Cheri J. Simonds and Joseph Valenzano, III

26Teaching Communication to College and University Students: The Basic Course in Higher Education

Abstract: The basic course is an entry-level communication course that is required or recommended for undergraduate students and serves as an introduction to fundamental communication knowledge, skills, and theory. In this chapter, we describe the presence of the basic communication course in American general education programs. We illustrate the specific contributions of the course that can benefit curricula around the globe, as higher learning and vocational institutions continue their efforts to reshape their systems of education. We first provide a brief history of the basic communication course and explain why and how it holds such a key role in general education. We then unpack the large body of research the discipline has devoted to the basic course over the past fifty-plus years, and in doing so demonstrate the knowledge we have gleaned from these scholarly efforts. We situate the findings from this work within the context of contemporary trends in American and global higher education and vocational training, before finally, offering suggestions for moving forward basic communication course scholarship, teaching, and administration in the coming years.

Keywords: basic course, general education, public speaking, interpersonal communication, hybrid course, vocational training, higher education

The first encounter most students have with the field of Communication, at least in Western colleges and universities, is through the basic communication course, “that beginning entry level communication course either required or recommended for a significant number of undergraduates; the course which the department has, or would recommend, as a requirement for all or most undergraduates” (Morreale, Myers, Backlund, & Simonds, in press). As such, the basic course serves as an introduction to fundamental communication knowledge, skills, and theory. There are various iterations of the course that depend on the constituencies it serves. On many campuses, the course meets a general education requirement, whereas on others, it is tailored to specific majors. The course is typically taught as an introduction to public speaking or a broader survey of the discipline including interpersonal and small group communication in addition to public speaking (hybrid approach). The course is so integral to the field that a former president of the National Communication Association referred to it as the discipline’s “front porch” (Beebe, 2013, p. 3), the place where students get introduced to Communication Studies and ultimately find their way to the major. As essential as the course is in the United States, it is not as widely taught in other areas of the world, but with recent developments in global higher education, there is a chance that may change.

Over the past several years, the European model for education has undergone a revolutionary change. With the advent of the voluntary Bologna and Copenhagen processes, two intergovernmental education initiatives, skills formation in higher education and vocational training have been radically changed. The Bologna process focuses on higher education and has sought to increase cross-country mobility, quality control and assurance for educational programs, recognition of credentials achieved throughout Europe, and standardization of degrees in areas of study. The Copenhagen process is concerned with vocational training and seeks to establish a unified framework of qualifications and competencies, credit transfer processes, common criteria and content, and improved access (Powell, Bernhard, & Graf, 2012). These changes in some ways appear to be an effort to implement some structural elements of the model of higher education that exists in American colleges and universities.

In similar fashion, the United States is experiencing a renewed push for education reform, as economic and societal pressures have been exerted on public and private universities throughout the country. Rising costs for college, the resultant burgeoning student loan debt, and cuts to state budgets over the past decade have increased pressure on American universities to account for what they claim to produce. The Obama administration also paid heightened attention to the role of community colleges and vocational schools primarily because of their role in job training (Stratford, 2015). One of the reactions to these challenges has been an effort to revise general education, a unique component of the American higher education model, so that its goals and outcomes are both clear and assessed. One of those common goals of general education, as forwarded by the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AACU, n.d.), is the development of communication skills.

The rationale for highlighting communication instruction for college students applies to both the vocational and higher education models. Communication is one of the oldest areas of study, tracing back to the days of Classical Greece and Rome, and it is as important in Western societies today as it was then. From a vocational perspective, communication competence remains one of the most sought-after skills by employers. Job candidates also need to be able to communicate effectively in a variety of contexts to be successful in a global economy. In terms of higher education, communication is central to creating ethical citizens who engage their communities on issues of civic importance. In most American universities, training in communication skills takes place in the basic communication course, a class that is designed primarily for freshmen and is sometimes a graduation requirement for all students regardless of their major.

In this chapter we describe the presence of the basic communication course in American general education programs. We illustrate the specific contributions of the course that can benefit curricula around the globe, as higher learning and vocational institutions continue their efforts to reshape their systems of education. We first provide a brief history of the basic communication course and explain why and how it holds such a key role in general education. We then unpack the large body of research the discipline has devoted to the basic course over the past fiftyplus years, and in doing so demonstrate the knowledge we have and can glean from these scholarly efforts. We situate the findings from this work within the context of contemporary trends in American and global higher education and vocational training, before finally, offering suggestions for moving forward basic communication course scholarship, teaching, and administration in the coming years.

Providing Basic Communication Training for College Students

Higher Education vs. Vocational Training

Compared with Europe’s education systems, the United States places a greater premium on higher education than vocational education. In fact, as Powell, Bernhard, and Graf (2012) point out, “In continental Europe, far more than the United States or Great Britain, vocational education training (VET) and higher education (HE) are viewed as jointly crucial to provide the needed skills to successfully compete globally” (p. 241). In the United States, higher education takes place at colleges and universities, whereas vocational education takes place in community colleges or on the job in a format that resembles apprenticeship. As a result, communication training is fairly widespread in higher education but, strangely, not as available in many vocational contexts. Moreover, there is no corollary for the basic communication course in the European educational model, or in other nations. These are interesting facts because communication skills serve both the function of higher education to create engaged citizens and the purpose of vocational training to develop a competent workforce.

The history of higher education in the United States follows a dual track based on two distinct philosophies or conceptualizations of post-secondary education. Beginning in 1636 with the founding of Harvard College in the Massachusetts Colony, many American universities have followed the traditional British model of addressing the broad education of students, with a concern for the whole person, an appreciation for the arts, history, and science, as well as the formation of character and the quality of life after college. This approach has come to be known in the United States as liberal arts education, and in this type of institution the basic course helps students understand ways to use communication to engage in civic life. A second and contrasting approach to higher education was introduced in the 19th century, when the Industrial Revolution prompted an urgent need for agricultural engineers, technicians, and business leaders to fuel rapid growth in the market place (Wehlburg, 2010). In this context, communication training prepared students with the communication knowledge and skills needed in a particular industry.

In 1965, the United States government passed the Higher Education Act, which created scholarships and loans for students, thus opening the doors of colleges and universities to more people than ever before. As a result, the boom of new students demanded a curriculum that would help prepare them for the workplace (Boning, 2007; Gaff, 1983), and so the balance between higher education and vocational training seemed to shift back toward preparation for the workplace. As institutions attempted to respond, they created a complicated and confusing educational curriculum that, in 1977, the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching chastised as chaotic (Carnegie Foundation, 1977). During this period, the basic communication course remained a key component of many general education systems, but the perception of the course as providing instruction central to developing an engaged citizenry was lost in the milieu.

The 21st century has seen a concentrated effort to examine, evaluate, and redesign general education in American schools. Two initiatives that contributed to this reform are the AACU’s renewed call for assessment and the Liberal Education and America’s Promise (LEAP) program designed to create systemic change. This national advocacy, campus action, and research initiative was created in response to the changing landscape of the economy, industry, and social and political climates that demand more informed and engaged citizens in a democracy. General education is defined as part of liberal education curriculum shared by all students (AACU, 2002) and provides the foundation for developing crucial intellectual and civic skills. This shift moved programs from a course-selection approach to an outcomes-based approach where courses are designed to assess what students can do rather than a focus on what content is covered. The basic course became integral to these initiatives as communication skills were explicitly identified as essential learning outcomes critical to preparing students to become engaged citizens in the 21st century (AACU, n.d.). Thus, a renewed emphasis on basic course pedagogy emerged in both communication instruction and scholarship.

The Emergence of the Basic Course in the Communication Discipline

The idea that the discipline should pay attention to the basic course, or that its content was important for students in general education, is not new. In fact, beginning with a 1956 study of the basic course by Donald E. Hargis, members of the discipline have periodically surveyed communication departments to understand the scope, state, and content of the basic communication course across the country. To date the survey has occurred nine times, with the most recent currently in press (Morreale et al., in press). Over time, these surveys illustrate that public speaking is the predominant design, followed by the hybrid approach. As the most recent survey demonstrates, more creative models have also emerged and incorporate dialogue, large audience presentations, and even online speeches. Morreale et al. also noted that, due to recent changes in general education (AACU), the basic course should strive to meet the outcomes articulated by focusing more on ethical communication, critical thinking, and civic engagement. As this research has shown, the basic communication course has taken many forms over the years.

With the increased attention came a commensurate increase in outlets for sharing information on the basic course. In 1962, the first Midwest Basic Course Director’s Conference was held (now called the Basic Course Director’s Conference), which still meets annually to discuss innovations in administration and content for the course. The conference served as the impetus of the Basic Communication Course Annual in 1989, the only peer-reviewed journal focused exclusively on the basic communication course, which is now in its 28th edition. That same year, the Central States Communication Association established a Basic Course Interest Group for members, and not to be outdone, the National Communication Association followed suit five years later with the Basic Course Division. Additionally, in the early 1990s, the Basic Course Listserv was established to provide an ongoing and easily accessible format for basic course instructors and directors to engage in sharing ideas and developments.

Thus, there is reason to believe that the basic communication course would fit quite well within the framework established by the Bologna and Copenhagen processes, and with the globalized world we now live in, these courses make even more practical sense for inclusion in European educational as well as other national institutions. The use of competencies to assess skill development, transferability of the course among many institutions, and relatively common criteria and content that benefit both higher education and vocational training programs could easily be adapted for the needs of international constituencies.

National Publication Outlets for Basic Course Scholarship

Ongoing research into the structure and pedagogy of the basic communication course is an invaluable resource for institutions with, or thinking of developing, a basic communication course. The Communication discipline also boasts three peerreviewed journals that publish research about the basic course, one of which is entirely devoted to examining the theories and praxis that inform basic course instruction. What makes basic course scholarship so distinctive is that it primarily focuses on understanding course design issues and achievement of course/univer-sity outcomes, whereas most other instructional communication research examines instructor variables as they relate to student learning. In this section of the chapter, we provide details on basic course scholarship and encourage centers of higher education or vocational training to consider these practices to integrate communication into their curriculum.

Communication Education (formerly The Speech Teacher)

The first of these publications, The Speech Teacher, debuted in 1952 and provided an outlet for publishing scholarship specifically on teaching issues. In 1976, this journal was renamed Communication Education, as research in communication and instruction became more empirically, theoretically, and programmatically driven. Additionally, the scope of the journal expanded to include communication instruction (ways to improve communication competencies beyond speech training), instructional communication (communicative factors involved in teaching and learning), and communication development research (the acquisition of communication skills; Friedrich, 1989).

In 1984, Staton-Spicer and Wulff offered a synthesis of the research in communication and instruction and identified several categories of research in various communication journals including Communication Education. These categories include teacher characteristics, student characteristics, teaching strategies, speech criticism and evaluation, speech content, and speech programs. Of these categories, two speak directly of basic course issues (speech criticism and speech content). However, in a cursory examination of the research highlighted in this synthesis, these authors were only able to identify ten basic course articles appearing in Communication Education.

Since the Staton-Spicer and Wulff (1984) synthesis, a follow-up examination of basic course research in the journal revealed that only 10% of the empirical articles published in Communication Education were related to the basic course. This paucity of empirical basic course research included topics such as communication assessment rubrics (Bock & Bock, 1984; Bohn & Bohn, 1985; Carlson & Smith-Howell, 1995; Rubin, 1984); surveys of the basic course (Gibson, Hanna, & Huddleston, 1985; Morrealle, Worley, & Hugenberg, 2010); surveys of textbook content and readability (Allen & Preiss, 1990; Pelias, 1989; Peterson, 1991; Schneider, 1991, 1992) and critical thinking assessment (Allen, Berkowitz, Hunt, & Louden, 1999; Fritz & Weaver, 1986). Moreover, of that ten percent, 71% of those articles focused on communication apprehension in the context of public speaking (e.g., Ayres & Hopf, 1985; Beatty, 1988a, 1988b; Beatty & Friedland, 1990; Behnke & Sawyer, 1999; Connell & Borden, 1987; Hinton & Kramer, 1998; Whitworth & Cochran, 1996). Thus, scholars who conducted basic course research found it necessary to look further for another publication outlet.

Communication Teacher

Alongside Communication Education, NCA established a new journal, Communication Teacher, to focus on original teaching ideas in all areas of communication. Though some of the strategies published in this outlet do not relate directly to the basic course, many teaching ideas for the basic course are included in the journal. About the time of AACU’s efforts to reform general education into an outcomes-driven program, the scope of Communication Teacher expanded to include communication assessment, which allowed basic course directors to share their assessment of outcomes with members of the Communication discipline.

A cursory examination of the assessment pieces published in Communication Teacher illustrates that 15 of the 25 manuscripts involve assessment of the basic course. These assessment pieces have advanced the basic course by providing evidence of accomplishing communication outcomes, which serves to justify the role of the course in general education. For example, Avanzino (2010) provided an excellent model of assessing the oral communication competencies within general education using a student learning outcomes (with accompanying rubrics) approach. Cooper (2011) offered another practical online program for evaluating and assessing students’ public speaking competencies, and Meyer et al. (2008b) found that with intentional and deliberate pedagogy on information literacy, students could enhance their research and critical thinking skills as a foundation for life-long learning. Myers and his colleagues (2010) found that the basic course was effective in nurturing collegial peer relationships, which led to effective group satisfaction and learning outcomes. Thus, the basic course provides an important opportunity to foster group communication and refine critical thinking, conflict management, problem solving, and leadership skills needed in academic, professional, and civic endeavors. Furthering the claim of accomplishing general education goals, McIntyre and Sellnow (2014) found that the basic course is a perfect opportunity to show growth in student service learning outcomes, including personal and interpersonal development and a sense of citizenship.

These studies not only provide support for the basic course’s ability to demonstrate successful general education outcomes, but they also offer pragmatic advice to other departments beginning assessment programs. Additionally, these studies offer insights on how assessment can inform decisions about course design and pedagogy. Despite the new emphasis on publishing assessment pieces in this particular outlet, basic course assessment research still competes with broader communication education and instructional communication pieces on a wide array of courses; and with the role of the basic course in general education comes the responsibility of continued assessment.

The Basic Communication Course Annual

In 1989, the Basic Communication Course Annual (BCCA) was formed due to the efforts of several basic course directors who recognized a need for an outlet entirely devoted to examining the theories and praxis that inform basic course instruction. Prior to the establishment of this annual, several basic course directors at the Midwest Basic Course Director’s Conference (now the Basic Course Director’s Conference) lamented the lack of research opportunities for basic course scholarship; this situation put many basic course directors at-risk for tenure and promotion. Additionally, they wanted to preserve some of the insightful conversations about best practices in administration, training, course development, research, and assessment that were taking place at the conference (Wallace, 1989). The journal began with several forum issues, best practices, and the dissemination of award winning papers from regional and national conferences, but the annual now boasts more empirical, programmatic, and theoretical research.

Basic Course Scholarship

Given the three outlets within the Communication discipline for publishing basic course scholarship, and the fairly robust history of such work, there is much that institutions in the United States and other nations can draw from when creating contemporary and effective versions of the basic communication course. For example, basic course scholarship has applied theory and research in programmatic and pragmatic ways within various versions of the basic communication course. Despite the volume of work on the basic communication course, the discipline itself still debates the presence of theory in basic course scholarship. This section explores that debate, and ultimately we argue that theory drives basic course research, and research drives our praxis.

Hunt, Novak, Semlak, and Meyer (2005) provided a synthesis of the empirical research in the BCCA using the same categories as Staton-Spicer and Wulff (1984). At the time of publication, Hunt et al. identified 61 empirical articles for analysis and categorization, which comprised 43% of the articles appearing in the first 15 years of the annual. Hunt et al. challenged basic course scholars to conduct more theoretically driven, empirical research on the content and administration of the basic course, rather than just using students in the basic course as subjects for other inquiries.

To determine if basic course scholars heeded this charge, these authors conducted a cursory analysis of the empirical and theoretical research published since the Hunt et al. (2005) synthesis piece. Indeed, in the years just prior to this synthesis, the BCCA began to see an increase in theoretically driven research. For example, Fassett (2003) used social action theory in the constructions of student success in the basic course, and Warren (2003) discussed performative pedagogy theory in the negotiation of educational at-risk students. Reynolds, Hunt, Simonds, & Cutbirth (2004) used Goffman’s politeness theory to analyze if instructors were too polite in their feedback of student performances. In this same volume, Treinan (2004) applied critical theory on whiteness studies, and Harter, Kirby, Hatfield, and Kuhlman (2004) identified social capital, feminist, and narrative theories as rationales for using service learning in the basic course.

Since the Hunt et al. (2005) call, the BCCA has consistently demonstrated a commitment to theory-driven research in the basic course. In fact, in a cursory analysis of the titles and abstract of manuscripts published in the BCCA, 78% (N = 56 of 72) of the articles were empirical in nature, and 36% (N = 20) of those empirical articles explicitly mentioned being driven by theory. To illustrate, Rattenborg, Simonds, and Hunt (2005) used Astin’s involvement theory to explain student participation in instructional discussion, and Wolfsen (2005) applied non-Thomism and pragmatism to elucidate instructional paradigms as they relate to trait communication apprehension. That same year, Turman (2005) used media richness theory to explain the impact of instructional technology and teacher immediacy on student affective learning.

The years that followed the Hunt et al. (2005) charge continued to see a vast rise in the amount of theory-driven, empirical, and programmatic research. Basic course scholars began to take a more rigorous and theoretical approach to their research. As evidence, Kussart, Hunt, and Simonds (2007) used persuasion theory to account for student perceptions of power and compliance-gaining in basic course learning communities. They found that students in learning communities were more likely to use group persuasion, flattery, and utilitarian justice when attempting to influence instructors. These authors suggest that basic course directors implement training in compliance-gaining strategies so that instructors could nurture students’ prosocial argumentation skills.

Theisen and Davilla (2007) related the social support of female graduate teaching assistants (GTAs) to social networking theory and found that relationships between female GTAs and other students are crucial to their success and that they primarily obtain information and skills related to teaching from their peers. They suggested that basic course directors should foster GTA relationships through intentional socialization opportunities. Semlak (2008) applied social learning theory to the assessment of peer feedback in the basic course. She posited that peer feedback affords students the opportunity to learn through observation and introspection, and offers pedagogical strategies to improve the utility of peer feedback in student attention, retention, and motivation. Gaffney and Frisby (2013) applied Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy to a two-course structure to maximize affective learning and student self-efficacy. They found that students reported greater affect and efficacy (expanded knowledge, enhanced collaborative skills, increased openness and acceptance, heightened awareness, increased confidence, and ability to critically examine) after taking the second course when compared to the first.

Additionally, several scholars programmatically applied student engagement theories to student participation practices in the basic course. Sellnow and Ahlfeldt (2009) found that problem-based learning models enhanced student critical thinking and teamwork skills and fostered interactive student engagement. Broeckelman (2007) offered four theory-based instructional strategies (grading rubrics, instructor feedback, peer workshops, and peer evaluations), supported by Vygotsky’s zones of proximal development, for incorporating dialogism into the pedagogy of the basic course. She argued that the basic course is a prime site for merging theory with praxis to help students gain a better understanding of the discipline. Prisbell, Dwyer, Carlson, Bingham, and Cruz (2009) found support for the association of students’ perceptions of classroom connectedness and cognitive learning, affective learning, affective behavioral intent, and overall instructional affect. Sidelinger, Myers, and McMullen (2011) lent support to the connected classroom climate by providing students enrolled in the basic course with a safe and comfortable haven to present speeches. They found that students who perceived a connected classroom climate claimed an increase in communication competence and a decrease in public speaking apprehension. Furthermore, Sidelinger, Frisby, McMullen, and Heisler (2012) showed that instructor communication behaviors could also enhance a safe space for students. They found a relationship between instructor humor, nonverbal immediacy, and self-disclosure and students’ perceptions of classroom connectedness. These scholars have advanced our knowledge of the instructional strategies and teacher behaviors that foster student engagement and overall learning. Moreover, these studies support the notion that students learn best when they are actively engaged in the process.

Other programmatic research addressed classroom management training for GTAs (Meyer et al., 2008a; Meyer et al., 2007), portfolio assessment including speech evaluation and persuasion (Meyer, Kurtz, Hines, Simonds, & Hunt, 2010; Simonds, Meyer, Hunt, & Simonds, 2009), and the utility of speech laboratories (Dwyer & Davidson, 2012; Hunt & Simonds, 2002; Jones, Hunt, Simonds, Comadena, & Baldwin, 2004; LeFebvre, 2013; Nelson, Whitfield, & Moreau, 2012). Clearly, basic course scholarship is guided, now more than ever, by theoretical perspectives regarding what works best in the basic communication course.

As we have demonstrated here, the work in the primary educational communication publication outlets has consistently demonstrated the centrality of the basic communication course to the discipline, as well as its place in general education. This work has also provided an understanding of course design and best practices for constructing courses that allow students to achieve learning outcomes. Such work serves as the foundation for understanding why a basic course would benefit students across the globe in today’s hyper-mediated world. These essays, and the countless others that have appeared within the BCCA especially, serve as rich ground from which other higher education and vocational training institutions can use contemporary research and theory-driven approaches to integrate communication into their curricula in meaningful ways. Despite the wealth of information and knowledge available regarding basic course pedagogy, there are some elements of the education climate today that represent headwinds for colleges and universities.

National Trends in Higher Education

As consistent a place as general education has had in Western education for the past half century, its characteristics are changing from a course-based structure to a model based on student learning outcomes. This shift presents both challenges and opportunities for the basic communication course. Additionally, the recent global economic downturn has created both financial and perceptual pressures on higher education that have, at a minimum, a tangential impact on the basic communication course. Further complicating that scene is an international employment market that consistently clamors for communication skills in college graduates, but does not specify what exactly those skills are. These pressures have forced a reconceptualization of the basic course from its traditional public speaking model to one that is more flexible from school to school. In other words, the basic course now needs to be constructed to serve the communication needs of specific populations and general education programs.

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, the shift to an outcomes-based model for course and program construction in higher education provided a clear rationale for the value and justification of the basic course. Recall that in 2006, the AACU formed the LEAP initiative to re-imagine general education when communication skills (oral communication, critical thinking, information literacy, teamwork and problem solving) were explicitly emphasized under the Intellectual and Practical Skills essential learning outcome. Unlike before, now the goal is that students demonstrate achievement of a specific skill (outcome) rather than “check off” that they have been exposed to it by taking a specific course. This approach was crucial for paving the way for assessment of communication knowledge and skills in the basic course, which has raised the stature of our role in general education specifically, and the discipline at large.

Political pressures have not been the sole source of stress on basic communication courses, as the economic downturn of 2008 also changed the relationship between colleges, universities, and the public across the globe, but in particular within the United States. The financial strains on higher education have led to some universities reducing the number of credit hours required to graduate, essentially squeezing out courses from general education. A popular target of these credit hour reduction efforts have been the basic communication course. Recently, the course has come under a degree of fire, and communication departments in several locales have been forced to defend the inclusion of a basic communication course in general education (Valenzano, 2013). Members of the basic course listserv have shared reports of this happening on their campuses for years. Many course directors would make pleas on the listserv for arguments they could use to defend their course; some of the pleas were successful, others were not. However, what was astonishing to the members of the listserv was that there was no formal statement from our national office to help in these endeavors. In response to this need, NCA and basic course scholars marshaled their resources to mount a defense of the course. In 2012, NCA passed a revised resolution on the role of communication in general education, which pointed out that “the areas in which employers feel that colleges most need to increase their focus” include “written and oral communication skill first” (Simonds, Buckrop, Redmond, & Hefferin, 2012, p. 2).

In the interests of fostering more synergy among the discipline, higher education, and employers, other efforts also took place during this timeframe. In January 2014, the Basic Course Directors’ Conference, hosted by the University of Dayton, held a dialogue between employers and basic course directors to identify what specific communication skills employers seek in graduates to help connect curriculum in the classroom with expectations of outside constituencies (Hooker & Simonds, 2015). This outreach both demonstrated the continued role of the basic communication course in higher education, and further enhanced the course’s role in developing vocational skills and civic-mindedness in students. It was shortly after the adoption of the resolution on the role of communication in general education that Steven Beebe unveiled his NCA presidential initiative for strengthening the basic course, and thus the profile of the discipline. He created a task force to explore ways that NCA could support basic course directors and instructors. As a result of the task force, NCA now offers a web link devoted exclusively to the basic course in general education and provides course directors with resources to assist in the advocacy, development, training, assessment, and management of the course.

One of the task force charges included an analysis of the common core competencies that serve as the basis for introductory communication courses across a variety of contexts. Through an iterative process, and with much consultation of basic course faculty, the task force offered the following seven core competencies: Monitoring and Presenting Your Self; Practicing Communication Ethics; Adapting to Others; Practicing Effective Listening; Expressing Messages; Identifying and Explaining Fundamental Communication Processes; and Creating and Analyzing Message Strategies. For each competency, the task force also provided a rationale statement, selected subtopics/units, and assessment measures for each topic.

Additionally, the task force recommended that NCA provide support for better training for basic course directors. In thinking about the roles and duties of a course director (hiring and supervising personnel, training and development, advocating for the course to various institutional and state constituencies, curriculum development, assessment, etc.), it is surprising that there is not, nor has there ever been, a formal training ground that prepares basic course directors to perform these duties. Thus, in 2014, NCA sponsored the Basic Course Director’s Summer Institute at Dayton University for the continued development of basic course directors. This institute spurred several regional workshops offering similar training sessions to an even broader audience – illustrating the thirst for this type of training within the discipline (Simonds, 2015). Nevertheless, the basic communication course stands on a precipice, with both stark dangers and wonderful opportunities facing it in the near future.

Future Directions

Few disciplines can boast the rich historical connection to education that communication has had. Whether training students to be successful employees, citizens, or both, communication training has long been understood to be central to the education system. For example, in the United States many college freshmen take the basic communication course to help them become more effective at creating, sending and interpreting messages. That basic course has undergone its own set of changes over time, but it has also become a focal point of scholarly inquiries into communication education. As a discipline, communication has garnered a wealth of knowledge through theoretically sound empirical research, and that data can be of immense utility to any system of education undergoing change, including those in Europe and other nations. Despite its importance, vigilance remains a necessity for ensuring the course’s continued centrality in education due to recent changes to the economic and social reality for global higher education and vocational training. In this concluding section we offer several suggestions for not just maintaining, but advancing the basic communication course in the future, given that the headwinds it faces are not likely to dissipate anytime soon.

Suggestions for Advancing the Basic Course

In light of the arguments advanced in this chapter, we offer several suggestions for advancing the basic course both nationally and internationally: (1) course administrators need to consider an outcomes based approach for the development of the course; (2) journal editors of national publication outlets need to expand the scope of scholarship to include research and assessment of the basic course; (3) the discipline as a whole, ideally through its professional organizations, must seek ways to augment training and resources for those tasked with administering the basic communication course at their respective institutions; and (4) doctoral-level communication departments need to offer programs specifically designed to train future basic course directors.

Suggestion 1: Course administrators need to consider the changing nature of general education to sustain the role of the basic course within their respective departments. Simply because the course has traditionally been taught in a specific way (e.g., public speaking, hybrid, etc.) does not mean it must always be taught that way. In fact, to keep up with changes in society and the technological influences on communication that have been developed in recent years, it makes sense to continually update the basic course so it remains relevant for students.

Wallace (2015) provides clarity and direction for developing a basic course from an outcomes-based approach, which is much more suited to responding to contextual influences. To begin, course administrators need to consider both their constituencies and constraints. In terms of constituencies, Wallace suggests course administrators consider the mission of the department, university, and general education program. This mission will be reflected in the outcomes of the general education program. Course administrators should then map the communication knowledge and skills of the basic course to these outcomes (for an example of this process, please see the NCA resolution on the role of communication in general education, Simonds et al., 2012). Other constituencies may include the particular populations being served by the university such as engineering, nursing, or education majors, or the local workforce. By mapping the knowledge and skills of the basic course to university outcomes, course administrators will have a system in place for conducting assessment, which will, in turn, solidify the role of the basic course in general education.

The consideration of constituencies can only happen in light of constraints. For example, some programs have more financial and instructional resources than others. Some course administrators are constrained by departmental hiring practices in that they have responsibility of training and supervising instructors without the authority to hire them. Some programs have graduate teaching assistant instructors, whereas others have adjunct faculty, which has implications for the types of teacher training that can be offered. Moreover, some programs are constrained by state articulation agreements that mandate a certain number of speeches for courses to transfer to other institutions.

The topic of constituencies and constraints has been discussed at length at the Basic Course Director’s Conference and the recent basic course institutes. We encourage basic course directors to attend these conferences to take advantage of the social support network of the community of fellow basic course directors. Moreover, we encourage basic course directors to avail themselves of the basic course scholarship that informs best practices. One of those best practices is revising courses so they are driven by outcomes, not assignments – after all, there is a reason it is the basic communication course and not the public speaking course.

Suggestion 2: Given the importance of the basic course to the discipline and its departments on a number of campuses, it is essential to continue to develop and provide opportunities for peer-reviewed scholarship on the basic course. The outlets discussed in this chapter already benefit the discipline at large, but by expanding the scope of scholarship to include research and assessment of the basic course, we can provide even more information for maintaining and developing sustainable basic course programs around the globe.

Two recent editors of Communication Education, Paul Witt and Jonathan Hess, have renewed calls for research that softens the boundaries of the focus on datadriven, social scientific research from an instructional communication perspective. These calls have broadened the scope of the journal to include research on innovative technologies, basic course assessment, and forums on topics such as the common core. Additionally, the Basic Communication Course Annual recently initiated a Forum section where scholars share answers to questions on issues of importance that the basic course naturally confronts. Previous forum topics have included a discussion of the most important learning objectives for the course and training topics for instructors. The newest volume will include a discussion of potential strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and challenges for the course. This renewed emphasis has implications for the basic course and the advancement of scholarship specific to the challenges we face.

The new opportunities offered in Communication Teacher for conducting and publishing assessment efforts at various institutions are also encouraging. These efforts are instructive to other programs and serve to validate the ability of the basic course to meet the intended outcomes of general education. Future editors will hopefully value the continuation of this research in raising the stature of the discipline.

The analysis of research in the Basic Communication Course Annual conducted for this essay is quite encouraging in terms of countering the argument that basic course research is a-theoretical. This analysis clearly established that basic course scholars are conducting research that is empirical, theoretical, and programmatic. In doing so, this research uses theory to guide practice, whereby basic course administrators can make informed decisions about the best practices that will strengthen their own programs.

Suggestion 3: In recent years, there has been an increase in activities that have promoted the stature of the basic course within the discipline. The revised NCA resolution (Simonds et al., 2012) paved the way for two presidential task forces (Steven Beebe and Kathleen Turner) to strengthen the basic course as the “front porch” of our discipline. As a result of these task forces, NCA now has resources devoted to issues related to the basic course in general education. While these resources are quite helpful in the advocacy, development, training, assessment, and management of the course, these resources need to be continually updated. It is heartening to see that the task force recommendation to have basic course division representation on the Educational Policies Board to sustain these efforts has been acted upon. In addition, NCA should continue to provide training opportunities for basic course directors as they did with the 2014 Basic Course Director’s Institute in Dayton, Ohio.

Suggestion 4: With an increased focus on strengthening the basic course comes a commensurate need to provide adequate support and training for both current and future basic course directors and coordinators. This need stems from a lack of formal education available in the field for those who wish to pursue these types of positions. In recent years, there has been a decline in doctoral-level programs that offer instructional communication or communication pedagogy as a field of study, let alone as an elective course. More concerning is the fact that there has never been a program devoted to the training and development of basic course directors and coordinators. Hunt, Wright, and Simonds (2014) make a similar case in a recent essay on securing the future of communication education. They indicate that we need doctoral programs in communication pedagogy to nurture a pipeline of scholarship to advance the body of knowledge on basic course issues. They argue, “How can we continue to make the argument that communication is central to general education or the common core if we are not prepared to train scholars to conduct research or prepare teachers for implementing communication curriculum …?” (Hunt et al., 2014, p. 459). Moreover, they pose that we as a discipline need to place higher value on the field of communication education lest we place all of the discipline at-risk.

If the basic course is the “front porch” of the discipline, then the basic course director is the “foundation” of the house. Course administrators train the teachers who teach the students that ultimately come through the discipline. We need to make sure that the people in this role are confident, competent, and passionate about their duties and responsibilities. It is our contention that with the proper training and formal education, we can nurture both a pipeline of future scholars and directors that represent the discipline in positive ways that welcome students into our field of study. Only then can we build a strong foundation for the discipline at large.

Closing Observations

Higher education and vocational training around the globe are in a state of intense flux, which presents a unique moment in the life of the basic communication course. Beyond the basic course, perhaps no other courses are supported with such a robust history of scholarship, administrative experience, and ability to simultaneously contribute to the education of both members of the workforce and developing citizens. Given the state of change higher education is undergoing around the world, retaining the basic course’s centrality in these roles is both a challenge and an opportunity for the discipline. Through creative thinking, a commitment to training, and continued scholarly attention to the basic course, the discipline can remain well positioned in American institutions and perhaps even develop a key role in other national educational systems, as well. Nothing would benefit the students of the future more than exposure to a contemporary communication course.

References

Allen, M., Berkowitz, S., Hunt, S., & Louden, A. (1999). A meta-analysis of the impact of forensics and communication education on critical thinking. Communication Education, 48, 18–30. doi:10.1080/03634529909379149

Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1990). Using meta-analyses to evaluate curriculum: An examination of selected college textbooks. Communication Education, 39, 103–116. doi:10.1080/03634529009378793

American Association of Colleges and Universities (2002). Liberal Education and America’s Promise: The essential outcomes. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/leap

Association of American Colleges & Universities. (n. d.). An introduction to LEAP: Liberal education & American’s promise excellence for everyone as a nation goes to college. Washington, D.C.: Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/leap

Avanzino, S. (2010) Starting from scratch and getting somewhere: Assessment of oral communication proficiency in general education across lower and upper division courses. Communication Teacher, 24, 91–110. doi:10.1080/17404621003680898

Ayres, J., & Hopf, T. S. (1985). Visualization: A means of reducing speech anxiety. Communication Education, 34, 318–323. doi:10.1080/03634528509378623

Beatty, M. J. (1988a). Public speaking apprehension, decision-making errors in the selection of speech introduction strategies and adherence to strategy. Communication Education, 37, 297–311. doi:10.1080/03634528809378731

Beatty, M. J. (1988b). Situational and predispositional correlates of public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 37, 28–39. doi:10.1080/03634528809378701

Beatty, M. J., & Friedland, M. H. (1990). Public speaking state anxiety as a function of selected situational and predispositional variables. Communication Education, 39, 142–147. doi:10.1080/03634529009378796

Beebe, S. (2013). Message from the president: “Our front porch.” Spectra, 49, 3, 22.

Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. R. (1999). Milestones of anticipatory public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 48, 165–172. doi:10.1080/03634529909379164

Bock, D. G., & Bock, E. H. (1984). The effects of positional stress and receiver apprehension on leniency errors in speech evaluation: A test of the rating error paradigm. Communication Education, 33, 337–341. doi:10.1080/03634528609388350

Bohn, C. A., & Bohn, E. (1985). Reliability of raters: The effects of rating errors on the speech rating process. Communication Education, 34, 343–351. doi:10.1080/03634528509378626

Boning, K. (2007). Coherence in general education: A historical look. Journal of General Education, 56, 1–16.

Broeckelman, M. A. (2007). Creating sites for connection in the classroom: Dialogism as a pedagogy for active learning. Basic Communication Course Annual, 19, 37–71.

Carlson, R. E., & Smith-Howell, D. (1995). Classroom public speaking assessment: Reliability and validity of selected evaluation instruments. Communication Education, 44, 87–97. doi:10.1080/03634529509379001

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching (1977). Missions of the college curriculum: A contemporary review with suggestions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Common Core State Standards Initiative (2015). English language arts standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy

Connell, S. H., & Borden, G. A. (1987). Incorporating treatment for communication apprehension into oral communication courses. Communication Education, 36, 56–61. doi:10.1080/03634528709378642

Cooper, L. O. (2011). “WebGrader”: An online instrument for evaluation and assessment of oral competency. Communication Teacher, 25, 68–80. doi:10.1080/17404622.2010.528005

Dwyer, K. K., & Davidson, M. M. (2012). Speech center support services, the basic course, and oral communication assessment. Basic Communication Course Annual, 24, 122–150.

Fassett, D. L. (2003). On defining at-risk: The role of educational ritual in constructions of success and failure. Basic Communication Course Annual, 15, 41–82.

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

Fritz, P. A., & Weaver, R. L. (1986). Teaching critical thinking skills in the basic speaking course: A liberal arts perspective. Communication Education, 35, 174–182. doi:10.1080/03634528609388338

Gaff, J. G. (1983). General education today: A critical analysis of controversies, practices and reforms. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Gaffney, A. L., & Frisby, B. N. (2013). A new hybrid: Students’ extensions of integrated communication content. Basic Communication Course Annual, 24, 207–244.

Gibson, J. W., Hanna, M. S., & Huddleston, B. M. (1985). The basic speech course at U.S. colleges and universities: IV. Communication Education, 34, 281–291. doi:10.1080/03634528509378620

Hargis, D. (1956). The first course in speech. The Speech Teacher, 5, 26–33.

Harter, L. M., Kirby, E. L., Hatfield, K. L., & Kuhlman, K. N. (2004). From spectators of public affairs to agents of social change: Engaging students in the basic course through service-learning. Basic Communication Course Annual, 16, 165–194.

Hinton, J. S., & Kramer, M. W. (1998). The impact of self-directed videotape feedback on students’ self-reported levels of communication competence and apprehension. Communication Education, 45, 151–161. doi:10.1080/03634529809379119

Hooker, J. F., & Simonds, C. J., (2015). From the outside looking in: Employer’s views of the basic course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 27, 102–116.

Hunt, S. K., Novak, D. R., Semlak, J. L., & Meyer, K. R. (2005). Synthesizing the first 15 years of the Basic Communication Course Annual: What research tells us about effective pedagogy. Basic Communication Course Annual, 17, 1–42.

Hunt, S., & Simonds, C. (2002). Extending learning opportunities in the Basic Communication course: Exploring the pedagogical benefits of speech laboratories. Basic Course Annual, 14, 61–86.

Hunt, S. K., Wright, A. M., & Simonds, C. J. (2014). Securing the future of Communication Education: Advancing an advocacy and research agenda for the 21st Century. Communication Education, 63, 449–461. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.926016

Jones, A., Hunt, S., Simonds, C., Comadena, M., & Baldwin, J. (2004). Speech laboratories: An exploratory examination of potential pedagogical effects on students. Basic Communication Course Annual, 16, 105–138.

Kussart, N., Hunt, S., & Simonds, C. (2007). Comparing student use of power in learning communities and regular classes. Basic Communication Course Annual, 19, 72–103.

LeFebvre, L. (2013). Effect of goal-setting and self-generated feedback on student speechmaking. Basic Communication Course Annual, 25, 283–329.

McIntyre, K. A., & Sellnow, D. D. (2014). A little bit can go a long way: An examination of required service in the Basic Communication course. Communication Teacher, 28, 57–73. doi:10.1080/17404622.2013.843012

Meyer, K. R., Hunt, S. K., Comadena, M. E., Simonds, C. J., Simonds, B. K., & Baldwin, J. R. (2008a). Assessing classroom management training for basic course instructors. Basic Communication Course Annual, 20, 35–71.

Meyer, K. R., Hunt, S. K., Hopper, M., Thakkar, K. V., Tsoubakopoulos, V., & Van Hoose, K. J. (2008b). Assessing information literacy instruction in the Basic Communication course. Communication Teacher, 22, 22–34. doi:10.1080/17404620801926925

Meyer, K. R., Kurtz, R. R., Hines, J. L., Simonds, C. J., & Hunt, S. K. (2010). Assessing preemptive argumentation in students’ persuasive speech outlines. Basic Communication Course Annual, 22, 6–38.

Meyer, K. R., Simonds, C. J., Simonds, B. K., Baldwin, J. R., Hunt, S. K., & Comadena, M. E. (2007). Designing classroom management training for basic course instructors. Basic Communication Course Annual, 19, 1–36.

Morreale, S., Myers, S. A., Backlund, P., & Simonds, C. J. (2016). Study IX of the basic communication course at two- and four-year U.S. colleges and universities: A re-examination of our discipline’s “front porch.” Communication Education, 65, 338–355. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1073339

Morreale, S. P., Worley, D. W., & Hugenberg, B. (2010). The Basic Communication course at two-and four-year U.S. colleges and universities: Study VIII – The 40th anniversary. Communication Education, 59, 405–430. doi:10.1080/03634521003637124

Myers, S. A., Shimotsu, S., Byrnes, K., Frisby, B. N., Durbin, J., & Loy, B. N. (2010). Assessing the role of peer relationships in the small group communication course. Communication Teacher, 24, 43–57. doi:10.1080/17404620903468214

Nelson, C. L., Whitfield, T. S., & Moreau, M. (2012). I need help: Help seeking behaviors, communication anxiety and communication center usage. Basic Communication Course Annual, 24, 151–188.

Pelias, M. H. (1989). Communication apprehension in basic public speaking texts: An examination of contemporary textbooks. Communication Education, 38, 41–53. doi:10.1080/03634528909378739

Peterson, E. E. (1991). Moving toward a gender balanced curriculum in basic speech communication courses. Communication Education, 40, 60–72. doi:10.1080/03634529109378826

Powell, J. J. W., Bernhard, N., & Graf, L. (2012). The emergent European model in skill formation: Comparing higher education and vocational training in the Bologna and Copenhagen Processes. Sociology of Education, 83, 240–258.

Prisbell, M., Dwyer, K. K., Carlson, R. E., Bingham, S. G., & Cruz, A. M. (2009). Connected classroom climate and communication in the basic course: Associations with learning. Basic Communication Course Annual, 21, 151–172.

Rattenborg, A. N., Simonds, C. J., & Hunt, S. K. (2005). Preparing to participate: An exploration of student engagement through student work and instructor’s observations. Basic Communication Course Annual, 17, 94–133.

Reynolds, D., Hunt, S., Simonds, C., & Cutbirth, C. (2004). Written speech feedback in the Basic Communication course: Are instructors too polite to students? Basic Communication Course Annual, 16, 36–71.

Rubin, R. B. (1984). Communication assessment instruments and procedures in higher education. Communication Education, 33, 178–180. doi:10.1080/03634528409384736

Schneider, D. E. (1991). An analysis of readability levels of contemporary textbooks that employ a hybrid approach to the Basic Communication course. Communication Education, 40, 165–171. doi:10.1080/03634529109378826

Schneider, D. E. (1992). A comparison of readability levels of texbooks in public speaking and interpersonal communication. Communication Education, 41, 400–404. doi:10.1080/03634529209378901

Sellnow, D., & Ahlfeldt, S. (2009). Problem-based learning (PBL) and student engagement in the public speaking classroom. Basic Communication Course Annual, 21, 134–150.

Semlak, J. (2008). Traditional pedagogical tools: Examining peer feedback in the Basic Communication course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 20, 72–100.

Sidelinger, R. J., Frisby, B. N., McMullen, A. L., & Heisler, J. (2012). Developing student-to-student connectedness: An examination of instructors’ humor, nonverbal immediacy, and self-disclosure in public speaking courses. Basic Communication Course Annual, 24, 81–121.

Sidelinger, R. J., Myers, S. A., & McMullen, A. L. (2011). Students’ communication predispositions: An examination of classroom connectedness in public speaking courses. Basic Communication Course Annual, 23, 248–278.

Simonds, C. J. (2015, April). Converging on the Front Porch: Strengthening the Foundation of the Basic Course. Panel presented at the Central States Communication Association’s annual conference, Madison, WI.

Simonds, C. J., Buckrop, J., Redmond, M., & Hefferin, D. (2012). National Communication Association Resolution on the Role of Communication in General Education. Adopted by the NCA Legislative Assembly, November 17, 2012.

Simonds, C., Meyer, K., Hunt, S., & Simonds, B. (2009). Speech evaluation assessment: An analysis of written speech feedback on instructor evaluation forms in the Basic Communication course. Basic Communication Course Annual, 21, 65–90.

Staton-Spicer, A. Q., & Wulff, D. H. (1984). Research in communication and instruction: Categorization and synthesis. Communication Education, 33, 377–391. doi:10.1080/0363452840938476

Stratford, M. (2015, January 21). Middle class economics for tuition. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/01/21/obama-pitches-free-community-college-higher-education-tax-credits-state-union

Theisen, L. M., & Davilla, R. A. (2007). Seeking social support among female graduate teaching assistants. Basic Communication Course Annual, 19, 166–201.

Treinen, K. P. (2004). Creating a dialogue for change: Educating graduate teaching assistants in whiteness studies. Basic Communication Course Annual, 16, 139–164.

Turman, P. D. (2005). Implementing technology in the basic course: The influence of sex and instructional technology use on teacher immediacy and student affective learning. Basic Communication Course Annual, 17, 157–187.

Valenzano, III, J. M. (2013). Directing the winds of change: The basic course and general education. Basic Communication Course Annual, 25, 1–37.

Wallace, S. P. (January, 1989). A proposal for a national basic course journal. Paper presented at the Midwest Basic Course Directors’ Conference, Wichita, KS.

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

Warren, J. T. (2003). Perfomative pedagogy, at-risk students, and the basic course: Fourteen moments in search of possibility. Basic Communication Course Annual, 15, 83–116.

Wehlburg, C. M. (2010). Integrated general education: A brief look back. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 121, 3–11.

Whitworth, R. H., & Cochran, C. (1996). Evaluation of integrated versus unitary treatments for reducing public speaking anxiety. Communication Education, 45, 306–314. doi:10.1080/03634529609379060

Wolfsen, A. M. (2005). A study exploring the impact of two instructional paradigms on state and trait communication apprehension. Basic Communication Course Annual, 17, 134–156.