The Basic Communication Course at U.S. Colleges and ...aslagell/Basic_Course/The Basic... · The Basic Communication Course at U.S. Colleges and Universities in the 21st Century:

The Basic Communication Course atU.S. Colleges and Universities in the21st Century: Study VIISherwyn Morreale, Lawrence Hugenberg &David Worley

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.

Keywords: Basic Communication Course; Trends in the Basic Communication Course;

Teaching the Basic Communication Course; Administration of the Basic Communication

Course

‘‘Extant literature clearly indicates the need for [students obtaining] communication

training in an undergraduate curriculum’’ (Hunt, Ekachai, Garard, & Rust, 2001, p.

1). This quotation pointedly calls attention to a need for communication skills

instruction that is often fulfilled by undergraduate students taking a basic oral

communication course (Moyer & Hugenberg, 1997). Indeed, everyday, hundreds of

thousands of college students enter a basic communication course classroom, some

because the course is required and others because they want to take it. In the process,

Sherwyn Morreale (Ph.D., University of Denver, 1989) is Professor of Communications at the University of

Colorado at Colorado Springs. Lawrence Hugenberg (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 1981) is Professor in the

School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. David Worley (Ph.D., Southern Illinois University,

1996) is Associate Professor of Communication at Indiana State University. Sherwyn Morreale can be contacted

at [email protected]

ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2006 National Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/03634520600879162

Communication Education

Vol. 55, No. 4, October 2006, pp. 415�437

the basic communication course, regardless of its orientation, frequently serves as our

discipline’s first opportunity to introduce students to communication skills and

theories. Thus, the basic course is the most fertile recruiting ground for commu-

nication majors and minors. Given this reality, taking stock of trends in and the status

of our basic course is necessary periodically, as we do in this study, which is the

seventh in a series of studies examining self-report data on the ‘‘state of the basic

communication course.’’

Self-examination of the basic course echoes the call of administrators in the 21st

century, who have asked those who direct and teach the basic course to reflect upon it

and consider any needed changes. Such changes might involve academic issues

(Worley & Worley, 2006), career concerns (e.g., Darling & Daniels, 2003; National

Association of Colleges and Employers, 2006), and civic preparation (e.g., Harter,

Kirby, Hatfield, & Kuhlman, 2004; La Ware, 2004; Treinen & Warren, 2001; Troup,

2002; ‘‘What do employers really want?’’, 2005). Considering the importance of

communication skills in these various areas, the basic course stands at the forefront of

communication education at colleges and universities across the United States. While

these calls for change in the basic course are frequently articulated and vary according

to more traditional or progressive views (Goulden, 2002), the format of the basic

course remains consistent, typically employing either a public speaking or hybrid

model (includes interpersonal, group, and public speaking; Morreale, Hanna, Berko,

& Gibson, 1999).

The basic course provides numerous benefits to students. Hunt et al. (2001)

reported ‘‘that students perceive the communication skills taught in basic inter-

personal communication and public speaking courses to be useful and relevant for

their future career’’ (p. 17). Additional research indicates that students with high and

moderate communication apprehension (CA) experience a reduction of CA and

improved grades as a result of completing a basic communication course supported

by a speech lab (Dwyer, Carlson, & Kahre, 2002). Similarly, two earlier studies

demonstrated a positive impact of instruction in the basic interpersonal course and in

the public speaking course on students’ perceptions of their behavioral competence,

self-esteem, and willingness to communicate (Morreale, Hackman, & Neer, 1995,

1998).

While research, as well as intuition, verifies that the basic course continues to serve

an important pedagogical function, this continuing success, while heartening, brings

into question issues of content and pedagogy. These issues are particularly critical

given the numerous changes the basic course has undergone over the years and since

the last survey sponsored by NCA (see Morreale et al., 1999). The longitudinal

context of this study of the basic course is described in the following section.

Background to the Study

This formal investigation of the basic course began in 1968 with a study conducted by

members of the Undergraduate Speech Instruction Interest Group of the Speech

Association of America (Gibson, Gruner, Brooks, & Petrie, 1970). At the time of the

416 S. Morreale et al.

initial study, it was determined that subsequent studies should be conducted

approximately every five years. The purpose was to keep the information current

as such data are valuable to basic course directors, department faculty, and

administrators at the departmental and college levels. Besides, as the discipline

changes, so too might the basic course. The study was replicated in 1974 (Gibson,

Kline, & Gruner, 1974), 1980 (Gibson, Gruner, Hanna, Smythe, & Hayes, 1980), 1985

(Gibson, Hanna, & Leichty, 1985), 1990 (Gibson, Hanna, & Huddleston, 1990), and

1999 (Morreale et al., 1999). This historical background helped to shape the purpose

of the present study.

Purpose of the Present Study

The purpose of this study harmonizes with the prior studies’ purpose: to gather

longitudinal data in order to identify the nature of the basic communication course

as taught in two-year and four-year institutions. Current and prior studies collected

data with a particular emphasis on course objectives, course content, instructional

and testing methods, enrollment, staffing, and institutional support. In addition to

that list, this new study includes inquiries into communication instruction trends

emphasized in the 21st century, such as assessment, technology, distance education,

and race/ethnicity. Moreover, and unlike the six past studies, this study organizes and

interprets the data based on course orientation. Given these two changes in data

collection and analysis, the current study does not extend the longitudinal perspective

in all areas to the same extent as the previous studies. However, the definition of the

basic course remains the same as in prior studies.

Definition of the Basic Course

In the present study, as in the prior studies, the basic course is defined as ‘‘that

communication course either required or recommended for a significant number of

undergraduates; that course which the department has, or would recommend as a

requirement for all or most undergraduates’’ (Morreale et al., 1999, p. 3). This

definition was provided with the survey to clarify for all respondents what is meant

by the ‘‘basic course’’ for the purpose of this study. On some campuses, what is called

the basic course may be solely the public speaking orientation. On other campuses,

the basic course may be an interpersonal class, which may or may not include some

formal presentation instruction. The term ‘‘hybrid’’ as a course orientation is

particularly ambiguous. In this study, the term ‘‘hybrid’’ refers to a basic course that

covers interpersonal, group, and public speaking all in one class.

As noted above, while the previous studies emphasized the two most common

models for the basic course, namely public speaking or the hybrid course, this study

organizes the data according to four different course orientations. In addition to the

public speaking and the hybrid orientations, interpersonal and group are included in

this study for the benefit of schools that use those two orientations and for readers

who want to make comparisons across the four orientations. Finally, while the basic

Basic Course Survey 417

course may take primarily a theoretical or primarily a performance approach, or a

combination thereof, it is the course that most often introduces students to the

discipline’s content and the fundamentals of communication.

Method

This study replicated those methods used with previous studies. This time, however,

data gathering and data analyses were processed electronically in the National

Communication Association (NCA) National Office.

Instrumentation

The present study relied on a modified version of the survey instrument used in the

1999 study. The categorical definitions that organized the data set in previous years

were revised to reflect current needs and interests in the basic course. New items were

added to address timely interests; for example, the technology section was expanded

to include distance education, and the assessment section was expanded to address

matters related to evaluation of student performance and the assessment of student

learning outcomes. Initially, copies of the revised survey were forwarded to basic

course directors familiar with the history of these studies to determine if needed areas

of investigation were included. Next, the revised survey was submitted to the NCA

Educational Policies Board for review. The Board suggested that the survey was too

long; consequently, redundant items were eliminated or consolidated. The final form

of the questionnaire consisted of 49 items.

Data Collection

The survey was posted to the NCA website allowing for one faculty member or

administrator from any one institution to respond electronically online. If any

participants preferred to respond in hard copy, the option of a survey being mailed to

them, as in past studies, was presented. An e-mail reminder about the survey was sent

to communication programs and departments at approximately 1300 schools and

colleges. That mailing list included junior and community colleges, as well as four-

year colleges and universities in the United States. To encourage members to go

online and respond to the survey, announcements also were posted in the NCA

newsletter, Spectra .

Of the 1300 possible respondents, 306 completed the survey, yielding a response

rate of 23.53%. In the 1999 study, surveys were mailed to 1532 schools; a total of 292

schools responded, yielding a response rate of 19.06%. Response rates in 1985 and

1990 were higher (28%). Reinard (2001) states that ‘‘for proportional data from a

population of known size and no estimate of population variability, with an N of

1,000, a sample size of 278, or 27.8%, constitutes a reasonable sample’’ (p. 286).

Consequently, the present sample size would appear to provide a reasonable, albeit

not impressive, representation of the larger population.


In order to provide verifiability of the results, a second sample of basic course

experts provided additional information. The results from the larger survey data were

examined and reaffirmed by a panel of experts who either regularly direct or teach the

basic course in its various orientations and/or who are actively engaged in the use of

technology in the basic course. This process of verification harmonizes with

qualitative research traditions (Patton, 2002, p. 67). Findings from the electronic

survey, verified by the sample of experts, are now presented and discussed.

Results

The following results come from respondents who were asked 49 questions regarding

their basic communication course, 38 quantitative and 11 qualitative. In the

following discussion and tables, results are presented categorically and cover course

orientation and enrollment, course administration, instruction and pedagogy,

technology and distance education, and assessment and evaluation. The results for

each of these five categories are discussed as they are presented. Following the results,

general conclusions about the basic course across the categories are provided.

Course Orientation and Enrollment

Eight questions focused on issues of course orientation and enrollment, and included

questions that addressed the orientation of the basic course, overall size of the

institution and enrollment in the course, race and ethnicity of the student

population, number of sections offered each term, and who is required to take the

course, including its role in general education.

Orientation. Respondents to this survey indicated that the most popular approach to

the basic course continues to be public speaking (57.8%), followed by the hybrid

course (35.3%), interpersonal (1.9%), and small group (0.3%). Consistent with prior

investigations in this series, public speaking continues to be the most popular basic

course orientation. The only exception to this trend was in 1974; only 21% of

institutions reported a public speaking orientation, and 39% reported using the

hybrid orientation. Table 1 illustrates the trend in course orientation across the series

of studies.

Table 1 Percent of Schools Reporting Orientation to the Basic Course

Orientation 1968 1974 1980 1984 1988 1999 2004

Public speaking 54.5 21.3 51.3 54.0 56.0 55.0 57.8Hybrid (interpersonal, group,

public speaking)13.2 39.4 40.3 34.0 25.0 30.1 35.3

Interpersonal group 4.7 6.0 4.0 1.0 1.9Fundamentals 21.3 12.8 .7 .3Other (including theory) 2.2 1.3 3.0 6.0 13.0 4.2


Given the long history of public speaking in our discipline and the well-established

resources and pedagogy for public speaking instruction, it is not surprising that this

orientation continues as the preferred approach. On the other hand, this approach

does raise important questions about the nature of our discipline. Recently, Coplin

(2006) suggested that institutions outsource the basic course to save money. Perhaps

this debate comes about, in part, because the basic public speaking course has for

many years been the face most often seen by external audiences.

Size of institution. Respondents were asked to describe the size of their institution

using student enrollment data. Table 2 compares these results with the most recent

study (Morreale et al., 1999). More large institutions responded to the current survey

than in 1999. There are no substantive changes to the reported orientation of the

basic course based on the size of the institution. For example, 49.7% of institutions

(n�/78) with over 10,000 students report a public speaking orientation, while 42.6%

of institutions of this size (n�/49) report a hybrid orientation to the basic course. On

the other hand, at institutions with less than 5,000 students, 33.3% (n�/61) report

using the public speaking orientation, and 37.4% of institutions (n�/40) of this size

report using a hybrid approach to the basic course. The data from this study do not

explain why smaller institutions tend to prefer a hybrid orientation, and therefore,

this is an area that needs additional examination.

Enrollment. The history of enrollment in the basic communication course suggests it

is intended for entry-level or first-year students. Although approximately 40% of

institutions (n�/122) enroll first-year students in their basic course, only five

institutions (B/2%) reported enrollment of entirely first-year students. Interestingly,

12 institutions reported no first-year students enrolled in their basic communication

course. Approximately 1/3 of the responding institutions (n�/100) indicated they

enrolled no seniors in their basic course; 85 institutions reported enrolling no juniors;

and 16 reported enrolling no sophomores. Results indicated that the basic course is

completed by students within the first two years of study at approximately 90% of the

reporting institutions.

Worley and Worley (2006) note that the basic course, with minimal pedagogical

adjustment, serves first-year students well by preparing them to succeed in college,

although one might also ask if students would be better served enrolling in the basic

course later in their academic careers in order to be well prepared for the working

Table 2 Size of the Student Body at the Institution

Size 1999 2004

Below 1,000 9.4% (27) 6.3% (19)1,000�4,999 34.3% (98) 28.7% (86)5,000�9,999 17.1% (49) 24.3% (73)10,000�19,999 21.3% (61) 19.0% (57)20,000 or more 17.8% (51) 21.7% (65)


world many will enter. Ideally, however, the basic course for first-year students should

be followed by an advanced oral communication course required of students as they

draw near graduation, as is commonly seen, for example, in English requirements.

Race and ethnicity. Respondents were asked to identify the racial and ethnic

background of the entire student body of their institution and the racial and ethnic

background of student enrollment in their basic communication course. According to

the American Council on Education (2005), undergraduate college enrollment

totaled 15,325,000 students. The American Council on Higher Education (2005)

reported that student-reported ethnic and racial enrollments included 10.1 million

Caucasian students (65.9%), 1.8 million African-Americans (11.8%), 1.4 million

Hispanics (9.1%), 937,000 Asian Americans (6.1%), and 150,000 Native Americans

(1.0%). The Council included a new category that totaled 938,000 students not

wishing to indicate their racial or ethnic heritage (6.1%). This category was not

included in the present study. However, results of racial and ethnic enrollment at

reporting institutions from this study are consistent with the American Council on

Higher Education data.

Similar to the data provided by American Council on Higher Education, the

respondent-reported data about their institutions suggest a large Caucasian

enrollment and smaller ethnic and racial minority enrollment. African American,

Hispanic, and Asian American enrollments constitute the largest minority groups in

reporting institutions with Native American student enrollment the smallest.

Respondents also reported the ethnic and racial makeup of their basic commu-

nication course. As one would predict using the American Council on Higher

Education (2005) data to frame the findings, Caucasian student enrollment is the

largest group of students in the basic communication course. African American,

Hispanic, and Asian American student enrollments make up the largest minority

groups in basic course student enrollment with Native American student enrollment

the smallest. Additionally, ethnic and racial enrollment in the basic communication

course reflects enrollments of the reporting institutions. Based on the data in

aggregate, racial and ethnic enrollments in the basic communication course

constitute the same percentages as racial and ethnic enrollment reported at colleges

and universities in this study, and it is comparable to the American Council on

Higher Education results (2005). These demographics suggest that basic course

instructors, basic course directors, and department administrators may need to revisit

the substantive research on whiteness in the basic course (Treinen, 2004; Treinen &

Warren, 2001). Additionally, investigations of the nature of the basic course in

historically black institutions may offer worthwhile comparison data.

Number of sections. Respondents were asked to indicate the number of sections of the

basic communication course they offer each term (quarter or semester), and a

meaningful increase in section offerings is evident since the last study. Of the

reporting institutions, 46.6% offer 21 or more sections of the basic course (n�/141)

while 34.2% offer ten or fewer sections (n�/ 102). In the 1999 study, only 30% of


reporting institutions offered 20 or more sections, and 49% offered ten or fewer

sections of the basic course. Of institutions offering 30 or more sections each term,

27.5% (n�/50) offer a public speaking basic course, and 29.0% (n�/31) offer the

hybrid course. Nineteen percent (n�/34) of institutions offering five or fewer sections

reported a public speaking orientation, while 20.6% (n�/22) reported a hybrid

course orientation. The growth of the basic course appears to be an emerging trend

that is likely related to the role the basic course plays in new or revised general

education requirements that emphasize oral communication and that are supported

by regional accrediting bodies.

Basic course as a requirement and in general education. For the first time in the history

of this survey project, respondent institutions were asked to indicate who is required

to take the basic course. Over half of the respondents (50.2%) reported that their basic

course is required in their institution’s general education requirements (n�/ 215). The

public speaking course is required at 62.3% of these institutions (n�/124), and the

hybrid communication course is required at 36.3% (n�/78) of these institutions. Only

2.1% of institutions indicated that they expect students to complete the basic

communication course in the first year (n�/9). A quarter of the institutions (25.3%)

require students to take the basic course as part of the communication department’s

major (n�/108). At 22.9% of the reporting institutions (n�/96), specific colleges or

specific departments require the basic communication course as a prerequisite for

their majors. Of those colleges or departments that require a basic course, 68.7% (n�/

66) require the public speaking course, and 26.0% (n�/25) require the hybrid course.

Across all orientations, business students are the most frequently served populations,

followed by students in education and health fields. Table 3 outlines who is required to

take the basic course, based on course orientation. Given the predominance of

business students in the basic course, we suggest that future iterations of this survey

and study include a fundamental course in business and professional speaking as an

orientation to the basic course. This finding may reveal another important trend in the

basic course that has heretofore gone unnoticed. It is also possible that business and

professional speaking courses were reported as public speaking in earlier studies.

Table 3 Who Takes the Basic Communication Course?

Basic course is required ofPublic

speaking InterpersonalSmallgroup Hybrid

Noresponse

All first-year students 5 0 0 4 0All students as part of general

education requirements134 2 0 78 1

Communication departmentmajors

75 4 1 27 1

Majors from specific colleges orschools

25 1 0 5 0

Majors from specificdepartments

41 3 0 20 1

Total 280 10 1 134 3


Where the basic course is part of an institution’s general education requirements,

only 16.7% report that the basic course is at risk of being removed as a requirement

(n�/43). Nine respondents indicated that the basic course faced risk at their

institution because it is or was in danger of being removed as a requirement by the

institution, colleges, departments, programs, or other administrative structures. Eight

others identified alternative courses launched by other faculty, departments, or

colleges as the most prominent risk to the basic course on their campus, while six

respondents identified budget or financial support as the major issue facing the basic

course. Four respondents noted that ‘‘communication across the curriculum’’ has

replaced the basic course entirely. While any threat to the integrity of the basic course

should create concern, the small percentage of schools in this sample reporting the

removal of the basic course is heartening. Nevertheless, prior events and the

discussion, for example, of outsourcing instruction in the course noted above, suggest

a need for vigilance. Such issues also relate to the results presented in the next

category, which focuses on administrating and organizing the basic course.

Course Administration and Organization

Eleven questions in this category covered who directs and provides instruction in the

course, how it is organized and taught, costs or fees for students, and the course’s top

administrative problems.

Basic course direction. First, respondents were asked about who directs the basic

course. Approximately 33% (n�/ 98) of reporting institutions indicated that no single

faculty member was assigned the duties of basic course coordinator, while 67% (n�/

202) do assign basic course duties to a faculty member. For those institutions with a

public speaking basic course, 72.7% (n�/ 133) reported having a basic course

coordinator, and 61% (n�/ 66) of institutions with the hybrid basic course reported

having a basic course coordinator. The most common title for this position is ‘‘basic

course director’’ or ‘‘director’’ (n�/ 78). The second most common title included the

term ‘‘coordinator’’ (n�/ 35). Of the schools who reported having a basic course

director, 41.3% (n�/ 74) are assistant professors, 37.4% (n�/ 67) associate professors,

and 21.2% (n�/ 38) full professors.

Clearly, there are faculty whose primary role is to direct the basic course, as

evidenced, for example, by the longstanding presence of the Basic Course Director’s

Conference. However, we wonder where future faculty might receive preparation to

continue this important work. While some may argue that disciplinary specialization

is sufficient, we believe that future study of the preparation of faculty should include

an analysis of existing Ph.D. programs and how these programs prepare basic course

directors and the perceived need for such preparation.

Basic course instruction. Second, respondents were asked to indicate who teaches their

basic course (see Table 4 results). In the 1999 study, instructors most frequently

taught the basic course (n�/168), and graduate teaching assistants (n�/78) were less


frequently mentioned as teachers in the course. Our results suggest a greater reliance

on GTAs as course teachers. Almost three-fourths (71.5%) of responding institutions

use GTAs to teach their basic course (n�/ 221). Reliance on part-time faculty

(adjuncts) remains the least reported option for staffing the course. Only 29.5% of

reporting institutions rely on part-time faculty (n�/91). The increase in GTA

instructors may be due to a higher percentage of M.A. and Ph.D. granting institutions

reporting their staffing data than colleges and universities offering only BA degrees.

Basic course organization. Third, respondents were asked about how the basic course

is organized in their respective institutions. Only 10.3% of institutions (n�/ 30) use

the mass lecture/small performance laboratory system in the basic course, a slight

decrease from the 1999 study, which reported 13.2%. Using autonomous sections of

the basic course remains, by far, the most preferred pedagogical approach with 89.7%

(n�/ 262) of institutions reporting its use. The difference in delivery of the basic

course is frequently discussed among basic course directors, although opinions vary.

While Todd, Tilson, Cox, and Malinauskas (2000) report that undergraduate students

see no essential difference in teacher effectiveness in the mass-lecture/lab and self-

contained sections of the basic course, these authors focus only on issues of teacher

immediacy. There are, no doubt, other issues, including budget, that impact

pedagogical choices in the basic course and also may impact the costs institutions

pass on to students.

Costs to students. Fourth, respondents were asked about whether they pass on

additional costs to students. A little over a quarter of institutions (n�/ 77) reported

that they do pass some costs of the basic course, above tuition, on to students. These

additional costs to students were identified as necessary to cover the costs of printing

tests and handouts, collecting a lab or technology fee, and/or selling electronic media

or printed materials. Considerably more institutions (n�/ 216) reported that they

pass no additional costs of the basic course on to students. We suspect that those who

pass on costs to their students do so in order to provide additional support for

departmental needs including GTA training and support, GTA and faculty travel, and

the purchase of equipment used specifically for basic course instructors, notwith-

standing the widespread use of course management software, such as Blackboard and

WebCT.

Table 4 Frequencies of Teaching Staff Teaching the Basic

Course

Type Frequency

Part-time faculty 91Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) 221Instructors 143Assistant professors 138Associate professors 164Full professors 196


Top administrative problems. Respondents were asked to identify and describe the top

three problems they face in administering and teaching the basic communication

course. Their free-form responses were clustered and labeled. Table 5 presents the top

problems they identified across orientations in ranked order.

The two most frequently reported problems, consistency and use of part-time

faculty, are not surprising. These problems are consistent with the most frequently

cited problems in the 1999 study (Morreale et al., 1999). Whereas the 1999 study

identified faculty burn-out as the third most pressing problem, our data reveal that

problems associated with students ranked third. Issues related to students’ academic

preparation, inappropriate classroom behavior with resulting discipline problems,

cheating, motivation to study and prepare, attendance, and tardiness, have become

pressing. Large class size remains a problem (ranked 4th in the 1999 study), ranking

as the sixth most pressing problem. General administration and technological issues

also now appear as significant problems in the course.

The problems of consistency are the result, no doubt, of many disparate variables.

However, we wonder if some of the difficulties arise because faculty are placed in the

position of basic course director without the background to deal with the

administrative issues that emerge. On the other hand, the emergence of technological

problems is not surprising. For example, an NCA panel that focused on the results of

this study generated considerable conversation about the use of PowerPoint in the

basic course and responsibilities for training students to use it properly. Moreover,

the release of Goodnight and Wallace’s (2005) recent work on teaching the basic

course online underscores the significance of these problems for basic course

instructors and administrators. Additionally, the inclusion of issues with student

Table 5 Top 10 Administrative Problems

Problems by rank Description Number ofRespondents

Consistency Reliability across sections in rigor, grading,common content

83

Part-time faculty Qualifications, communication,recruitment, responsiveness

60

Students Academic preparation & performance,attendance, motivation

47

General administration Coordination, supervision, communication,teacher evaluation

26

Technology, facilities Inadequate equipment & training, access,physical space

23

Class size Classes too large, not enough sections 22Funding, budget Insufficient resources 17Teaching assistants Recruitment, training, motivation,

international TAs14

Faculty attitude Burn-out, motivation, coherence to policy,openness to innovation

13

Course design Amount of material, lecture/lab format,number of assignments

12


civility in this list of problems echoes the concerns of many instructors in higher

education (e.g., Burns, 2003; Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004; Feldmann, 2001;

Richardson, 1999). The top problems identified in the survey call attention to the

results reported in the next category, which focuses on teaching in the basic course.

Instruction and Pedagogy

Thirteen questions in this category asked about course standardization, topics

emphasized in each course orientation, preferred textbooks, communication across

the curriculum, support services for students taking the course, and pedagogical

innovations in the course.

Standardizing the basic course. As reported above, the most common problem in

administrating the basic communication course is uniformity or consistency across

multiple sections of the course. When asked if everyone teaching the basic course on

their campus uses the same syllabus and textbook, 62.6% (n�/ 186) of respondents

either agreed or strongly agreed; 27.6% (n�/ 82) disagreed or strongly disagreed.

When asked if everyone teaching the basic communication course tries to meet the

same learning objectives by using the same textbook and assignments, 64.3% (n�/

191) responded that they agreed or strongly agreed, while 20.8% (n�/ 62) disagreed

or strongly disagreed.

Respondents were asked if they allowed individual teaching strategies as long as

these strategies were developed in an effort to meet the same learning objectives for

the basic communication course. Almost 80% (n�/ 238) responded they agreed or

strongly agreed; they allowed instructors to develop whatever teaching strategies they

believed appropriate to help students reach course objectives. Almost 16% (n�/ 47)

disagreed or strongly disagreed with this position. Nearly 57% of institutions (n�/

168) indicated they give instructors great autonomy in selecting materials and

designing the instructional strategies for the basic course; 30% (n�/ 90) disagreed or

strongly disagreed with the statement.

The challenge of consistency remains a central problem. This problem is no

doubt complicated by other factors emerging from these data, including the lack of

a basic course coordinator in some instances, as well as the number of full-time

instructors and faculty who teach the basic course (n�/611, 64%). Given the

number of instructors and faculty who teach the basic course, there are no doubt

issues of personal preference and academic freedom that contribute to the challenge

of maintaining consistency among multiple sections.

Topics in the basic course. In addition to standardization in the basic course,

respondents were asked to choose from 30 topics provided and then to rank order

those topics to which they give greatest emphasis in their instruction of the basic

course. Table 6 summarizes the frequencies of the highest ranked topics in the public

speaking basic course and the hybrid basic course. As one might predict, topics

related to teaching public speaking skills dominated the ‘‘most important topic’’ in


the public speaking and hybrid basic courses. Again, we note that the long-standing

commitment to public speaking pedagogy in our discipline likely influences these

results.

Additionally, almost 71% (n�/ 212) of the institutions reported they either agree or

strongly agree that issues of diversity (gender, ethnic identification, and age) are

strongly emphasized in their basic communication course. Only 11% (n�/ 33)

indicated they either strongly disagree or disagree that issues of diversity are strongly

emphasized. We are curious as to how instructors emphasize diversity in their

courses, given the high rate of response. We suggest that additional qualitative

research in this area may bear fruitful pedagogical insights.

Textbooks in the basic course. Textbooks remain an important aspect of the basic

course. Therefore, respondents were asked to identify the single most important

factor when selecting a textbook for the basic communication course. Almost 23%

(n�/ 71) of respondents indicated that the content or coverage of the textbook was

the most important factor. Approximately 13% (n�/ 39) of respondents reported that

course fit or meeting course objectives was the most important factor. Others

reported the following textbook characteristics for their selections: book readability

(n�/ 13), ancillary materials and supplements (n�/ 6), book cost to the student (n�/

3), and technology support (n�/ 2).

Respondents also were asked to identify which textbook they use in their basic

communication course. Over 80 different textbooks were identified. Table 7 reports

the most frequently selected textbooks. Whereas other textbooks and handbooks were

cited, only those reflecting five or more responses are included in the table. When

Table 6 Rank Order Frequencies of Most Important Topics in Basic Course

Topic

Publicspeakingrank #1



Hybridrank #1

Hybridrank #2

Hybridrank #3

ExtemporaneousSpeaking

49 17 15 18 1 9

Speaking toPersuade

27 28 18 1 12 10

CriticalThinking

25 12 6 16 8 4

Speaking toInform

18 29 23 19 6 4

AudienceAnalysis

18 17 22 2 9 9

InterpersonalRelationships

0 1 2 14 19 11

Speech Anxiety 12 4 6 11 7 0Group

Communication0 0 1 5 5 11

Listening 3 4 11 6 6 5Delivery 16 12 10 5 3 9


compared to the 1999 (Morreale et al., 1999) findings, many of the same textbooks

appear again in this survey.

Not surprisingly, as these data indicate, instructors are rather wedded to their

choice of textbooks. While publisher-sponsored reviews of textbooks may suggest

why instructors prefer some texts over others, these reviews are proprietary

information. Nevertheless, understanding the dynamics behind textbook choices

would prove an interesting and valuable addition to our knowledge, given the key

role textbooks play in the basic course. Additionally, anecdotally, both instructors and

publishers indicated that basic course texts are often accompanied by multiple

ancillaries that go unused. We wonder, therefore, how much basic course instructors

rely on ancillaries and which they use most and least often.

Communication across the curriculum. Communication across the curriculum (CAC)

has often been seen as a potential competitor with the basic course, so we asked

respondents about CAC programs. Only 33 institutions (11.1%) reported having a

‘‘communication across the curriculum’’ program. Only six institutions reported

accepting a communication across the curriculum course as an appropriate substitute

for the basic communication course in general education and/or major requirements.

These data suggest that CAC to date has not made a substantive impact on the role of

the basic course in higher education and that there are challenges in implementing

this approach (e.g., Garside, 2002).

Support services. While textbooks and CAC programs provide support for the basic

course, many respondents reported the use of some additional support services for

basic course students with the most common cited as the institution’s academic

assistance center (n�/ 175). Fifty-four institutions reported offering no additional

support services for basic course students. Table 8 summarizes the frequencies of

support services offered for students in the basic communication course. Even

though extant research (Dwyer, Carlson, & Kahre, 2002; Hunt & Simonds, 2002;

Jones, Hunt, Simonds, Comadena, & Baldwin, 2004) indicates that speaking centers

or labs enhance the learning of students in the basic course, the use of labs is still the

Table 7 Reported Textbook Use in the Basic Communication Course

Reported textbook Frequency

Stephen Lucas, The Art of Public Speaking 39Judy Pearson & Paul Nelson, Understanding and Sharing 12William Seiler & Melissa Beall, Communicating: Making Connections 9Ronald Adler & George Rodman, Understanding Human Communication 8Joseph DeVito, Human Communication: The Basic Course 8Michael Osborn & Suzanne Osborn, Public Speaking 8David Zarefsky, Public Speaking: Strategies for Success 7Stephen Beebe & Susan Beebe, Public Speaking: An Audience-Centered Approach 5Steven Brydon & Michael Scott, Between One and Many 5Dan O’Hair, Rob Stewart, & Hanna Rubenstein, A Speaker’s Guidebook 5Rudolph Verderber & Kathleen Verderber, Communicate! 5


exception rather than the rule. Again, we suspect there are numerous reasons for the

nonproliferation of these labs, although, in all probability, a suitable budget and

securing a qualified staff may well be central stumbling blocks. Additional study

should focus on understanding this dynamic more specifically.

Innovation in the basic course. Although the term innovation is subjective, 97

respondents indicated a variety of steps they are taking to provide what they consider

a fresh approach to teaching the basic course. Twenty-six respondents indicated that

they were implementing pedagogical strategies including problem-based or active

learning, a variety of group activities, and using the traditions of classical rhetoric to

provide a basis for public speaking instruction. Twenty others emphasized the role of

emerging technology in either instruction or evaluation. Some offer video-taped

models of speech assignments, while others use video, websites, software programs,

and e-books. Ten respondents described new methods of assessment including digital

and paper portfolios, competency-based goals and grading, and the strategic use of

peer groups for exams and mutual feedback. Six respondents noted that they use

service learning as an integral aspect of the basic course, and three noted the

important role of the basic course in first-year initiatives at their institutions. Finally,

five noted that they provide a unique curricular approach that includes a personal

system of instruction, stressing listening as the key aspect of the basic course,

integrating speaking and writing, or emphasizing a critical pedagogical perspective.

The basic course, it appears, continues to be a site for creative pedagogical initiatives

that enhance student learning and, at the same time, emphasize the important role of

oral communication. The next category reports one particularly critical area of

pedagogical creativity in the basic course, the use of technology and distance

education.

Technology and Distance Education

Eight questions in this category addressed the types of media and technology now in

use in the basic course and the three issues related to distance education:

pervasiveness, challenges, and training.

Technology and media in the basic course. With the increase in communication

technologies and media available for instruction, respondents were asked to indicate

Table 8 Support Services for Basic Course Students

Type of service Frequency

University Academic Assistance Center 175Worldwide Web 109Peer Tutors 76Department ‘‘Speaking or Communication’’ Center 48Graduate Student Tutors 11No additional services offered 54


what forms are used in their basic course; these included e-mail, Internet, and

presentational software. As Table 9 indicates, there has been a dramatic increase in the

use of media/technology in the basic course. For example, in 1999, only 69

institutions reported using the Web or e-mail in their basic course compared to

211 today. Similarly, 78 institutions in 1999 indicated they used computer-based

materials stored in electronic media; today, 250 do. The ready availability of group e-

mail functions with instructional software, as well as the enhanced use of e-mail as a

major communication channel likely, explains in part this surge in use.

Institutions that use the Internet to teach the basic course were asked to report

which software they use. Ninety-five institutions use Blackboard, and 75 use WebCT.

Fifty-nine institutions indicated they use some other software package to support

their use of the Internet in the basic course. Only two institutions reported having

virtual classrooms available for instructional use in the basic course.

Respondents were asked to report which types of technology and/or media are

being taught to students in the basic course. Not surprisingly, 178 institutions

(79.1%) teach computer presentation technologies in their basic communication

course. PowerPoint is the most widely taught technology in the course. Second to

PowerPoint is the Internet (n�/ 21), followed by list-serve (n�/ 13) and web-delivered

presentations (n�/ 10). Only three respondents reported teaching web-design in the

basic communication course.

Distance education. Sixty-two respondents (20.8%) reported delivering the basic

course in its entirety via distance learning; of these, 35 are public speaking, and 27 are

hybrid. Nearly 80% (n�/ 236) do not deliver the basic course entirely via distance

learning. The number of institutions delivering the basic course via distance learning

in the future likely will increase as we continue to see an increase in use of

technologies as standard instructional platforms generally.

Challenges using distance education. Respondents were asked what they perceive as their

greatest challenges to offering the basic course as part of a distance education program.

Answers indicated that their primary challenge was managing mass-mediated channels

to enhance personal, pedagogical, and student satisfaction. They cited difficulties

associated with achieving sufficient levels of teacher immediacy and student-to-student

interaction. While these problems can be addressed to some degree by appropriate

technology, many faculty do not have access, training, or a propensity for teaching

Table 9 Types of Media and Technology

Type of media/technology Frequency

Audio visual assets (movies, speeches, etc.) 264Video cassette recorders 257Computer presentations (PowerPoint, etc.) 250World Wide Web 211CDs 161DVD players 127


online. Additionally, Allen (2006) notes that distance education raises important

questions about enhancing student success, retention, and degree completion.

Distance education training. Respondents were also asked about the level of training in

implementing distance education, and they reported a range of training options for

teaching the basic course online. Twenty-seven respondents indicated that their

institutions did not have a distance education program or that such an initiative was

not needed. Twenty-one respondents explained that all training and support were

coordinated through a distance education or teaching center, while 20 indicated that

their institutions offered extensive training through courses, training sessions, or

online instruction. In contrast, 19 respondents noted that their institutions offer

short-term training, typically single-session workshops, while 18 indicated that they

were trained to use course software such as Web CT or Blackboard. Eleven

participants explained that peers or mentors provide individualized training; 11

others noted that they received minimal training; and another 11 explained that they

could obtain technical support when needed. The final category of results reports

how student learning is assessed and evaluated in the basic course.

Assessment and Evaluation

Nine questions in this category covered graded course assignments, evaluation and

feedback, use of videotape, and assessment tools and processes.

Graded assignments. Respondents were asked to indicate the number of graded

assignments required in their basic communication course. Most (n�/182) require

4�6 graded assignments; 3 require more than ten. For basic public speaking courses,

74.6% (n�/ 135) require 4�6 graded assignments; only 41.7% (n�/ 45) of hybrid

basic courses require the same. Table 10 compares current data with the responses

reported in 1999. Fewer courses today (10% decrease) require 4�6 graded assign-

ments, and more (15% increase) require 1�3 graded assignments.

Evaluation and feedback. Additionally, respondents were asked about how they

provide evaluation and feedback to student performances. Eighty percent of

respondents use only the teacher’s evaluation when determining a grade for students’

oral performances, with the remaining relying on a combination of teacher and peer

Table 10 Number of Graded Assignments

No. of gradedassignments

1999 studypercentages

Current dataPercentages

No graded assignments 4.2 1.41�3 graded assignments 15.0 30.04�6 graded assignments 71.5 61.37�10 graded assignments 8.5 6.4More that 10 graded assignments 0.7 1.0


evaluations. As part of the evaluation process, 96% provide written feedback to the

students. Students submit their assignments primarily in hard copy (93%); only 7%

of reporting institutions allow students to submit their assignments primarily via

electronic means.

Recording student speeches. Video-recording of student speeches continues to play a

somewhat important role in student performance evaluation, especially in public

speaking courses, although almost 39% (n�/42) of public speaking course instructors

do not use playback of recorded student speeches, and approximately 43% (n�/45) of

instructors in hybrid communication courses do not use playback of recorded

student speeches. However, 57% (n�/104) of public speaking course instructors

record one to three of their graded assignments for student playback, while 53.3%

(n�/56) of hybrid courses do the same. A little over 30% of respondents require no

video recording in their basic course.

Over 50% (n�/ 147) of respondents reported that they rely on the use of taped

speeches when evaluating oral performances. In the basic public speaking course,

45% of respondents do not use these recordings in evaluating oral performance;

nearly 60% of hybrid basic courses do not use recordings of speeches for evaluation.

Almost 29% (n�/ 84) reported using recordings for only 10% of their evaluations of

oral performances. Only 4% (n�/ 12) used recording of students’ speeches for over

50% of their evaluation of oral performances.

Assessing student learning. While assessment of individual student performances

continues to play an important role in the basic course, the need to have an approved

general assessment plan for the basic course has increased dramatically since 1999.

Almost 85% (n�/ 251) of the respondents rely on competency-based assessments.

Almost 69% (n�/ 206) rely on instructor-developed measures to assess student

learning; nearly a quarter (n�/ 73) use a department assessment process; 3% (n�/ 8)

rely on a school or college assessment process; and 3% (n�/ 10) use a university-wide

assessment process. Only two respondents reported not having any assessment plan

for the basic course; in 1999, as many as 33 did not attempt to assess outcomes. The

high percentage of institutions using some form of assessment suggests that it has

become, in the past five years, an important component of basic course programs.

In addition, ten respondents described new methods of assessment including digital

and paper portfolios, competency-based goals and grading, and the strategic use of peer

groups for exams and mutual feedback. When asked to indicate how assessment results

are used, no noticeable differences were obtained. An equal number of responses

indicate assessment data are used to revise course content, increase instructor

performance and/or change pedagogy, and enhance student performance.

Summary and Conclusions

Over the last 40 years, public speaking and hybrid courses have dominated the basic

course orientation in higher education in the United States. Today, larger institutions


favor the public speaking orientation, while smaller schools favor the hybrid

approach. With these two dominant orientations to the basic course, the long

tradition in our discipline of teaching public speaking skills remains intact. At all

reporting institutions, ethnic and racial enrollment in the basic communication

course is almost identical to the ethnic and racial enrollment of the school itself. As a

discipline, the fact that racial and ethnic enrollment in the basic course is consistent

with overall university enrollments is heartening. These results suggest basic courses

are likely offering appropriate services to the intended student populations. The basic

course continues to grow; more and more institutions are reporting increasing

numbers of sections offered each term. This growing popularity may be due, in large

part, to the developing central role of communication instruction in general

education programs as colleges and universities respond to the expectations of

regional accrediting agencies. This increasing demand for communication instruction

exerts additional staffing pressures on programs because there is a corresponding

need to staff additional sections.

The dramatic increase in the reported reliance on GTAs to teach the basic course

may also be the result of the growth in the number of autonomous sections being

offered since 1999. Second, budget restrictions may have restricted the hiring of full-

time, tenure track faculty at some institutions. Even though more and more sections

of the course are being offered, a significant majority of responding institutions do

not pass additional costs for course administration and delivery on to their students.

As budgets at colleges and universities become more constricted, basic-course

programs may be forced to impose revenue-generating measures onto students.

Administrators will recognize, sooner rather than later, that imposing fees in the basic

course can be a significant revenue stream for the department and institution.

Finally, the primary administrative problems in the basic course, section

consistency and use of part-time faculty, also may be related to the increase in the

number of sections. Increasing the number of autonomous sections may be

juxtaposed to the course directors’ or departments’ efforts to standardize the basic

course. As more sections become autonomous or stand-alone, instructors may begin

to demand greater freedom in how they teach the course. Indeed, one potentially

negative result of standardizing the basic course is the restrictions, real or perceived,

that may be placed on the teachers’ autonomy and creativity in developing their own

course. However, consistency in basic course instruction is important because it is

closely related to the demands from on and off campus to assess student learning

outcomes across all sections of this one course. If students receive disparate

pedagogical experiences, assessment results will be impacted both short- and long-

term. We suspect these results will be skewed in ways not anticipated by basic course

directors and program administrators. The long-term effects of these results on the

basic course will depend on how each university’s administration responds.

Topics included in the basic course and the textbooks selected for use have changed

very little since 1999. At the same time, Communication Across the Curriculum

programs (CAC) continue to have a presence on some but not many campuses, while

other support services for students are provided by academic assistance centers and


the Web. CAC programs clearly emphasize the importance of the communication

skills learned in the basic course throughout an undergraduate student’s education.

However, to be sustained, the CAC program must be administered by a qualified

communication faculty member. Frequently, colleges and universities are quite

willing to create CAC programs, but offer little incentive to faculty to monitor the

program once it is in place.

More schools are taking advantage of service learning and other civic engagement

initiatives, reflecting an increased interest in linking classroom learning to commu-

nity life. Teachers are also relying more on technology and media in the basic course.

This trend is likely to continue as developing technologies offer a number of ways to

support in-class instruction and increase student learning. We can also anticipate

increased use of instructional delivery technology as available budgets continue to

decrease. If that is the case, we need to carefully consider the most effective delivery

systems for use in the basic communication course. Concomitantly, an array of

challenges impacts the process of using distance education technology to deliver the

basic course including expressed concerns about training for and the motivation of

instructors, at least as suggested by the data for this study. Allen (2006) also notes that

the rush to on-line communication education should be carefully evaluated and that

a serious conversation should occur about offering the ‘‘general education,

communication skills course’’ on-line (p. 122). In short, we would do well to think

about pedagogical impacts in the basic course from a student-learning perspective,

not only instructor or administrator perspectives.

Teachers of the basic course are requiring fewer graded assignments than they did

in 1999. One interpretation of these data is that faculty may realize in part that there

was too much included in and expected of students taking the basic communication

course. Similarly, increasing class sizes result in the need to reduce the number of in-

class graded communication assignments. Others may see this decrease in graded

assignments as an unhealthy reduction of expectations. An alternative interpretation

of these data is that departments have reduced academic rigor in the basic course in

response to pressure from students or administrators or both. On another front,

while videotape is used to some extent to evaluate oral performance, survey results

suggest that oral performances are still graded live, in the classroom, and by the

instructor.

The added emphasis on assessment on all college and university campuses explains

why the number of institutions using assessment measures in their basic communica-

tion course has increased dramatically since the 1999 study. This increase in basic course

assessment programs suggests that results may be used for four important aspects of the

basic communication course: evaluating course content, improving instruction,

measuring student learning, and enhancing students’ communication skills.

Limitations and Recommendations

Previous studies examining the content and practices of the basic communication

course were both valued and criticized. While the cumulative results were deemed


valuable to course administrators and faculty, limitations focused on low response

rates, usefulness of the data to various course orientations, and the failure to include

questions related to ethnicity and diversity on the survey. In the current study, despite

online availability of the survey instrument and considerable efforts to encourage an

increase in responses, the sample size remained fairly consistent with previous

studies. Future replications of the study might consider improving the response rate

by including phone sampling and on-site sampling at regional and national

communication conventions. Alternatively, if the goal is to develop a representative

sample, future research might create a random sample from the population of

approximately 1,300 colleges and universities, and vigorously pursue responses from

those respondents.

The current study addressed the second limitation of basic course design or

orientation by gathering and reporting most of the data separately, depending on the

respondent’s course orientation. Now, instructors perusing the results may consider

the findings as they relate specifically to their course and its particular orientation. In

addition, the study examined the ethnicity of students at the reporting institutions

and in the basic course, and included diversity as a topic in the course. As a result, the

data from this survey could be examined in light of the ethnic makeup of the

responding institutions. Future surveys might examine diversity in hiring practices,

teaching staff, and classroom strategies.

The current study also extended previous research by examining how technologies

are used to deliver basic course instruction. Given the emerging importance of the

relationship between technology and pedagogy, future surveys might pursue this line

of inquiry to gain greater understanding of what constitutes a good online

communication course, how an online course is assessed, and how teachers are

using technologies such as Blackboard or WebCT in the course.

For now, the present study and its findings are offered to our colleagues as a

current snapshot of the basic communication course. As we think ahead, we muse

about options and possibilities to extend this study beyond mere replication. Should

we, or others, more extensively survey students themselves about the merits or

shortcomings of the basic course? Does the basic course meet their needs

professionally and personally? What about surveying employers? Does the basic

course satisfy what employers expect in college graduates? How does the basic course

need to change to meet academic, theoretical, and skills needs identified by various

stakeholders? While we hope that the information presented here is valuable to

faculty and administrators in higher education, we also hope that it encourages other

inquiries into the changing nature of the basic course in communication.

References

Allen, T. H. (2006). Is the rush to provide on-line instruction setting our students up for failure?

Communication Education , 55 , 122�126.

American Council on Higher Education. (2005). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-first annual

status report (2003�2005) . Washington, DC: American Council on Higher Education.


Burns, M. T. (2003). The battle for civilized behaviors: Let’s begin with manners. Phi Delta Kappan ,

84 , 546�549.

Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance

as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education , 53 , 253�273.

Coplin, W. D. (2006, January 27). 7 ways colleges can cut costs in their classrooms. [Electronic

version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Darling, A. D., & Daniels, D. P. (2003). Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A

report on the role of oral communication in the workplace. Communication Education , 52 ,

1�16.

Dwyer, K. K., Carlson, R. E., & Kahre, S. A. (2002). Communication apprehension and basic course

success: The lab-supported public speaking course intervention. Basic Communication Course

Annual , 16 , 87�112.

Feldmann, L. J. (2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor classroom responsibilities.

College Teaching , 49 , 137�140.

Garside, C. (2002). Seeing the forest through the trees: A challenge facing communication across the

curriculum programs. Communication Education , 51 , 51�64.

Gibson, J., Gruner, C., Brooks, W., & Petrie, C. (1970). The first course in speech: A survey of U.S.

colleges and universities. The Speech Teacher, 19 , 13�20.

Gibson, J., Gruner, C., Hanna, M., Smythe, M. J., & Hayes, M. (1980). The basic course in speech at

U.S. colleges and universities: III. Communication Education , 29 , 1�9.

Gibson, J., Hanna, M., & Huddleston, B. (1990). The basic speech course at U.S. colleges and

universities: IV. Communication Education , 34 , 281�291.

Gibson, J., Hanna, J., & Leichty, G. (1985). The basic course at U.S. colleges and universities: V.

Basic Communication Course Annual , 2 , 233�257.

Gibson, J., Kline, J., & Gruner, C. (1974). A re-examination of the first course in speech at U.S.

colleges and universities. The Speech Teacher, 23 , 206�214.

Goodnight, L. J., & Wallace, S. P. (2005) (Eds). The basic communication course online: Scholarship

and application . Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.

Goulden, N. R. (2002). Revising public speaking content, theory, and pedagogy: A review of the

issues in the discipline in the 1990s. Basic Communication Course Annual , 14 , 1�38.

Harter, L. M., Kirby, E. L., Hatfield, K. L., & Kuhlman, K. N. (2004). From spectators of public

affairs to agents of social change: Engaging students in the basic course through service

learning. Basic Communication Course Annual , 16 , 165�194.

Hunt, S. K., Ekachai, D., Garard, D. L., & Rust., J. H. (2001). Students’ perceived usefulness and

relevance of communication skills in the basic course: Comparing university and community

college students. Basic Communication Course Annual , 13 , 1�22.

Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2002). Extending learning opportunities in the basic communication

course: Exploring the pedagogical benefits of speech laboratories. Basic Communication

Course Annual , 14 , 60�86.

Jones, A. C., Hunt, S. K., Simonds, C. J., Comadena, M. E., & Baldwin, J. R. (2004). Speech

laboratories: An exploratory examination of potential pedagogical effects on students. Basic

Communication Annual , 16 , 105�138.

La Ware, M. (2004). The public speaking classroom as public space: Taking risks and embracing

difference. Basic Communication Course Annual , 16 , 279�291.

Morreale, S. P., Hanna, M. S., Berko, R. M., & Gibson, J. W. (1999). The basic communication

course at U. S. colleges and universities: VI. Basic Communication Course Annual , 11 , 1�36.

Morreale, S., Hackman, M., & Neer, R. (1998). Predictors of self-perceptions of behavioral

competence, self-esteem, and willingness to communicate: A study assessing impact in a

basic interpersonal course. Basic Communication Course Annual , 10 , 7�26.

Morreale, S. P., Hackman, M. Z., & Neer, M. R. (1995). Predictors of behavioral competence and

self-esteem: A study assessing impact in a basic public speaking course. Basic Communication

Course Annual , 7 , 125�141.


Moyer, B. S., & Hugenberg, L. W. (1997, November). Using research to justify instruction in the basic

communication course . Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication

Association, Chicago, IL.

National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2006). Job outlook 2006 . Bethlehem, PA: National

Association of Colleges and Employers.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Reinard, J. C. (2001). Introduction to communication research (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Richardson, S. (1999). Civility, leadership, and the classroom. New Directions in Teaching and

Learning , 77 , 77�86.

Todd, T. S., Tilson, L. D., Cox, S. A., & Malinauskas, B. (2000). Assessing the perceived effectiveness

of the basic communication course: An examination of the mass-lecture format versus the

self-contained format. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration , 29 , 185�195.

Treinen, K. P. (2004). Creating a dialogue for change: Educating graduate teaching assistants in

whiteness studies. Basic Communication Course Annual , 16 , 139�164.

Treinen, K. P., & Warren, J. T. (2001). Antiracist pedagogy in the basic course: Teaching cultural

communication as if whiteness matters. Basic Course Communication Annual , 13 , 46�75.

Troup, C. (2002). Common sense in the basic public speaking course. Basic Communication Course

Annual , 14 , 39�59.

What do employers really want? (2005). Career World , 33 , 5.

Worley, D. W., & Worley, D. A. (2006). FYE and the basic course: Insights from theory and practice.

Basic Communication Course Annual , 17 , 63�101.

Received November 11, 2005

Accepted April 27, 2006


Documents

The Basic Communication Course at U.S. Colleges and ...aslagell/Basic_Course/The Basic... · The Basic Communication Course at U.S. Colleges and Universities in the 21st Century: