Search

The results of this study argue that communication, and specifically oral communication education, is critical to students' future personal and professional success. Similar to three earlier studies, thematic analysis of 2,155 articles, identified in academic and popular press publications extending from 2016 to 2020, provides support for the centrality of the communication discipline's content and pedagogy. These results reinforce the importance of communication to promoting health communication; growing individually and in relation to others; enriching the educational enterprise; enhancing organizational processes; being a responsible community member locally, nationally, internationally, and globally; and addressing crises, safety, risk, security, and science communication. Subthemes are identified in each of these six thematic categories, and the results are compared with those of the three earlier iterations of this study and in light of major shifts in the sociopolitical and cultural environment in the U.S. and the globe since the last iteration.

Continuing a tradition dating back to 1968, this tenth study in a longitudinal series of surveys of the basic communication course has two goals: (1) to provide descriptive information about the basic course contemporarily and over time; and (2) to propose a framework for interpreting the impact of the extraordinary national and international events of 2020, on higher education in general and the basic communication course in particular. A survey, which retained questions about trends identified in the past nine studies conducted on the basic communication course from 1956 to 2016, was updated to include additional questions on topics of contemporary concern. National distribution of the survey instrument resulted in a total of 160 respondents (26 from two-year schools, 134 from four-year schools). This study reports and discusses data across six categories: (1) general description of the course and enrollment patterns; (2) course instruction, training, and administration problems; (3) standardization and grading; (4) course content and pedagogy; (5) media, technology, and online teaching; and (6) contemporary challenges and issues facing the basic course. Reflections based on trends in the data, and recommendations for future scholarship about the course based on the results and current challenges in higher education, are offered.

The results of this study argue that communication, and specifically oral communication education, is critical to students' future personal and professional success. Similar to two earlier studies, thematic analysis of 679 documents in academic and popular press publications, published from 2008 to 2015, provide support for the centrality of the communication discipline's content and pedagogy. These results reinforce the importance of communication to enhancing organizational processes and organizational life; promoting health communication; enriching the educational enterprise; understanding crisis, safety, risk, and security; improving interpersonal communication and relationships; influencing diplomacy and government relations; being a responsible participant in the world, socially and culturally; developing as a whole person; and succeeding as an individual in one's career and in business. The kinds of communication addressed as important in each of these nine general themes are outlined, and the results are compared with those in the first two iterations of the study.

The essays that comprise "Communication Education's" Forum on Instructional Communication and Millennial Students provide excellent summaries of existing research on this new generational cohort as college students. Taken as a whole, the writings paint an intriguing picture of this cohort, including both challenges and opportunities to maximize teaching and learning for these students. The essays have several common themes that relate to millennials' behaviors and learning preferences in college classrooms; however, one omnipresent characteristic of this cohort, hinted at in the essays, can be taken further--what we choose to refer to as the "elephant in the college classroom"--the ubiquitous presence of technology and its impact on their lives. Today's traditional students are often referred to as "digital natives," the "Net Generation," or "Generation C"--students who are connected, content-centric, computerized, community-oriented, and, most importantly, continually clicking (Trend Watching, 2004). Given millennials' immersion in communication technology and the six essayists' descriptions of their unique characteristics, a potential research agenda can be created. This article provides recommendations that are intended to serve as a general organizing framework for a communication-based research agenda. [For the other essays in this forum: (1) FORUM: Instructional Communication and Millennial Students: Scripting Knowledge and Experiences for Millennial Students (Angela M. Hosek, Scott Titsworth, EJ1102964); (2) FORUM: Instructional Communication and Millennial Students: Hoverboards and "Hovermoms": Helicopter Parents and Their Influence on Millennial Students' Rapport with Instructors (T. Kody Frey and Nicholas T. Tatum, EJ1102970); (3) FORUM: Instructional Communication and Millennial Students: "Me"llennials and the Paralysis of Choice: Reigniting the Purpose of Higher Education (Marjorie M. Buckner and Michael G. Strawser, EJ1102967 ); (4) FORUM: Instructional Communication and Millennial Students: Managing Imposter Syndrome among the "Trophy Kids": Creating Teaching Practices that Develop Independence in Millennial Students (Kirstie McAllum, EJ1102980); (5) FORUM: Instructional Communication and Millennial Students: Millennial Students in the College Classroom: Adjusting to Academic Entitlement (Zachary W. Goldman and Matthew M. Martin, EJ1102950); and (6) FORUM: Instructional Communication and Millennial Students: Teaching Communication to Emerging Adults (Paula S. Tompkins, EJ1102974). Also available is another response: (1) FORUM: Instructional Communication and Millennial Students: The Power of Language: A Constitutive Response to Millennial Student Research (Kyle C. Rudick and Scott Ellison, EJ1102961).]

This study gathered longitudinal and descriptive data on the nature of the basic communication course, continuing a tradition dating back to 1968. Now in its ninth iteration, convenience sampling and hard copy distribution of the survey instrument resulted in a total of 188 respondents (21 from two-year schools, 167 from four-year schools). This study reports and discusses data in the following categories: (a) general description of the course; (b) course administration; (c) assessment, standardization, and assignments and grading; (d) course content and pedagogy; and (e) media, technology, and online teaching. General reflections are provided about the results in light of changing landscapes in the U.S. educational system and recent research and other activities of communication scholars related to the basic communication course. Recommendations are offered for future scholarship about the communication discipline's "front porch."

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 basic communication course, with its roots in classical Greece and Rome, is frequently a required course in general education. The course often serves as our "front porch," welcoming new students to the Communication discipline. This essay first outlines early traditions in oral communication instruction and their influence on future iterations of the course. In addition, because fundamental changes in higher education in more modern times affected emphases and delivery of the course, we focus on the relationship between general education and the basic course and the significant curricular changes to the course during the latter part of the 20th century. Finally, we discuss ramifications of the evolution of the basic course, as the discipline moves forward into the 21st century.

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.

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.)

This seventh in a series of investigations of the basic communication course at 2- and 4-year colleges and universities that began in 1968 has as its purpose to gather longitudinal data on the nature of the course. This latest study differs somewhat from past studies. The survey instrument from 1999 was revised to include timely concerns such as assessment, technology, distance education, and race/ethnicity. The study now reports the data based on course orientation; and, this study's survey was conducted electronically. Data are presented from 306 responding schools covering institutional demographics and (1) Orientation to the Basic Course and Enrollment, (2) Course Administration and Organization, (3) Instruction and Pedagogy, (4) Technology and Distance Education, and (5) Assessment and Evaluation. (Contains 10 tables.)

Finds that 30 states require oral communication as part of an integrated language-arts curriculum; one state reported no state-wide standards for oral communication; two states include oral communication separately from language arts; and twelve states reported exit level testing or competencies of graduating high school seniors which included oral communication in some form. (SR)

Offers historical background on some of the National Communication Association's past involvement in K-12 education. Describes the process used to develop the K-12 standards for speaking, listening, and media literacy. Gives an overview of the present effort to articulate competency statements for each standard. (SR)

Describes the approach taken by the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs to communication-across-the-curriculum courses and programs. (SR)

Accordingly, using interpretive methods and considering the influence of contextual factors and individual positionalities on the teaching/learning process, Ashby-King reasons that we will better understand the nuanced back and forth between students and instructors. Communication education and instructional communication scholarship, and we, as communication scholars and teachers, will benefit immensely from inquiry based on the lessons learned from the rapid transition to remote learning. At one end of a continuum were communication scholars and teachers who had taught online and could navigate their way agilely around their learning management systems' complex technologies. The coronavirus pandemic's onset resulted in unexpected "instant transitions" to remote learning at colleges and universities across the country. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: online education; online teaching; communication education scholarship EN online education online teaching communication education scholarship 117 119 3 12/17/20 20210101 NES 210101 Online education is a pedagogical innovation that often represents a significant challenge for faculty in most, if not all, disciplines in higher education (Mansbach & Austin, [5]). Need for additional online teaching and learning scholarship Against a somewhat challenging, in some ways disheartening, backdrop in higher education classrooms, communication education scholars are uniquely prepared and positioned to address an array of issues related to online education. But all communication education scholars, including pedagogists, are concerned about retaining the richness of the face-to-face classroom and ensuring high-quality teaching and learning as they jump on the digital bandwagon, by choice or by mandate. [Extracted from the article]

Keywords: communication education; K-12; higher education; communication scholars EN communication education K-12 higher education communication scholars 123 125 3 12/17/20 20210101 NES 210101 In [1], Cassandra Book called for collective examination of how communication is taught in I K i -12 classrooms. Finally, 30 years after Book's call, scholars continue to express concern about communication instruction and teacher-certification programs in I K i -12 education (Rudick & Dannels, [6]; Wright, [7]). If trained communication specialists are no longer present in our I K i -12 schools, how can communication scholars contribute to teacher education programs to help guide preservice teachers on properly incorporating communication education?. [Extracted from the article]