This document describes a new approach to teaching public relations campaigns that aims to address problems with the traditional "divide and conquer" method. The traditional approach has students divide into static teams that each work independently on separate sections of a campaign. This often results in unequal work distribution and a lack of collaboration. The new approach requires students to serve on rotating research, campaign book, and strategy teams throughout the semester. Each team is responsible for developing a specific section, with all students providing input. This encourages collaboration, ensures all students understand the entire campaign, and solves issues around work distribution and quality associated with the traditional method.

1. From Divide and Conquer to Dynamic
Teamwork: A New Approach to Teaching
Public Relations Campaigns
Kristen Heflin, Kennesaw State University
Shana Meganck, Virginia Commonwealth University
Approximately 80% of public relations programs offer a public relations cam-
paigns course and the course is required for almost 90% of public relations majors (Be-
nigni, Cheng, & Cameron, 2004). According to the most recent surveys of public relations
campaigns teaching methods, 92% of instructors divide students into teams to handle the
work and about 90% of classes operate using an “agency structure” with most instructors
serving as an “adviser” or “coach” (Benigni, Cheng, & Cameron, 2004, p. 265). This “im-
plies a pedagogical strategy that emphasizes student/team autonomy rather than a didactic
approach directed by the professor” (Benigni & Cameron, 1999, p. 55).
While emphasizing student/team autonomy has the potential to improve critical
thinking and strategic planning skills, the authors of this article also found that it can lead to
a “divide and conquer problem” where students divide up parts of the campaign and work
on sections alone. This approach frequently results in an unequal distribution of work,
clunky writing, and campaigns that do not meet the needs of the client because they are
either low quality, internally inconsistent, or repetitive. Another negative side effect of the
divide-and-conquer phenomenon is that few students fully understand the strategic plan-
ning process.
To help public relations campaigns instructors address these problems, this ar-
ticle will start by reviewing important literature on teaching public relations campaigns,
active learning, and the benefits and challenges of teamwork in the classroom. It will then
detail a step-by-step guide for implementing a new approach to teaching public relations
campaigns that requires students to actively participate in each step of the campaign-plan-
ning process. After discussing steps for implementing this new approach, the article will
conclude with a discussion of how this approach solves the problems associated with the
traditional approach to teaching public relations campaigns.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Teaching Public Relations Campaigns
The goal of public relations campaigns is for students to apply all of the skills
they have learned in previous public relations courses, such as public relations writing,
graphics, research, strategic planning, and public speaking. Because public relations cam-
paigns gives students the opportunity to utilize these previously developed skills, it is often
the capstone of a public relations curriculum (Benigni, Cheng, & Cameron, 2004; Worley,
2001). There are, however, two things that make the public relations campaigns course
Journal of Public Relations Education
2017, Vol. 3, No. 1, 50-58

2. Vol. 3 (1), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 51
unique. First, students get the chance to build a campaign from research through evalua-
tion. Second, it gives students the opportunity to build relationships with team members
and clients. Worley (2001) echoes these points saying, “While research, writing and pro-
duction, and familiarity with the basic structure of a campaign have been developed in
earlier courses, the opportunity to apply these skills while working for an actual client is
the essence of this course” (p. 48).
In addition to working with clients and building a campaign from start to finish,
encouraging teamwork and emphasizing team autonomy are common pedagogical ap-
proaches for public relations campaign instructors because developing group work skills is
imperative for professional contexts (Beccaria, Kek, Huijser, Rose, & Kimmins, 2014; Be-
nigni & Cameron, 1999). According to Worley (2001), of the nine objectives that guide the
structure and process of the public relations campaigns course, one is related to teamwork,
suggesting students must “work as a team including delegating responsibilities, meeting
deadlines, and coordinating activities” (p. 49). Worley (2001) goes on to say:
Probably the most difficult aspect of the learning process for students is . . . to
overcome obstacles in effective communication within groups. . . . Students must
understand the nature of such critical issues as interdependence, conflict manage-
ment, decision-making in groups, and the nature and development of group roles
and norms, among others. (p. 51)
Service learning is one way to develop these important teamwork skills in the
public relations campaigns course. Through student work preformed for real clients, stu-
dents in the public relations capstone learn to build client trust and satisfaction, boost criti-
cal thinking, and increase social responsibility (Benigni, Cheng & Cameron, 2004; Werder
& Strand, 2011).
Active Learning
The literature on teaching public relations concludes that public relations courses
should include “real-world” situations, and because of the often didactic nature of intro-
ductory public relations courses, upper-level courses should foster “active learning” or
other group work initiatives that encourage real-world learning opportunities (Benigini,
Cheng & Cameron, 2004, p. 260). Active learning is defined as “anything that involves
students in doing things and thinking about the things they are doing” (Bonwell & Eison,
1991, p. 2), and it includes several learning strategies, such as involving students in more
than listening, encouraging skill development instead of just transmitting information, en-
gaging students in activities, and giving students the opportunity to explore their own atti-
tudes and values (Lubbers & Gorcyca, 1997).
Lubbers and Gorcyca (1997) emphasize the importance of active learning in pub-
lic relations for increasing student involvement in the classroom through engaging students
in class discussion and class presentations. This participatory learning/teaching allows stu-
dents to not only practice, but also see and learn from the results of their practice (Lubbers
& Gorcyca, 1997; McKeachie, 1994).
The public relations campaigns capstone promotes the principles of active learn-
ing by developing socialization skills through emphasizing teamwork, teaching students
how to research and present detailed information, creating more independent learners, and

3. Heflin & Meganck 52
providing a bridge between theory and practice (Lubbers & Gorcyca, 1997).
Benefits and Challenges of Teamwork
Pedagogical research has found that there are several benefits to teamwork, such
as increased knowledge and retention, boosted motivation among participants, and im-
proved attitudes toward learning (Chiriac, 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 1986). Additionally,
group learning fosters socialization, promotes critical thinking, develops a better under-
standing of cultural backgrounds, and provides practice and preparation of important group
work skills that are needed in the workplace (Beccaria, Kek, Huijser, Rose & Kimmins,
2014; Chiriac, 2014). According to Gillies and Boyle (2011), these benefits of group work
are consistent regardless of age. However, while there are several benefits, teamwork also
presents challenges, including perceptions of unfair distribution of workload, poor com-
munication, conflict among group members, lack of formal leadership, and culturally dif-
ferent approaches to work (Becccaria, Kek, Huijser, Rose & Kimmins, 2014; Hassanien,
2006; McGraw & Tidwell, 2001). Specifically, Werder and Strand (2011) contended that
“negative team dynamics, when present, can become the central focus of students and may
impede the learning process” (p. 484). Silverman (2007) also concluded teamwork can cre-
ate a free-rider problem where some students may not do their fair share of work, creating
resentment among team members and potentially reducing the quality of the final product.
Approach
After experiencing several problems associated with the traditional approach to
teaching public relations campaigns, the authors decided to completely redesign the way
they implemented the course. To do so, the authors drew from the literature on teaching
public relations campaigns, the value of active learning, and the benefits and challenges of
teamwork. The new approach discussed below was implemented in 13 campaigns classes
at two universities across six semesters.
Drawing from the findings in the literature on the benefits of teamwork (Beccaria,
Kek, Huijser, Rose & Kimmins, 2014; Chiriac, 2014; Johnson & Johnson, 1986), team-
work remains an essential aspect of the course. However, instead of splitting students into
static teams that work together the entire semester to develop their own distinct campaign,
the authors have the entire class develop one campaign. At the end of the semester, the
client receives one research report, one campaign book, and one comprehensive set of tac-
tic prototypes. To do this, students serve on three different types of teams throughout the
semester: a research team, a campaign book team, and a strategy team.
Research Teams
At the beginning of the semester each student serves on one of several research
teams. Depending on the client’s research needs and the number of students in the class, the
instructor creates two to four research teams that conduct primary and secondary research.
For example, one research team may be responsible for conducting focus groups, and other
teams may be responsible for conducting a survey, communication audit or competitive
analysis. Each research team is then responsible for writing a section on their findings for
the client research report and presenting their findings to the class. This ensures all students
understand all research findings related to the client.

4. Vol. 3 (1), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 53
Campaign Book Teams
Once the research phase is complete, the research teams disband, and each student
is assigned to one of five campaign book teams. Each campaign book team produces a
portion of the campaign book and then presents it to the class for feedback. In developing
this requirement, the authors drew from Russell (1998), Lubbers and Gorcyca (1997) and
McKeachie (1994) who discussed student-led presentations as a way to capitalize on the
benefits of active learning. Students who are not on the campaign book team responsible
for a particular section are required to complete a brief related writing assignment. The
idea to have related writing assignments was influenced by Writing Across the Curriculum
scholarship, which contends that asking students to write about their ideas helps them
“take more responsibility for their own education. Put them into situations where they must
contribute to teaching themselves and others,” (Meyers & Jones, 1993, p. 13). These brief
writing assignments, coupled with class presentations and feedback, ensure all students are
aware of and involved in each phase of campaign development.
Strategy Teams
After the class develops the campaign goals and objectives, they brainstorm strat-
egies to help the client accomplish these goals and objectives. The instructor then picks
three to five of the most appropriate and effective strategies. The class is then divided into
three to five strategy teams (one for each selected strategy) where students describe the
strategy and develop tactics necessary for the client to effectively implement the strategy.
For example, if students think a client needs to improve its social media engagement, in-
crease media coverage and develop community partnerships, the instructor can then assign
students to one of three teams: a social media team, a media relations team, or a community
partnerships team. Each team would then produce tactic prototypes related to its strategy.
The idea for splitting students into strategy teams is akin to Silverman’s (2007) recom-
mendation that breaking students into “tactics-based teams,” instead of assigning them
to competing teams, gives students a “unified sense of purpose - an esprit de corps - and
enthusiasm about the class project” (p. 422).
Steps for Implementation
To implement this new dynamic teamwork approach, the authors recommend the
following steps.
Weeks 1-4
1) Divide the class into two to four research teams.
2) Teams do assigned research and write their section of the client research report.
3) Teams present their findings to the class.
4) Students complete peer evaluations for research teams. Scholarship suggests that
offering peer evaluations can help reduce issues related to the “free-rider problem”
(Silverman, 2007, p. 422) and negative team dynamics (Benigni and Cameron,
1999, p. 57).
5) Research teams disband.
Weeks 5-8

5. Heflin & Meganck 54
6) Divide class into five campaign book teams.
• SWOT Team (4-6 students): Team responsibilities include: researching and
writing the client background section, SWOT analysis and problem statement,
presenting this information to class, and creating final presentation slides of the
SWOT analysis and problem statement.
• Message Team (2-4 students): Team responsibilities include: researching and
writing sections that discuss the campaign’s key publics, goal, objectives, key
message and tagline, presenting this information to class, and creating final pre-
sentation slides of this information.
• Evaluation Team (2-3 students): Team responsibilities include: developing and
writing the campaign evaluation section, presenting this information to the class,
and creating final presentation slides of this information.
• Finishers Team (4-6 students): Team responsibilities include: creating a client
logo (if necessary), formatting and creating a PDF of the client research report,
formatting the final presentation, writing the campaign’s executive summary, and
formatting and creating a PDF of the final campaign book.
• Editors Team (3-6 students): Team responsibilities include: copy editing the client
research report, campaign book, and final presentation.
7) Editors and finishers teams finalize and deliver the client research report.
8) Campaign book teams complete their assigned sections and present to the class.
Students not on the campaign book team assigned to a particular section complete
brief writing assignments and provide feedback to campaign book teams.
9) Campaign book teams incorporate class suggestions and instructor revisions.
Weeks 9-15
10) Once goals and objectives are developed, the class brainstorms strategies to address
these goals and objectives.
11) The instructor identifies three to five strategies that best address the client’s needs.
These strategies become the subject matter for each strategy team.
12) The instructor divides students into three to five strategy teams where the number
of students per team depends on the instructor’s understanding of the client’s needs
(i.e., if the client has a lot of media relations needs, the media relations team will
have more students). Students remain on both their campaign book teams and strat-
egy teams until the end of the semester to complete their remaining tasks.
13) Students complete strategy team work, which includes developing a section that
discusses their strategy and its associated tactics, developing a budget and timeline
for their strategy, and developing a set of tactic prototypes for their strategy. Class
time moves from student presentations and instructor lectures to workshops.
Week 16 to the End of Semester
14) The finishers team develops final a presentation template.
15) Campaign book teams and strategy teams develop and submit slides for the final
presentation.
16) Students finalize all campaign book and strategy team work.
17) Students submit tactic prototypes to the instructor. The instructor reviews prototypes

6. Vol. 3 (1), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 55
and recommends edits to be made.
18) The editors team combines all sections into one campaign book document and edits
the campaign book.
19) The finishers team formats the revised campaign book and submits a file as PDF.
20) Each strategy team submits three identical hard copies of their tactic prototype kit
and provides digital files for all tactic prototypes. The instructor receives one proto-
type kit and the client receives two.
21) The entire class presents one presentation to the client. Each campaign book and
strategy team is responsible for presenting the content it developed. The instruc-
tor prints one copy of the campaign book for the client and makes a PDF of the
campaign book available for students and the client. The instructor also makes all
campaign files available to the client and students via Dropbox or creates a website.
22) Students complete peer evaluations for campaign book and strategy teams.
RESULTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
After implementing this new approach in 13 campaigns courses at two univer-
sities across six semesters, the authors compared experiences and outcomes. Below is a
discussion of the authors’ findings and the ways this new approach solved some of the
problems associated with the traditional approach.
Problems and Solutions for the Students
Problem: Collaboration. With the traditional approach, students did not learn how to ef-
fectively collaborate or work as a team. Students typically divided up sections and worked
in isolation on their assigned sections. This divide-and-conquer approach often led to an
unequal distribution of work. Sometimes a few students would take over the project and
ignore the contributions of others. Sometimes students would not volunteer to do work, do
the minimum amount of work required, or not participate in group activities, issues com-
monly associated with the free-rider problems discussed by Silverman (2007) and Benigni
and Cameron (1999). As a result of these issues, group dynamics often became strained.
Solution: Multiple Team Assignments. Through the new approach, students serve on mul-
tiple teams throughout the semester, and each team has multiple assignments that require
students to regularly collaborate. For example, students are required to present content and
contribute ideas through brief writing assignments, brainstorming sessions and workshops.
Requiring students to serve on multiple teams and to participate continually in active learn-
ing means free-riders are unable to hide and strong personalities are less likely to dominate.
Instead, students are held accountable by more members of the class because they are
serving on multiple teams and are evaluated by more of their peers. As a result, it’s easier
for teachers to identify and address issues that hinder collaboration. Requiring students to
serve on multiple teams also forces students to adapt to new team dynamics, which is an
important part of learning how to effectively collaborate. The outcome of this improved
collaboration has been improved student collegiality and stronger campaigns for the client,
as will be discussed below.
Problem: Understanding the Entire Campaign. With the traditional approach, some stu-
dents did not fully understand the entire campaign planning process. Because students

7. Heflin & Meganck 56
divided up the sections instead of working together, they often failed to think through how
one part of the campaign affected the next. As a result, some campaigns were internally
inconsistent. For example, students sometimes developed strategies that did not meet the
campaign objectives. Also, few students knew the contents of the entire campaign plan
because they focused just on their assigned section.
Solution: Improved Collaboration. The improved collaboration discussed above produced
a second positive outcome – improved student understanding of the strategic campaign
planning process. Because students are involved in each step of the planning process,
whether through brief writing assignments, teamwork or presentations, all students are
exposed to every aspect of campaign development. Having these regularly occurring as-
signments also allowed the authors to work with students throughout the process to ensure
an internally consistent campaign. As a result, students were more engaged in each step of
the planning process and developed more cohesive, creative campaigns.
Problem: Editing. With the traditional divide-and-conquer approach, reviewing and edit-
ing the work of others was rare.As a result, the variety of editing abilities and writing styles
led to disjointed writing and grammatical errors throughout the plan.
Solution: More Feedback. The new approach solves this issue in two ways. First, students
are required to turn in sections throughout the semester, so instructors have the ability to
provide feedback not just on student ideas, but also on the quality of their writing. Students
then have the opportunity to edit their work based on this feedback. The second solution is
that this approach calls for the creation of an editorial team, which provides an additional
layer of quality control.
Problem: Time for Quality. The traditional approach tended to focus on quantity over
quality. The amount of work required by each team meant students were so busy producing
content to meet the deadlines that they did not have the time or energy required to think
critically or produce high-quality materials.
Solution: More Structure and Focus. With this new approach, the workload is still de-
manding, but it is also more structured and focused. Students serve on one research, one
campaign book and one strategy team. As a result, students are able to focus the bulk of
their energy and ideas on their assigned sections while still participating in each step of the
campaign planning process. This increased focus led to more meticulous research, coher-
ent campaign plans, creative strategies and high-quality tactic prototypes.
Problems and Solutions for the Client
Problem: Deficient Research. In the traditional approach to teaching campaigns, the re-
search was deficient because each team conducted its own mixed methods research using
the same methods. This was an issue because students were not able to focus on perfecting
one method, target audiences were being overused, and the client was receiving multiple,
repetitive research reports.
Solution: Several Research Teams. With the new approach, students work on one of sev-
eral research teams. There is no overlap of research methods unless there is a strong reason
for it, such as multiple focus groups being conducted with different target audiences. This
gives students a chance to focus on honing their skills in one method instead of superfi-

8. Vol. 3 (1), 2017 Journal of Public Relations Education 57
cially practicing several methods. It also allows students to focus on determining the best
method to reach each target audience and, in most cases, to not reach out to the same target
audience multiple times. This creates more well-rounded research and less repetition in the
final research report and campaign book.
Problem: Duplicate Information. With the traditional approach there were multiple cam-
paign books. Due to the nature of the assignment, these final campaign books were often
similar because students were gathering and synthesizing information about the same cli-
ent. As a result, the client received a large amount of duplicate information in the campaign
books and presentations, and it was difficult to keep the client engaged throughout the final
presentations.
Solution: One Book. With the new approach, students still work with one client, but each
class produces one final campaign book and presentation. Having the students create one
final campaign book and presentation solves the issue of repetitiveness, provides a much
better final product for the client and improves client engagement with the final presenta-
tion.
Problem: Inconsistency. The campaign plan featured inconsistencies and was sometimes
not internally coherent. The campaign plan was often disjointed because students did not
work together to develop an internally consistent campaign. As a result, clients were some-
times presented with campaigns that did not fully address their needs.
Solution: Building on Previous Work. Because the content of each week builds on the
previous week and students are constantly receiving feedback from the instructor and each
other, the book is more likely to be internally consistent. The new approach also increases
the overall quality of the final campaign book because the instructor and fellow students
are reviewing the campaign along the way.
Problem: Few Deliverables. Students developed a small set of tactic prototypes, which
was not enough to fully implement their recommended strategies. Since each group had
five to six members who were each required to create a tactic prototype, smaller groups
of students meant a smaller variety of prototypes for each campaign. Also, groups often
produced similar prototypes, which cut down on the number of distinct deliverables for
the client. For example, two teams might produce a similar press release, thus effectively
reducing the number of useful prototypes for the client.
Solution: Strategy Teams. With the new approach, students are divided into distinct strate-
gy teams, which helps avoid duplication of tactic prototypes because there were not multi-
ple groups of students working on the same strategy. This allows for the creation of a wider
variety of tactic prototypes to serve the client’s needs.
CONCLUSION
After implementing this new approach, both authors have noticed several positive out-
comes, including an increase in student participation and collaboration, and stronger cam-
paigns for our clients. After a semester of collaboration, brief writing assignments and
peer-review sessions, students are encouraged to participate and to focus on what is im-
portant for the client. This ultimately leads to a more coherent, well-written campaign
and a wider variety of tactic prototypes to serve the client’s needs. It also ensures students

9. Heflin & Meganck 58
understand the entire campaign process from start to finish.
REFERENCES
Beccaria, L., Kek, M., Huijser, H., Rose, J., & Kimmins, L. (2014). The interrelationships
between student approaches to learning and group work. Nursing Today, 34(7),
1094-1103.
Benigni, V., & Cameron, G.T. (1999). Teaching public relations campaigns: The current
state of the art. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 54(2), 50-60. doi:
10.1177/107769589905400205
Benigni, V., Cheng, I. H., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). The role of clients in the public re-
lations campaigns course. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59(3),
259-277. doi: 10.1177/107769580405900305
Bonwell, C., & Eison, J. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom.
AEHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, D.C.: Jossey-Bass.
Chiriac, E. H. (2014). Group work as an incentive for learning – students’ experiences of
group work. Front. Psychol., 5. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00558
Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2011). Teachers’ reflections of cooperative learning (CL): A two-
year follow-up. Teaching Education, 22(1).
Hassanien, A. (2006). Student Experience of Group Work and Group Assessment in
Higher Education. Journal of Teaching in Travel & Tourism, 6(1). doi:10.1300/
J172v06n01_02
Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the
science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31-32.
Lubbers, C. A., & Gorcyca, D. A. (1997). Using active learning in public relations in-
struction: Demographic predictors of faculty use. Public Relations Review, 23(1),
67–80. doi:10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90007-2
McGraw, P., & Tidwell, A. (2001). Teaching group process skills to MBA students: A short
workshop. Education + Training, 43, 162-170.
McKeachie, W. J. (1994). Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and
university teachers (9th ed.). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Meyers, C., & Jones, T. B. (1993). Promoting active learning:. Strategies for the college
classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Russell, M. P. (1998). Developing challenging and creative assignments. In L. M. Sallot
(Ed.), Learning to teach: What you need to know to develop a successful career
as a public relations educator (2nd ed.,) (pp. 151-167). New York, NY: Public
Relations Society of America’s Educators Academy.
Silverman, D. A. (2006). Organ donation awareness campaigns in the PR campaigns
course. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 61(4), 411-428. doi:
10.1177/107769580606100406
Werder, K. P., & Strand, K. (2011). Measuring student outcomes: An assessment of ser-
vice-learning in the public relations campaigns course. Public Relations Review,
37(5), 478-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.09.014
Worley, D. (2001). Teaching the public relations campaigns course. Public Relations
Review, 27(1), 47-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(01)00069-8