students have such a high perception of meaningfulness from this class (M = 4.21), their affective learning increases accordingly. Interestingly, the same does not apply for the competence dimension of learner empowerment. In this domain, competence refers to the feelings of being capable and qualified to perform activities related to the task. As students felt more competent, their affective learning toward the content, class, and instructor decreased. In a way this makes sense as once you learn something, you feel equipped to do it on your own, and there is less dependency on external factors (i.e., instructors, class). While we do not have a definite answer for that, this result could be related to the fact that students answered this question after the course was complete, and that a different picture could have emerged if there was a comparison between students just starting the course versus those who have completed it. State motivation positively predicted affective learning for the three dimensions (content, class, and instructor). Overall, as their state motivation increased, so did their affective learning. This result is important because it shows how motivation toward a course can foster overall learning and positive experiences, even during a demanding class such as advertising campaigns.

Cognitive learning did not yield significant results for any of the learner empowerment dimensions, but we found that state motivation did predict cognitive learning. The higher students’ motivation toward the course, the higher their cognitive learning. As explained previously, cognitive learning involves the comprehension and retention of knowledge. The lack of significant results from learner empowerment on this measure could be due to the fact that when students participated in the survey, they were starting out in the advertising industry (only 18 students were employed in advertising or related fields at that time). Therefore, it could be the case that they have not had the chance to apply their retained knowledge in the real world. Furthermore, it seems that more straightforward motivation variables (such as state motivation) are more effective in predicting learning than learner empowerment per se.

Students had a positive outlook toward a team-teaching approach which was evidenced by their answers to perceptions of the value of team-teaching. Overall, they highly agreed that team-teaching serves students’ needs well, that they would take more team-taught courses, and that having two professors in the classroom is valuable for their learning experience.

The analysis of the course descriptions revealed that many of the institutions that offer advertising campaigns require students to create a campaign. This is important because it answers the calls from industry professionals who emphasize the need for hands-on and practical exercises for students before entering the workforce. However, it was interesting to observe that more than half of these institutions that offer campaigns, do not describe this course as an integration-type of course. This, by no means, is a problem, but perhaps could be due to a variety of teaching methods applied in this class. It could be that these classes do not necessarily adopt an agency format, but perhaps a case study format (as some indicated in their course descriptions). Furthermore, more than 50% of these courses did not include the “real world prep” jargon in their descriptions, which could indicate that in some colleges and universities across the country, students might not be creating campaigns for real-world clients, or that they do not get to interact with a client throughout the semester.

Implications for Teaching

We hope the findings of this study provide guidance to those instructors who teach or plan to teach advertising campaigns in the future. While the team-teaching methodology presented here is by no means perfect, it is a tested and proven method of teaching a challenging course such as advertising campaigns. In addition, by analyzing how motivational factors such as learner empowerment and state motivation impact affective and cognitive learning, it brings to the attention of instructors what might be relevant from a student perspective.

Limitations and Future Research

A limitation of this study is that the student survey was done retrospectively instead of during the semester that students were taking the course. For the future, it could be useful to gather responses from students at the beginning and end of the semester so differences between their affective and cognitive learning are perceived as a result of the time of the survey and knowledge acquired throughout the semester. This method would also guarantee a larger sample size. In addition, future studies could include an examination of advertising campaigns courses that are solo-taught as a point of comparison with a team-taught course. This methodology has the potential to return interesting comparisons related to motivation and learner empowerment. While a descriptive analysis of the course descriptions is useful as a first step to understand how advertising campaigns are taught in the United States, a more in-depth analysis of syllabi and a survey with instructors who teach this course would provide further insights related to integration, campaign creation, real-world prep, and teaching method.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of Miami School of Communication Creative Activity and Research Grants.

ORCID iD

Juliana Fernandes

References

Anderson

Krathwohl

D. R.

(2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.

Banning

S. A.

Schweitzer

J. C.

(2007). What advertising educators think about advertising education. Journal of Advertising Education, 11(2), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/109804820701100205

Beard

(1997). Preparing campaigns students for group work. Journal of Advertising Education, 2(1), 54–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/109804829700200106

Bloom

B. S.

(1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives (Vol. 1). Cognitive domainLongmans, Green.

Brophy

(1987). On motivating students. In Berliner

D. C.

Rosenshine

B. V.

(Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 201–245). Random House.

Buckley

F. J.

(2000). Team teaching: What, why, and how? Sage.

Christophel

D. M.

(1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39(4), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378813

Conn

C. E.

(2010). Learning the hard way (but still learning!): Using team teaching as a vehicle for pedagogical change. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 87–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569909358098.

Davis

J. R.

(1995). Interdisciplinary courses and team teaching: New arrangements for learning. American Council on Education and the Oryx Press.

10.

Davis

Winter

(2019). Team teaching the active way: A case study about the student learning experience. Journal of Instructional Research, 8(1), 33–38. https://doi.org/10.9743/jir.2019.1.3

11.

Ducoffe

R. H.

Ducoffe

S. J.

(1990). Tips from top advertising executives: Implications for advertising education. Journal of Marketing Education, 12(1), 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/105256299001200108.

12.

Everett

M. W.

Siegel

C. F.

Marchant

M. J.

(1999). An interdisciplinary team teaching model: A web-based project approach for teaching integrated marketing communication. Journal of Advertising Education, 3(2), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/109804829900300208.

13.

Frymier

A. B.

Shulman

G. M.

Houser

(1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529609379048

14.

Gaytan

(2010). Instructional strategies to accommodate a team-teaching approach. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 82–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569909358097

15.

Glasser

(1990). The quality school: Managing students without coercion. Harper and Row Publishers.

16.

Grau

S. L.

Wilson

(2015). Welcome to the “real world”: The faculty-professional team teaching approach. Journal of Advertising Education, 19(1), 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/109804821501900107

17.

Gray

(2021, April 19). The attributes employers seek on students’ resume. National Association of College and Employers. https://www.naceweb.org/talent-acquisition/candidate-selection/the-attributes-employers-seek-on-students-resumes/?utm_source=spotlight-college

18.

Helms

M. M.

Alvis

J. M.

Willis

(2005). Planning and implementing shared teaching: An MBA team-teaching case study. Journal of Education for Business, 81(1), 29–34. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOEB.81.1.29-34

19.

Hurrell

S. A.

(2016). Rethinking the soft skills deficit blame game: Employers, skills withdrawal and the reporting of soft skills gaps. Human Relations, 69(3), 605–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726715591636

20.

Kearney

(2004). Affective learning scale. In Rubin

R. B.

Rubin

A. M.

Graham

E. E.

Perse

E. M.

Seibold

(Eds.), Communication research measures II: A sourcebook (pp. 81–85). Routledge.

21.

Kerr

Proud

(2005). Hiring graduates: Perspectives from advertising and public relations employers In ANZMAC 2005: Broadening the boundaries. Conference proceedings, University of Western Australia Business School, Australia, (pp. 95–100). University of Western Australia Business School.

22.

Lee

T. T.

Ryan

W. E.

(2005). Advertising creative practitioners on the value of advertising education: An overview. Journal of Advertising Education, 9(2), 14–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/109804829900300208.

23.

Mandell

(1975). A forum for issues in advertising education. Journal of Advertising, 4(4), 7–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1975.10672601

24.

McCabe

Grant

K. M.

(2007). Making marketing history: An interdisciplinary team teaching approach. Marketing Education Review, 17(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10528008.2007.11488982

25.

McCain

Miller

A. N.

(2013). Evaluation of a joint health communication campaign simulation between an Ad/PR capstone course and a health communication class. Journal of Advertising Education, 17(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/109804821301700103

26.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication. In SCA summer conference proceedings and prepared remarks: Assessing college student competence in speech communication, Old-Town-Alexandria, VA, August4–7, 1994. Speech Communication Association.

27.

Moore

Leckenby

(1973). The quality of advertising education today. Journal of Advertising, 2(2), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1973.10672491

28.

Morris

P. K.

(2016). Team teaching of creative advertising and public relations courses. Journal of Advertising Education, 20 (1/2), 44-53. https://doi.org/10.1177/10980482160201-205

29.

Richmond

V. P.

(1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication Education, 39(3), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634529009378801

30.

Richmond

V. P.

Gorham

J. S.

McCroskey

J. C.

(1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. Annals of the International Communication Association, 10(1), 574–590. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1987.11678663

31.

Ross

B. I.

(1973). Advertising education. Journal of Advertising, 2(2), 18–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1973.10672494

32.

Ross

B. I.

Osborne

A. C.

Richards

J. I.

(2006). Advertising education: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Advertising Education Publications.

33.

Ross

B. I.

Richards

J. I.

(2017). Where shall I go to study advertising and public relations. American Academy of Advertising.

34.

Rovai

A. P.

Wighting

M. J.

Baker

J. D.

Grooms

L. D.

(2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.002

35.

Sandage

C. H.

(1955). A philosophy of advertising education. Journalism Quarterly, 32(2), 209–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769905503200210

36.

Scherpereel

C. M.

Bowers

M. Y.

(2006). Team teaching in an integrated business course. In Developments in business simulation and experiential learning. Proceedings of the Annual ABSEL Conference (33), San Francisco.

37.

Smith Ducoffe

S. J. S.

Tromley

C. L.

Tucker

(2006). Interdisciplinary, team taught, undergraduate business courses: The impact of integration. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 276–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052562905284663

38.

Spreitzer

G. M.

(1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(5), 1442–1465. https://doi.org/10.5465/256865

39.

Stafford

T. F.

(1996). A tale of two cities: Team teaching in action. Journal of Marketing Education, 18(3), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/027347539601800302

40.

Succi

Canovi

(2020). Soft skills to enhance graduate employability: Comparing students and employers’ perceptions. Studies in Higher Education, 45(9), 1834–1847. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2019.1585420

41.

Thomas

K. W.

Velthouse

B. A.

(1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: An “interpretive” model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15(4), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1990.4310926

42.

van Amelsvoort

van Wijk

den Ouden

(2010). Going Dutch or joining forces? Some experiences with team teaching in the Netherlands. Business Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 96–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569909358100

43.

Wadkins

Miller

R. L.

Wozniak

(2006). Team teaching: Student satisfaction and performance. Teaching of Psychology, 33(2), 118–120. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3302_8

44.

Wang

M. T.

(2012). Educational and career interests in math: A longitudinal examination of the links between classroom environment, motivational beliefs, and interests. Developmental Psychology, 48(6), 1643–1657. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027247

45.

Whitlow

S. S.

(2014). Rehearsing campaign planning at the start of the capstone course: The inverted case study approach. Journal of Advertising Education, 18(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/109804821401800106