Search

This study shines a light where attention is needed; it is an assessment of our progress in our search for and improvement of pedagogical knowledge. More specifically, we address how well we have responded to Hendrix and Wilson's (2014) call in "Virtual Invisibility: Race and Communication Education" to move away from the same topics: thereby, seeking new and productive ways to address issues like the diversity that reflect current societal changes and classroom demographics. The results of this blended thematic/content analysis of 262 publications in "Communication Education" from 2014 to 2019 reveal that, while the body of instructional communication scholarship has evolved and expanded into more complex areas, race is still passed over.

This study examined data from the years 2017-2021 in a sample of 24 journals in communication studies to determine normative and exceptional rates of publication. These data were examined using the traditional full counting method to determine research participation by assigning credit to each author, equally, when listed on a research publication. In addition, we examined the data to determine individual research contribution by using a weighted fractional count (WFC) to assign credit based on author order and the number of authors listed on a publication. Results indicated that most scholars in our sample of journals publish infrequently. Across five years, average rates of publication in our sample stand at 1.62 publications per active author with an average WFC of 0.72. Results also include metrics for central journals in our field where active scholars average 1.47 publications with a WFC of 0.49. Results are discussed in terms of institutional expectations.

The creation of innovative and impactful communication theories depends on improving our theorizing practices. A grounded practical theory analysis of communication theory textbooks and exercises explored representations of theorizing and what it means for students to think like theorists. The analysis suggests that communication theory pedagogy embraces a model of theorizing as practical application where existing theories and deductive reasoning are used to understand communication situations and develop communication practices. Theorizing as practical invention is offered as a complementary approach to theorizing as practical application that centers on the creation of theories and explanations using abduction. Implications for communication theory pedagogy grounded in theorizing as practical invention are presented.

Based on the vast challenges college students experience, and the current mental health crisis on college campuses, the current study investigated how student-support providers assist and encourage students to enact resilience. We analyzed data from interviews with 25 campus student-support leaders in regard to how they support resilience in college students. Consistent with the communication theory of resilience (Buzzanell, P. M. (2010). Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being. "Journal of Communication," 60(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01469.x), participants discussed interactions and programming that aligned with all five communicative processes (crafting normalcy, affirming identity anchors, maintaining and using social networks, finding alternative logics, legitimizing negative feelings while foregrounding productive action). Further analysis led to four themes, which helped us develop a framework for supporting student resilience that included mattering and belonging, mentorship, reframing and reorientation, and reflection and finding strengths. Using this framework, we discuss theoretical and practical ideas for supporting students through the challenges associated with the college environment.

After nearly 40 years of policy changes since "A Nation at Risk," often without or over the voices of teachers, it seemed that society was on the way to embracing the idea that teachers were interchangeable, over compensated, and largely unnecessary to the process of education. Supreme Court decisions, such as Janus vs. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), have dealt a terrible blow to teacher unions ability to advocate effectively for their students, communities, and profession. However, teachers have started to push back, and have enjoyed success through recent labor movement activism (e.g., Red for Ed) in states such as Illinois, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Colorado. Although teacher advocacy has not been successful everywhere from a policy standpoint, it has started to create a conversation about teacher labor different from the emphasis on skills, accountability, and testing that has been so harmful to teachers and students. For example, many teacher unions across the U.S. have begun subscribing to the tenets of "Bargaining for the Common Good," encouraging teachers to demand contractual language that addresses topics beyond wages and benefits, such as hiring full-time librarians, nurses, and mental health counselors; securing affordable housing for teachers; guaranteeing manageable class sizes, and addressing racism, classism, and ableism as community issues (rather than classroom problems) (see Bargaining for the Common Good, n.d.). Overall, teachers are on the forefront of labor politics in the U.S., reinvigorating conversations about the dignity of labor and its centrality in movements for justice. The essays in the forum identify ways communication and instruction scholars can expand their advocacy with PK-12 teachers. As noted in the forums, there remains a dearth of communication and instruction scholarship that addresses PK-12 teacher concerns or theorizes the specificity of communication pedagogy in PK-12 public education. Authors Kyle Rudick, and Deanna Dannels, wish to encourage scholars in their field to begin programs of research to address PK-12 public education. They draw upon Craig's (1999) seven traditions of the communication discipline to generate research questions that future scholars and teachers might pursue.

Teachers and their unions are often vilified for the perception that they are working against the best interest of students (Berliner & Glass, 2014). The narrative, it seems, is that teachers' unions only seek to protect bad teachers, and they fight for an unearned increase in pay for teachers. The National Education Association launched the Go Red for Ed campaign, which is an awareness campaign designed to promote the need to provide students with school environments that enable learning, give teachers a voice in educational policy, and provide equitable opportunities for students of all backgrounds (National Education Association, 2019). In doing so, educators and allies in several states have successfully engaged in protests and strikes to advocate for education. In this essay, the author examines the history and politics of teacher labor, which they define as the broad working conditions of and work done by teachers, especially as they navigate the standardized system of government accountability present in K-12 education today. The author describes teacher labor as it is impacted by government accountability movements in education. Specifically, they discuss teacher working conditions, the de-skilling of teachers, teacher dissatisfaction, and teacher shortages. Further, the author explores the implications of the accountability movement including harms to student learning and teacher autonomy while suggesting pathways for communication education researchers to address these concerns.

The purpose of this study was to investigate communication mindset changes across one semester of the introductory communication course and differences across students' demographic backgrounds. The study measured the communication mindset and other instructional constructs of 1299 undergraduate students during the first two and last two weeks of the semester. Results showed no change in communication mindset after one semester of the basic course, although public speaking anxiety was reduced, and self-efficacy and interpersonal communication competence increased. Further, results showed between-group differences in public speaking anxiety by gender, as well as differences in mindset and interpersonal communication competence between students of different racial/ethnic backgrounds and different language status. Implications for future research are discussed.

David Yastremski communicates in this essay that over his past 23 years as a high school English and communication teacher, all in the same suburban high school in New Jersey, he has seen a dramatic shift in his experience of how the role of teacher has been and is considered and valued within society. Over time, he began seeing the changes that first encouraged and eventually increased standardization of the practice of teaching. Yastremski writes that the ever increasing level of standardization, control of creativity, and questioning of professional experience that has developed over the past 30 years has resulted in a PK-12 educational system that minimizes and deskills teachers. He reflects here upon the impact of standardization on teacher agency and efficacy, the increasing teacher turnover and polarization of the profession, and discusses how researchers can begin to investigate the role of communication studies for the teachers and communities who are currently struggling.

The dynamic nexus of communication, democracy, and education expressed in the classic liberal arts trivium--logic, grammar, and rhetoric--underscores the interdependent iterative connection between thinking, writing, speaking, and listening. As indicated in rhetoric's inclusion in the trivium, communication instruction, theory, and practice perform essential functions across disciplines, contexts (e.g., classrooms, residence halls, communities), and cultures. Democratic institutions, including K-12 and higher education, face crises of communication--failure to communicate and provide for the indispensable importance of liberal arts and civic education to productively discuss differences, engage disagreement, and come together to collectively understand and address these and other issues of social change. This analysis is not new. In "The Public and its Problems" (1927), John Dewey contended that "The essential need is the improvement of the methods and conditions of debate, discussion and persuasion. That is THE problem of the public" (p. 208). Discursive practices are at the heart of controversies and divisions faced in communities, on campuses, and among families.

Author Jennifer Waldeck writes that her earliest research exposed her to the difficulty that students appear to encounter in accessing potential mentors and building productive relationships with them. In fact, the lack of student mentees available to serve as research participants was one of the drivers behind a decision to explore communication strategies for initiating mentoring relationships in a 1997 study (developed with Victoria Orrego, Tim Plax, and Pat Kearney). Over 20 years later, students still report barriers to effective mentoring; thus, a new paradigm for mentoring could in fact be in order. In this essay, Waldeck shares her reactions and reflections to the advocate model and suggests how she believes communication research might help advance it. Then she discusses some institutional approaches that might enhance the experiences of students of color (SOC) create opportunities for them to connect with appropriate mentors, stay in school, and consider graduate school. Institutional attention to SOC that involves strong mentoring at the undergraduate and graduate levels will hopefully build a pipeline of prospective faculty of color (FOC). Waldeck believes more FOC to mentor future generations of scholars can potentially ameliorate many of the stunning difficulties such as perceptions of disenfranchisement and diminished confidence and competence Harris and Lee discuss in their essay.

In this paper, we first frame Sprague's vision in the historical context from which it emerged. From there, we explore some contemporary concerns instructional communication researchers must grapple with, and then propose some practical next steps for envisioning instructional communication research as a platform for meaningful contributions throughout the subfields of the communication discipline both within and beyond traditional classroom walls.

Given that instructional communication happens beyond college classrooms, a small group of voices have called for expansive explorations of instructional communication. This essay continues this conversation by calling for research to explore instructional communication's role in religious settings as well as in mitigating violence. Researchers are encouraged to apply instructional communication research to these areas, and enhance the social impact of their research by working in translational formats (e.g., workshops, community partnerships, and popular press writing).

Roughly one in four Americans will experience a mental health issue during his or her lifetime (National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2016). The consequences of mental disorders can be profound: people with mental disorders experience higher rates of disability and mortality. People with depression and schizophrenia have a 40-60% greater chance of dying prematurely than the general population (WHO, 2017). One reason is that some physical problems are left unattended (e.g., cardiovascular disease; WHO, 2017), suggesting that people with mental disorders pull away from care. On the other hand, it could be that more people need treatment for mental health symptoms than health systems around the world are ready to provide (WHO, 2017): 35-50% of people in high-income countries who need treatment never receive it. A different possibility is that stigma and discrimination create barriers for people with mental disorders to access to treatment, jobs, housing, and relationships; this lack of access compromises their ability to attend to their physical health (Corrigan & Fong, 2014; WHO, 2017). Being stigmatized, by itself, depletes instrumental, social, and economic resources, resulting in many negative outcomes, including disparities in the quality and quantity of education (Hatzenbuehler, Phelan, & Link, 2013). The purpose of this essay is to spark a discussion about the intersections of communication, stigma, mental health, and education.

This study reports prolific scholarship trends in communication studies based on individual publication rates in 24 journals from the field for the years 2012-2016. In addition, we summarized data from a subset of journals considered to be most central to our discipline ("Human Communication Research, Communication Research, Communication Monographs, and Journal of Communication"). Results provide information about what characterizes the 32 individuals who could be considered prolific scholars across the total list of 24 journals, and the nine individuals who could be considered prolific in the central journals. It took nine and seven articles within the five-year period to make it onto each list, respectively. Our data indicate that many of the trends (e.g., mean publication rates, rates of collaboration, etc.) found in recent analyses have largely remained the same. Results are discussed as they pertain to individual characteristics and institutional environments that support research proliferation.

Anita Vangelisti writes in this response that although the recommendations set forward in this "Forum" are well thought out and important additions to the discussion, teacher-scholars in the field of communication can, and should, do more. She agrees that there is a need to identify and describe learning outcomes in communication, and says that the work done by the faculty who participated in the LOC Project is overdue. Vangelisti also advocates for the need to empirically interrogate the leaning outcomes put forth to ascertain how they are best taught and, as noted by Mello and his colleagues, how they should be evaluated. With this said, the learning outcomes generated by the LOC Project and the ideas offered in the current forum represent "a starting point for conversations" as opposed to an endpoint (see NCA's LOC Project). Vangelisti observes that in addition to investigating learning outcomes, how they are used, and how they might be refined, there is a need to continue the conversation by conducting research that demonstrates why the communication outcomes being taught are so important. She believes various stakeholders and researchers should also be more than responsive or reactive. They should be proactive. What Communication educators and researchers bring to the conversations about teaching and learning is a deep understanding of and an ability to embrace the complexity of communication, and the LOCs and the present "Forum" essays offer an exciting starting point for further discussion.

Could teacher communication behaviors generally assumed to be positive ever be detrimental to student realization of particular outcomes? This essay argues for increased scholarly attention to this question. The authors advocate a research agenda that explores the potential "downside" of teacher communication behaviors (TCBs); problematizing established TCBs in light of the National Communication Association's Learning Outcomes in Communication (LOC).

The study and practice of health communication have never been confined to the classroom context, as health communication is inherently practice-oriented while being simultaneously based in theory. In this article, Teresa Thompson, editor of "Health Communication" journal for over 30 years, reflects on the interrelationships between communication and pedagogy. According to Thompson, the goal of all health communication research is educational, in that investigation should be focused on changing health related behaviors and communication within health care contexts. Thus, teaching and learning are foundational to health communication educators' work. Though she emphasizes that instructional communication does not occur exclusively within the classroom. There is much promise for collaborative studies focused in a variety of nonclassroom settings in upcoming research related to communication teaching, learning, and health.

Periodic assessment and scrutiny of the discipline's measurement practices, instruments, and research findings are necessary to provide clarity and direction by revealing what we know, how we know it, and where the knowledge gaps exist. Reflective reviews have produced ample appraisals of the theory, research, and methods employed in the conduct of instructional communication scholarship. The scope of the present effort is twofold and includes both description and critical assessment and evaluation of 21 instruments published post 2004 in journal outlets that traditionally feature instructional communication research. The reliability, validity, and usefulness of each measure are examined, measurement practices are critiqued, and problems are identified. The manuscript concludes by offering several recommendations for measurement in instructional communication research.

The purpose of this study is to better understand new college students' attitudes toward and perceptions of communication media and technology and themselves as communicators in the context of communication competence. Building on the results of a previous qualitative study, the researchers developed a survey focused on communication competence in the technologically rich 21st century and collected responses from 223 entering college freshmen. Among other findings, results of this investigation provide a picture of Generation C students' (born after 1990) descriptions of how they actually and prefer to communicate, in formal and more personal situations and relationships. The students indicated a preference for face-to-face communication in all of 10 communication situations, with some differences observed based on sex of students.

The mission of "Communication Education" is to publish the best research on communication and learning. Researchers study the communication-learning interface in many ways, but a common approach is to explore how instructor and student communication can lead to better learning outcomes. Although scholars have long classified learning into three domains--cognitive, affective, and behavioral--it is not often that behavioral learning is investigated in instructional communication research. Thus, the focus of most of the research in instructional communication is on cognitive and affective learning. This forum explores the study of affective learning by addressing two critical questions that define the field's exploration of the topic: (1) What is affective learning?; and (2) How should we measure affective learning in instructional communication research? This forum initiates conversation on this topic. The essay presented is one of seven in this forum on the topic of affective learning. For decades, instructional communication research has conceptualized affective learning in terms of the extent to which students like content or subject matter, an approach that has generated some critique. In this essay, the authors return to education-based definitions of affective learning. [For the other essays in this forum: (1) FORUM: Affective Learning. Affective Learning: Evolving from Values and Planned Behaviors to Internalization and Pervasive Behavioral Change, see EJ1083005; (2) FORUM: Affective Learning. Pursuing and Measuring Affective Learning Objectives, see EJ1083008; (3) FORUM: Affective Learning. Students' Affective Learning as Affective Experience: Significance, Reconceptualization, and Future Directions, see EJ1083014; (4) FORUM: Affective Learning. The Instructional Communication Affective Learning Paradox, see EJ1082997; (5) FORUM: Affective Learning. Affective Learning from a Cognitive Neuroscientific Perspective, see EJ1082999; and (6) FORUM: Affective Learning. Reconsidering the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Affective Learning, see EJ1083010.]

The mission of "Communication Education" is to publish the best research on communication and learning. Researchers study the communication-learning interface in many ways, but a common approach is to explore how instructor and student communication can lead to better learning outcomes. Although scholars have long classified learning into three domains--cognitive, affective, and behavioral--it is not often that behavioral learning is investigated in instructional communication research. Thus, the focus of most of the research in instructional communication is on cognitive and affective learning. This forum explores the study of affective learning by addressing two critical questions that define the field's exploration of the topic: (1) What is affective learning?; and (2) How should we measure affective learning in instructional communication research? This forum initiates conversation on this topic. The essay presented is one of seven in this forum on the topic of affective learning. Affective learning is often measured using some form of the assessment first published by Scott and Wheeless (1977) which used bipolar adjectives such as "good/bad" and "valuable/worthless" to assess attitudes toward instructional strategies. Though these authors originally described their measures as assessing general attitudes toward specific areas of instruction, the bipolar adjectives have since been co-opted to measure attitudes toward a course and an instructor in order to represent the more specific notion of affective learning. In this volume, there will no doubt be several calls to align the measurement of affective learning more closely with its conceptual definition and thus the author will not do so in this essay. Instead, the author would to use the space provided to make an argument for the utility and continued use of the current form of assessment, which may be more accurately described as capturing students' affective experience (e.g., liking, satisfaction, contentment). [For the other essays in this forum: (1) FORUM: Affective Learning. Affective Learning: Evolving from Values and Planned Behaviors to Internalization and Pervasive Behavioral Change, see EJ1083005; (2) FORUM: Affective Learning. Pursuing and Measuring Affective Learning Objectives, see EJ1083008; (3) FORUM: Affective Learning. Reclaiming Affective Learning, see EJ1083012; (4) FORUM: Affective Learning. The Instructional Communication Affective Learning Paradox, see EJ1082997; (5) FORUM: Affective Learning. Affective Learning from a Cognitive Neuroscientific Perspective, see EJ1082999; and (6) FORUM: Affective Learning. Reconsidering the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Affective Learning, see EJ1083010.]

The mission of "Communication Education" is to publish the best research on communication and learning. Researchers study the communication-learning interface in many ways, but a common approach is to explore how instructor and student communication can lead to better learning outcomes. Although scholars have long classified learning into three domains--cognitive, affective, and behavioral--it is not often that behavioral learning is investigated in instructional communication research. Thus, the focus of most of the research in instructional communication is on cognitive and affective learning. This forum explores the study of affective learning by addressing two critical questions that define the field's exploration of the topic: (1) What is affective learning?; and (2) How should we measure affective learning in instructional communication research? This forum initiates conversation on this topic. The essay presented is one of seven in this forum on the topic of affective learning. Since the introduction of the student affect construct to the instructional communication field by both Scott and Wheeless (1977) and Andersen (1979), their work has heavily influenced the manner in which instructional communication researchers utilize and measure the construct of affective learning. Initially, they suggested that student affect could be operationalized toward the communication practices suggested in a course, toward the subject matter/content of a course, toward a course in general, and toward the instructor of a course. These suggestions then morphed into a measure of affective learning (Andersen, Norton, & Nussbaum, 1981; Nussbaum & Scott, 1979) that was later refined by both McCroskey (1994) and Mottet and Richmond (1998). Despite these collective efforts, however, both the application and measurement of student affective learning remain problematic. In this forum piece, the authors explicate the original conceptualization of affective learning and use it to frame several recommendations for measuring the construct in future instructional communication studies. [For the other essays in this forum: (1) FORUM: Affective Learning. Affective Learning: Evolving from Values and Planned Behaviors to Internalization and Pervasive Behavioral Change, see EJ1083005; (2) FORUM: Affective Learning. Pursuing and Measuring Affective Learning Objectives, see EJ1083008; (3) FORUM: Affective Learning. Reclaiming Affective Learning, see EJ1083012; (4) FORUM: Affective Learning. The Instructional Communication Affective Learning Paradox, see EJ1082997; (5) FORUM: Affective Learning. Affective Learning from a Cognitive Neuroscientific Perspective, see EJ1082999; and (6) FORUM: Affective Learning. Students' Affective Learning as Affective Experience: Significance, Reconceptualization, and Future Directions, see EJ1083014.]

The mission of "Communication Education" is to publish the best research on communication and learning. Researchers study the communication-learning interface in many ways, but a common approach is to explore how instructor and student communication can lead to better learning outcomes. Although scholars have long classified learning into three domains--cognitive, affective, and behavioral--it is not often that behavioral learning is investigated in instructional communication research. Thus, the focus of most of the research in instructional communication is on cognitive and affective learning. This forum explores the study of affective learning by addressing two critical questions that define the field's exploration of the topic: (1) What is affective learning?; and (2) How should we measure affective learning in instructional communication research? This forum initiates conversation on this topic. The essay presented is one of seven in this forum on the topic of affective learning. How is it possible that after more than four decades of thoughtful instructional communication scholarship, the discipline continues to advance relatively incomplete knowledge claims associated with the affective learning construct? The affective learning paradox, as explicated in this essay, may be difficult to explain, but the common themes and related insights should allow the growth as a discipline if there is an open mind in the approach to understanding the paradox and if there is a willingness to conceptually disentangle affective learning from other related constructs (e.g., student affective experiences, satisfaction, attitudes, etc.). A series of recent studies, published by political scientists, provides evidence that strongly held incorrect beliefs cannot be changed simply by disputing facts, and any idea that contradicts knowledge claims that have long been held as important can result in problems where, despite correction attempts, presenting hardline denialists with the facts just makes them dig their heels in deeper. This essay advances the conversation about important long-held beliefs by reflecting on four common themes inherent in the affective learning paradox: (1) Conceptual and Theoretical Confusion; (2) Content Validity and Poor Conceptual Fit of Existing Measures; (3) Integration of Affective Learning with Other Learning Domains; and (4) New Opportunities for Exploration and Expansion. [For the other essays in this forum: (1) FORUM: Affective Learning. Affective Learning: Evolving from Values and Planned Behaviors to Internalization and Pervasive Behavioral Change, see EJ1083005; (2) FORUM: Affective Learning. Pursuing and Measuring Affective Learning Objectives, see EJ1083008; (3) FORUM: Affective Learning. Reclaiming Affective Learning, see EJ1083012; (4) FORUM: Affective Learning. Students' Affective Learning as Affective Experience: Significance, Reconceptualization, and Future Directions, see EJ1083014; (5) FORUM: Affective Learning. Affective Learning from a Cognitive Neuroscientific Perspective, see EJ1082999; and (6) FORUM: Affective Learning. Reconsidering the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Affective Learning, see EJ1083010.]

Communication education is concerned with the communicative aspects of teaching and learning in various situations and contexts. Although the historical roots of this area of inquiry date back to the classical study of rhetoric by the Greeks and Romans, this report focuses on the field's emergence as an important area of modern scholarly study. Contemporary inquiry about communication education pedagogy and instructional communication is explored and clarified. The report then paints a picture of the shifting interests in communication education and instructional communication research and theory in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The contributions of that scholarship to the interdisciplinary, national, and international educational landscapes are described, as well as the field's potential to contribute to future questions in higher education.

Replication is a fundamental principle of social science, enabling researchers to verify the accuracy of empirical findings, clarify the conditions under which phenomena occur, and further validate the social significance of research (Brandt et al., 2014). However, a lack of replication research has been published in instructional communication (e.g., Frisby, Slone, & Bengu, 2017). Without replication, the field of instructional communication runs the risk of generalizing findings and forwarding knowledge claims built on an unstable, unreproducible foundation. As such, the author argues that over the next five years, "empirical replication" is one of the greatest needs for instructional communication research.

Paul Witt challenges every reader to make a decision in response to the question: "Will the profession follow these recommendations presented in this forum?" Will "quick and dirty" survey methods be exchanged for more complex research designs?" He cautions readers to think first before replying, warning that this is a courageous decision that will improve the validity of findings but could very well slow the research-to-publication process. Witt notes that although most of the scholars he has known do not disagree with the concept of engaging in cross-disciplinary dialogue that might produce collaborative research projects, the truth of the matter is that most of them have never followed through with such an idea. Admittedly, change is difficult, particularly when proven processes worked well in the past and helped us achieve a current level of success. However, as a former editor of "Communication Education," and having just completed an 800-page compilation of instructional research in the "Handbook of Communication and Learning," it is clear to Witt that instructional communication scholarship as we have known it in former years has passed its zenith and is in need of new inspiration. Simply put, Witt feels that communication educators must take on new directions if the sub discipline is to persist in future decades. Although it is not easy for individual scholars to change, there is great risk for instructional communication research if, collectively, communication research scholars do not change. The article concludes by Witt saying that every reader can respond to the challenges presented in this forum in one of three ways: (1) move into new areas and develop new perspectives, (2) systematically review former findings in search of new insight, or (3) continue what worked for you in the past.

As ways that communication scholars can prepare students to meet challenges and transform society are considered, for the greater good, the authors argue that it is essential to consider the realm of health communication (Morreale, Valenzano, & Bauer, 2016). The authors focus on a growing need for rigorous research as a cornerstone of communication skills training for health professionals. Although education has reached a point where it is clear that communication skills training can reduce some of the human costs and financial burdens of healthcare, the authors maintain the gold standard for delivering this type of instruction is understudied. This article suggests that what remains to be understood are (a) precisely how communication affects health outcomes and (b) how communication skills training is best delivered. The authors believe both would benefit from theoretically driven, methodologically sophisticated programs of research with the promise of evidence-based recommendations. They support the need to study what happens when learning communication becomes part of the culture of care rather than a one-off event so that the health care professions can accumulate evidence demonstrating how communication instruction can cure much of what ails the healthcare system.

Instructional communication (IC) scholars have made significant contributions to the study of educational outcomes by creating a deep understanding of the teacher-student relationship (Mottet & Beebe, 2006). IC research published in "Communication Education" and other outlets therefore appropriately emphasizes interpersonal communication--the relational, emotional, and affective component of communication related to learning. However, IC is suffering from an identity crisis and potential irrelevance as a result of continued dependence on theoretical frameworks and constructs coopted from other areas of the field. In this brief forum article, the author highlights four key distinctions between instructional and interpersonal relationships that render a treatment of instruction as an interpersonal context inappropriate and suggests that treating instruction as interpersonal communication not only impedes IC from growing in scope and legitimacy as a scholarly field, but also limits our conceptual and operational ability to understand the unique nature of instructional communication. [Other articles in this forum include: Interpersonal communication research in instructional contexts: A dyadic approach (EJ1121093); The interplay between interpersonal communication and instructional communication (EJ1121087); Raising new questions and restoring our focus on authentic student learning (EJ1121117); Improving situational awareness for instructional communication research: A forum response (EJ1121131); and What role should interpersonal communication play (or not) in instructional communication research: A response to the forum essays (EJ1121147).]

In this brief forum article, the author suggests studying the instructor-student relationship as a superior-subordinate relationship offers an alternative way to view how student learning occurs in the college classroom, and can provide instructional communication researchers with the opportunity to explore how structural and institutional variables--typically associated with organizational communication research but certainly relevant to the instructional communication context--influence student learning as well as the development, maintenance, and termination of the instructor-student relationship. In answer to the question as to whether instructional communication researchers study too much interpersonal communication and not enough of other topics in the instructional communication literature, the answer is affirmative. While the genesis of instructional communication can be attributed to the study of interpersonal communication and the application of these interpersonal communication constructs is informative, it should be considered that the organizational communication literature can be equally as informative when applied to the study of the instructor-student relationship. [Other articles in this forum include: Interpersonal communication research in instructional contexts: A dyadic approach (EJ1121093); A cautious approach to reliance on interpersonal communication frameworks: The importance of context in instructional communication research (EJ1121095); The interplay between interpersonal communication and instructional communication (EJ1121087); Raising new questions and restoring our focus on authentic student learning (EJ1121117); Improving situational awareness for instructional communication research: A forum response (EJ1121131); What role should interpersonal communication play (or not) in instructional communication research: A response to the forum essays (EJ1121147).

Do we study too much interpersonal communication and not enough of other topics in the instructional communication literature? This forum provides a mixed bag of both affirmative and negative responses to this question. On one hand, answering "yes" is quite defensible because there are many recent studies examining interpersonal communication variables in classroom settings that offer little or no insight into student learning. On the other hand, an answer of "no" to this question is also justified because instructional scholars are not conducting research on interpersonal communication with the same rigor and/or quality that interpersonal scholars undertake. Although instructional scholars publish an abundance of research examining interpersonal variables in educational settings, their research almost always underestimates the interpersonal dynamics that occur between people. To answer the forum question, then, the authors choose to answer "no." They argue that there is not too much study of interpersonal communication instead of other topics, and suggest however that perhaps it is time for instructional scholars, to recognize that there are two people involved in communication processes that shape student learning experiences and academic outcomes. The authors suggest that perhaps it is time for instructional scholars to embrace a more dyadic perspective in research. [Other essays in this FORUM include: (1) FORUM: Interpersonal Communication in Instructional Settings: The Instructor-Student Relationship as an Alternative Form of Superior-Subordinate Relationship (Scott A. Myers) see EJ1121090; (2) FORUM: Interpersonal Communication in Instructional Settings: A Cautious Approach to Reliance on Interpersonal Communication Frameworks: The Importance of Context in Instructional Communication Research Superior-Subordinate Relationship (Zac D. Johnson, Sara LaBelle, Jennifer H. Waldeck), see EJ1121095; (3) FORUM: Interpersonal Communication in Instructional Settings: The interplay between interpersonal communication and instructional communication (Narissra Maria Punyanunt-Cartera, V. Santiago Ariasa), see EJ1121087; (4) FORUM: Interpersonal Communication in Instructional Settings: Raising New Questions and Restoring our Focus on Authentic Student Learning (Derek R. Lane), see EJ1121117; (5) FORUM: Interpersonal Communication in Instructional Settings: Improving Situational Awareness for Instructional Communication Research: A Forum Response (Scott Titsworth), see EJ1121131; and (6) What Role Should Interpersonal Communication Play (or not) in Instructional Communication Research: A Response to the Forum Essays (Deanna D. Sellnow), see EJ1121147.]

This report offers an interdisciplinary approach for conducting assessment on learning outcomes in undergraduate communication research skills where information literacy is embedded in the expected outcome. A Communication Studies department and the University Library piloted a two-year program to develop strategies for coordinated assessment that give feedback to both the Department and the Library. This collaborative model could be applied to any type of communication learning outcome that is related to information literacy. (Contains 2 tables.)

Academic misconduct is a serious, pervasive, communication phenomenon on college campuses. In this study, the goals-plans-action model (Dillard, 1990) was used as a theoretical framework to investigate peer confrontation of cheating and whistle-blowing to a course instructor. In an experiment, participants were asked to respond to measures of primary and secondary goals, plans, explicit confrontation of a peer, and whistle-blowing. The primary goal and secondary goal predicted explicit confrontation. Whistle-blowing was predicted by either the primary goal and the affect management secondary goal (for same-group peers) or the personal resource secondary goal (for peers in other class groups). (Contains 5 tables and 3 notes.)

Tutors often fail to address learners' misconceptions. Although this may indicate a failure to grasp these misconceptions, it may simply be due to a wish to be polite and save the learner's face. In this study we examined whether instructing tutors about the pitfalls of politeness could increase the clarity and precision of their tutorial communication. Advanced medical students answered a hypothetical layperson's e-mail request for information that contained several misconceptions. In the experimental condition, the medical tutors received instructions about the problematic nature of excessive or evasive politeness in instructional communication and the benefits of detailed, straightforward information. In the control condition, instructions did not mention politeness issues. Results showed that the politeness instruction led medical tutors to disregard nonproductive politeness in favor of more straightforward replies. Implications for instructional communication are discussed. (Contains 4 tables.)

This study assesses the current state of undergraduate instruction in empirical research methods in communication and offers recommendations for enhancing such instruction. Responses to an online questionnaire were received from 149 communication-related programs at four-year colleges and universities. Just over 85% of responding programs offered an empirical methods course. Although the course often covered both qualitative and quantitative methods, instruction was heavily slanted toward quantitative methods and topics common to both qualitative and quantitative inquiry. The empirical methods course was usually required for graduation, but it was typically not well integrated with the rest of the curriculum and taken late in students' undergraduate careers. Additional analyses examined staffing and class sizes as well as the most common topics and activities. Four recommendations are advanced for enhanced instruction in empirical methods in communication research. These were evaluated in light of feedback from respondents to the original questionnaire. (Contains 3 tables.)

The primary goal of this project is to provide a summary of extant research regarding humor in the classroom, with an emphasis on identifying and explaining inconsistencies in research findings and offering new directions for future studies in this area. First, the definitions, functions, and main theories of humor are reviewed. Next, the paper explains types of humorous instructional communication. Third, the empirical findings of both the source and receiver perspectives are reviewed. Finally, this paper concludes with advice for educators and suggests potential future research directions for scholars. (Contains 2 notes and 1 table.)

This eighth in a series of surveys of the basic communication course, begun in 1968, has as its purpose to gather longitudinal and descriptive data on the nature of the course. The latest study differs from past studies in that some of the results are presented comparatively for two-year and four-year colleges and universities. Samples for both populations were randomly selected from the NCA list of 1,295 communication programs resulting in a total of 208 respondents, 165 from four-year schools and 43 from two-year schools. The survey instrument from 2006 was revised and expanded and the study now reports, discusses, and interprets data based on (a) course orientation, interpersonal or hybrid, and demographics; (b) course enrollment and delivery methods; (c) method of course direction; (d) course administration, instruction, and training; (e) assessment and standardization across sections; (f) grading; (g) instructional content and enhancement; and (h) media, technology, and distance education. In addition to discussing results of the present study, observations about the longitudinal results since 1968, and reflections about the basic course in light of broader socioeducational trends and instructional communication research and theory, are provided. (Contains 11 tables.)

There is a "prevalence of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in education," and a concern for its negative psychosocial consequences and lack of effectiveness as an instructional tool. This essay identifies five variables in the CMC research literature and shows their moderating effect on the psychosocial, instructional expevrience of the CMC classroom. These influences are: the medium, the social presence, the amount of student and instructor effort involved in classroom interaction, the student's identity as a member of the class, and the relationships developed among the instructor and students. The essay articulates ways in which a CMC classroom instructor can strategically address the challenge of these influences to develop positive CMC classroom interactions, relationships, and learning experiences.

Journal citations are increasingly used as indicators of the impact of scholarly work. Because many communication journals are not included in the Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), SSCI impact factors are potentially misleading for communication journals. The current paper reports a citation analysis of 30 communication journals based on Google Scholar. Journals are ranked in terms of citations and trend data are examined. The findings show that journal rankings based on citations are changing over time with National Communication Association and regional journals dropping in citation rankings and while some more focused specialty journals are increasing in the citation rankings. The results also show that Institute for Scientific Information citations are biased and do not accurately or evenly reflect citations to communication research. (Contains 6 tables.)

This meta-analysis reviews the findings of 51 studies (N = 14,378) examining the associations among teacher credibility, teacher behaviors, and student outcomes. When all three dimensions of credibility are considered collectively (i.e., competence, trustworthiness, and caring), the cumulative evidence indicates a moderate, meaningful relationship between teacher credibility and overall outcomes (r=0.448). Similar overall effect sizes were observed for competence (r=0.481), trustworthiness (r=0.477), and caring (r=0.554), though the overall effect size for caring was greater in magnitude than that obtained for credibility measured as a single factor (r=0.294). On average, higher correlations were observed when researchers measured all three dimensions of credibility (r=0.518) than when they only measured competence and character (r=0.256). Collectively, the results highlight the unique contributions of perceived caring to the teacher credibility construct, as well as the meaningful role that teacher credibility plays in facilitating student learning. (Contains 2 tables and 3 notes.)

Communication-across-the-curriculum (CXC) programs provide assistance to other disciplines on the teaching and learning of communication--meeting an increasingly important need for students not only to be content specialists, but also coherent communicators. Research emerging from this initiative details programmatic challenges and emphases, but also provides insight into the unique interdisciplinary issues involved with teaching communication in other disciplinary cultures. Through a systematic thematic analysis, this review provides a synopsis of CXC scholarship over the past 25 years--highlighting three distinct eras of CXC scholarship that illustrate differing approaches to negotiating the mission of interdisciplinary change: cross-curricular proactiveness, cross-curricular skepticism, and cross-curricular curiosity. Over this time period researchers in this scholarly discussion have engaged in work that has produced detailed program descriptions and assessment, transferable instructional resources, and increasingly more discipline-specific empirical results and theoretical contributions. To increase CXC's impact, though, future scholarship could respond to pressing challenges by adopting a stance of cross-curricular advocacy that is proactive in ways characteristic of early research but with a more focused commitment to empirical rigor, theoretical sophistication, and reflective scholarly partnerships. (Contains 5 tables and 7 notes.)

This study explored the effectiveness of communication training for clergy, working to create an outcomes assessment model for such endeavors. Clergy-participants (N=46) completed an extensive training process designed to increase the transformative quality of their sermon communication. Training outcomes were assessed with a prepost test design, using listener feedback (N=7,564) and expert evaluation. Results suggest that communication training has an impact on the transformative quality of sermon communication. This exploration also reveals a need for further investigation of (1) communication training outcomes assessment and (2) the communicative goal of public speaking in the church context.

This article, designed for both consulting practitioners and academics, reveals what it is like to do a high-level and high-profile client consultancy. This consultancy was highly informed by and assumes a working knowledge of instructional communication theory, research, and methods as well as drawing upon contemporary communication scholarship and applied research. This report discusses how the Federal Reserve Board/Federal Reserve Bank System was obtained as a client, summarizes the objectives of the consultation, describes what processes helped meet those objectives, and as a result of those processes what were the deliverables made available to the client. Of note is that this particular consultancy is contextualized within the parameters of applied communication scholarship, and that communication success and effectiveness during crises, emergencies, and disasters are the foundational communication issues that are addressed.

Using the conceptual foundation "diversity matters" (Orbe & Allen, 2008), this essay calls for research examining the NCA learning outcomes in communication related to diversity, inclusion, privilege, and intercultural communication (mostly existing in LOC 8). The authors argue this research will serve as a relevant and vital foundation for authentic pedagogical praxis that embraces diversity across the communication discipline, not just in particular courses. If the goals of learning outcomes are to prepare students for civic life or their professional career, educators are doing them a disservice by relegating issues of diversity to only intercultural communication courses. Rather, diversity must be central to all communication studies curricula. Inquiry surrounding this issue will help steps toward transformative teaching practices fostered by scholarly collaboration and sincere intellectual partnerships (Fasset & Nainby, 2016; hooks, 1994).

Cross-cultural validity of teacher immediacy scales is a constant concern in instructional communication research. The present study examines the validity of two existing teacher immediacy scales: the Revised Nonverbal Immediacy Measure (RNIM) and the Chinese Teacher Immediacy Scale (CTIS) in U.S., Chinese, German, and Japanese cultures. Results of confirmatory factor analysis and Pearson correlation provide evidence for the validity of both the RNIM and the CTIS. Overall, both scales are found to have adequate factorial, construct, convergent, and discriminant validity pan-culturally and within culture, despite some slight variations across cultures. Implications and future directions are also addressed. (Contains 5 tables.)

Instructional communication researchers, by focusing attention on "how-to" matters and forays into conventional areas of study (i.e., immediacy, apprehension), neglect a nuanced treatment of student and teacher identity. Such a perspective is relatively disembodied and fails to engage actual classroom interactions. By engaging in autoethnographic analysis of their experiences with instructional technology, the authors reveal a more complex understanding of how instructional identities interact. In particular, the authors advocate an understanding of power that is distributed, embodied, and malleable. (Contains 1 note.)

Reports the results of practicing engineers' descriptions of the importance of oral communication. Suggests that engineering practice takes place in an intensely oral culture and while formal presentations are important to practicing engineers, daily work is characterized more by interpersonal and small group experiences. Notes that communication skills, such as translation, clarity, negotiation, and listening are vital. (SG)

Explores the relationship between academic mentoring behaviors and the organizational socialization of new faculty members within the communication discipline. Indicates that mentors' tendencies to provide support and encouragement, a sense of collegiality, and research assistance are related to an organizational newcomer's feelings of connectedness and ownership with the work environment. (SG)

Illustrates the erosion of inclusive teacher-student interaction. Uses discourse analysis to compare K-12 classroom instructional practices before and after imposition of standardized testing. Illuminates the negative transformation of five inclusionary discursive practices. Notes, in an illustrative case, an "at-risk" student's effort to express his point is overridden by his teacher's well-meaning urgency to clean up his prose to meet testing expectations for literate language. (SG)

Argues for a holistic core that balances the dialectic tensions between social science and humanities, scholarly discipline and craft/praxis, and common and special topics within the discipline. Offers rationales for two other unique features of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington curriculum: research methods at the front end of the curriculum and a multi-faceted senior capstone experience. (SG)