Samuel P. Wallace and Lisa J. Goodnight

20The Development of Online Learning in the Basic Course in Communication

Abstract: The Internet and its associated technologies have changed the appearance of the basic course in communication and made a fundamentally face-to-face experience available to a wide range of students both on and off campus, including those with accessibility issues related to physical disabilities. The online environment includes a significant economic benefit by increasing the number of credit hours delivered by the institution. Basic course modalities discussed in this chapter include asynchronous distance learning, blended learning (hybrid), and the flipped classroom modes. The chapter describes the migration of the basic course from the classroom to the online context, identifies major issues for online iterations of the course, and presents course design considerations including designing for achieving student learning outcomes and incorporating online tools into the face-to-face environment. It continues with comparative assessments between online learning and traditional classrooms, and a discussion of the goals and challenges a basic course director or designer might face as a move into the online future is considered. Finally, a discussion of technology-based trajectories includes mobile devices such as smartphones, watches, and the development of personalized devices and designs to aid students in achieving specific desired learning outcomes.

Keywords: basic communication course, basic course directors, course design, online learning, blended learning, flipped classroom

Though the basic course in communication has been taught in U.S. colleges and universities for over a century, the arrival of the Internet and its associated technologies has begun to change the appearance of the course and make it available to a wider range of students. The use of emerging technologies has enabled instructors to take a fundamentally face-to-face experience in oral communication and bring together (1) students who are removed from each other by space and/ or time, (2) students with accessibility issues related to physical disabilities, (3) those who are separated from campuses by distance or transportation challenges, and (4) those who cannot be away from home and family to take needed classes on a college campus. (See Chapter 18 in this volume for a discussion of distance learning in general.)

However, the nature of the basic communication course, with its emphasis on face-to-face interaction and public speaking, poses certain challenges for distance course designers. In fact, there is ongoing debate and disagreement about the utility of the online environment for achieving desired learning outcomes in the basic course. A primary argument against offering the basic course online centers on the complexity and difficulty of capturing the full experience of the oral communication performance aspect in the online modality. Opponents argue that it just simply cannot be done. Performance requires an audience; public speaking requires a public. Proponents of the online modality argue that, though online will not be a duplicate of a face-to-face setting, there are alternative designs for the assignment as well as multiple ways of defining oral communication that would be able to achieve the learning outcomes of the performance assignments. In addition, questions continue to be raised not only by basic course instructors, but by instructors of other classes about the ability of the online environment to duplicate and/ or achieve the same high standards of face-to-face classes. Online proponents argue that merely transplanting the face-to-face class to the online environment will likely not succeed. However, we contend that, through creative course designs, thoughtful and innovative use of the available technologies, and the flexibility of both students and instructors, the desired learning outcomes can be achieved for the basic course in the online environment.

The main focus of this chapter is to describe the migration of the basic course from the classroom to the online context, to identify major issues and challenges for online iterations of the course, to review assessments of online learning compared with course delivery in the traditional classroom, and to speculate on the goals and challenges that basic course directors might consider as they move forward into the online future.

Evolution of the Online Basic Course

Traditional Basic Course Content

A number of iterations of the basic communication course (as it is known in the United States) are offered around the world to a variety of constituencies. In the case of persons serving in the U.S. military, their families, and other Americans serving in posts and professions in many countries outside the United States, the basic course is taught more or less according to the U.S. model. However, other applications exist in various places around the world. According to various textbook publishers, basic course texts have been translated into Greek, Czech, Chinese, French, Indonesian, Russian, and German, and the textbooks are sent to all those places as well as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. There are likely many others.

Even though the basic course might be referred to by only a few names, its design and execution can differ greatly across countries as well as across institutions, even in the United States. While its roots can be traced back as far as ancient Greece, the modern basic course began in the U.S. in the early 20th century as an oral communication class principally devoted to public speaking (Hargis, 1956). As time moved forward, the course was referred to by many different names including “Speech,” “Public Speaking,” “Public Address,” “Presentational Speaking,” “Oral Communication,” and others. While some courses included instruction in rhetorical theory, the majority seem to have focused on skill development in articulation, elocution, and the creation of clear and logical messages. During the 1960s, the course began to branch out and emphasize other oral communication contexts and skills as it began to change its shape in some institutions. Those courses, sometimes referred to as “hybrid” or “blend” courses, taught public speaking, but added units that could include small group communication and decision making, interpersonal communication, interviewing, or sometimes mass communication. The majority of those classes had performance components, and though theory came to hold a more central position in the newer classes, execution and skill development was generally the main event.

The traditional basic course has been offered in the face-to-face format in the United States for well over 100 years. In the public speaking class, students are required to study rhetoric and communication theory, organization, argument construction and logic, research skills, audience adaptation, and delivery skills, which include the use of presentational aids and a heightened awareness of nonverbal communication. The types of speech assignments include informative messages, persuasive or advocacy messages, messages for special occasions, and a variety of others. In the hybrid format, which builds on the public speaking course, topics and assignments might also include relationship building in interpersonal communication, applications of small group decision making, and often informational or employment interviewing.

Students are gradually introduced to speaking or performing in front of an audience in much the same way as small children are introduced to swimming; they begin with brief and more simple tasks designed to get their feet wet and reduce anxiety (Witt & Behnke, 2006). Complexity and depth are added as the course progresses. Because all students have to perform, the classroom becomes a safe, non-threatening place to learn and experiment with the new skills. Students are graded on their understanding of the course content through testing and written assignments, and they are graded on their ability to apply the content in performances in the different oral communication contexts.

Dedmon (1965) proposed that the basic course emphasizes speaking to a group and training in delivery, speaking as a member of a group to gain skills in how to “agree to disagree,” and focuses on enhancing the treatment of communication theory (Dedmon, 1965, p. 123). This configuration changed little over the next several years. Morreale, Hanna, Berko, and Gibson (1999), Morreale, Hugenberg, and Worley (2006), and Morreale, Worley, and Hugenberg (2010) note that public speaking is still the dominant configuration of the course in the present day, followed by the hybrid or blend class with a mix of oral communication contexts. The course has taken multiple forms over time in the United States, and evidence suggests that it is continuing to evolve (Valenzano, Wallace, & Morreale, 2014).

Over time, first courses in speech came to be known as foundation courses, fundamentals courses, or the “basic” course. Though many people outside of the communication discipline generally do not use this nickname, “basic” is widely used and has withstood the test of time. This chapter will stay consistent with that tradition and use the term “basic.” However, in the early part of the 21st century, the basic course (BC) refers to a wide range of shapes and sizes of these courses.

For a more detailed description of the history of the basic course, please see Chapter 26 of this volume, “Teaching Communication to College and University Students.”

Offering the Basic Course at a Distance

There are several motivations for modifying a traditional classroom course that focuses on oral skill development with a heavy performance focus, and transitioning it to an online context: (1) In American higher education in the mid-1990s, there was little choice. As distance learning became more widely available and accepted by society at large, many entire degree programs were offered solely through distance learning; thus, the necessity of an online basic communication course was born. In addition, as a general education requirement in many institutions, the course must be completed by most or all students to fulfill their degree requirements. When degree programs are offered completely online, then all general education requirements must also be available online. Political pressures increase dramatically when university administrators threaten to remove the basic course from general education requirements if the Communication department does not comply with distributed learning demands. (2) Connected to this demand, universities in the land grant tradition are required to make higher education available to all students; it is part of the university’s overall mission. The online basic course meets this demand by serving populations that have no access to traditional face-to-face sections. (3) Offering an online version of the basic course increases learning opportunities for individual students by allowing them to learn at their own pace and on their own schedules. Some students learn faster than others or need more time to engage the course material. The online format allows students the freedom to control the process of engaging the material. (4) Finally, but by no means least important, the additional revenue generated by increasing the number of credit hours provides significant economic benefits to the sponsoring institution.

Evolution of Technologies and Course Modalities

To consider the background and current state of the BC online, it might help to view the ancestry of the online approach as originating as a correspondence course. Some developers of online courses will likely bristle at this comparison, but the two approaches seem to have the same goals: to allow students to complete coursework while off campus, and to allow students to work, within some boundaries, at their own pace. Many institutions of higher education began a correspondence program to reach students who needed to be away from campus for some reason but who still wanted to take classes. The correspondence approach in the United States began by using the postal service as the primary medium for moving information between teacher and student. The process was uncomplicated: Instructors provided students with reading resources and a list of written assignments, and successfully completing all the assignments resulted in a passing grade for the class. All the interaction between teacher and student was conducted through the postal service, so as it might be imagined, the pace of the interaction was fairly slow, especially by modern standards.

In the initial offerings of distance courses during the latter half of the 20th century, most students did not have access to expensive technology such as video cameras, which was a deterrent for some students. The arrival of accessible video recording technology and portable cassettes allowed the basic course to take advantage of a correspondence-type format by allowing the student to deliver a speech in front of a real audience and then sending a video recording of the event to the instructor for evaluation. The assignment was complicated by the fact that students had to find their own audiences and speaking contexts in order to develop and deliver the required speeches. If students had the necessary camera and a suitable audience, they would videotape the presentations, being sure to scan the audience of a minimum of 5–12 members, and then send the videotape cassette to the instructor through the postal service. Students were often required to include a speech outline and bibliography in the packet. Instructors then watched each video tape and provided feedback and evaluation. Some instructors then sent the video back to the student for further reflection.

The current basic course online version can be considered a descendant of the correspondence courses. Perhaps the most notable difference is that the student has more immediate access to the instructor. The access can take a variety of forms. First, instructors are able to record lectures or other presentations that can be posted online, so the student actually sees and hears the instructor. The lecture can be recordings of the instructor standing at a blackboard in front of a classroom or a slide presentation with the instructor talking over it. There are other creative presentation variants including graphics, video clips, and animations. Second, the student and instructor can exchange ideas one-on-one through email messaging. Third, the instructor and students can have group conversations through discussion forums. These interactions are typically asynchronous, but there are real-time options such as live office hours or question/answer sessions, live group discussions, Skype-like interactions, and live presentations and exchanges by students or instructors using tools such as Collaborate or commercial applications such as GoToMeeting. New tools are being continuously developed to support more meaningful interactions between students and instructors and between students and students.

In a significant change from the correspondence course era, and largely because of the development and ubiquity of the Internet, the means and rate of interaction between teacher and student changed dramatically. The rate of exchange increased, but the exchange itself remained largely linear with the teacher and student exchanging speaker and listener roles. The fundamental design remained nearly the same. In recent times, however, the more advanced designs are trending to a more transactional model of exchange, however, and this has the potential to result in more depth of student learning. In addition, the current online designs can include other students in the ongoing interaction, so it can go well beyond the isolated conversations between one teacher and one student. This is a benefit because it allows students to help each other and, in the fairly unique situation of the basic course, it allows students to act as audiences for performances as well as partners for interactive assignments in oral communication for presentations that could but do not necessarily have to involve giving a speech.

Because of the difficulty of including the performance aspect of the class, the basic course correspondence model was not widely adopted in the United States. Even so, in those earlier times, the options for evaluating speaking performances were few. Some courses required students to report to campus a few times during the term to deliver speeches in front of the instructor. In other cases, students would construct and submit a detailed outline or speech manuscript to fulfill the assignment. Another approach was to contract with teachers or other individuals located near the student who would hear and see the speech, then evaluate it according to criteria supplied by the instructor. After video and audio recording became more available, students were permitted to submit video or audio recordings of speech assignments, delivered in a variety of settings, again through the postal service.

The distance learning approach to the basic course has come a long way since those days. New communication tools have been developed that allow for a rapid exchange of information, as well as to make contributions to the learning/ teaching process that go well beyond merely transmitting information. Along with those changes, the reasons supporting developing and conducting online courses have increased over time in both quality and quantity.

Online teaching has been referred to by some as a revolution, but an examination of the use of a variety of technologies to allow for “distance” or even “near distance” learning in the basic course presents a case for an evolutionary and quite inductive journey moving toward fairly ambiguous goals. Even though not related to the basic course, consider that when Henry Ford built his “Quadracycle” in 1896, it was hailed as a revolution in transportation (Clymer, 1950). However, Ford’s vehicle shared far more characteristics with a horse-drawn buggy than what we have come to know as the modern automobile; it essentially was a buggy with a motor. The buggy concept was the dominant paradigm for a transportation device in 1900, and Ford and other engineers had difficulty seeing beyond it. As time progressed, designers and engineers slowly developed the product that we take for granted today. Multiple paradigms have come and gone since the days of the motor-powered buggy.

Much the same can be said of the basic course as it has been offered in the distance format. Essentially, instructors were following a path similar to the evolution of the automobile by attempting to pack the in-class, face-to-face approach into an online format using available communication technologies. In addition to the face-to-face format paradigm, basic course designers were also limited to the dominant paradigm of the appropriate content for the course. The public speaking aspect of the course, still the dominant approach in 2015, defined the course content and has limited the ability of designers to fully take advantage of the online environment. A central limitation was, and remains, the performance aspect of the class. What should an online public speaking assignment look like? Perhaps the question that really should be asked is, “Should public speaking be a part of the class? Does public speaking contribute in a meaningful way to the successful achievement of desired learning outcomes? Would other designs and assignments be more useful?”

In both the case of the development of the automobile and the development of the online version of the basic course, earlier designers or adopters saw the need or opportunity to make advances to improve the product, but their vision of how to proceed was limited by their image of what had happened in the past. They were trapped by their paradigm of what a vehicle should be or what a course design should look like. In the beginning, basic course innovators started with a program of adapting or “forcing” the basic course content into the format of the available tools and communication media. Later, after gaining experience and as a result of extensive research (see Goodnight & Wallace, 2005), basic course designers began a fairly slow evolution of course designs and use of online tools to make piecemeal improvements. Fortunately, the impetus today is one of intentional course design centered on the pursuit of specific results or student learning outcomes, and those course outcomes are becoming the primary drivers of the designs.

Contemporary Online Course Designs

From the mid-1990s to the present, many Communication faculty members have been attempting to create online versions of the basic communication course that maintain the quality and rigor of the traditional face-to-face course (Preston & Quesenberry, 2014; Sellnow & Gullicks, 2005; Willer, 2005). This seemed like an impossible task and a significant challenge for those who started in the 1990s. According to Bremen (2005), “The need for shared communication combined with the immediacy of a live audience, makes the basic core communication course a seemingly unlikely candidate for distance instruction” (p. 43). Though successfully teaching any class online is challenging, the basic course in communication is especially daunting because of the scale of the course (often high-demand with large enrollments) and the emphasis on oral communication performance. It is best if these performances are delivered before a live audience (or perhaps small groups or interview partners) and are accessible to the instructor for evaluation and feedback. Assessing a student’s oral speech performance is more complicated than grading a paper submitted by email.

Today, instructors and course designers have created online iterations of all the standard versions of the basic communication course. These formats include the public speaking course (most widely-used), the hybrid or blended course (interpersonal, small group, and public speaking), and the interpersonal communication course. Regardless of the content, all online versions attempt to maintain course integrity by assuring that the learning objectives and the assessments of the learning objectives are consistent with the traditional face-to-face course. In this section, we describe each of three modalities predominant in the delivery of these courses: distance/completely online, blended learning or near distance, and flipped classrooms. In the completely online modality, students and instructors are typically geographically dispersed, and they do not meet in person. Blended learning consists of a completely online component combined with occasional face-to-face class meetings for presentations, assessments, or group activities. In the flipped classroom, students meet in class with the instructor regularly, but content delivery is primarily online, and face-to-face classes are used for labs, problem solving, or other instructor-student interaction. The next section will examine each of these modalities more closely.

Distance Learning Mode

The distance learning course is offered totally online through asynchronous computer-mediated communication. There is usually no “real-time” interaction of students with students or students with instructors. Students access material, communicate with the instructor or classmates, and complete assignments at different times through the day or week. Except for the speed of the exchange of information, earlier versions of this design were very similar to early correspondence courses. Students work at their own pace, though many instructors set specific due dates for assignments. Furthermore, all course-related interaction is web-based, usually facilitated by a course management system like Blackboard, Moodle, Sakai, or Canvas. Curriculum and content are typically created and uploaded by the instructor, though professional course designers or technicians are sometimes involved. Instruction may be delivered through video lectures, PowerPoint presentations with or without lectures, podcasts, links to videos, outside websites, and selected readings. It is important to note that online instruction strives to achieve the same learning objectives and assessments as the face-to-face traditional course. Thus, when developing assignments, instructors must be creative and inventive because assignments sometimes do not directly or simply translate into the online environment.

Most basic communication courses online, regardless of the type (public speaking, hybrid, or others), have several assignments in common. These include speeches or performances, digital interactions or discussions to facilitate community, and assessments like quizzes or exams. Other types of assignments include reflection journals, small group projects that may or may not include a performance aspect, and critiques or analyses of the uses of oral communication. Speeches or some other kind of oral communication performance are central to most basic courses. These could include a speech of introduction, small group presentation, informative or explanatory presentation, and advocacy (Breman, 2005; Hart, 2014; Preston & Quesenberry, 2014; Sellnow & Gullicks, 2005; Willer, 2005). Currently, oral communication presentations are more likely recorded with a smart phone and then uploaded into YouTube, Facebook, or using other online tools. Because privacy is a concern, many instructors create private channels on YouTube or closed groups in Facebook. Importantly, instructors argue that these performances provide students with real-world experiences that are not available in the traditional face-to-face or blended learning environment. Sellnow and Gullicks (2005) stated that “public speeches in the college classroom may reflect the real world far less accurately than public speeches online students might present to audiences they locate in their own communities” (p. 36).

A second common assignment in the online course is digital interaction. As student participation is an essential part of the traditional face-to-face course, it is also essential in the online format. Digital interactions facilitate a sense of community that allows students to feel part of the class and connected to one another and the instructor (Goodnight & Daniel, 2005). Instructors must pay special attention to creating a supportive communication climate in an online course because students can feel isolated and alone without the face-to-face contact with classmates and the instructor. Online office hours using discussion boards, Collaborate, or Skype often help students make a connection to the instructor and to each other. Digital interactions can be graded or ungraded. Ungraded interactions can take place in a discussion board through the course management system. Instructors have referred to these ungraded discussions as “The Student Union,” “The Water Cooler,” or “The Coffee House,” and in this space, students can ask and answer questions about course logistics, content, or even campus events. Instructors also utilize tools like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and Snapchat to connect students with one another and with the course. Graded discussions are created with a specific learning objective in mind. For example, students might be asked to analyze a clip from a public speech or one of the many TedTalks. The discussion board normally begins with a set of open-ended questions, and the students are encouraged or required not only to answer the questions posed by the instructor, but also to respond to other students’ answers. This type of threaded discussion encourages a sense of connectedness within the class, just as it would in a face-to-face environment. In addition, many instructors make extensive use of email and text messaging as means of interaction. Evaluation of digital interaction can be based upon quality, quantity, and frequency (Longtin & Thedwall, 2005).

The final common assignment in the online environment is related to testing. Testing can be problematic in an online environment, but today there are many ways to ensure the integrity of the test or exam. Wallace (2005) noted that currently available software allows the instructor to randomly select questions from a very large pool so that each student is presented with a unique test or quiz. In addition, the use of open-ended, short-answer, and essay questions help ensure that the student’s response is genuine. Current course management systems also facilitate the use of Turnitin or other plagiarism-detecting software to ensure that contributions are the students’ original work.

Though the advantages of the online format are many, there are drawbacks for the instructor and student. First, successful students must be self-motivated and self-directed. Despite many strides that have been made in this area, attrition rates for online courses are still higher than face-to-face classrooms. According to the Hechinger Report (2015), students at community colleges were “11 percent less likely to finish and pass a course if they opted to take the online version instead of the traditional face to face version of the same class” (para. 2). About 79% of students finish the online course as opposed to the traditional face-to-face course.

In every subject, students are doing better face-to-face, according to Cassadra Hart … Other studies have found the same thing. There’s a strong body of evidence building up that students are not doing quite as well in online courses, at least as the courses are being designed now in the community college sector. (Hechinger Report, 2015, para. 3)

Other drawbacks to the online method of course delivery concern the overall teaching-learning experience for instructors and for students. For example, the online basic communication course, like all online courses, is more time-consuming for the instructor than classroom teaching, and may be more time-consuming for the student, as well. Specifically, Mandernach et al. (2013) found that online instructors spent the majority of their time facilitating discussion boards and answering student communication (like email and text messages). Overall, when the time needed to design and build an online course is included, teaching an online course takes more time than a traditional face-to-face section (also see Freeman, 2015).

A final drawback, though it is diminishing as time passes, is that all students do not have the technological requirements (a high-speed Internet connection, smartphone, and computer) to be successful in an online environment. More colleges and universities are providing students and instructors with the necessary tools, especially available Wi-Fi throughout campus, access to computer labs, and basic and advanced training in both hardware use and software applications.

In conclusion, though the benefits accrue to the institution, instructor, and students, the online delivery of the basic communication course is not for everyone.

Blended Learning Mode

Blended learning or near distance learning, the second type of modality used for online instruction in the basic communication course, includes a mixture of online and face-to-face instruction with the majority of the course conducted online. Typically, these students are at a near distance to the originating site and have transportation to come to campus for occasional class meetings. Advocates for blended learning argue that “it has the ability to balance the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the face-to-face and distance paradigms” (Gerbic, 2011, p. 222). The majority of the on-campus meetings focus on creating connections and assessing student performances. Willer (2005) states that the face-to-face meetings are necessary because “students often report that a significant benefit of the basic communication course is the relationships they form with classmates that last beyond the semester” (p. 51). In addition, the on-campus sessions provide the live audiences necessary for the public speaking assignments.

Individual course designs vary as to the number of on-campus meetings and the amount of time needed for them. For example, Willer (2005) is a proponent of five 3-hour meetings: two meetings for making connections and creating a supportive communication climate through ice breakers and small group work, and three meetings devoted solely to student performances. Hart (2014), on the other hand, schedules four meetings, one each for the four required oral presentations. The timing of the on-campus meetings is important to note. To ensure the course is accessible and available to nontraditional students, instructors often schedule these sessions in the evening or on weekends. Willer’s class met on five Saturday mornings from 9 a.m. to 12:00 noon, during the semester weeks 2, 7, 10, and 15. This type of schedule allows students to plan their work schedules and family obligations months in advance.

The majority of the blended course, however, is very similar to the online format. Course content is created and uploaded by the instructor into the course management system. All assignments, including digital interactions and testing are completed within the online course. Student interaction and learning are facilitated through the web as described for the fully distance course.

The drawbacks to the blended learning/ near distance mode of teaching are few. First, instructors report that it is difficult to find authentic connections between the virtual and face-to-face environments (Gerbic, 2011); the two learning environments could become separate spaces and thus lose the strengths each provides to students. Second, the on-campus meetings during evening hours or on weekends may not be convenient for some students, especially the traditional student who takes classes during the week. Finally, as with all online instruction, a heavy time commitment is required by both faculty and students.

Flipped Classroom Mode

The final modality to be described is the flipped classroom (see Bergmann & Sams, 2012). Similar to the traditional face-to-face classes, because students meet at regularly scheduled times throughout the week, the flipped classroom contains a substantial online component. Proponents of this format believe that students are more active in the learning process and are given a wider variety of opportunities to engage the course material than in a more traditional class setting. As a matter of fact, “There is no doubt that active-learning classrooms improve student outcomes, and it has been argued that, for a flipped course, it is active learning that drives improved student outcomes” (Gross, Pietri, Anderson, Moyano-Camihort, & Graham, 2015, p. 7; Jensen et al., 2015). Moreover, “Students are exposed to a wider variety of learning tools that allow them to better exploit their learning styles” (Gross et al., 2015, p. 8). Further support comes from Roehl, Reddy, and Shannon (2013), who argue that the flipped classroom is especially effective for millennial students (or digital natives) who have “demonstrated a decreased tolerance for lecture-style dissemination of course information” (p. 44).

The online component of the flipped classroom typically contains all the course curriculum. Video lectures, podcasts, and PowerPoint presentations (normally with voice-over instruction) are uploaded to the website. Students are required to engage the material before arriving at regularly scheduled class meetings. Two important benefits are that students can watch the material as many times as necessary for thorough understanding, and they can do so at their convenience, on any device. According to Educause (2012), “This ability may be of particular value to students with accessibility concerns, especially where captions are provided for those with hearing impairments” (para. 10). In addition to course lectures, other learning activities can be completed online, including quizzes, exams, course assessments, small group work, and feedback directed to peers concerning their work (Wallace, 2005). Face-to-face class sessions are then used for interaction and active learning. “Because students have viewed the lecture prior to class, contact hours can be devoted to problem solving, skill development, and gaining a deeper understanding of the subject matter” (Roehl et al., 2014, p. 46; see also Bergmann & Sams, 2012). In the basic communication course, then, students can work in small groups, develop ideas and outlines for oral presentations, and practice delivery skills. In-depth discussions about frames of reference, perception, connotative and denotative meanings, and nonverbal behavior for example, can be conducted, with or without faculty input.

Despite these clear advantages, there are several drawbacks to this modality. First, the instructor must adapt all the course material for the online format; this is not an easy task, as traditional lectures may not translate well when recorded. Second, the technology to create podcasts, video-lectures, or PowerPoint presentations must be available; if professional course designers or other technicians are not available, the instructor must have the knowledge to utilize these technologies. There may be a steep learning curve for some faculty members. At some colleges and universities, the cost to obtain or access the required technology may be prohibitive. Additionally, students must have up-to-date technology, including a highspeed Internet connection, in order to access the course material. Third, “The flipped classrooms, as well as active learning, require students to assume more responsibility for their individual learning experience” (Roehl et al., 2013, p. 48). Students must be given clear expectations about their responsibility for engaging the material before attending the face-to-face sessions. For some students, this will be a stark change from the traditional lecture format they are used to experiencing in the classroom.

It seems likely that distance learning or completely online models will continue to be the dominant modality in circumstances that serve geographically dispersed audiences. It also seems likely that the traditional, face-to-face modality will give way to a more hybrid mode as basic course designs and information technology continue to evolve together. To allow students to achieve learning outcomes important to them and their life directions, customizable experiences will be required, and the combination of online and face-to-face interactions of the hybrid modality can be configured to accommodate that requirement. A more detailed description of this projection can be found in the concluding section of this chapter.

Future Considerations for the Online Basic Course

Regardless of the content, course design, or medium of delivery, the basic course in communication is slowly moving toward outcomes-based instructional designs. Created on the foundation of what Barr and Tagg (1995) called the “learning paradigm” (para. 4), outcomes-based means that courses are designed and structured with a clear focus on what students should know, what they should be able to do, or what they should value as a result of their experience with the course. This perspective stands in contrast to the more traditional assignment-centered approach to basic course design based on the “instructional paradigm” (Barr & Tagg, 1995, para. 2). Rather than focusing on practical and relevant learning outcomes, the class is sometimes designed around fixed public speaking assignments (and a few other activities if the course is based on a hybrid approach). This kind of approach has made the process of adapting to an online environment more challenging than it might have been, much like the earlier example of the constraints associated with motorizing a horse-drawn buggy.

There has been a tendency among basic course directors to resist innovation and maintain traditional course designs. Basic course directors should be asking, “How do we achieve selected learning outcomes in an online environment – goals like improved critical thinking, dialogue skills, attentive and open-minded listening, ability to provide clear explanations, mindfulness, and advocacy skills?” Such a question engenders greater creativity and more resourceful answers than “How do we teach public speaking online?” As educators move toward the outcomesbased approach, the potential of the online environment should begin to be more fully realized.

As previously noted, the current rationale for teaching and learning online is primarily related to administrative necessity: reaching geographically dispersed student audiences, addressing accessibility issues, increasing enrollments, and generating revenue. To a great extent, this is the reality for many online instructors. However, educators and administrators should take one step back to examine the situation, leave the online component out of the central question, and ask, “What is the best way to achieve the desired learning outcomes?” It could be argued that more design and structure possibilities open up if we view the online environment as one of the many tools that are available to designers for achieving learning outcomes, rather than online course delivery being the end in itself. Even if instructors are forced to embrace the online environment to satisfy administrative necessity, they might still use the environment in very deliberate ways to achieve particular learning outcomes in the basic course.

In the ground-breaking days of teaching the basic course online, faculty wishing to do so were usually forced to invent, in addition to the content of the class, the technology and the delivery systems for reaching those students at a distance. It required an enormous investment of time and resources, and it required faculty to participate in the process in ways they were not qualified. Though the actual content of courses was created by content experts, the delivery was, at best, amateur and marginally effective. At the present time, however, course management systems have become user-friendly, well-designed, and nearly ubiquitous, and instructors at many institutions have access to well-trained e-learning experts to assist in course design and delivery. For students who use the course management systems daily, the learning curve is not nearly as challenging as it was in previous years. Finally, the online teacher can return to being more of a content expert and instructor. In addition, partially as a result of the synergy of instructor, e-learning expert, and the presence of well-designed course management systems, the prepackaged online learning products created by the textbook publishers will likely become less and less useful. This is perhaps not good news for publishers, but the movement away from a “one-size-fits-all” perspective on basic courses in communication will help both online and face-to-face programs improve, expand their influence across campus and the community, and become more resistant to administrative meddling and turf battles (see Valenzano et al., 2014).

Advice Concerning Online Instruction of the Basic Course

Many different forces are exerting positive influence for teaching the basic course online. Taking into consideration the administrative encouragement, the economic incentive, the presence of user-friendly learning management systems at most campuses, the outcome-based pedagogical advantages of many online tools, the availability of e-learning designers, and the ever-increasing technological competence of the digital native students, it would appear that the future of the online basic course is promising. However, as indicated earlier, there is still quite a lot to accomplish to bring this approach to online course design and delivery up to its full potential. To assist these worthwhile efforts, we offer the following suggestions for teachers, scholars, course designers, and administrators to consider:

Consider wider use of online tools both for students taking the class at a distance and for those taking the class on or near campus. Restricting online pedagogy to distance learning only could cause course designers to overlook the potential of the various online tools for achieving learning goals in face-to-face classes. The growing number of designs based on the flipped classroom and hybrid models indicates a very good start, and educators should continue to employ these tools whenever appropriate.

Focus course design efforts on learning outcomes instead of (or at least along with) traditional assignments as the basis for course design. Instead of allowing course designs to be dictated and constrained by textbooks and existing assignments, begin the process with the end result in mind, often referred to as backward design (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). If the possibility of redesigning the entire course is not an option at present, instructors can still concentrate on individual learning outcomes and try to create student experiences and assignments that would allow the student to achieve desired outcomes. Piecemeal is still progress!

Do not resist or avoid assessment. Assessment allows instructors to know if students are achieving the desired learning outcomes. While administration is often tasked with gathering assessment data for various accreditation requirements, individual instructors and basic course directors should be gathering evidence to help them understand if what they are doing in the class is working. If the evidence suggests that students are not achieving the outcomes, then the design of the learning experience should be changed to better achieve them. Instructors, both online and in the classroom, need to let go of the idea that assessment is administration looking over their shoulder. Instead, think of it not as the “A” word, but as a way to gather information that will help improve the course and ultimately the educational experience of the students. Once the information is gathered and the course director can see what is and is not working, then it is logical to take positive steps to “close the loop” by implementing changes that will bring about improvement.

Build online community among the students and instructors in the class. Encourage the growth of interpersonal relationships as well as collaboration on projects, discussions, and study groups. Attrition rates in online classes are still very high. One probable explanation is that taking a class completely online can often be a very solitary experience; students can feel isolated and completely on their own while attempting to complete the class. This stands in high contrast to the classroom experience in which the student has the opportunity for regular interactions with instructors and other students. This interaction can be motivating as well as an integral part of the learning process (Goodnight & Daniel, 2005). Online students can be helped to feel less isolation if the instructor makes a strong effort to engage each student on an interpersonal level through email, online (real-time) office hours, constructive, rapid, and personal feedback on assignments, and by maintaining a regular presence in online discussions. In addition, students can feel a connection to the other students through collaboration on projects, study groups, real-time interactions using tools like “Go-to-Meeting” or Blackboard’s “Collaborate.” Much like having a workout partner at the gym, students can motivate each other, share ideas, feel that they are part of something larger than themselves, and perhaps most important, hold each other accountable for participation, keeping up, task completion, and conceptual understanding. Overall, building community should help students better achieve learning outcomes as well as motivate them to stay active in the class, and thereby causing attrition rates to decline.

Take more advantage of the growing field of e-learning specialists. This relatively new specialty should not be confused with what we have come to know as IT (information technology) technicians. While IT technicians have come to be necessary for survival in day-to-day activities and especially in virtual environments, they are usually not trained or qualified as course designers. The new generation of e-leaning specialists also have strong technical backgrounds, but in addition they have acquired advanced training in education and techniques of course design. Institutions that do not have this kind of resource will soon see the need and the benefits in making it available to faculty.

Become more familiar with the array of online tools to build assignments and other experiences to help achieve student learning outcomes. The trend in the development of online courses over time has been to adopt and master an online tool, then look for ways to apply it to particular assignments; in brief, adapt the assignment to the tool. Instead, the goal ought to be finding the right online tool to help achieve the student learning outcome. This activity, in turn, requires that assignments be created as a result of the learning outcome, instead of extracting or mining learning outcomes from existing assignments.

Along with these opportunities to develop and execute first-rate instruction of the online basic course, there are also some significant challenges that must be faced and overcome if this method of course delivery is to reach its full potential:

Adopt a realistic attitude toward online instruction. The perception of some students, instructors, and administrators is that online courses take less time and are easier to complete than face-to-face classes. As previously noted, research and experience prove the opposite to be true. Online instructors must devote additional time and an innovative spirit to develop clear and effective instruction and site navigation. Likewise, students must exert increased self-discipline and focus to successfully complete the online basic course and benefit from the learning opportunities it presents.

Give extra attention to the clarity and precision of instruction. The long tradition of teaching in a face-to-face setting permits last-minute clarifications and instructions for completing projects and other assignments. Instructors preparing to teach online will require coaching in the careful planning and presentation of course schedules and the writing of extraordinarily clear instructions for assignments and other course expectations. While it is certainly possible to take questions about particular assignments or activities in the online environment, it adds a layer of complication and time commitment that could be avoided with careful descriptions and instructions. Careful explanation extends also to supplying instructions for successfully navigating the website housing the course. This can be a relatively simple task but one that requires careful planning and attention to detail. The course designer should see the whole class in the macro sense and communicate that view to the student. An e-learning professional designer can be very helpful in this area. Failure to follow through on something that seems as simple as site navigation can make a significant difference in student success rates.

Work toward providing full accessibility for all students. Governmental entities require that courses be available to all students, regardless of their physical abilities or mobility. Not only is this a legal issue, but it is also the right thing to do. For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 508, requires that the electronic and information technology that we use in distance learning be made accessible to persons with disabilities (ADA.gov, 1973). Of course, this poses certain challenges for course designers. For example, the sites should use fonts that are readable by machine and also provide machine-readable captions for pictures or other illustrations for persons who are vision impaired. In addition, the use of color as a navigation or explanation tool does not allow people who are color blind to follow the directions or be able to see differences. If instructors are explaining typical views of liberal vs. conservative points of view, they could use blue and red colors to make lists of attitudes, but they would also have to include other means of making that distinction that go beyond color. For persons with hearing loss, any audio recordings must be captioned, including YouTube-type video, narrated lectures or explanations, or other audio sources. All these activities require attention to detail, careful planning, and additional time commitment on the part of course designers and instructors.

Allow adequate time for course development. To accomplish the desired course goals and student learning outcomes, and to respond to the significant challenges of the medium, it is clear that instructors should not be asked to teach an online class on short notice. Though it may be technically possible to move a course into the online format in a rather short time, it is rarely a wise choice. Given the extensive attention to detail and explanation required for a coherent and comprehensible student experience, a quick course development does a disservice to the basic communication course and especially to the student.

Concluding Remarks and Projections

Any projection of the future of the basic course online necessarily involves a discussion of the research literature as well as a thoughtful speculation about the nature of things to come. Research certainly needs to be systematic and robust to evaluate past advances and to inform future directions. A view of the nature of things to come requires a consideration of future basic course designs combined with a projection of the trajectory of information technology innovation for the next several years. We begin this final section with the state of published scholarship of the basic course online.

What is absent from this chapter is a reporting of any extensive research from the Communication field about the basic course online. It was not an oversight. There is a significant gap in the literature that needs to be addressed by scholars and researchers in Communication. The conversation concerning teaching the basic course online began in earnest in 2000, and it continues today at the Basic Course Directors’ Conference, the National Communication Conference, the regional communication associations, and online in the Basic Course Directors’ Listserv. Though the conversations are lively and full of great ideas, the field has failed to move beyond those conversations and into print with the exception of the Goodnight and Wallace (2005) edited volume. The ideas that emerge in those impromptu conversations should be moved into print.

Online, hybrid, and flipped models dominate the conversations, and it is apparent that variants of these designs are being attempted, adjusted, and attempted again all across the field. The focus seems to be so much on inventing and implementing that we have lost sight of the systematic investigation, assessment, and reporting necessary to demonstrate success and for sharing innovations with others who are struggling to keep up. It is clear that systematic research needs to be done by communication scholars and researchers, and put into print, before we can make any definitive conclusions about the successes or failures of placing the basic communication course online.

When considering the nature of things to come, we have to include at least the immediate the future of information technology. When relating it to higher education applications like the basic course in communication, it is likely more productive to consider trajectories rather than predictions. Brown (2015) notes that predictions are often grounded in the present and, as Thomas Kuhn (1963) would argue, being constrained by the current paradigm restricts our vision of what is to come. Trajectories allow speculation about the direction something is taking, but they do not force a specific guess about where it will end up. Following that suggestion, this concluding section will focus on three specific trajectories.

First, the future is promising for offering the basic course in the online environment. The online environment can be used to accomplish many of the goals for which it was originally conceived (i.e., reaching geographically dispersed audiences, accommodating multiple schedules and commitments of individuals, allowing access to students with various life situations and physical restrictions, increasing enrollments, and generating additional revenues for the institution). In addition, the online environment has the potential of making a significant contribution to the continued evolution of the design of the basic course in communication by providing more and different means of achieving desired student learning outcomes and helping to customize the basic course experience to meet individual student needs. This potential hinges on developments in information technology and the realization by basic course designers and administrators that the “one-size-fits-all” design of many basic courses might be doing a disservice to students.

Second, the trajectory of information technology appears to be heading for mobile devices (Brown, 2015; Craig & Williams, 2015). Though instructors often consider a laptop computer to be mobile, students consider them burdensome. The trajectory of development appears to be moving toward even smaller devices like smartphones (Craig & Williams, 2015) and could end up with devices such as smart watches or other wearable technology such as Google Glass and other devices not yet conceived. These mobile devices invite individualized customization to suit particular needs. Our own experience in the classroom is that more students are using smartphones to access course content, even for extended readings, on the small screen. In addition, our students are using the smartphone for taking notes, for participating in forum discussions, for email with instructors and each other, to access video and other course-related presentations, and to create and submit course projects. We are already heading in the direction of mobile devices.

Third, the trajectory of individual mobile devices can have significant impact on basic course designs in the not-so-distant future. Wallace (2015) and others have argued that basic course designs have to become more sensitive to the needs of the disciplinary majors of students taking the course, to the needs of the professions that will be hiring those students once they graduate, to the needs of students whose futures rely on their career readiness (which might revolve around their ability to communicate effectively using the new technologies), and to the missions of the institutions they serve. In addition to creating a higher quality educational experience for students, basic course administrators can position their courses as more central to the mission of their particular institution to maintain their positions in the midst of budget cuts and turf battles. The overarching argument is that the “one-size-fits-all” basic course will not allow this necessary adaptation to occur. Each course should be designed for the institution in which it is housed (Wallace, 2015). This model, however, only looks up the organizational chart; it does not look down to the actual users. While the basic courses are moving toward adapting to their institutions according to institutional needs and missions, the assumption is that every student in that institution will be served by what remains essentially a “one-size-fits-all” model from the student perspective.

We suggest that basic course design should consider the end users: the individual needs and requirements of the students. Even though students are grouped together in majors, each individual student has particular aspirations and talents, strengths and weaknesses. Can or should the basic course be adapted to or customized for each of those individuals?

The trajectory of mobile and personalized devices could help provide a solution to this problem. Brown (2015) notes that the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has begun to explore breaking down its courses into smaller modules and “enabling students and instructors to ‘reassemble’ the modules to construct personalized educational pathways” (para. 3). Perhaps learning outcomes would be less focused on the common conception of the course and more focused on achieving outcomes for the individual student. What knowledge and experiences would best help this student achieve his or her individual desired outcomes? For example, though many students might not benefit from instruction in public speaking or group decision making, others might absolutely need it. Such a customizable approach would allow multiple student learning outcomes to be included in the educational experience. Following what appears to be the trajectory of the small, mobile device, modules could be available in individual APPs that could be accessed by students and used in combination with others to achieve the desired learning outcomes required of the basic course in oral communication.

The scenario presented here is just one of many future possibilities. This scenario does not call for a completely online basic course, but it could certainly be offered in that modality. Such an educational experience could also be offered in a traditional face-to-face classroom, but that experience could be digitally enhanced with a creative design to allow the benefits of face-to-face experiences in oral communication while allowing for significant customization for individual student “users” of the course. In such a case, the future of face-to-face instruction may be transformed by the best of today’s e-learning techniques, and the classroom instructors who once resisted e-learning may stand to benefit from what distance delivery has revealed about how students learn in the 21st century.

References

ADA.gov (1973). Section 508 Surveys and Reports. Retrieved from http://www.ada.gov/508/

Barr, R. B., & Tagg, J. (1995). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for undergraduate education. Change, November/December, 13–25.

Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2012). Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.

Bremen, E. B. (2005). The online public speaking fundamentals course at a community college. In L. J. Goodnight & S. P. Wallace (Eds.), The basic communication course online: Scholarship and application (pp. 43–50). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Brown, M. (2015). Six technologies for digital technology in higher education. Educause Review, 50, pp. 16–28.

Clymer, F. (1950). Treasury of early American automobiles, 1877–1925. New York, NY: Bonanza Books.

Craig, R., & Williams, A. (2015). Data, technology, and the great unbundling of higher education. Educause Review, 50, pp. 11–25.

Dedmon, D. (1965). The required first course in speech as oral communication. Central States Speech Journal, 16, 120–125. doi:10.1080/10510976509362781

Educause. (2012). 7 Things you should know about… flipped classrooms. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/7-things-you-sgould-know-about-flipped-classrooms.

Freeman, L. A. (2015). Instructor time requirements to develop and teach online courses. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 18, n.p. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring181/freeman181.html.

Gerbic, P. (2011). Teaching using a blended approach – what does the literature tell us? Educational Medial International, 48, 221–234.

Goodnight, L. J., & Daniel, P. E. (2005). Creating online learning communities. In L. J. Goodnight & S. P. Wallace (Eds.), The basic communication course online: Scholarship and application (pp. 79–84). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Goodnight, L. J., & Wallace, S. P. (Eds.). (2005). The basic communication course online: Scholarship and application. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Gross, D., Pietri E. S., Anderson, G., Moyano-Camihort, K., & Graham, M. J. (2015). Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE-Life Science Education, 14, 1–8.

Hargis, D. (1956). The first course in speech. The Speech Teacher, 5, 26–33. doi:10.1080/03634525609376775.

Hart, Z. P. (2014). Hybrid online teaching: Pathway to success for “traditional” universities. Kentucky Journal of Communication, 33, 40–51.

Hechinger Report. (2015). Studies: Online courses unsuccessful at community colleges. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/04/27/studies-online-courses-unsuccessful-at-community-colleges.

Jensen, J. L., Kummer, T. A., & Godoy, P. (2015). Improvements from flipped classroom may simply be the fruit of active learning. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 14, 1–12.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Longtin, K., & Thedwall, K. (2005). Making connections using the discussion forum. In L. J. Goodnight & S. P. Wallace (Eds.), The basic communication course online: Scholarship and application (pp. 79–84). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

Mandernach, B., Hudson, S., & Wise, S. (2013). Where has the time gone? Faculty activities and time commitments in the online classroom. Journal of Education Online, 10, n.p.

Morreale, S. P., Hanna, M. S., Berko, R. M., & Gibson, J. W. (1999). The basic communication course in U.S. colleges and universities: VI. Basic Communication Course Annual, 11, 1–36.

Morreale, S., Hugenberg, L., & Worley, D. (2006). The basic communication course at U.S. colleges and universities in the 21st century: Study VII. Communication Education, 55, 415– 437. doi:10.1080/03634520600879162

Morreale, S., Worley, D., & Hugenberg, B. (2010). The basic communication course at U.S. colleges and universities in the 21st century: Study VIII. Communication Education, 59, 405– 430. doi:10.1080/03634521003637124

Preston, M. M., & Quesenberry, B. A. (2014). Virtual public speaking case study: Maintaining rigor, meeting outcomes, and enhancing relevance for digital natives. Quarterly Review of Business Disciplines, 1, 273–285.

Roehl, A., Reddy, S. L., & Shannon, G. J. (2013). The flipped classroom: An opportunity to engage millennial students through active learning strategies. Journal of Family & Consumer Sciences. 105, 44–49.

Sellnow, D., & Gullicks, K. A. (2005). The online public speaking fundamentals course at a four-year university. In L. J. Goodnight & S. P. Wallace (Eds.), The basic communication course online scholarship and application (pp. 35–42). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Valenzano, J. M. III, Wallace, S. P., & Morreale, S. P. (2014). Consistency and change: The (r)evolution of the basic communication course. Communication Education, 63, 355–365.

Wallace, S. P. (2015). A model for the development of a sustainable basic course in communication. Basic Communication Course Annual, 27, 78–101.

Wallace, S. P. (2005). A range of applications for computer based instruction in the basic communication course. In L. J. Goodnight & S. P. Wallace (Eds.), The basic communication course online: Scholarship and application (pp. 3–10). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by Design. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Willer, L. W. (2005). The hybrid basic communication course online. In L. J. Goodnight & S. P. Wallace (Eds.), The basic communication course online: Scholarship and application (pp. 51– 58). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Witt, P. L., & Behnke, R. R. (2006). Anticipatory speech anxiety as a function of public speaking assignment type. Communication Education, 55, 167–177. doi:10.1080/03634520600566074