Tag: teaching

Grammar matters as an opportunity for all

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

A year or so ago, I received an email from a faculty colleague on a university committee which was giving approval for one of my classes to receive special status as a writing class that would satisfy a particular university requirement. The class was given that status, but she had a question for me.

What did I think, she mused collegially, of the notion that teaching grammar and holding students to a grammatical standard was inappropriate these days. She shared the thoughts of several authors who say teaching and grading based on grammatical standards is unfair to minority students and a form of “white supremacy.” 

In a nutshell, I responded, I disagree. White supremacy is a serious charge, but it is applied too frequently and superficially to generate more than an eye roll as a response. I am sensitive to the fact that my students come from different backgrounds and have different learning styles. But I am also sensitive that when they enter a competitive job market, particularly in one demanding writing proficiency, grammar will matter universally. 

My arguments in favor of teaching grammar and holding students accountable to it are numerous and logical. For one, it is a negative stereotype that certain persons can’t master English grammar because of their race or culture. There is much evidence to the contrary. In fact, many of my minority students have shown greater grammatical clarity than some of my life-long English-speaking white students. It comes down to individual will and ability and not a foregone conclusion based on arbitrary group identity. My own family on my mother’s side came to the United States from another country and had to learn English and learn it well to adapt to a new country.

Also, insisting that students know and can apply the rules of grammar does not negate or disrespect multiple forms of individual and sub-cultural expression. I was told by one of my professors that I need to know those rules before I break them, and then give a reason why such as why it is more creative, expressive, or persuasive. Evidence of this can be seen in the sequence of English classes I had in high school, in which we were drilled on the rules of grammar including such monsters as future pluperfect tense and gerunds. In subsequent classes we were taught the works of “great” authors who were celebrated for breaking the rules we just learned. EE Cummings eschewed capitalization often, including referencing himself. The unusual dialogue stylings of Cormac McCarthy earned him awards. Grammatical variance is seen in professional work as well, such as the Apple ad campaign “Think Different”. Some criticized the campaign for an adverbial slip in not saying “Think Differently”. But that was the creative point. Of course, one would need to know grammar to see the play on words and double meaning of the campaign.

It is also important to look at grammar broadly to understand its universal importance. All languages have grammar—none of them are a form of supremacy. I have formerly studied German and Spanish. On my own I picked up a little French when I taught at a partner university in France four times and wanted to give greetings, find the bathroom, and order food. I am now Rosetta Stone to learn Dutch, the native language of my immigrant mother. In my travels in an earlier career I have traveled to a variety of countries and met people from around the world. If I attempted to learn and use a few words and phrases in Tagalog in the Philippines or Tiv with a Nigerian, I appreciated some gentle correction and instruction by native speakers who took the time with me. I have not only not been offended by reviewing the grammatical nuances of each language, I have found them to help me learn and make sense of each language.

Grammar should be seen as a structural foundation of a language that is common to all. All houses have foundations and the basics of windows and doors and roofs but still can vary in overall architectural style. Language is the same. In 25 years of teaching I have had students of a variety of races and some for whom English is a second language. These students, at the undergraduate and graduate level, have impressed me with their clear and insightful academic and professional expression, and this was made possible by grammar. The foundation of their writing was the same in grammatical basics, but they showed individuality in what and how they wrote and addressed a topic. Good musicians practice scales before playing music. Good athletes drill on fundamentals before competition. Good writers master grammar before demonstrating their particular style.

Grammar is not a form of oppression, it is an opportunity for equality. I would be ashamed not to teach it well to all my capable students. 

On Being a PR Adjunct Professor

~ penningink ~ 2 Comments

At college campuses across the country, adjunct instructors are common in the classroom. In any public relations program, there are likely a good mix of part-time adjunct instructors and full-time professors. As one who currently has responsibility of coordinating the schedule for classes in the Advertising and Public Relations major at my university, I can say it is not a cliche to say that “we could not do it without them.”

However, there is a good and bad way to do it.

Most of the adjuncts who teach for us have a relationship with me or one of my full-time colleagues. They have solid experience in the field, ideally a master’s degree at minimum, and proven ability to teach. With a little initial coaching, coddling and setting them up with resources, they do a great job. But there are some behaviors of aspiring adjuncts that need correction.

1. The “Put Me in Coach” Approach
It’s great when a professional comes to me and inquires about teaching. But there are some who grate on nerves when this is an announcement as opposed to an inquiry, as if we can just make room for them because they now want to teach. Professionals who want to teach need to realize that adjunct positions, even though part time, are like any other position. There needs to be a need or opening. There likely are several other candidates. We need to see a resume showing relevant experience–ideally both professional practice and teaching.

2. Disrespect for Subject Matter
I recently chatted with an associate who is an adjunct in a completely different field. She in turn has a friend who recently was downsized out of a teaching job in yet another completely different field. She advocated for her friend as a potential adjunct for me. “But she’s in (name of field),” I said. “Oh,” my associate puffed, “she can teach anything.”

Well, no. There are people with actual experience in PR who can’t teach it, or at least not well. There are people with advanced degrees in something related to PR who just don’t have the depth of understanding, the “savvy” of the field to sustain them in front of a room of 30 bright and eager students for a semester. Also, I look for passion, integrity and commitment for the field of PR. Saying you “can teach anything” shows a lack of all of those. I would add that those with PR experience should look at the curriculum and say which specific courses you want to–and are well-suited to–teach.

3. The Over-Eager Innovator
Once on-board, it is a common behavior for a new adjunct to suggest large-scale “innovation.” I put that in quotes because we probably have thought of it already and done it or rejected it with good reason. Every hiccup or blurb or trend in the trades becomes occasion for “a new class.” Take some time, as in any job, to learn the landscape of the program, university, and curriculum before making suggestions. We love ideas from professionals and adjuncts, but they need to be sound. Also, consider the implementation factor–will the idea replace a class, be a required or elective class, how many sections, what is the staffing plan? Higher education is our “business,” You’re new here. Keep that in mind.

4. The Event Planner or War Story Blowhard
I had another woman from out-of-state planning to relocate to my region contact me about the prospect of being an adjunct. Her main selling point is that where she taught before  she brought in PR professionals from near that campus for every class period. Well, any of us can do that too. And sometimes we do. But not to replace our own teaching. We don’t need event-planners or talk show hosts who bring in guests to tell stories. We also don’t want adjuncts who only tell their own war stories of how they did or do things in their singular experience, however stellar their career. Students like this to a point, but they want instruction and not just entertainment. We want students to see the big picture. Examples should supplement and not replace sound teaching. We need adjuncts who can put together structured lesson plans, with learning objectives, integrating theory and practice–you know, “teaching.” 

5. The Anti-Intellectual
Another potential adjunct actually bragged to me that her classes have no theory. She only discussed practical things. This is a sure way to lose favor in the company of academics. While adjuncts do have the advantage of being in the trenches with current practice experience, they lack the theoretical perspective that is why college is called “higher education.” It is not mere job training. This person poo-poohed theory in a way that revealed she did not have a grasp of it. There is nothing more practical than theory. Theory actually describes the “real world” (a term I despise) better than one person’s experience. Good theory is the result of the empirical observation of multiple people–professionals or the public–tested repeatedly, analyzed statistically  or formally. In my program–and in those of many around the country judging from the many professors I talk to–we talk about integrating theory and practice. We need adjuncts who can do that, not arrogantly and ignorantly diminish educational value.

So, if you have thought about being an adjunct one day, I encourage you. But please, go forward thoughtfully, with a game-plan and some respect for the institution and the classroom.

Ways of Knowing and Teaching PR

~ penningink ~ 1 Comment

An adjunct where I work said to me earlier this semester, “we teach students so they can get jobs.” Sounds simple and straightforward. But it’s also a little simplistic.

Obviously, the end result for undergraduates will be to leverage their college education into a job. But  teaching is more than mere training, and college is called “higher” education for a reason. Also, most employers actually seek workers who have more than just PR skills, but critical thinking, teamwork, problem solving, and theoretical understanding that enhances strategy and initiative. I wrote about this in a recent post about Learning Assessment and PR Education.

The adjunct made this remark in the context of us undergoing searches for new professors for our faculty. The job posting has the typical “PhD preferred” language. The adjunct made it sound like PhD was a liability, as if a PhD guarantees no practical relevance. (Of course, if this adjunct had a PhD they would know not to over generalize like this).

It is true that candidate pools for jobs teaching PR tend to include young people who went straight through school and have little experience practicing PR. Then there is a batch of candidates with professional experience but no advanced degree. I should point out that the PR professors around the country largely include people, like me, who worked in the field and then later sought the PhD and became professors.

However, this candidate pool and discussion with a current adjunct got me thinking about preparation for teaching PR. In my own doctoral studies I had a research class in which the professor talked about different “ways of knowing.” He was talking about the various research methods, their advantages and disadvantages, and the importance of choosing the right method relative to what research would be conducted.

With regard to teaching PR, it is important to know what you’re teaching. And here also there are two primary ways of knowing. One is the traditional PhD route. Those who criticize hiring young PhDs with little work experience say that their knowledge is all theoretical. Critics say that as if theory  is a bad thing, and that reveals their own lack of knowledge about theory. Far from being impractical, theory explains and predicts behavior, and therefore is useful for giving students and deeper and broader understanding of PR and all its facets. Theory also is based not on a solitary person’s experience and opinion, but multiple observations, vetted scientifically.

However, a professional who may not have an advanced degree and broad research and theoretical knowledge does offer students a primary versus secondary understanding of the field. Their experience can fuel their teaching with confidence and concreteness compared to a more abstract big picture perspective.

In short, taking terms from research, PhDs offer reliability–knowledge based on observations that are repeatable–while professionals offer a form of validity, namely face validity–that what is being talked about is grounded in reality and is actually about PR and not some other concept. Another way of saying this is that PhDs can offer quantitative and therefore generalizable views, whereas someone teaching from personal experience has a more qualitative perspective but it can’t be generalized necessarily.

Since good research requires both reliability and validity, and since good research design often includes a combination of methods, it follows that a good way to approach teaching PR would involve combining these “ways of knowing.” As I mentioned earlier, there are many PR professors who do have both professional experience and a PhD. But many faculties will have a combination of PhDs on tenure-track and full and part-time adjuncts who have years of experience in the field. It would be good for both types of professor to have mutual respect for the other’s way of knowing, and seek to learn from each other. PhDs without much experience–or without much recent experience–should be involved with their local PRSA chapter, stay in touch with alumni to learn about their experiences, meet with local professionals, and read the trade publications as well as the academic journals. Adjuncts with professional experience should seek to see their own experience in the larger context of the field, read books and academic journals, attend conferences, meet with colleagues who do have PhDs to learn about theoretical explanations for their experience and assertions.

John Mellencamp once sang “I know a lot of things, but I don’t know a lot of other things.” I tell my students, you don’t know what you don’t know. That’s a good attitude to have. In the end, the best way of knowing to teach PR is to have an open mind and keep learning.

Local and National Perspectives on Social Media and PR Education

~ penningink ~ Leave a comment

It was an interesting coincidence that the Grand Rapids Business Journal had a local article about West Michigan colleges not offering social media degrees in the same week that the Association of Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC) PR Division tackled the subject in the current issue of the Teaching Public Relations (TPR) monograph.

The Business Journal article (self disclosure: I write the “PR and Media” blog for GRBJ.com) noted that it “checked in” with all local colleges and universities and that none offer a social media degree. The article included perspectives from faculty at only two of the colleges–Calvin and Davenport–but the comments were relatively universal–that there is not enough substance to offer a full degree or even a course in social media, that existing theory and practice can and should be applied and adapted to social media, and that social media concepts and assignments can be integrated into existing courses.
That matches the national scale views of educators as well as practitioners as reported in the TPR monograph. Professors are cautioned not to get caught up in chasing “shiny new objects” or bogged down in the tactical how-to instruction for each new app and platform. Some of these tech tools advance so rapidly that professors would have to change syllabi several times a semester. 
It was encouraging to read in the monograph that practitioners encouraged professors to teach theory–existing PR and communications theory as well as recent research on social media use and affects–before blending that knowledge with practice. Students should learn not just how to use social media, but how to use it on behalf of businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other clients. This changes the consideration of how to teach social media–professionally, with strategic insight fueled by empiricism and theory and not mere tactical proficiency.
Some of those “old” concepts that need to be applied to social media practice? Here’s a quick run-down of concepts and principles that have been taught in existing courses for years:
  • Research–students should be taught how to use social media to gain knowledge of public attitudes, issues, trends. 
  • Objectives–don’t just use social media because it’s new and cool. We saw a lot of disasters when web sites were new. Have measurable objectives, as in what you want to accomplish for an organization in terms of public awareness, attitude, or actions in response.
  • Strategy–who you reach out to, how you reach them, what you say, the frequency with which you say it, what platforms you choose–all of these and other questions should be carefully considered given the objectives above. If you don’t have a strategy, you are just pushing content into the crowded social space. Some old and newer theories are the basis of smart strategy in social media.
  • Tactics–we do teach tactics in existing courses. Social media should be seen as supplementing and not necessarily replacing existing communication tools. Also, social can be integrated with them and courses updated to include them, such as a media relations class now including social media and multi-media news releases, pitching bloggers, integrating hashtags at events and other ideas.
  • Evaluation–I would argue that the emphasis on evaluation has received as much buzz as social media in PR circles. Students need to know that clients, colleagues, and bosses will expect this. This is true of all PR efforts, but particularly social media. Research shows many executives still see social as a frivolous waste of time. Students need to know how to prove the affect of their social media efforts in terms of meeting organizational objectives.
Of course, I’m open to change. In 2006 when Twitter was new, I was the one telling students about it. Now students tweet me before I’ve had them in a class, and they reach out on many other platforms. I didn’t see Twitter and other social media coming or becoming this popular. There may come a day when I have to throw out the syllabus and craft an entire course on social media. 
Then again, the time may come when such a suggestion sounds as ridiculous as having a full course on the fax machine.