Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Communication Education: To Cite This Article: Sherwyn Morreale, Philip Backlund & Leyla Sparks (2014) Communication
Communication Education: To Cite This Article: Sherwyn Morreale, Philip Backlund & Leyla Sparks (2014) Communication
Communication Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20
To cite this article: Sherwyn Morreale, Philip Backlund & Leyla Sparks (2014) Communication
Education and Instructional Communication: Genesis and Evolution as Fields of Inquiry,
Communication Education, 63:4, 344-354, DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2014.944926
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Communication Education
Vol. 63, No. 4, October 2014, pp. 344–354
Sherwyn Morreale (Ph.D., University of Denver, 1989) is an Associate Professor and Director of
Graduate Studies in Communication at University of Colorado Colorado Springs. Philip Backlund
(Ph.D., University of Denver, 1977) is a Professor of Communication at Central Washington
University. Leyla Sparks is a Master’s student in Communication at University of Colorado
Colorado Springs. Correspondence to: Sherwyn Morreale, Department of Communication,
University of Colorado Colorado Springs, Academic Office Building 517, 1420 Austin Bluffs
Parkway, Colorado Springs, CO 80918, USA. Email: smorreal@uccs.edu
form the basis for civilized society, and democracy itself was midwifed by the spoken
word. Communication allowed the development of a cohesive society, the exchange
of ideas, and the development of law. All of these attributes depend on an educated
populace; specifically, education in the ability to communicate. Clearly, Aristotle and
his colleagues considered the study of rhetoric as one of the most important qualities
of an educated person, and rhetoric enjoyed that position for many years.
Starting with these historical origins, we track the trajectory of rhetoric and
communication education by describing its evolution from classical to modern times
and the emergence of this important field of study in the 20th and early 21st
centuries, including the supportive role of academic associations. We then continue
with a description of communication education’s contemporary areas of interest and
theoretical perspectives, as well as its contributions to interdisciplinary, national, and
international scholarship. Our discussion concludes with some thoughts for looking
forward and communication education’s potential to continue to contribute to the
educational enterprise.
It is by this one gift (the spoken word) that we are most distinguished from brute
animals, that we converse together, and can express our thoughts by speech. Who
therefore would not justly make this an object of admiration and think it worthy of the
utmost exertions, to surpass mankind itself in that single excellence by which it claims
superiority over brutes. I consider that by the judgment and wisdom of the perfect
orator, not only his own honor, but that of many other individuals, and the welfare of
the whole state, are principally upheld (p. 187).
346 S. Morreale et al.
Cicero obviously placed rhetoric and the power of the spoken word at the core of
individual and societal well-being—communication scholars today certainly would
not disagree.
Over the next 1500 years, rhetoric was sustained by institutions of higher education
and religion. For many hundreds of years, in medieval universities, higher education
consisted of the trivium of rhetoric, grammar, and logic (McLuhan, 2006). In
addition to education, religious leaders supported the teaching of rhetoric as a means
to spread the gospel. Given the important role of the spoken word in secular and
religious society, theorists, philosophers, and educators continued to teach people
how to use this unique and remarkable gift. Minor embellishments occurred over the
centuries, but the ideals of rhetoric remain remarkably resilient to this day.
This brief review of approximately 2000 years of history in the evolution of
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014
communication education brings us quickly to its role and place in the more
contemporary educational pantheon.
education and to focus on practical tips and suggestions for teaching speech at all
educational levels (Reid, 2002). The Speech Teacher evolved into the current journal,
Communication Education, with that title first appearing in January 1976.
In contrast to the exclusive focus on public speaking, E. Murray (1937) expanded
the interest of communication education scholars to the study of interpersonal
communication and its instruction with his publication of The Speech Personality.
Later, I. A. Richards (1965) similarly expanded the focus by arguing for accuracy in
meaning as an essential element of communication, critical to communication
instruction. Even later, Clark and Delia (1979) held that the communicator must
learn to use messages strategically to accomplish goals and control the circumstances
and context of the message. Such an approach linked cognitive knowledge to skills
development, as part of communication and its instruction.
Also during the 1970s, communication scholars became interested in commun-
ication education beyond public speaking and communication skills, as they focused
more attention on the role of communication in teaching other subjects. Thus
instructional communication, as an area of inquiry, evolved out of communication
education. In an article on communication education theory and research, Scott and
Wheeless (1977) suggested using researchers’ desired outcomes to distinguish
between communication pedagogy and instructional communication. As described
earlier, the desired outcome of instructional communication was to discover how
various communication variables impact learning processes across and within all
disciplines. The next year witnessed the publication of a book entirely concerned with
instructional communication, fittingly entitled Communication in the Classroom
(Hurt, Scott, & McCroskey, 1978). Then in 1979, Wheeless and Hurt confirmed the
distinction between instructional communication and communication education
(Wheeless & Hurt, 1979), and that distinction has guided these two areas of study
since then. Supporting these scholarly efforts in the 1970s, regional journals like the
Eastern Communication Association’s Communication Quarterly began to publish
more manuscripts on the influence of communication on teaching and learning in all
disciplines (McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006).
In addition to these trends in publishing, the development of communication
education can be chronicled by considering how scholarly associations approached
348 S. Morreale et al.
Table 1 NCA’s Communication Competencies for Teachers.
the subject area over time (Eadie, 2013). Before the 1970s, a number of professional
associations had informal interest groups that addressed issues in communication
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014
education. But in 1972, through the efforts of an NCA national office staff executive
and a communication scholar from Florida State University (Barbara Lieb Brilhart
and Robert Kibler respectively) the International Communication Association (ICA)
established the first Instructional Communication Division. With the introduction of
the new division, research in communication education and instructional commun-
ication was legitimized by the support of programs and paper presentations at the
association’s conferences. Subsequently, in 1977, ICA made available a new national
outlet for publishing communication research, Communication Yearbook, which
included both instructional and communication education studies. By then, NCA’s
journals began to accept scholarship on communication education in a broad sense
along with submissions on public speaking (McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006). Finally,
in 1994, NCA established a Basic Course Division for its membership.
Communication education and instructional communication research may not
have gained a full academic foothold until the 1970s, but that foothold led to rapid
development over the next few decades. For example, in 1988, the NCA supported
the importance of instructional communication by outlining a set of competencies for
teachers in all disciplines to use in order to skillfully communicate in any classroom.
Using a message-centered approach, NCA recommended that educators utilize the
five types of communication messages outlined in Table 1 (Cooper, 1988). As time
went on, the communication education divisions in most associations, often referred
to as instructional development units, became increasingly active at academic
conferences and conventions.
studies on the causes of anxiety and how to manage it. Other communication
scholars looked at student factors and characteristics, such as the gender, culture, and
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014
teacher. An example of this paradigm is an early study that examined the effects of
teacher communication behavior on student perceptions of teaching effectiveness and
on student learning (Andersen & Norton, 1981). A second theoretical perspective, the
student-mediated paradigm, addresses what some see as a missing element in the
process-product paradigm, the students’ responsibilities for their own learning.
Theorists and researchers using this approach focus on shifting the responsibility for
learning from the teacher to the student. The student-mediated paradigm is grounded
in a relational perspective with students’ motivation to learn being a strong interme-
diating influence on teacher effectiveness. An example of this paradigm is a study by
Velez and Cano (2008) that examined the intermediating relationship between
student motivation and instructor immediacy behaviors. A third theoretical perspect-
ive, the culture-of-the-school paradigm, is concerned mainly with the impact of the
educational situation and context on teaching and learning. Theorists and researchers
taking this approach believe the school environment and the culture in the classroom
have a significant effect on students’ ability to engage in learning processes. The
culture-of-the-school paradigm suggests that situations are designed in ways to either
help or hinder student learning. An example of this paradigm is in a book chapter by
McLean (2007) on student learning and classroom management techniques that
Asian female teachers use in the community college setting.
Instructional communication continues to mature. The areas of inquiry, lines of
research, and theoretical perspectives described above do not suggest the field’s
evolution is complete. Indeed, as the next section indicates, the influence of instructional
and communication education is now extending beyond the borders of the discipline
and achieving a significant interdisciplinary, national, and international presence.
the disciplines from which they began to select Carnegie Scholars on Teaching and
Learning. The goal of the program was and still is to support scholarship that
improves student learning and advances teaching in all disciplines and fields in
higher education (Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
2013). Through the participation and efforts of the communication discipline’s
Carnegie Scholars, communication’s contributions to understanding teaching and
learning gained a wider national audience (Morreale, 2001).
Even more recently, communication education and instructional communication
are experiencing an increasingly significant presence at all levels in the U.S.
educational system. A recent national effort, the English Language Arts Standards
for K-12 in the Common Core State Standards Initiative, provides a contemporary
model for communication instruction in grades K-12 (Common Core State
Standards, 2013). The Common Core Initiative, although adopted in 45 states and
Washington DC and endorsed by the National Governors’ Association, is a somewhat
controversial, state-led effort intended to ensure that students are college or career-
ready by the end of high school. Standards are articulated for each of 11 strands or
grade levels: K, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9–10, and 11–12. The standards for
“Comprehension and Collaboration” and for “Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas”
are similar to what is termed speaking and listening in communication scholarship.
These speaking and listening standards have the potential to impact the teaching of
communication significantly and positively in many K-12 schools in the U.S.
In higher education, the Association of American Colleges and Universities
(AAC&U) now includes communication as a recommended intellectual and practical
skill in its description of essential learning outcomes for college students (Liberal
Education and America’s Promise, 2013). This AAC&U initiative is resulting in the
inclusion of communication in the goals of general education at many colleges and
universities, as they re-envision how they educate all undergraduate students.
The increased national focus on communication education has come at the same
time as an increase in international attention. Disciplinary associations are interna-
tionalizing, and communication associations are forming the world over. In 2000, for
example, the Russian Communication Association was established (http://russcomm.
ru) and joins numerous other national and international communication associations.
352 S. Morreale et al.
Fifteen of these associations are represented in the International Federation of
Communication Associations. Journals such as the Journal of Intercultural Com-
munication, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, Journal of
Intercultural Communication Research, International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, Asian Journal of Communication, Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, and
others not only focus on communication, but analyze instructional communication
and communication pedagogy in a host of other cultures. Instructional and
communication education has truly gone worldwide. Across disciplines and across
cultures, communication education and instructional scholarship now are recognized
as critical areas of study.
These advances bode well for the future of these areas of inquiry. As more
disciplines act to include communication in their educational sequences, as more
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014
attention is paid to the role of communication in K-12 and general education, and as
more people recognize the role of communication in cultural and international
realms, instructional and communication education have the opportunity to continue
to expand. As one national study indicated, a student’s ability to communicate
competently is critical to more than just his or her academic achievement and success
(Morreale & Pearson, 2008). That study confirmed that communication education is
central to a student developing as a whole person, becoming a responsible social and
cultural participant in the world, and succeeding personally in her or his career.
Indeed, the capability to communicate effectively is a set of skills well worth our
educational investment.
References
Andersen, J. F., & Norton, R. W. (1981). Three investigations exploring relationships between
perceived teacher communication behaviors and student learning. Communication Educa-
tion, 30, 377–392. doi:10.1080/03634528109378493
Beebe, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (2009). Students and teachers. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century
communication: A reference handbook (pp. 349–357). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carnegie Academy for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. (2013). Retrieved from http://
www.carnegiefoundation.org/scholarship-teaching-learning
Cicero, M. S. (1876). De Oratory (J. S. Watson, Trans.). London: George Bell and Sons.
Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal of Speech,
65, 187–206. doi:10.1080/00335637909383470
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2013). Common Core English Language Arts Standards
for K-12. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy
Cooper, P. J. (1988). Communication competencies for teachers. Washington, DC: National
Communication Association.
Cortez, D., Gayle, B., & Preiss, R. (2006). An overview of teacher effectiveness research:
Components and processes. In B. Gayle, R. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen (Eds.), Classroom
communication and instructional process: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 263–277).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dannels, D. P., & Housley Gaffney, A. L. (2009). Communication across the curriculum and in the
disciplines: A call for scholarly cross-curricular advocacy. Communication Education, 58,
124–153. doi:10.1080/03634520802527288
Darling, A. L., & Dannels, D. P. (2003). Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk:
A report on the role of oral communication in the workplace. Communication Education,
52, 1–16. doi:10.1080/03634520302457
Eadie, W. F. (2009). Communication as a field and as a discipline. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century
communication: A reference handbook (pp. 12–21). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eadie, W. F. (2013, June). Communication societies in the U.S. and the transition from field to
discipline. Paper presented at the meeting of International Communication Association,
London.
Frymier, A. B., & Richmond, V. P. (2010). Communication education and instructional
development. In J. W. Chesebro (Ed.), A century of transformation: Studies in the honor of
the 100th anniversary of the Eastern Communication Association (pp. 310–328). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
354 S. Morreale et al.
Hurt, J. T., Scott, M. D., & McCroskey, J. C. (1978). Communication in the classroom. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Liberal Education and America’s Promise. (2013). Washington, DC: Association of American
Colleges and Universities. Retrieved from http://www.aacu.org/leap/vision.cfm
McCroskey, J., & McCroskey, L. (2006). Communication education: The historical perspective. In
T. Mottet, V. Richmond, & J. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication
(pp. 33–48). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McCroskey, J. C. (1976). The problems of communication apprehension in the classroom. Florida
Communication Journal, 4, 1–12.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). The role of communication in
instruction: The first three decades. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen
(Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional process: Advances through meta analysis
(pp. 15–28). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McLean, C. A. (2007). Establishing credibility in the multicultural classroom: When the instructor
speaks with an accent. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 110, 15–24. doi:10.1002/
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014
tl.270
McLuhan, M. (2006). The Classical Trivium: The place of Thomas Nashe in the learning of his time
(first publication of McLuhan’s 1942 doctoral dissertation). Berkeley, CA: Gingko Press.
Morreale, S. P. (2001). Carnegie and Campus Compact award grants to communication scholars
and NCA. Spectra, 37, 11.
Morreale, S. P., & Pearson, J. C. (2008). Why communication education is important: The centrality
of the discipline in the 21st century. Communication Education, 57, 224–240. doi:10.1080/
03634520701861713
Murray, E. (1937). The speech personality. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Reid, L. (2002). The speech teacher: Early years. Communication Education, 51, 333–336.
doi:10.1080/03634520216529
Richards, I. A. (1965). The philosophy of rhetoric. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Communication education theory and research: An
overview. In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 495–511). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction.
Staton-Spicer, A. Q., & Wulff, D. H. (1984). Research in communication and instruction:
Categorization and synthesis. Communication Education, 33, 377–391. doi:10.1080/0363452
8409384767
Velez, J., & Cano, J. (2008). The relationship between teacher immediacy and student motivation.
Journal of Agricultural Education, 49, 76–86. doi:10.5032/jae.2008.03076
Waldeck, J. H., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (2001). Instructional and developmental communication
theory and research in the 1990s: Extending the agenda for the 21st century. In W. B.
Gudykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 24 (pp. 206–229). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wheeless, L. R., & Hurt, H. T. (1979). Instructional communication theory and research: An
overview of instructional strategies as instructional communication systems. In D. Nimmo
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 525–541). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.