1. HOW DO WE EVALUATE THE LEARNING PROCESS IN ADVERTISING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS DEGREE IN BOLOGNA? Paris, 2008

2. ADVERTISING & PR DEGREE 1.Public university ( ~ 40.000 students) 2.600€/semester (≠ 6.000 € or more) 3.85 students first year (without including Erasmus) 4.4 years degree 5.University entrance examination 2007-08: 7.8 (10) 6.70% associate (=professionals working in advertising or pr area) 7.Ranking “El Mundo Newspaper” in 2002-03: 2nd. 8.-->

3. TALK’S OBJECTIVES 1.Make up the lack of studies around teaching quality in Advertising an PR degrees. 1. Journal of Advertising 2. Journal of Advertising Research 3. Journal of Current Issues and xxResearch in Advertising Source: Del R í o (2006)

4. TALK’S OBJECTIVES 2.Describe the PSQD methodology used in UAB. 1.Qualitative research based on Focus groups 2.Students data. 3.Compare PSQD & PAAD results.

5. TALK’S OBJECTIVES 3.Analyse years of quantitative data from the office of the Dean 1.Registration 2.Students’ abandoning (desertion) 3.Average grades evolution.

6. RESEARCH METODOLOGY 1.We undertook 18 focus groups with students during 3 years (2005-2008) 2.Sample: students in an random process. 3.Groups: 6-10 students. 4.“Verbatim”: analyse content data. 5.Quantitative assessment: 0-10 points. 6.Quantitative documentary data research during the period of 2001-2008. 7.-->

7. DATA FROM FOCUS GROUP (i) 1.Sections: 1.How does the subject work? (“din á mica de funcionamiento”) 2.Meetings with the professor. 3.Assessment of the subject - general evaluation. 4.Students improvement advices. 5.-->

8. RESULTS FROM FOCUS GROUP (ii) 1.Personal work (14/26) 2.Team work (17/26) 3.Final exams (10/26): teaching resist to change. 4.“Students advise”: get data from students at the end of the semester. 5.“If professors take note of the advises, his/her subject improves”, “If not, they go worst”. 6.-->

9. RESULTS FROM FOCUS GROUP (iii) 1.“Reduce master class (lectures: no participation by the students) ”. 2.“Post-upload subject notes on Internet-campus”. 3.“It is difficult to work in 10 people teams”. 4.“He does not have interest”. “He does not motivate us”. 5.“Lack of organization”. “Better planning is needed”. 6.“Reduce number of activities”. 7.“Change the senior lecturers (teachers)”. 8.“He is always late”. 9.-->

10. RESULTS FROM FOCUS GROUP (iv)

11. COMPARING PSQD & PAAD 1.PSQD from coordination (Dean) 1.Qualitative methodology: focus group 2.Every semester 3.“Quantitative evaluation” 4.Tell us what is happening & why. 2.PAAD from Governance university 1.Quantitative evaluation base on Likert scale (1-5) 2.Every 2 years 3.Tell us what is happening in a “number”. 3.Almost 70% of correlation 4.-->

12. DATA FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEAN 1.Bologna keeps students rates: 1.Average before Bologna: 6.72 2.Average of Bologna: 6.88 2.Results by subjects: 1.53% improve results-rates 2.47% diminish results-rates 3.Increasing drop out of students (4 years data): 1.2001-2002: 422 students 2.2004-2005: 424 students (first year of Bologna process) 3.2007-2008: 350 students 4.-->

13. IN SHORT… 1.We made up the lack of studies in ad&pr teaching quality. 2.PSQD has demonstrated to be an useful tool to: 1.detect problems, 2.find solutions through students ideas, 3.and construct a long term data (subjects and lecturers). 3.Students drop out too high: wee need funds (scholarships) for students (case of Spain). 4.We need to establish online data evaluation procedures, to improve/mix PSQD and PAAD methodologies. 5.-->

14. FINAL RESULT: 2005-2008 Advertising & Public Relations Degree

15. CONTACT THANKS!! Advertising and Pr studies coordinator: PhD. David Roca david.roca@uab.cat Website: www.uab.eswww.uab.es http://ccc-web.uab.es/index.php Address: Facultat de Ciències de la Comunicació Edifici I - Campus de la UAB - 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès) Barcelona - Spain Telephone/fax: 935811994 – 935812005