U.S. student-run agencies: Organization, attributes and adviser perceptions of student learning outcomes

Download U.S. student-run agencies: Organization, attributes and adviser perceptions of student learning outcomes

Post on 11-Sep-2016




9 download


Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485 491Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirectPublic Relations ReviewU.S. stupercepLee BushSchool of Comma r t i c lKeywords:Student agencExperiential le1. IntroduStudent-dents with student agetaining an aprovide osttive study oidentied aresearchershow the agwhich to an2. LiteratuThe impricula are fainvestigatin CorresponE-mail add1 Tel.: +1 330363-8111/$ doi:10.1016/j.dent-run agencies: Organization, attributes and advisertions of student learning outcomes, Barbara M. Miller1unications, Elon University, Campus Box 2850, Elon, NC 27244, United States e i n f oiesarninga b s t r a c tStudent-run communications agencies mimic professional public relations and advertis-ing agencies by providing students with a professional environment in which to work onreal projects for real clients. This study involved a survey of agency advisers at AEJMCuniversities and ACEJMC-accredited universities to evaluate the attributes, structure, andperceived student learning outcomes of agencies in the U.S. Though agencies vary greatlyin how they are structured and managed, this study suggests student agencies in generalare indeed benecial to student learning, particularly in the areas of skills application andprofessionalism. Despite the benet to students, agencies receive little funding relative toother campus media and agency advisers often receive limited support for the requiredtime commitment. Agency organization, adviser time commitment, and agency facilitiesare examined in regard to their impact on agency protocols and perceptions of studentlearning. 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.ctionrun communications agencies mimic professional public relations and advertising agencies by providing stu-a professional environment in which to work on real projects for real clients. Though little research exists onncies, a 2009 study outlined the pedagogical benets of student agencies, identied challenges involved in main-gency, and provided a framework for potential agency success (Bush). The purpose of the following study is toensibly the rst descriptive study of student-run agencies and to test the assertions presented in Bushs qualita-n a larger, quantitative scale. To do so, the researchers surveyed agency advisers at 83 colleges and universitiess having a student agency. Given the propensity for agencies to come in and out of existence (Bush, 2009), the determined that agency advisers would be best able to report the characteristics of student agencies, as well asency may benet student learning. The survey yielded a 61% response rate (n = 51), providing a solid basis fromalyze agency practices.re reviewortance of understanding student-run agencies lies in the need to determine if and how communications cur-lling short of preparing students for the profession and to examine how agencies might ll potential voids. Ing this topic, both public relations and advertising literature was considered given evidence that the profession asding author. Tel.: +1 336 278 5778.ress: lbush3@elon.edu (L. Bush).6 287 5728. see front matter 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.pubrev.2011.09.019486 L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485 491well as academic programs are moving toward integrated communications (Becker, Vlad, Tucker, & Pelton, 2006; Johnson &Ross, 2001; Kitchen, Kim, & Schultz, 2008; AEJMC Report on Integrated Communication, as cited in Larsen & Len-Rios, 2006,p. 35). In a survey of public relations and advertising educators, consensus was found to exist in regard to required skillsets for careers in both disciplines, including writing, critical thinking, planning, problem-solving, and communication withdiverse audgraduates, both elds.required of2002); likewin their couneed a greaistic depictiis rst anddemic progprocesses aCan stud(2009) founing busines(i.e., going itheir more were most Having a destudy were(e.g., studeninstitutionsthe U.S. thrRQ1: Whastructure, benets)?RQ2: Howtion), (b) aperceived 3. MethodTo devel2010 directdirectory ofno longer ethese schoomately 15 mquestions athree key stcampaigns,geting/billindirection/cralpha followTo answevaluate dident organiRegression student lea4. Results4.1. CharacAlmost 7dents fromiences (Larsen & Len-Rios, 2006). Just as comparable skill sets are required of public relations and advertisingresearch has also identied similar shortcomings between students preparation and employer expectations in Public relations literature suggests students may not be learning the professional skills and business protocols the profession (e.g., Brown & Fall, 2005; Commission on Public Relations Education, 2006; Guineven, 1998; Neff,ise, advertising research suggests students require more hands-on opportunities and real-world experiencersework (Scott & Frontczak, 1996, p. 47). Professional creative directors, meanwhile, have argued that graduatester understanding of the agency environment prior to agency employment (e.g., Robbs, 1996), as well as a real-on of agency life, including lengthy approval processes, internal politics, and the understanding that advertising foremost, a business (Otness, Spooner, & Treise, 1993, p. 13). In short, studies in both disciplines call for aca-rams to integrate more hands-on opportunities into curricula, helping students better understand the businessnd professional skills required of the profession.ent-run agencies help ll this gap? Through in-depth interviews with both agency advisers and students, Bushd that student agencies provide three levels of learning applying theory to practice (i.e., skills application), learn-s protocols, and gaining professional skills. However, the study also revealed a high risk of agency disintegrationn and out of existence). Agencies with more structure and protocols were found to be less likely to dissolve thanloosely structured counterparts, provided higher levels of learning, had higher levels of adviser involvement, andoften managed through journalism/mass communication programs versus student organizations (e.g., PRSSA).dicated ofce space was also found to be a key component to agency success. Two troubling ndings from the that student agencies did not receive the same level of funding or support as their campus media counterpartst newspaper, television station, or radio station), nor did the advisers receive adequate compensation from their. The current study sought to test many of these assertions and to provide descriptive data on agencies acrossough a survey addressing the following questions:t are the characteristics of student-run agencies at AEJMC and ACEJMC-accredited institutions (including agencylongevity, funding, facilities, services, adviser commitment and compensation, challenges, and perceived student does (a) an agencys operation (within a journalism/mass communication program versus a student organiza-n advisers time commitment to the agency, and (c) having dedicated ofce space, impact agency protocols andstudent learning outcomes?op a database of faculty advisers, the researchers made phone calls to schools listed as having an agency in theory of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, as well as schools listed in the the Accrediting Council on Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. After weeding out agencies thatxisted, the combined lists included 83 student agencies. An electronic survey was sent to faculty advisers ofls, yielding a response rate of 61% (51 respondents). The survey consisted of 36 questions and took approxi-in to complete. Several survey questions were combined into scales during data analysis by summing multiplessessing the same dimension. Scales used 15 Likert-type formats and were developed based on Bushs (2009)udent learning outcomes: skills application (e.g., practicing tactical communication skills, planning/executing full practicing production skills); understanding business processes (e.g., business policies, business hierarchy, bud-g processes); and professional skills (e.g., working within a team structure, managing client expectations, takingiticism, gaining career knowledge). Each of the scales was assessed for internal consistency using Cronbachsing data collection and was deemed to be reliable (alpha .87 for each scale).er RQ1, descriptive statistics were calculated. To answer RQ2, independent samples t tests were conducted tofferences by agency organization (within journalism/mass communication departments and schools versus stu-zations) and the existence of dedicated agency ofce space on business protocols and student learning outcomes.analyses were conducted to examine the impact of adviser time commitment on agency protocols and perceivedrning outcomes. All analyses were computed using SPSS 18.0.teristics of student-run agencies at AEJMC and ACEJMC-accredited institutions0% of respondents were located at public schools. Responses were diverse in regard to geography (with respon- all regions of the country) and size of the institution (with responses from schools larger than 25,000 studentsL. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485 491 487and less than 2000 students). The mean number of students participating in agencies was 41.83, though this number variedgreatly (SD = 43.49). Open-ended responses ranged from 4 to 180 students.4.1.1. Agency structure, longevity, and fundingIt seems the integration of public relations and advertising reected in many agencies and schools across the country isalso evident in student agencies. Over half of agency advisers (51%) described their agency as an integrated communicationagency; 34% described their agency as primarily PR, and 9% described their agency as primarily advertising. Other responses(n = 3) were from schools that had both an advertising and PR agency.While 48.9% of schools offer course credit for agency participation, 51.1% of schools do not. Of the schools that offercourse credit (n = 23), 87.0% give letter grades (n = 20) and 13% use pass/fail grading (n = 3). Only 17.4% of schools allowagency participation to replace an internship or course requirement.Over half of the agencies (51.1%) were operated out of a journalism/mass communication department or school (not as astudent organization), while 40% were operated as a student organization (e.g., PRSSA). The majority of responding agencieshave been in existence for at least 4 years (52.1%), with many functioning for over 6 years (41.7%). Almost 15% of respondentswere involved with start-up agencies (less than one year). Of the agencies in existence more than 6 years, seven agencies(35%) had gone out of existence at least once (20% once; 15% more than once). Four agencies under 6 years had gone out ofexistence at least once (2 once; 2 more than once).Survey ndings support the assertion that student-run agencies are signicantly underfunded (Bush, 2009). Only 2.2% ofadvisers indicated the student agency receives the same level of funding as the campus newspaper, television, and radio;32.6% of advisers indicated their agency receives less funding; 65.2% of advisers indicated their agency receives no fundingat all.4.1.2. Agency facilities, services, and processesAgencies differed greatly in regard to their workspace. While 38% of respondents indicated their agency has its owndedicated workspace, 34% of respondents indicated their agency had no workspace, and 27.7% share their space with anotherstudent organization.As shown in Fig. 1, the types of services provided by the agencies are quite vast. The type of client work provided by mostagencies (8the fewest nAlthougprocesses aprotocols shours (32.6While mstudent direor additionfor out-of-p9.6%) is social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter). Video production and broadcast commercials are provided byumber of agencies, at 52.1% and 33.3%, respectively.h there was great consistency in the types of client work provided, there was less uniformity in the agenciesnd protocols. As shown in Fig. 2, while 89.6% hold weekly agency meetings, less than half use formal businessuch as client planning templates (47.8%), time sheets (46.7%), tracking billable hours (32.6%), requiring ofce%), or a dress code (31.9%).ost respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their agency incorporates many business practices (66.6%), has actor (91.5%), and operates with account team leaders (89.6%), fewer agencies have either a creative team (40.4%)al tactical positions such as media director or new business director (45.9%). While 66.6% of agencies chargeocket expenses, only about half (51%) charge client fees for work performed. The majority of agencies (almostFig. 1. Percentage of agencies providing various types of client work (n = 48).488 L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485 491two-thirds)scheduled n4.1.3. AdvisAlmost h23.3% had sadvisers repweek advis39.1% of advreported sptime on advIt seemsmajority ofoverload pacredit towa4.1.4. AgenIn resporesearch (Btop three cclients (melenges fell the work (m(mean = AgenAn over(28.9%) bensometimesIn respoexperiencebuilding waBetween 85classroom ltraining proFig. 2. Percentage of agencies requiring formal agency processes and protocols. do not nancially compensate student employees, and 56.3% do not require students to work at the agency aumber of hours per week.er commitment and compensationalf of respondents (48.8%) had served as adviser for 2 years or less; 23.3% had served as adviser for 35 years;erved as adviser for 610 years; and an additional 4.7% had served for more than 16 years. The amount of timeorted spending with the agency varied greatly. While 28.3% of advisers reported spending more than 12 h pering the student agency, almost the same amount (26.1%) reported spending less than 3 h per week. Similarly,isers reported spending more time on agency advising than on preparing and teaching other classes, while 41.3%ending less time on advising than other classes. Almost 20% of advisers reported spending the same amount ofising the agency relative to other courses. little faculty support is provided for the time commitment required to advise student agencies. A signicant advisers (80.4%) reported that they do not receive a course release, and 96.1% reported that they do not receivey for agency advising. Interestingly, 80.4% also reported that agency advising would not be considered as servicerd tenure and promotion.cy challengesnse to 15 Likert-type questions listing in response to potential agency challenges highlighted in previousush, 2009), funding, agency consistency/stability over the long term, and university support were rated as thehallenges, with means of 3.71 (SD = 1.33), 3.66 (SD = 1.18), and 3.02 (SD = 1.50), respectively. Recruiting/ndingan = 2.20, SD = 0.97) and access to technology (mean = 2.31, SD = 1.18) were rated lowest. Ratings for other chal-in between the two, including faculty time requirements (mean = 2.95, SD = 1.16), motivating students to doean = 2.87, SD = 1.01), managing client expectations (mean = 2.86, SD = 0.80), and getting departmental support9, SD = 1.27).cy benetswhelming majority of advisers (95.6%) believe that student agencies are either extremely (66.7%) or fairlyecial to student learning. Further, 92.9% of respondents indicated their students either often (50.0%) or (42.9%) receive job offers or internship opportunities as a result of their agency experience.nse to an open-ended question concerning adviser perceptions of the main benets of the student agency (n = 44), with clients (mentioned by 32 advisers) was identied as the primary student benet. Portfolio and resumes the second most referenced student benet. Closed-ended questions supported these qualitative responses.% and 90% of advisers agreed that agencies were especially benecial in regard to portfolio building, applyingearning, developing professional skills, and learning business processes. Table 1 elaborates on the degree ofvided by agencies in various aspects of skills application, businesses protocols, and professional skills in responseL. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485 491 489Table 1Mean level of adviser agreement with statements regarding degree of training provided by the agency for skills application, business processes, andprofessional skills.Mean SDWorking within a team structure (n = 45) 4.51 0.90Creativity/imagination (n = 44) 4.45 0.82Gaining career knowledge (n = 45) 4.31 0.90Acquiring interpersonal skills (n = 45) 4.24 0.88Critical thinking and problem solving (n = 45) 4.20 0.89Responding to a diverse set of issues and/or circumstances (n = 44) 4.16 0.96Taking direction/criticism from supervisors (n = 45) 4.11 0.96Practicing tactical communication skills (such as writing press releases) (n = 45) 4.08 1.07Managing people/employees (n = 45) 4.04 0.98Working within a professional agency structure (n = 45) (n = 48) 3.93 1.20Managing clUnderstandiPracticing prUnderstandiPlanning/exUnderstandiKnowledge oUnderstandiUnderstandito 15 Likea team stru4.2. The imorganizationIndepencommunicabetween thism/mass cincludes telikely to chcies operatadvisers repsignicantlto Bushs (2departmening motivatperceptions4.3. The imTo examlearning ouwith the agby the agenreported spleaders to mnumber of hestablishedamount of tTable 2Mean differenSpace, includCharge clienAdvising timient expectations (n = 45) 3.93 1.16ng new media/technologies (n = 45) 3.91 1.10oduction skills such as graphic design/web design (n = 45) 3.91 1.16ng organizational culture/philosophy (n = 45) 3.87 1.18ecuting a full campaign or program (n = 45) 3.78 1.06ng business practices and policies (n = 45) 3.67 1.15f mass media (n = 45) 3.64 1.05ng business hierarchy (n = 45) 3.58 1.14ng budgeting/billing processes (n = 45) 3.02 1.36rt statements. According to advisers, agencies provide the most amount of training in regard to working withincture and the least amount of training in regard to understanding budgeting/billing processes.pact of agency operation (within a journalism/mass communication department or school or as a student) on agency business protocols and perceived student learning outcomesdent samples t test were conducted to evaluate differences between agencies operated through journalism/masstion departments and schools and those operated as student organizations. There were signicant differencese two in several variables important for agency longevity (Bush, 2009). Agencies operated through journal-ommunication departments and schools were signicantly more likely to have ofce space for the agency thatchnology (e.g., computers, graphic software, and telephone systems) [t(38.08) = 3.03, p = .004] and were morearge clients fees (in addition to out-of-pocket expenses) for work completed [t(37.96) = 2.46, p = .03] than agen-ed as student organizations. There was also a signicant difference in regard to the number of hours facultyorted devoting to the agency, with those in journalism/mass communication departments and schools spendingy more time advising than those advising the agency as a student organization [t(34.32) = 2.09, p = .04]. Counter009) study, there were no differences between agencies operated through journalism/mass communicationts and those operated as student organizations in regard to many of the challenges of agency operations includ-ing students, nding clients, and agency stability over time. There were also no differences in regard to adviser of the overall outcomes of skills application, business protocols, and professional skills (Table 2).pact of advisers time commitment on agency business protocols and perceived student learning outcomesine the impact of a faculty advisers time commitment on agency business protocols and perceived studenttcomes, linear regression analyses were computed between the amount of time the adviser reported spendingency per week and adviser agreement with statements concerning agency protocols, degree of training providedcy in regard to professional skills, and perceived benet to key learning outcomes (Bush, 2009). Advisers whoending more time with their agencies tended to operate agencies with more set business protocols, with accountanage accounts, to charge client fees (in addition to expenses), and require students to work a scheduledours per week. Most noteworthy, approximately 24% of the variance associated with an agency operating with business protocols was accounted for by its linear relationship with adviser time commitment. In addition, theime an adviser reported spending with their agency also predicted level of agreement pertaining to the amountces between agencies operating in journalism/mass communication schools and departments and agencies operating as student organizations.Mean (JMCschool/department)Mean (studentorganization)Mean differencebetween groupsing technology 3.91 (SD = 1.56) 2.42 (SD = 1.61) 1.49t fees 3.67 (SD = 1.61) 2.42 (SD = 1.68) 1.25e (hours per week advising) 3.42 (SD = 1.47) 2.40 (SD = 1.65) 1.02490 L. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485 491Table 3Regression analyses for the of impact of adviser time commitment on agency protocols and perceived student outcomes.B SE B t-StatisticAgency operationsOperate witOperate witCharge clienRequire ofcStudent trainPracticing taPracticing pRespondingUnderstandiKey learningSkills applicOverall repoTable 4Mean differenSkills applicUnderstandiProfessionalof training graphic andtime command responAlthougand professand was respositively iapproximat4.4. The imIndepenand perceivtheir agencbusiness prno space or5. DiscussiThis stuclassroom lmay be theMoreover, profession, of the procthat wouldcharging clitheir agencIn deteragency succorganizatioand schoolsto charge creported sph business protocols .40 .11 .49 3.66, p < .001h account team leaders .19 .09 .32 2.21, p < .05t fees .49 .14 .46 3.44, p < .001e hours.46 .13 .46 3.40, p < .001ing providedctical skills (e.g., writing press releases) .20 .10 .30 2.02, p < .05roduction skills (e.g., graphic/web design) .25 .11 .34 2.31, p < .05 to diverse issues/circumstances .25 .09 .41 2.90, p < .05ng new media .21 .10 .30 2.05, p < .05 outcomesation scale 1.11 .49 .33 2.24, p < .05rted benet to student learning .16 .05 .44 3.16, p < .05ces between agencies operating with their own space versus those having no space or having to share with another organization.Mean (agencies with their owndedicated ofce space)Mean (agencies having nospace or having to share space)Mean differencebetween groupsation 31.20 (SD = 3.26) 27.22 (SD = 5.75) 3.98ng business processes 20.19 (SD = 3.95) 16.93 (SD = 5.55) 3.26 skills 18.38 (SD = 1.86) 16.25 (SD = 3.86) 2.13the agency provides in practicing tactical skills (e.g., writing press releases), practicing production skills (e.g., web design), responding to diverse issues and/or circumstances, and understanding new media, with adviseritment predicting between 8% and 17% of the variance associated with these variables (practicing tactical skillsding to diverse issues, respectively).h regression models for the impact of adviser time commitment on scales for understanding business processesional skills were not signicant, adviser time commitment did signicantly predict scores for skills applicationponsible for approximately 11% of the variance associated with this scale. Likewise, adviser time commitmentmpacted responses to adviser perceptions of the agencys overall benet to student learning, accounting forely 19% of the variance associated with this variable (see Table 3).pact of dedicated ofce space on agency protocols and perceived student learning outcomesdent samples t test were conducted to evaluate how having a dedicated ofce space impacts agency protocolsed student learning outcomes. When agencies operated with their own dedicated ofce space, advisers rankedy higher in regard to the level of training it provides in skills application [t(39.96) = 2.86, p = .01], understandingocesses [t(39.78) = 2.26, p = .03], and developing professional skills [t(41.17) = 2.46, p = .02] than agencies having having to share space with another organization (Table 4).on and conclusionsdy suggests that advisers believe student agencies are benecial to student learning, particularly in applyingearning, developing professional skills, and learning business processes. Since literature suggests these areas most difcult to teach in a traditional classroom, student agencies may indeed help ll a gap in the curriculum.student agencies may further expose students to the integration and convergence that is taking place in theperhaps even more so than is currently found in university programs. While agencies have incorporated manyesses of professional agencies (e.g., account team structures, client contracts) many are still lacking in areas further student understanding of agency business processes (e.g., time sheets, budgeting and billing processes,ent fees). To fully prepare students for the profession, agencies should consider integrating these protocols intoy environment.mining how to structure an agency, this study revealed that adviser time commitment may be more critical toess than whether the agency is operated through a journalism/mass communication department or as a studentn. It is important to note, however, that agencies managed out of journalism/mass communication departments seem to have more departmental support (e.g., have a dedicated ofce space with technology), are more likelylient fees, and may also encourage advisers to spend more time on the agency per week. In turn, advisers whoending more time with the agency were more likely to report higher levels of various skills training providedL. Bush, B.M. Miller / Public Relations Review 37 (2011) 485 491 491by the agency and higher perceived student learning benets. While it cannot be known if perceived learning matchesactual learning without student assessment measurements, it seems evident that the more time an adviser spends on theagency, the more training students receive in several critical areas important to the profession. Universities would be wise tostructure an advisers workload so that she/he can devote at least as much time to the agency as is devoted to other courses.One thing is clear, without a signicant change in adviser compensation, it is unlikely that advisers will achieve thehigher levels of time commitment that lead to greater agency success. Student agencies are likely competing for an advisersresearch, teaching, and service time, all of which are important factors in an academic career. If student agencies do notfactor into that equation, they will likely continue to be in danger of dissolving. Since student agencies expose students tothe business processes and professional skills that employers desire, it is perhaps time they become a more integral part ofthe curriculum, and thus receive the funding and adviser compensation of their student media counterparts.Findings from this study should be interpreted cautiously. While this study relied on agency advisers for collecting data,future studies should focus on two other stakeholders in student agency outcomes graduates and employers. While thesestakeholders may be harder to contact, this data is also needed to truly understand if and how agencies have closed the gapbetween what employers want in graduates and what graduates are able to deliver.ReferencesBecker, L. B., Vlad, T., Tucker, M. & Pelton, R. (2006). 2005 enrollment report: Enrollment growth continues, but at reduced rate. Journalism & MassCommunication Educator, 61(3), 297327.Brown, A. & Fall, L. T. (2005). Using the port of entry as a benchmark: Survey results of on-the-job training among public relations site managers. PublicRelations Review, 31(2), 301304.Bush, L. (2009). Student public relations agencies: A qualitative study of the benets, risks, and a framework for success. Journalism & Mass CommunicationEducator, 64(1), 2738.Commission on Public Relations Education. (November 2006). The professional bond: Public relations education for the 21st century. Retrieved 23 March 2011,from http://www.commpred.orgGuineven, J. (1998). Public relations executives view the curriculum: A needs assessment. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 52(4), 4856.Johnson, K. & Ross, B. (2001). A ve-year regional review of advertising and public relations education in U.S. colleges and universities. Journal of PromotionManagement, 7(12), 253269.Kitchen, P., Kim, I. & Schultz, D. (2008). Integrated marketing communications: Practice leads theory. Journal of Advertising Research, 48(4), 531546.Larsen, P. & Len-Rios, M. E. (2006). Integration of advertising and public relations curricula: A 2005 status report of educator perceptions. Journalism & MassCommunication Educator, 61(1), 3347.Neff, B. D. (2002). Integrating leadership processes: Redening the principles course. Public Relations Review, 28(2), 137147.Otness, C., Spooner, E. & Treise, D. (1993). Advertising curriculum ideas for new creatives. Journalism Educator, 48(3), 917.Robbs, B. (1996). The advertising curriculum and the needs of creative students. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 50(4), 2534.Scott, J. D. & Frontczak, N. T. (1996). Ad executives grade new grads: The nal exam that counts. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(2), 4047.U.S. student-run agencies: Organization, attributes and adviser perceptions of student learning outcomes1 Introduction2 Literature review3 Method4 Results4.1 Characteristics of student-run agencies at AEJMC and ACEJMC-accredited institutions4.1.1 Agency structure, longevity, and funding4.1.2 Agency facilities, services, and processes4.1.3 Adviser commitment and compensation4.1.4 Agency challenges4.1.5 Agency benefits4.2 The impact of agency operation (within a journalism/mass communication department or school or as a student organizati...4.3 The impact of adviser's time commitment on agency business protocols and perceived student learning outcomes4.4 The impact of dedicated office space on agency protocols and perceived student learning outcomes5 Discussion and conclusionsReferences


View more >