Scott A. Myers, Melissa F. Tindage, and Jordan Atkinson

2The Evolution of Instructional Communication Research

Abstract: Instructional communication refers to the study of the human communication process across all learning situations independent of the subject matter, the grade level, or the learning environment. Since its beginnings in the 1970s, instructional communication researchers have dedicated their efforts to examining instructor and student communication practices, behaviors, and traits; instructor teaching and student learning strategies; instructor classroom management practices; and how the development and maintenance of instructor-student relationships affect the teaching-learning process. Many of these research efforts have been published in Communication Education, the premier journal of instructional communication research. A content analysis of the 1269 scholarly articles published in Communication Education from 1976–2014 reveals that each article falls into one of four categories: empirical studies, literature reviews, commentaries/ essays, and instructional practices. A closer examination of the empirical studies indicates that the topics of these articles center on instructor classroom behaviors, student classroom behaviors, student characteristics, student learning outcomes, instructional content, program evaluation, learning environment, instructor characteristics, or mediated communication. Furthermore, many of these empirical studies adopt a quantitative research methodology, collect data through survey research, and utilize domestic undergraduate college students as their sample.

Keywords: communication education, Communication Education, instructional communication, instructor-student relationship, student learning, learning environment, programmatic research

Since the formation of the National Association of Academic Teachers of Public Speaking in 1914, the sub-discipline of instructional communication has maintained a healthy presence in the Communication discipline (Friedrich & Boileau, 1990) by expending “considerable intellectual effort to the development of theory and research supportive of effective communication instruction” (Friedrich, 1987, p. 4). Early work in the discipline centered on speech communication pedagogy and communication education (Rubin, 2011), which then eventually branched into the separate, yet related, field of instructional communication. Considered initially to be a vehicle through which researchers could study the interdependencies that exist among human communication, human learning, and the science of teaching (Scott & Wheeless, 1977), contemporary scholars agree with Staton’s (1989) assessment that instructional communication centers on “the study of the human communication process as it occurs in instructional contexts across subject matter, grade levels, and types of settings” (p. 365). As noted by Beebe and Mottet (2009), these contexts can include both traditional settings (e.g., Kindergarten to 12th grade, higher education institutions) and nontraditional settings (e.g., corporate training, community education); but regardless of the context, instructional communication practitioners typically focus on the role that communication variables play in the instructional environment, with the idea that these variables ultimately foster, in some way, student learning (Staton, 1989).

The purpose of this chapter is to trace the evolution of instructional communication research. In the first section, we will review a brief history of instructional communication research. In the second section, we will provide the results of a content analysis of the journal Communication Education, the primary outlet for instructional communication research.

Instructional Communication Research: 1972–2015

By most accounts, the establishment of instructional communication as a legitimate field of study began in 1972 when the International Communication Association (ICA) approved the creation of the Instructional Communication Division (Friedrich, 1989). According to McCroskey and McCroskey (2006), this Division was the first academic group to focus exclusively on instructional communication by “encourage[ing] and support[ing] the development and empirical testing of communication theory relevant to individuals interacting in instructional settings” (Nussbaum & Friedrich, 2005, p. 578), even though other communication associations (e.g., the Speech Communication Association [SCA], the Eastern Communication Association [ECA]) had, at this time, pre-established divisions that focused on communication education. These initial efforts to create the Instructional Communication Division at ICA are attributed to Barbara Lieb-Brilhart, who was employed at the SCA national office, and Robert Kibler and Larry Barker, two professors at Florida State University (McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006; Richmond & Frymier, 2010).

It was not until the mid-1970s, however, that instructional communication research began to become widely disseminated to scholars and instructors alike. Several events occurred during this time period that established the foundation for the sub-discipline of instructional communication. In 1976, The Speech Teacher, a publication of the SCA, was renamed Communication Education. Its focus shifted from publishing articles and activities intended to provide pedagogy to speech communication teachers to publishing articles on instructional communication variables targeted at assisting instructors of all academic disciplines with both teaching activities and research endeavors (McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006). In 1977, the ICA began publishing Communication Yearbook, a yearly periodical dedicated to disseminating the best research conducted by its members. From 1977–1986, Communication Yearbook published one overview chapter on each of the Association’s areas of study, as well as each Division’s top papers presented at the prior year’s convention. For instructional communication research, these overview chapters examined topics such as instructional communication theory and research (Scott & Wheeless, 1977), learning theory (Lashbrook & Wheeless, 1978), instructional strategies and systems (Wheeless & Hurt, 1979), classroom interaction (Daly & Korinek, 1980), and developmental communication (Van Kleeck & Daly, 1982). In 1978, Hurt, Scott, and McCroskey published Communication in the Classroom, the first instructional communication textbook built on the premise that “there is, indeed, a difference between knowing and teaching, and that difference is communication in the classroom” (p. 3). With this textbook, they introduced readers to a host of instructional communication variables (e.g., student communication apprehension; student affective, behavioral, and cognitive learning; instructor credibility, attraction, homophily, and power) that years later would become (and still remain) prominent areas of research.

Additionally, several programmatic areas of research introduced during the mid- and late-1970s – much of which was published in Communication Yearbook – would become just as prominent in the decades to follow. Topics such as student communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1977), instructor credibility (McCroskey, Holdridge, & Toomb, 1974), instructor homophily (McCroskey, Richmond, & Daly, 1975), instructor attraction (McCroskey & McCain, 1974), instructor nonverbal immediacy (Andersen, 1979), instructor communicator style (Norton, 1977), instructor humor (Bryant, Comisky, & Zillmann, 1979), and instructor self-disclosure (Nussbaum & Scott, 1979), to name a few, would shape much of the research conducted during the 1980s, even though the genesis of these topics was rooted in the areas of general communication, interpersonal communication, and rhetorical communication (McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2006). Notably, many of these studies, and others like them, laid the groundwork for the notion that the instructor-student relationship is one type of interpersonal relationship (Nussbaum & Scott, 1979, 1980), an idea that was later revisited and popularized by Frymier and Houser (2000). Other research conducted during this time period focused on exploring instructional communication variables through the Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model of communication (Preiss & Wheeless, 2014). Together, these studies began the variable-analytic practice of studying instructional communication, a practice that remains prevalent currently (Myers, 2010).

During the 1980s, much of the instructional communication research was built off of these initial research projects, although expanded in scope. Several of these projects were extensions of the original topics, thereby creating several programmatic lines of research (Friedrich, 1989). For instance, the study of communication apprehension was broadened to include student apprehension toward participating in class (Neer, 1987); the study of nonverbal immediacy was expanded to include a verbal component (Gorham, 1988; Richmond, Gorham, & McCroskey, 1987); and the study of communicator style extended itself to the examination of instructor use of dramatic behaviors (Norton & Nussbaum, 1980) and eventually the exploration of how instructors use humor, narratives, and self-disclosure in the classroom (Downs, Javidi, & Nussbaum, 1988; Javidi, Downs, & Nussbaum, 1988; Javidi & Long, 1989; Nussbaum, Comadena, & Holladay, 1987). The conceptualization of instructor credibility evolved (McCroskey & Young, 1981) as did a general interest in the communicative behaviors that comprised teacher effectiveness (Andersen, Norton, & Nussbaum, 1981; Nussbaum, 1984; Rubin & Feezel, 1986; Scott & Nussbaum, 1981) and the communication concerns that teachers experienced (Staton-Spicer, 1983; Staton-Spicer & Bassett, 1979).

The notion of instructor power (McCroskey & Richmond, 1983; Richmond & McCroskey, 1984) was introduced, resulting in a seven-article series titled “Power in the Classroom” that examined how instructor use of power bases and compliance-gaining strategies (known as behavioral alteration techniques) affected student learning (see Richmond, 1990 for a review of this series), as well as its attendant construct of student resistance (Burroughs, Kearney, & Plax, 1989; Plax, Kearney, Downs, & Stewart, 1986). Affinity seeking was identified as a behavior instructors could use to generate liking from their students for both themselves and their subject matter (McCroskey & McCroskey, 1986). For many of these topics, its study was accompanied by the development of a quantitative survey instrument, thereby increasing both the breadth and the depth of the research conducted by instructional communication scholars (see Kearney & Beatty, 1994). Additionally, as summarized by Waldeck, Plax, and Kearney (2010), the conceptualization and measurement of student affective, behavioral, and cognitive learning, which began in the late-1970s, improved markedly during this time period.

The 1990s witnessed a boom in both the study of instructor communication behaviors and student communication behaviors. Much of this research was published in Communication Education, as well as in Communication Quarterly and Communication Research Reports, two journals published by the ECA that were receptive to instructional communication scholarship. While scholars continued to explore the lines of research established in the 1980s, several constructs associated with interpersonal communication research were modified for study in the instructional communication context, including instructor argumentativeness and verbal aggressiveness (Myers, 1998; Myers & Knox, 1999), instructor socio-communicative style (Thomas, Richmond, & McCroskey, 1994; Wanzer & McCroskey, 1998), student communication motives (Martin, Myers, & Mottet, 1999), and student use of affinity-seeking strategies (Wanzer, 1998). Other constructs such as instructor misbehavior (Kearney, Plax, Hays, & Ivey, 1991), instructor use of relevance strategies (Frymier & Shulman, 1995), and instructor clarity (Chesebro & McCroskey, 1998; Civikly, 1992; Powell & Harville, 1990; Sidelinger & McCroskey, 1997; Simonds, 1997) emerged as viable areas of study. Humor research continued to grow, with researchers sharpening their focus on the role that instructor humor orientation (an interpersonal communication trait) played in the student learning process (e.g., Wanzer & Frymier, 1999).

Moreover, instructional communication researchers expressed an interest in exploring student communication behavior, resulting in projects on student clarifying techniques (Kendrick & Darling, 1990), student motivation (Christophel, 1990), student use of compliance-gaining strategies (Golish, 1999), and student learner empowerment (Frymier, Shulman, & Houser, 1996). In regard to student learning, the measurement of affective learning was refined (McCroskey, 1994; Mottet & Richmond, 1998), and a new measure of student cognitive learning (i.e., Revised Learning Indicators Scale) was developed (Frymier & Houser, 1999). The measurement of instructor nonverbal immediacy (McCroskey, Sallinen, Fayer, Richmond, & Barraclough, 1996) and instructor credibility (McCroskey & Teven, 1999; Teven & McCroskey, 1997) continued to be fine-tuned, and several other quantitative instruments were developed to assess the constructs developed during this time period (see Rubin, 2009). Collectively, along with much of the research conducted in the two preceding decades, this decade of instructional communication research utilized the process-product paradigm and remained variable-analytic in its approach.

The study of many of these aforementioned constructs (from both the 1980s and the 1990s) continued well into the 2000s, with the introduction of new constructs that centered on instructor-student and student-student classroom communication such as instructor confirmation (Ellis, 2000), instructor use of facework strategies (Kerssen-Griep, 2001; Kerssen-Griep, Trees, & Hess, 2008), student classroom emotion (Titsworth, Quinlan, & Mazer, 2010), connected classroom climate (Dwyer et al., 2004), and technology use in the classroom (Finn & Ledbetter, 2013). Several constructs typically associated with organizational communication research were applied to the instructional communication contexts, spawning several new lines of research such as classroom justice (Chory, 2007; Chory-Assad, 2002), student dissent (Goodboy, 2011), and student feedback orientations (King, Schrodt, & Weisel, 2009). Out-of-class communication (Bippus, Kearney, Plax, & Brooks, 2003; Nadler & Nadler, 2000) became a new context for studying instructor-student interactions, as did instructor-student e-mail exchanges (Stephens, Houser, & Cowan, 2009; Waldeck, Kearney, & Plax, 2001b). Researchers continued to make improvements in both the conceptualization and measurement of several instructional communication constructs, including instructor homophily and attraction (McCroskey, McCroskey, & Richmond, 2006), instructor self-disclosure (Cayanus & Martin, 2004, 2008), instructor humor (Frymier, Wanzer, & Wojtaszczyk, 2008), instructor nonverbal immediacy (Smythe & Hess, 2005), instructor power (Schrodt, Witt, & Turman, 2007), instructor misbehaviors (Goodboy & Myers, 2015), and student resistance (Burroughs, 2007). Moreover, several new measures to assess student cognitive learning – including confidence testing (King & Witt, 2009), student engagement (Mazer, 2012), and an instrument centered on student acquisition, retention, and application of course content (Frisby & Martin, 2010; Frisby, Mansson, & Kaufmann, 2014) – were introduced, as was a new measure to assess student communication satisfaction with instructors (Goodboy, Martin, & Bolkan, 2009).

The 2000s also bore a surge in the development of models and theories targeted specifically at the instructional communication process. McCroskey and his colleagues (Katt, McCroskey, Sivo, Richmond, & Valencic, 2009; McCroskey, Valencic, & Richmond, 2004) developed the Generalized Model of Instructional Communication as a way to explain how classroom instruction occurs, whereas Weber, Martin, and Myers (2011) developed the Instructional Beliefs Model as a way to explain how instructor characteristics, student characteristics, and course-specific structural issues work together to influence students’ attitudes and behaviors toward instruction. Slightly disrupting the variable-analytic trend established during the 1990s, several theories were developed to guide instructional research efforts, which include emotional response theory, rhetorical/ relational goal theory, relational power and instructional influence theory (Mottet, Frymier, & Beebe, 2006), and instructional humor processing theory (Wanzer, Frymier, & Irwin, 2010). In addition, research methodologies now commonly employ modeling as well as moderation and mediation analyses.

Communication Education: 1976–2014

The journal Speech Teacher debuted in 1952 as one of three journals published by the Speech Association of America (SAA; Reid, 2002) until it was rebranded (and renamed) Communication Education in 1976. Up to that point, and based on a suggestion by then SAA Executive Director Loren Reid as a way to increase association revenue (Reid, 1990), The Speech Teacher focused primarily on publishing articles about the effective instruction of speech communication courses and concepts (Richmond & Frymier, 2010). Today, Communication Education is one of 11 journals published by the National Communication Association (NCA), whose collective purpose is to “provide the latest research in the discipline and showcase diverse perspectives on a range of scholarly topics” (National Communication Association, 2015). According to Waldeck, Kearney, and Plax (2001a), Communication Education is considered the top publishing outlet for instructional communication research.

“Throughout its history Communication Education has been a journal of many topics, many philosophical perspectives and many research methodologies” (Sprague, 2002, p. 339). To gain a more comprehensive picture of the role that Communication Education has played in the development of the sub-discipline of instructional communication, it is necessary to first gain a glimpse into the editors who have shaped the vision and the direction of the journal over the past 38 years (see Table 1). The first three volumes (Volumes 25–27, 1976–1978) of the newly anointed Communication Education were edited by Kenneth L. Brown of the University of

Table 1: Communication Education Editors

Years (Volumes)	Editor
1976–1978 (25–27)	Kenneth L. Brown, University of Massachusetts
1979–1981 (28–30)	Gustav V. Friedrich, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
1982–1984 (31–33)	Donald H. Ecroyd, Temple University
1985–1987 (34–36)	John A. Daly, University of Texas-Austin
1988–1990 (37–39)	James C. McCroskey, West Virginia University
1991–1993 (40–42)	Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
1994–1996 (43–45)	Douglas M. Trank, University of Iowa
1997–1999 (46–48)	Ruth Anne Clark, University of Illinois
2000–2002 (49–51)	Joe Ayres, Washington State University
2003–2005 (52–54)	Don Rubin, University of Georgia
2006–2008 (55–57)	Patricia Kearney, California State University, Long Beach
2009–2011 (58–60)	Melanie Booth-Butterfield, West Virginia University
2012–2014 (61–63)	Paul L. Witt, Texas Christian University

Massachusetts. In a section labeled “To Readers and Contributors” that appeared in each issue, Brown noted that the journal was intended to assist

with all aspects of teaching and learning speech communication in elementary, middle, junior, and senior high schools and in higher education. Its purpose is to provide speech communication teachers with practical, well-conceived ideas and resources for developing speech communication competencies in their students. Communication Education also seeks to assist teachers of all disciplines and academic levels to apply communication theory and research to classroom teaching and learning.

Across these three volumes, the published articles fell into one of five categories. The first category featured articles that either addressed the topical nature of the journal issue, as Brown often devoted each issue to a specific thematic teaching topic (e.g., teaching oral interpretation, interpersonal communication, or the basic course), or the articles were empirical research reports that explored some avenue of communication theory and research. The second category was labeled Instructional Practices, which generally either offered advice and provided tips on how to teach a particular communication concept or described a teaching activity that could be implemented in a specific communication course. The third category was titled ERIC (Educational Resources Information Center) RCS (Reading/Communication Skills) Report, a speech communication module that was administered jointly by the SCA and the National Council of Teachers on Education in cooperation with the National Institute of Health. In this report, which was usually written by a member of the SCA national office, summaries of relevant convention papers, white papers, and resources (often reflective of the thematic nature of the issue) catalogued by, and made available through, ERIC were provided. The fourth category, which was edited by Sharon L. Ratliffe of Ambassador College, was titled “Reviewsof Teaching/ Learning Resources.” This section contained a review of both print (e.g., books, textbooks, manuals) and non-print (e.g., cassette tapes, filmstrips) resources that could be used to teach speech and theatre courses across all grade levels. A fifth category, which appeared regularly but not in each issue, was labeled “Communication Capsules: The National Scene” and was written by Barbara Lieb-Brilhart. In this feature, Lieb-Brilhart focused on the contemporary issues and trends (e.g., speaking literacy, communication competency) related to communication education at the national level. Additionally, advertisements touting undergraduate and graduate programs, textbooks, and instructional resources were placed inside both the front and back covers, on the back cover itself, and on the last few pages of each issue. Each front cover featured a graphic design unique to the issue, often associated with the issue’s theme. Graphics also were used to illustrate several of the articles and as logos for the Instructional Practices, ERIC RCS Report, and Reviews of Teaching/ Learning Resources sections.

Volumes 28–30 (1979–1981) were edited by Gustav W. Friedrich, who was a professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Friedrich’s goal was to “produce a journal that would be read by and perceived as useful by all members of the association” (G. W. Friedrich, personal communication, September 29, 2015). He maintained the status quo in terms of the content published in Communication Education by publishing research articles, which he labeled as features (these articles were described as “provid[ing] the theory and research necessary for the improvement of instruction” in his note to contributors) as well as continuing the Instructional Practices, ERIC RCS Report, and the Review of Teaching/ Learning Resources (edited by Cassandra L. Book of Michigan State University) sections. In his “From the Editor” note that appeared in the first issue of each volume, he especially encouraged contributions from K-12 teachers and community college instructors; he also worked actively to recruit submissions from both instructional and non-instructional communication scholars (G. W. Friedrich, personal communication, September 27, 2015). Of his 12 issues, two issues were specifically devoted to special topics: “The Status of Graduate Study in Communication” (Volume 28, Number 4) guest edited by Roderick P. Hart of the University of Texas and “The Status of the Discipline” (Volume 29, Number 3) guest edited by Frank E. X. Dance of the University of Denver. Although he discontinued Brown’s practice of thematizing issues, advertisements for speech communication programs and instructional aids (e.g., textbooks) still were prominently featured in the journal. The front cover continued to feature a graphic specifically designed for the issue by Friedrich’s wife, who was a professional graphic artist (G. W. Friedrich, personal communication, September 29, 2015), and often was linked to the topic of the first article contained in the issue.

Donald P. Ecroyd, a professor in the Department of Speech at Temple University, edited Volumes 31–33 (1982–1984). He refined the purpose of the journal by informing readers in his “From the Editor” note appearing in each issue that Communication Education

strives to provide teachers with practical, well thought out, well written articles focusing upon the relationship among theory, research, and the classroom experience. Its concerns are with all aspects of the teaching and learning of both verbal and nonverbal communication skills, and with issues in the educational profession which may affect that teaching and learning.

While continuing to publish four of the same types of articles that appeared under Friedrich’s editorship (i.e., features, instructional practices, ERIC reports, and Reviews of Teaching/ Learning Resources, which were edited by Edward J. Pappas of Wayne State University), the Instructional Practices section was no longer featured; instead, any articles focused on instructional practices were integrated into the features articles section. (Yet, for whatever reason, Volume 33, Number 4 contained a section labeled “Creative Instructional Ideas” that included five teaching activities.) Moreover, Ecroyd introduced a new “Forum” section in which he asked Communication Education readers to respond (either generally or specifically to a question he posed) in no more than 350 words to the articles published in the journal; these collective (usually between one to five) responses would then appear in a subsequent issue.

Unlike Friedrich, Ecroyd did not designate any issues for special topics, although he did feature three symposiums (as part of an issue) guest edited by Gerald M. Phillips of Pennsylvania State University on the pedagogy of effective speakers (Volume 31, Number 3), John Stewart of the University of Washington on empathic listening (Volume 32, Number 4), and Sharon Ratliffe of Golden West College on speech communication in community colleges (Volume 33, Number 1). Additionally, similar to the prior volumes edited by Brown and Friedrich, Communication Education continued to include advertisements, although the inside of both the front and back covers featured either a product or service offered by the SCA. The cover, however, no longer contained a graphic; rather, it simply contained the journal’s name.

Volumes 34–36 (1985–1987) were edited by John A. Daly, a professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Texas. In his volumes, Daly continued publishing articles that could be classified into the four aforementioned sections published by Brown, Friedrich, and to a large extent, Ecroyd: features, instructional practices, ERIC RCS reports, and Review of Teaching/ Learning Resources, which was now being edited by Judith S. Trent of the University of Cincinnati. Daly did, however, add two new sections to his issues. The first new section was titled “Reflections,” in which Daly invited communication scholars “to tell [Communication Education] readers something they ought to know about the discipline, about its history, about how we teach communication now and in the past, personal challenges that they overcame, [or] what they’ve learned in their long and distinguished careers” (J. A. Daly, personal communication, September 24, 2015). The second section was a Software Reviews section, which was edited by Frank E. X. Dance. Noting that the recent development of computers and computer software could assist SCA members in their teaching endeavors, Dance (1985) encouraged the submission of software reviews “in terms of what it says it will do, if it does it, if it does it well, if it does it easily, and if everything that it does can help the reader” (p. 82). He further implored readers to submit the names of particular software products that they would like to see reviewed, stating that “software manufacturers seem not yet to be convinced of the value of being reviewed in this journal but if you tell me what you want to see reviewed I will try to acquire it and have it reviewed for a future column” (Dance, 1985, p. 82).

During Daly’s tenure, the physical appearance of the journal changed slightly as well, with the front cover of each issue now listing the articles contained within the issue. The journal still contained advertisements for SCA products and services, textbooks, and graduate programs, although in some issues, both the inside front and back covers featured the masthead of the journal and the SCA, respectively. Beginning in 1985, the last issue (i.e., Number 4) of each volume contained an Index that referenced, by author name, each article published in the preceding issues of each volume, a practice that was carried forward with each subsequent volume until 2007. (The 1985 index, for whatever reason, appears in Volume 35, Number 4 of the 1986 volume; no indexes were published for 2002 or 2006.)

James C. McCroskey edited Volumes 37–39 (1988–1990). A professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University, McCroskey’s issues focused primarily on content (formerly known as features) articles and reviews. In his “Guidelines for Submissions” note featured in each issue, McCroskey stated that the journal

publishes the best scholarship available on topics related to communication in instructional settings. … Articles in CE focus primarily on the role of communication in the instructional process and teaching communication in traditional academic environments. However, manuscripts related to teaching communication or the role of communication in non-traditional settings (e.g., training in business, health, and legal settings) are strongly encouraged.

At this time, the Instructional Practices section was discontinued (as were the ERIC RCS reports), as SCA debuted a new journal titled The Speech Communication Teacher (now known as Communication Teacher) whose focus was exclusively on the teaching of communication (Gehrke & Keith, 2015), thus eliminating the need for these types of articles to be published in Communication Education. The “Reviews” section (edited by Walter R. Zakahi of West Virginia University) was modified in its name, but it still continued to review print resources (e.g., books, textbooks, journals outside the Communication discipline) and non-print resources, including reviews of then-current technology (e.g., BITNET) and computer software (e.g., SPSS 3.0).

Across his three volumes, McCroskey devoted one issue (Volume 30, Number 4) to a special issue on “Perspectives on the Interface on Communication and Instruction,” which offered both contextual and programmatic views of those scholars whose research efforts concentrated on the role that communication played in the instructional process. The physical appearance of the journal continued to evolve, with the front cover of each issue being a solid color (i.e., red, green, blue, and purple), but still listing the contents for each issue. The inside of the front and back covers, as well as the back cover and several pages at the end of each issue, continued to feature advertisements.

A professor in the Department of Speech Communication at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, Lawrence B. Rosenfeld, was the editor of Volumes 40–42 (1991–1993). Although Rosenfeld continued to publish content articles, he also solicited submissions for four features he termed instruction-related materials: master syllabi, reviews of instruments, teaching aid reviews, and book reviews (e.g., textbooks, popular books). In the “Editor’s Note” that appeared in his first issue (Volume 40, Number 1), Rosenfeld identified master syllabi submissions as syllabi that “present an approach to and argument for teaching either a new course or an established course in a new way,” review of instruments submissions as “descriptions and comparisons among measuring instruments that may be used in the classroom,” and teaching aid reviews as reviews of “materials easily and readily available to instructors, such as television programs and films on videocassette.” He also appointed associate editors for each of these three features, respectively: Roy M. Berko of Towson State University, Ann L. Darling of the University of Utah, and James Zalewski of La Cueva High School (Albuquerque, New Mexico); Isa N. Engleberg of Prince George’s Community College was appointed as the book reviews editor.

In each volume, Rosenfeld featured one special issue, although these issues were not always labeled as such. Volume 40 featured a collection of articles on gender issues in the communication classroom (Number 1) and a special report on managing multicultural communication education (Number 3) co-edited by Fred L. Cashmir of Pepperdine University, Volume 41 (Number 2) examined a series of articles on the role of the instructor in the instructional communication process coedited by Ann Q. Staton of the University of Washington, and Volume 42 (Number 4) was a special issue devoted to the docustory, a term Rosenfeld used to refer to a narrative written in the form of a short story about a teaching moment that “works.” The physical appearance of the journal, as well as the inclusion of advertisements, remained similar in nature to McCroskey’s volumes, with the only difference being that the contents of each issue were now contained within a box on the front cover.

Volumes 43–45 (1994–1996) were edited by Douglas M. Trank, a professor in the Rhetoric Department at the University of Iowa. Similar to McCroskey, Trank focused almost exclusively on publishing content articles and reviews, naming Jo Sprague of San Jose State University as the associate editor for the reviews articles. He did, however, add one new feature that he titled as “Commentary.” In his “From the Editor” preface that appeared in his first issue (Volume 43, Number 1), Trank solicited articles inviting “all those with ideas to offer, proposals to debate, or opinions to champion to present their views to the journal’s readers” with the “hopethis section generates discussion and dissent that will bring [SCA members] closer to clarifying the intellectual centrality of [the] discipline.” While Trank also stated that his intention was to have the Commentary feature appear in several issues over his editorship, only the initial commentary (Wartella, 1994) was ever published. Instead, three issues contained the master syllabi feature instituted by Rosenfeld, and one issue (Volume 45, Number 3) contained a set of three review essays (written by one author) of several collaborative learning textbooks. In addition to a special issue (Volume 43, Number 2) dedicated solely to the Internet (guest edited by Gerald M. Phillips of Pennsylvania State University), Trank offered a two-article feature on distance learning (Volume 44, Number 4), a colloquy on “The Place of Literature in Performance Studies” (Volume 45, Number 2), and a symposium on “The Women’s University” (Volume 45, Number 4). The physical appearance of the journal retained a look nearly identical to Rosenfeld’s volumes, although the number of advertisements that appeared in the journal decreased.

Ruth Anne Clark, a professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Illinois, assumed the editorship for Volumes 46–48 (1997–1999). Her vision for the journal included publishing

the best scholarship available on topics related to communication instruction, the systematic development of communication skills, and communication in instruction … Articles may focus on issues related to instruction in traditional classroom settings or in less traditional instructional contexts, such as organizations, health care facilities, or families, and across a variety of delivery media (face-to-face, computer-mediated, video, and the like). (Editorial Policy, Volume 46, Number 1)

She continued the trend of publishing content articles and reviews, although the reviews sections was renamed “Book Reviews” (with Donald Rubin of the University of Georgia assuming the Associate Editor for Reviews position), and she introduced the brief report, which was a shorter version of content articles.

Unlike some of her predecessors, Clark did not designate any one issue as a special issue, but did devote some of her pages to special topics: a symposium on “Reflections on the SCA Summer Conference (on Graduate Education) and Beyond” (Volume 46, Number 2), a section on “Reflections on K-12 Standards” (Volume 47, Number 2), a section on “Communication Instruction Around the World” (Volume 47, Number 3), a section on “Reflections on Undergraduate Communication Education” (Volume 48, Number 3), and a review forum on “What’s the Use of a Textbook in the Basic Communication Performance Course?” (Volume 48, Number 4). No visible changes were made to either the physical appearance or the layout of the journal.

Volumes 49–51 (2000–2002) were edited by Joe Ayres, a professor in the School of Communication at Washington State University. Following the editorial policy established by Clark, Ayres solicited content articles, brief reports, and book reviews (with Tim Hopf of Washington State University serving as the reviews editor), although book reviews only appeared in three of his issues. Ayres also introduced a new feature titled Instructional Review, which appeared in five of his issues. Additionally, Ayres offered two Special Focus issues (Volume 49, Number 1 centered on “The Nature/ Nurture Balance” and Volume 50, Number 3 explored “Tech Advances”) and two Special Issues (Volume 51, Number 1 was labeled “Special Issue on the Communication Curriculum: What Should We Teach and How Should We Teach It?” guest edited by Philip M. Backlund of Central Washington University; Volume 51, Number 4 was a commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the founding of The Speech Teacher/Communication Education and featured guest commentary from all but two of the previous editors of Communication Education). As with the volumes edited by Clark, no visible changes in either the journal’s appearance or layout were made.

Donald L. Rubin, a professor in the Department of Speech Communication at the University of Georgia, was named editor of Communication Education for Volumes 52–54 (2003–2005). In the “Editor’s Note” that appeared in his first issue (Volume 52, Number 1), Rubin established a commitment to soliciting articles indicative of the interdisciplinary diversity (e.g., topics, methodology, design) occurring within the instructional research process. In addition to continuing to publish content articles, brief reports, and book reviews (with Nancy Rost Goulden of Kansas State University serving as the Associate Editor for Reviews), Rubin initiated a new feature titled “Scholarship of Teaching and Learning” edited by Ann L. Darling of the University of Utah. According to Darling (2003), the purpose of this feature was to highlight “empirical examination[s] of teaching in relation to student learning. It is distinct from scholarly teaching in that it goes beyond teaching well, even superbly, to participating in a focused inquiry process and reflective practice about one’s own teaching” (p. 47).

Rubin’s commitment to interdisciplinary diversity was further evident by two special issues. The first special issue centered on “Racial, Cultural, and Gendered Identities in Educational Contexts: Communication Perspectives on Identity Negotiation” (Volume 52, Number 3 & 4) guest edited by Ronald L. Jackson II of Pennsylvania State University and Katherine Grace Hendrix of the University of Memphis; the second special issue focused on “Communication Genres in Disciplinary Discourse Communities: Theoretical and Pedagogical Explorations of Communication Across the Curriculum and in the Disciplines” (Volume 54, Number 1) guest edited by Deanna P. Dannels of North Carolina State University. During his editorship, the physical appearance and layout of the journal changed drastically. Beginning with Volume 53, Number 1, the journal adopted a new front cover, which included the logos of both the NCA and Routledge/ Taylor & Francis (the journal’s new publisher), and a new back cover, which listed the contents published in the issue. Although advertisements still appeared, they were minimal in number and followed the book reviews section at the back of the journal.

Volumes 55–57 (2006–2008) were edited by Patricia Kearney, a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at California State University, Long Beach. As stated in the Editorial Policy that accompanied each issue, Kearney’s vision for the journal included publishing “the highest quality research that advances practice and theory in instruction generally and in communication education specifically … by encouraging systematic and programmatic research, theoretically grounded projects, rigorous literature reviews and meta-analyses, and interesting methodological and pedagogical papers.” While she continued to publish content articles, she discontinued the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and the Book Reviews sections, instead integrating SoTL articles into the content articles and directing prospective book review submissions to The Review of Communication, a relatively new NCA publication. She instituted a new feature titled “Raising the Question” as ways to not only “cultivate a broader readership for Communication Education to include training and organizational consultants and their applied works,” but also to “create a dialogue among [the] readership about relevant issues” (P. Kearney, personal communication, September 25, 2015). Kearney asked context experts to provide a timely commentary on issues related to the instructional communication process (e.g., providing online instruction, teaching special student populations), the teaching profession (e.g., achieving tenure process, attending conventions), or professional opportunities (e.g., becoming a consultant). This feature appeared in all of her issues except for her last issue (Volume 57, Number 4), which was devoted to a special issue (with Kearney acting as editor) on “Instructional Communication in Organizational Contexts: Innovations in Training and Consulting.”

The next editor of Communication Education was Melanie Booth-Butterfield, a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. Booth-Butterfield edited Volumes 58–60 (2009–2011). Along with upholding Kearney’s vision for the journal and publishing content articles, Booth-Butterfield stated in her Editorial policy that appeared in each issue that achieving “high credibility and visibility of Communication Education as a premiere source of the highest level knowledge and information on communication in educational contexts” was one of her goals as editor. To reach this goal, she instituted a new feature titled “Major Reviews” that consisted of state-of-the art literature reviews on instructional communication topics, all of which were peer reviewed (M. Booth-Butterfield, personal communication, September 25, 2015). Across her three volumes, this feature appeared in eight issues and explored topics such as public speaking anxiety, communication across the curriculum, assessment of oral communication, and classroom participation, among others. Only one issue (Volume 59, Number 3) was designated a special issue and focused on “Communication Education and Health Promotion,” which was guest edited by Gary L. Kreps (George Mason University), Lisa Sparks (Chapman University), and Melinda M. Villagran (George Mason University).

Paul L. Witt, a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University, edited Volumes 61–63 (2012–2014). In a brief article in his first issue, Witt (2012) provided his agenda for the journal, which included incorporating research on new communication technologies and disciplinary and programmatic assessment; increasing the reach of international and intercultural researchers as well as interdisciplinary collaboration; enhancing methodological diversity; and examining communication education from the perspectives of K-12 students and adult learners in addition to college students. Similar to many of his predecessors, Witt continued to publish content articles, although he reinstated the brief research report, a feature that originally appeared in Clark’s volumes. Because NCA’s 100th anniversary occurred in 2014, Witt designated Volume 63, Number 4 as a special issue on “The Foundation and Future of Instructional Communication.” This issue was guest edited by Ann B. Frymier of Miami University and featured articles on the history of the fields of both the sub-disciplines of communication education and instructional communication, the research legacies of James C. McCroskey and Elwood Murray, future agendas for the sub-disciplines of communication education and instructional communication research, and contemporary instructional issues faced by both scholars and instructors. Additionally, though the journal’s physical appearance and layout remained relatively the same since 2004, the NCA logo that appeared on the front cover of Volume 63 was replaced with a logo designed specifically to highlight NCA’s 100th anniversary.

Collectively, these 13 editors have been responsible for shaping the articles published in Communication Education for the past 39 years. However, aside from the editorial policies/ directions for submissions that appear in the journal or from the reflection pieces offered by previous editors (Brown, 2002; Clark, 2002; Daly, 2002; Friedrich, 2002), we seek more clarity about the types of articles published in Communication Education over its lifespan. To examine this idea, we undertook a content analysis of Communication Education from 1976–2014. Guiding this content analysis is the first research question:

RQ1:From 1976–2014, what types of articles appeared in Communication Education?

Several reviews of the sub-discipline of instructional communication research conducted to date and published in regional, national, and international communication journals have identified the topics studied by researchers. In one of the earliest reviews of the research conducted during the 1960s and 1970s, Scott and Wheeless (1977) found that research could be classified based on the Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model that guided much of the research conducted during this time period. As such, they noted that instructional communication research could be categorized into one of six groups: teachers as sources and receivers, students as sources and receivers, message variables, learning strategies, media, and feedback and reinforcement. In their review of articles published during the years 1974–1982, Staton-Spicer and Wulff (1984) identified teacher characteristics, student characteristics, teaching strategies, speech criticism and student evaluation, speech content, and speech communication programs as the primary areas in which instructional communication research was being conducted. Waldeck et al. (2001a) examined the published research from 1990–1999 and arrived at six categories of published instructional communication research: student communication, teacher communication, mass-media effects on children, pedagogical methods and technology use, classroom management, and teacher-student interaction. In a review of the articles appearing in Communication Education from 2000–2013, Hendrix and Wilson (2014) sorted them into four categories: instructor-to-student communication, public speaking, technology, and identity.

Although these efforts are informative in examining the content of instructional communication research published across multiple publication outlets, aside from those articles published in Communication Education, many of the articles examined in these aforementioned reports were published in journals that only rarely or occasionally featured instructional communication scholarship (e.g., Human Communication Research, Communication Monographs) or were published in Communication Quarterly or Communication Research Reports, two ECA journals that are known for publishing instructional communication research (Friedrich, 2002; McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006; McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2002). With the exception of the review undertaken by Hendrix and Wilson (2014), there is not a comprehensive review of the topics of the research published in Communication Education since its inception. To correct this oversight, the following research question is posed:

RQ2:From 1976–2014, what are the topics of the articles published in Communication Education?

Instructional communication researchers have historically examined the instructional communication process through a post-positive paradigm, viewed through the logical empiricism lens (Nussbaum & Friedrich, 2005) and guided by the process-product paradigm (Sprague, 1992). This perspective has resulted in the frequent use of quantitative research methodologies and designs (Beebe & Mottet, 2009; McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006). However, we were interested in whether this methodological preference could be documented in the articles published in Communication Education. To explore this notion, we posed the following two research questions:

RQ3:From 1976–2014, what are the predominant communication research methodologies of the articles published in Communication Education?

RQ4:From 1976–2014, what research designs guide the articles published in Communication Education?

Moreover, instructional communication research is frequently criticized for its predominately monocultural scope and its preoccupation with the context of higher education; that is, this research has relied largely on participants residing in the United States (McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006) who are enrolled in college courses (Nussbaum & Friedrich, 2005). Thus, we were curious as to whether this criticism could be applied to the articles published in Communication Education. Although instructional communication is concerned with the study of instruction across all educational levels and settings, not much research has been conducted using participants outside the college classroom (Myers, in press). To investigate this possibility, we posed the following two research questions:

RQ5:From 1976–2014, what are the types of participants included in the articles published in Communication Education?

RQ6:From 1976–2014, what are the represented cultures of the participants included in the articles published in Communication Education?

Method

To examine the content published in Communication Education, we undertook a quantitative content analysis (Krippendorf, 2004) of the articles appearing in the journal from 1976–2014 (Volumes 25–63). This content analysis proceeded in several steps. To begin, the first author randomly selected two issues from each volume (N = 78) and reviewed each issue as a way to become familiar with the journal content. Second, based on this initial review, the first author’s extensive knowledge of the instructional communication field and the research it has generated, and the second and third authors’ training in instructional communication, the three authors worked together to identify the units of analysis for each research question, derive the categories for each unit of analysis within each question, and devise a coding scheme for each question. Third, to determine whether the coding scheme for each question was reliable, the second and third authors coded the content contained within 31 issues, which is roughly 20% of the cumulative number of issues across the 39 volumes. (These 31 issues were selected using systematic random sampling.) Intercoder reliability was then assessed using Krippendorf’s alpha, with alpha coefficients ranging from .92 to .99 across the six research questions. Fourth, having reached an acceptable level of intercoder reliability for each research question (< .80; Hayes & Krippendorf, 2007; Krippendorf, 2004), the remaining issues (N = 125) were coded independently by the same two authors. Together, they coded a total of 1,269 articles across the 39 volumes.

Results

The first research question inquired about the types of articles that appeared in Communication Education. It was found that four types of articles (N = 1269) appeared in the journal from 1976–2014: empirical studies, literature reviews, commentaries/essays, and instructional practices.1 Empirical studies refer to research articles that examine a communication construct using some type of research methodology. These studies could be research reports, scale development pieces, or assessment articles. Literature reviews consist of non-empirical articles that specifically review one (or more) instructional communication topics, constructs, or theories by summarizing and critiquing the research conducted to date on the topic, construct, or theory. Commentaries/essays offer a perspective on a particular topic, a response to a previously published article, or a reflection on a specific issue. Instructional practices center on some aspect of teaching, whether it be detailing a specific type of teaching activity; offering recommendations for how to teach a communication construct, unit, or course; or providing general pedagogical advice. Of these four types (see Table 2), empirical studies (n = 637) appeared the most frequently, followed (in descending order) by commentaries/essays (n = 298), instructional practices (n = 297), and literature reviews (n = 37).

Research questions 2–6 apply only to the empirical studies identified in the response to the first research question. The second research question inquired about the topics of the articles published in Communication Education. (Because an empirical study could contain more than one topic, all topics in any one article were coded.) Ten topics were contained within the articles published in the journal from 1976–2014: instructor characteristics, instructor classroom behaviors, student characteristics, student classroom behaviors, student learning outcomes, learning environment, mediated communication, program evaluation, instructional content, and other. Of these ten topics (see Table 3), instructor classroom behaviors (n = 255) was the most frequently studied topic, followed by student classroom behaviors (n = 239), student characteristics (n = 192), student learning outcomes (n = 181), instructional content (n = 85), program evaluation (n = 74), learning environment (n = 64), instructor characteristics (n = 63), mediated communication (n = 39), and other (n = 32).

Table 2: Types of Articles in Communication Education, 1976–2014

Note. ES = Empirical Study. LR = Literature Review. C/E = Commentaries/Essays. IP = Instructional Practices.

Table 3: Topics of Articles in Communication Education, 1976–2014

Note. IC = Instructor characteristics. ICB = Instructor classroom behaviors. SC = Student characteristics. SCB = Student classroom behaviors. SLO = Student learning outcomes. ENV = Learning environment. MED = Mediated communication. EVL = Program evaluation. CNT = Instructional content. OTH = Other.

Instructor classroom behaviors refers to instructor use of instructional communication behaviors and student perceptions of instructors that result from instructor-student interaction in the classroom. These behaviors include, among others, verbal and nonverbal immediacy, clarity, content relevance, power use, humor, affinity seeking, self-disclosure, technology policies, emotions, burnout, job satisfaction, and confirmation. This category also includes student perceptions of instructor homophily, credibility, interpersonal attraction, communication competence, and classroom justice. Student classroom behaviors refer to student conduct, involvement, and communication in the classroom, as well as instructors’ and classmates’ perceptions of students that result from classroom interaction. Some of the behaviors investigated by researchers include participation, question asking, out-of-class communication, notetaking, interest, motives to communicate with instructors, dissent, compulsive communication, resistance, nonverbal responsiveness, and state anxiety. Student characteristics refer to the attributes that students bring with them to the classroom. These attributes include communication and personality traits (e.g., communication apprehension, reticence), social identities (e.g., race, ethnicity), ideologies, attitudes (e.g., self-efficacy, academic stress), values, and demographics (e.g., age, grade level).

Student learning outcomes refer to the knowledge, skills, or attitudes that students obtain in the learning environment through either instructor-student interaction or the learning environment itself. These learning outcomes include affective, behavioral, and cognitive learning; task performance; oral communication competencies; state or trait motivation; and communication satisfaction. Instructor characteristics refer to the attributes that instructors bring with them to the classroom. Similar to student characteristics, these attributes include communication and personality traits (e.g., socio-communicative style, verbal aggressiveness, argumentativeness, communicator style), social identities (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender), ideologies, attitudes, values, and demographics (e.g., sexual orientation, teaching experience). Learning environment refers to the physical or psychological features of the learning context that can either hinder or enhance student learning. These features include classroom climate (e.g., connectedness, supportiveness, defensiveness), personalized education, seating and spacing arrangements, class size, provision of social and academic support, the presence of university or classroom tensions, the socialization process, and campus culture.

Mediated communication focuses on the role that technology plays in the learning process. Examples include distance learning, online discussion boards, computer-assisted instruction, e-mail, cellular devices, virtual management techniques, social media, and other communication technologies. Program evaluation refers to the assessment of specific educational programs, pedagogical tools, or disciplinary scholarship. Some examples include course, department, program, and curricular assessment; other examples include the identification of prolific scholars, reports on doctoral dissertations, and degree and employment trends. Instructional content refers to the subject matter taught in a specific course, department curriculum, or training program. This content includes visualization, debate skills, cross-cultural communication, sex role identity, public speaking and listening competencies, perspective taking, rational emotive therapy, acting and theatre instruction, decision rule-use training, and interviewing skills. The Other category includes such topics such as humor on television, textbook technology supplements, speech behaviors in the courtroom, reasons for attending conventions, interactions with Institutional Review Boards, HIV campaigns, and academic leadership positions.

Table 4: Research Methodologies in Communication Education, 1976–2014

Note. QUAN = Quantitative. QUAL = Qualitative. Q/Q = Combination of quantitative and qualitative. RHET= Rhetorical. CRIT = Critical.

The third research question asked about the predominant communication research methodologies in the articles published in Communication Education. Five research methodologies were used in the articles published in the journal from 1976–2014: quantitative, qualitative, a combination of quantitative and qualitative, rhetorical, and critical. Of these five methodologies (see Table 4), the quantitative research methodology (n = 505) was the predominant methodology, followed (in descending order) by qualitative (n = 88), a combination of quantitative and qualitative (n = 33), critical (n = 9), and rhetorical (n = 2).

The fourth research question addressed the research designs in the articles published in Communication Education. (Because an empirical study could utilize more than one research design, all research designs used in any one article were coded.) Ten research designs were used in the articles published in the journal from 1976–2014: survey (e.g., paper and pencil or computer-mediated), experiments, interviews (e.g., face-to-face or computer-mediated), focus groups, content analysis, meta-analysis, field study, case study, ethnography, and other. Of the 10 research designs (see Table 5), the survey research design (n = 373) was the most frequently used design, followed (in descending order) by experimental design (n = 125), content analysis (n = 58), interviews (n = 49), field study (n = 31), focus groups (n = 23), other (n = 9), meta-analysis (n = 8), and case study (n = 7).

The fifth research question inquired about the types of participants included in the articles published in Communication Education. (Because an empirical study could include more than one type of participant, all types of participants included in any one article were coded.) Eight types of participants were included in the articles published from 1976–2014: students (i.e., preschool-12th grade, undergraduate, graduate), instructors (i.e., preschool-12th grade, college), educational stakeholders (e.g., parents, coaches, administrators, principals), artifacts (e.g., syllabi, research articles, textbooks, convention programs), and other (e.g., recent graduates, clergy, NCA/regional association members, organizational employees). Of the eight types of samples (see Table 6), undergraduate students (n = 371) were most frequently included, followed (in descending order) by preschool-12th grade students (n = 68), other (n = 66), college instructors (n = 58), artifacts (n = 52), educational stakeholders (n = 31), graduate students (n = 30), and preschool-12th grade teachers (n = 24).

Table 5: Research Design in Communication Education, 1976–2014

Note. SVY = Survey. EXP = Experiment. IV = Interview. FG= Focus groups. CA = Content analysis. MA = Meta-analysis. FLD = Field study. CS = Case study. ETH = Ethnography. OTH = Other.

The sixth research question asked about the represented cultures of the participants included in the articles published in Communication Education. Three types of cultures were represented by the participants included in the articles published from 1976–2014: domestic (i.e., United States), international (i.e., Australia, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, Russia), and a combination of domestic and international (i.e., Canada and South America; U.S. and Canada, China, Germany, Kenya, Korea; U.S., Germany, China, or Japan; U.S., Australia, Finland, and Puerto Rico). Of the three types of cultures represented by the participants (see Table 7), domestic (n = 576) was the most commonly represented culture, followed (in descending order) by international (n = 15) and a combination of domestic and international (n = 14).

Table 6: Types of Participants in Communication Education, 1976–2014

Note. P-12 = Preschool, elementary, and secondary school students. UG = Undergraduate students. GRD = Graduate students. P-12 = Preschool, elementary, and secondary school teachers. COL = College instructors. STK = Educational stakeholders. ART = Artifacts. OTH = Other.

Table 7: Represented Cultures in Communication Education, 1976–2014

Note. DOM = Domestic. INTL = International. DOM/INTL = Combination of domestic and international.

Conclusion

Spanning over five decades, the sub-discipline of instructional communication research “has continued (and will continue) to enjoy a healthy existence” (Myers,2010, p. 156). Although early research efforts concentrated on instructor communication behaviors and student learning, instructional communication research has now expanded its focus to examine the role that communication plays in the instructional context across all learning participants and environments. With Communication Education at the forefront of the dissemination of instructional communication research, this healthy existence of research undoubtedly will continue to grow for decades to come.

References

Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Andersen, J. F., Norton, R. W., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 30, 377–392. doi:10.1080/03634528109378493

Beebe, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (2009). Students and teachers. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century communication: A reference handbook, 1, pp. 349–357. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bippus, A. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., & Brooks, C. F. (2003). Teacher access and mentoring abilities: Predicting the outcome value of extra class communication. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 260–275. doi:10.1080/0090988032000103476

Brown, K. L. (2002). From The Speech Teacher to Communication Education: Some reflections. Communication Education, 51, 364–371. doi:10.1080/03634520216528

Bryant, J., Comisky, P., & Zillmann, D. (1979). Teachers’ humor in the college classroom. Communication Education, 28, 110–118. doi:10.1080/036334527909378339

Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy and student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453–475. doi:10.1080/03634520701430896

Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-resistance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 38, 214–229. doi:10.1080/03634528909378758

Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2004). An instructor self-disclosure scale. Communication Research Reports, 21, 252–263. doi:10.1080/08824090409359987

Cayanus, J. L., & Martin, M. M. (2008). Teacher self-disclosure: Amount, relevance, and negativity. Communication Quarterly, 56, 325–341. doi:10.1080/01463370802241492

Chesebro, J. L., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). The development of the Teacher Clarity Short Invesntory (TCSI) to measure clear teaching in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15, 262–266. doi:10.1080/08824099809362122

Chory, R. M. (2007). Enhancing student perceptions of fairness: The relationship between instructor credibility and classroom justice. Communication Education, 56, 89–105. doi:10.1080/03634520600994300

Chory-Assad, R. M. (2002). Classroom justice: Perceptions of fairness as a predictor of student motivation, learning, and aggression. Communication Quarterly, 50, 58–77. doi:10.1080/01463370209385646

Christophel, D. M. (1990). The relationships among teacher immediacy behaviors, student motivation, and learning. Communication Education, 39, 323–340. doi:10.1080/03634529009378813

Civikly, J. M. (1992). Clarity: Teachers and students making sense of instruction. Communication Education, 41, 138–152. doi:10.1080/03634529209378876

Clark, R. A. (2002). Learning outcomes: The bottom line. Communication Education, 51, 396–404. doi:10.1080/03634520216531

Daly, J. A. (2002). After 50: Reflecting on the future. Communication Education, 51, 376–382. doi:10.1080/03634520216524

Daly, J. A., & Korinek, J. T. (1980). Instructional communication theory and research: An overview of classroom interaction. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4, pp. 515–532. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Dance, F. E. X. (1985). Software and teaching. Communication Education, 34, 81–82. doi:10.1080/03634528509378587

Darling, A. L. (2003). Scholarship of teaching and learning in communication: New connections, new directions, new possibilities. Communication Education, 52, 47–49. doi:10.1080/036345

Downs, V. C., Javidi, M., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1988). An analysis of teachers’ verbal communication within the college classroom: Use of humor, self-disclosure, and narratives. Communication Education, 37, 127–141. doi:10.1080/03634528809378710

Dwyer, K. K., Bingham, S. G., Carlson, R. E., Prisbell, M., Cruz, A. M., & Fus, D. A. (2004). Communication and connectedness in the classroom: Development of the Connected Classroom Climate Inventory. Communication Research Reports, 21, 264–272. doi:10.1080/08824090409359988

Ellis, K. (2000). Perceived teacher confirmation: The development and validation of an instrument and two studies of the relationship to cognitive and affective learning. Human Communication Research, 26, 264–291. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2000.tb00758.x

Finn, A. N., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2013). Teacher power mediates the effects of technology policies on teacher credibility. Communication Education, 62, 26–47. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.725132

Friedrich, G. W. (1987). Instructional communication research. Journal of Thought, 22(4), 4–10.

Friedrich, G. W. (1989). A view from the office of the SCA president. Communication Education, 38, 297–302. doi:10.1080/03634528909378767

Friedrich, G. W. (2002). The Communication Education research agenda. Communication Education, 51, 372–375. doi:10.1080/03634520216523

Friedrich, G. W., & Boileau, D. M. (1990). The communication discipline. In J. A. Daly, G. W. Friedrich, & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods (2nd ed.), pp. 3–18. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor-student and student-student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59, 146–164. doi:10.1080/03634520903564362

Frisby, B. N., Mansson, D. H., & Kaufmann, R. (2014). The Cognitive Learning Measure: A three-study examination of validity. Communication Methods and Measures, 8, 163–176. doi:10.1080/19312458.2014.903389

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (1999). The Revised Learning Indicators Scale. Communication Studies, 50, 1–12. doi:10.1080/10510979909388466

Frymier, A. B., & Houser, M. L. (2000). The teacher-student relationship as an interpersonal relationship. Communication Education, 49, 207–219. doi:10.1080/0364520009379209

Frymier, A. B., & Shulman, G. M. (1995). “What’s in it for me?”: Increasing content relevance to enhance students’ motivation. Communication Education, 44, 40–50. doi:10.1080/03634529509378996

Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 183–199. doi:10.1080/03634529609379048

Frymier, A. B., Wanzer, M. B., & Wojtaszczyk, A. M. (2008). Assessing students’ perceptions of inappropriate and appropriate teacher humor. Communication Education, 57, 266–288. doi:10.1080/03634520701687183

Gerhrke, P. J., & Keith, W. M. (2015). Introduction: A brief history of the National Communication Association. In P. J. Gehrke & W. M. Keith (Eds.), A century of Communication Studies: The unfinished conversation (pp. 1–25). New York, NY: Routledge.

Golish, T. D. (1999). Students’ use of compliance gaining strategies with graduate teaching assistants: Examining the other end of the power spectrum. Communication Quarterly, 47, 12–32. doi:10.1080/01463379909370121

Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Instructional dissent in the college classroom. Communication Education, 60, 296–313. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.537756

Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., & Bolkan, S. (2009). The development and validation of the Student Communication Satisfaction Scale. Communication Education, 58, 372–396. doi:10.1080/03634520902755441

Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2015). Revisiting instructor misbehaviors: A revised typology and development of a measure. Communication Education, 64, 133–153. doi:10.1080/0363452.2014.978798

Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40–53. doi:10.1080/03634528809378702

Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorf, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89. doi:10.1080/19312450709336664

Hendrix, K. G., & Wilson, C. (2014). Virtual invisibility: Race and Communication Education. Communication Education, 63, 405–428. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.934852

Hurt, H. T., Scott, M. D., & McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Communication in the classroom. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Javidi, M., Downs, V. C., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1988). A comparative analysis of teachers’ use of dramatic style behaviors at higher and secondary educational levels. Communication Education, 37, 278–288. doi:10.1080/03634528809378729

Javidi, M. N., & Long, L. W. (1989). Teachers’ use of humor, self-disclosure, and narrative activity as a function of experience. Communication Research Reports, 6, 47–52. doi:10.1080/08824098909359831

Katt, J. A., McCroskey, J. C., Sivo, S. A., Richmond, V. P., & Valencic, K. M. (2009). A structural equation modeling evaluation of the General Model of Instructional Communication. Communication Quarterly, 57, 239–258. doi:10.1080/01463370903107196

Kearney, P., & Beatty, M. J. (1994). Measures of instructional communication. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 7– 20). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hays, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teacher misbehaviors: What students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309–324. doi:10.1080/01463379109369808

Kendrick, W. L., & Darling, A. L. (1990). Problems of understanding in classrooms: Students’ use of clarifying tactics. Communication Education, 39, 15–29. doi:10.1080/03634529009378724

Kerssen-Griep, J. (2001). Teacher communication activities relevant to student motivation: Classroom facework and instructional communication competence. Communication Education, 50, 256–273. doi:10.1080/03634520109379252

Kerssen-Griep, J., Trees, A. R., & Hess, J. A. (2008). Attentive facework during instructional feedback: Key to perceiving membership and an optimal learning environment. Communication Education, 57, 312–332. doi:10.1080/03634520802027347

King, P. E., Schrodt, P., & Weisel, J. J. (2009). The Instructional Feedback Orientation Scale: Conceptualizing and validating a new measure for assessing perceptions of instructional feedback. Communication Education, 58, 235–261. doi:10.1080/03634520802515705

King, P., & Witt, P. (2009). Teacher immediacy, confidence testing, and the measurement of cognitive learning. Communication Education, 58, 110–123. doi:10.1080/03634520802511233

Krippendorf, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lashbrook, V. J., & Wheeless, L. R. (1978). Instructional communication theory and research: An overview of the relationship between learning theory and instructional communication. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 2 (pp. 439–456). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (1999). Students’ motives for communicating with their instructors. Communication Education, 48, 155–164. doi:10.1080/03634529909379163

Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development and validation of the Student Interest and Engagement Scales. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 99–125. doi:10.1080/19312458.2012.679244

McCroskey, J. C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension: A summary of recent theory and research. Human Communication Research, 4, 78–96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1977.tb00599.x

McCroskey, J. C. (1994). Assessment of affect toward communication and affect toward instruction in communication. In S. Morreale & M. Brooks (Eds.), Assessing college student competency in communication (pp. 56–70). Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

McCroskey, J. C., Holdridge, W., & Toomb, J. K. (1974). An instrument for measuring the source credibility of basic speech communication instructors. Speech Teacher, 23, 26–33. doi:10.1080/03634527409378053

McCroskey, J. C., & McCain, T. A. (1974). The measurement of interpersonal attraction. Speech Monographs, 41, 261–266. doi:10.1080/03637757409375845

McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1986). The affinity-seeking of classroom teachers. Communication Research Reports, 3, 158–167.

McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). Instructional communication: The historical perspective. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 33–47). Boston, MA: Pearson.

McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student perceptions. Communication education, 32, 175–184. doi:10.1080/03634528309378527

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 323–332. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x

McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). The role of communication in instruction: The first three decades. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes (pp. 15–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McCroskey, J. C., Sallinen, A., Fayer, J. M., Richmond, V. P., & Barraclough, R. A. (1996). Nonverbal immediacy and cognitive learning: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Education, 45, 200–211. doi:10.1080/03634529609379049

McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. T. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66, 90–103. doi:10.1080/03637759909376464

McCroskey, J. C., Valencic, K. M., & Richmond, V. P. (2004). Toward a general model of instructional communication. Communication Quarterly, 52, 197–210. doi:10.1080/01463370409370192

McCroskey, J. C., & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 24–34. doi:10.1080/10510978109368075

McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54, 1–31. doi:10.1080/01463370500270322

McCroskey, L. L., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and learning: Contributions from the discipline of communication. Communication Education, 51, 383–391. doi:10.1080/03634520216521.

Mottet, T. P., Frymier, A. B., & Beebe, S. A. (2006). Theorizing about instructional communication. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 255–282). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mottet, T. P., & Richmond, V. P. (1998). Newer is not necessarily better: A reexamination of affective learning measurement. Communication Research Reports, 15, 370–378. doi:10.1080/08824099809362136

Myers, S. A. (1998). Instructor socio-communicative style, argumentativeness, and verbal aggressiveness. Communication Research Reports, 15, 141–150. doi:10.1080/08824099809362108

Myers, S. A. (2010). Instructional communication: The emergence of a field. In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 149–159). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Myers, S. A. (in press). Instructional communication. In M. Allen (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Myers, S. A., & Knox, R. L. (1999). Verbal aggression in the college classroom: Perceived instructor use and student affective learning. Communication Quarterly, 47, 33–45. doi:10.1080/01463379909370122

Nadler, M. K., & Nadler, L. B. (2000). Out of class communication between faculty and students: A faculty perspective. Communication Studies, 51, 176–188. doi:10.1080/10510970009388517

National Communication Association (2015). Journals. Retrieved from http://www.natcom.org/journals.aspx#

Neer, M. R. (1987). The development of an instrument to measure classroom apprehension. Communication Education, 36, 154–166. doi:10.1080/036345

Norton, R. W. (1977). Teacher effectiveness as a function of communicator style. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 525–542). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Norton, R., & Nussbaum, J. (1980). Dramatic behaviors of the effective teacher. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 565–573). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Nussbaum, J. F. (1984). Classroom behavior of the effective teacher. Communication, 13, 81–93.

Nussbaum, J. F., Comadena, M. E., & Holladay, S. J. (1987). Classroom verbal behavior of highly effective teachers. Journal of Thought, 22(4), 73–80.

Nussbaum, J. F., & Friedrich, G. (2005). Instructional/developmental communication: Current theory, research, and future trends. Journal of Communication, 55, 578–593. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb02686.x

Nussbaum, J. F., & Scott, M. D. (1979). Instructor communication behaviors and their relationship to classroom learning. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 561–583). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Nussbaum, J. F., & Scott, M. D. (1980). Student learning as a relational outcome of teacher-student interaction. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 553–564). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Plax, T. G., Kearney, P., Downs, T. M., & Stewart, R. A. (1986). College student resistance toward teachers’ use of selective control strategies. Communication Research Reports, 3, 20–27.

Powell, R. G., & Harville, B. (1990). The effects of teacher immediacy and clarity on instructional outcomes: An intercultural assessment. Communication Education, 39, 369–379. doi:10.0180/03634529009378816

Preiss, R. W., & Wheeless, L. R. (2014). Perspectives on instructional communication’s historical path to the future. Communication Education, 63, 308–328. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.910605

Reid, L. (1990). Speech Teacher: A random narrative. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association.

Reid, L. (2002). The Speech Teacher: Early years. Communication Education, 51, 333–336. doi:10.1080/03634520216529

Richmond, V. P. (1990). Communication in the classroom: Power and motivation. Communication education, 39, 181–195. doi:10.1080/03634529009378801

Richmond, V. P., & Frymier, A. B. (2010). Communication Education and instructional development. In J. W. Chesebro (Ed.), Studies in honor of the 100th anniversary of the Eastern Communication Association (pp. 310–328). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. L. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 10 (pp. 574–590). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Power in the classroom II: Power and learning. Communication Education, 33, 125–136. doi:10.1080/03634528409384729

Rubin, R. B. (2009). Measurement in instructional communication. In R. B. Rubin, A. M. Rubin, E. M. Graham, E. M. Perse, & D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Communication research measures II: A sourcebook (pp. 43–56). New York, NY: Routledge.

Rubin, R. B. (2011). Educational communication. In W. Donsbach (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of communication. Retrieved from http://www.communicationencycloedia.com

Rubin, R. B., & Feezel, J. D. (1986). Elements of teacher communication competence. Communication Education, 35, 254–268. doi:10.1080/03634528609388348

Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Turman, P. D. (2007). Reconsidering the measurement of teacher power use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 56, 308–332. doi:10.1080/03634520701256062

Scott, M. D., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Student perceptions of instructor communication behaviors and their relationship to student evaluation. Communication Education, 30, 44–53. doi:10.1080/03634528109378452

Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Instructional communication theory and research. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 495–511). Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Sidelinger, R. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). Communication correlates of teacher clarity in the college classroom. Communication Research Reports, 14, 1–10. doi:10.1080/0882099709388640

Simonds, C. J. (1997). Classroom understanding: An expanded notion of teacher clarity. Communication Research Reports, 14, 279–290. doi:10.1080/08824099709388671

Smythe, M. J., & Hess, J. A. (2005). Are student self-reports a valid method for measuring teacher nonverbal immediacy? Communication Education, 54, 170–179. doi:10.1080/03634520500213389

Sprague, J. (1992). Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication: Raising some unasked questions. Communication Education, 41, 1–25. doi:10.1080/03634529209378867

Sprague, J. (2002). Communication Education: The spiral continues. Communication Education, 51, 337–354. doi:10.1080/03634520216532

Staton, A. Q. (1989). The interface of communication and instruction: Conceptual considerations and programmatic manifestations. Communication Education, 38, 365–371. doi:10.1080/03634528909378777

Staton-Spicer, A. Q. (1983). The measurement and further conceptualization of teacher communication concern. Human Communication Research, 9, 158–168. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1983.tb00690.x

Staton-Spicer, A. Q., & Bassett, R. H. (1979). Communication concerns of preservice and inservice elementary school teachers. Human Communication Research, 5, 138–146. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1979.tb00629.x

Staton-Spicer, A. Q., & Wulff, D. H. (1984). Research in communication and instruction: Categorization and synthesis. Communication Education, 33, 377–391. doi:10.1080/03634528409384767

Stephens, K. K., Houser, M. L., & Cowan, R. L. (2009). R U able to meat me: The impact of students’ overly casual email messages to instructors. Communication Education, 58, 303– 326. doi:10.1080/03634520802582598

Teven, J. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The relationship of perceived teacher caring with student learning and teacher evaluation. Communication Education, 46, 1–9. doi:10.1080/03634529709379069

Thomas, C. E., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1994). The association between immediacy and socio-communicative style. Communication Research Reports, 11, 107–115. doi:10.1080/08824099409359946

Titsworth, S., Quinlan, M. M., & Mazer, J. P. (2010). Emotion in teaching and learning: Development and validation of the Classroom Emotions Scale. Communication Education, 59, 431–452. doi:10.1080/03634521003746156

Van Kleeck, A., & Daly, J. A. (1982). Instructional communication research and theory: Communication development and instructional communication – An overview. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 685–715). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Waldeck, J. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001a). Instructional and developmental communication theory and research in the 1990s: Extending the agenda for the 21st century. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 24 (pp. 207–229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Waldeck, J. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001b). Teacher e-mail message strategies and students’ willingness to communicate. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 54–70. doi:10.1080/00909880128099

Waldeck, J. H., Plax, T. G., & Kearney, P. (2010). Philosophical and methodological foundations of instructional communication. In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 161–179). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wanzer, M. (1998). An exploratory investigation of student and teacher perceptions of student-generated affinity-seeking behaviors. Communication Education, 47, 373–382. doi:10.1080/03634529809379144

Wanzer, M. B., & Frymier, A. B. (1999). The relationship between student perceptions of instructor humor and students’ reports of learning. Communication Education, 48, 48–62. doi:10.1080/03634529909379152

Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between instructor humor and students learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Communication Education, 59, 1–18. doi:10.1080/03634520903367238

Wanzer, M., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Teacher socio-communicative style as a correlate of student affect toward teacher and course material. Communication Education, 47, 43–52. doi:10.1080/036345

Wartella, E. (1994). Challenge to the profession. Communication Education, 43, 54–62. doi:10.1080/10.1080/03634529409378961

Weber, K., Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2011). The development and testing of the Instructional Beliefs Model. Communication Education, 60, 51–74. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.491122

Wheeless, L. R., & Hurt, H. T. (1979). Instructional communication theory and research: An overview of instructional strategies as instructional communication systems. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 525–541). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.

Witt, P. L. (2012). The future of Communication Education. Communication Education, 61, 1–3. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.6455391