This article was downloaded by: [Mercer University]

On: 04 November 2014, At: 11:49

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20

Communication Education and

Instructional Communication: Genesis
and Evolution as Fields of Inquiry
Sherwyn Morreale, Philip Backlund & Leyla Sparks
Published online: 01 Aug 2014.

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

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.944926

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

Communication Education and

Instructional Communication: Genesis
and Evolution as Fields of Inquiry
Sherwyn Morreale, Philip Backlund & Leyla Sparks
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014

Communication education is concerned with the communicative aspects of teaching

and learning in various situations and contexts. Although the historical roots of this
area of inquiry date back to the classical study of rhetoric by the Greeks and Romans,
this report focuses on the field’s emergence as an important area of modern scholarly
study. Contemporary inquiry about communication education pedagogy and instruc-
tional communication is explored and clarified. The report then paints a picture of the
shifting interests in communication education and instructional communication
research and theory in the 20th and early 21st centuries. The contributions of that
scholarship to the interdisciplinary, national, and international educational landscapes
are described, as well as the field’s potential to contribute to future questions in higher
education.

Keywords: Communication Education History; Communication Education Evolution;

Instructional Communication History; Instructional Communication Evolution; Com-
munication Education in 20th and 21st Centuries

That communication is important has become common topoi in the social,

organizational, and business worlds. Expressions such as “What we have here is a
failure to communicate,” and “We had a communication breakdown,” are commonly
used when words and symbols fail to work the way we want them to. No doubt
humans have experienced these breakdowns and failures since we first began using

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

ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) © 2014 National Communication Association

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.944926
 Communication Education 345
words. Indeed, some of the oldest extant writings on communication provide advice
on speaking, and thus constitute early communication instruction. As long as
communication challenges have existed, humans have been motivated to learn how to
decrease their problems and increase their successes. Communication education was
born out of this motivation. One can even imagine the ancients giving each other
advice and suggestions: “Have you tried saying it this way?”
The historical roots of communication education date back millennia to the study
and teaching of rhetorical strategies in the classical traditions of the Greeks and
Romans. As a subject of formal study, rhetoric might well claim the title of the
foundation of communication education as we know it today. From the writings in
ancient Greece and Rome through the Middle Ages to modern times, instruction in
rhetoric has been a central part of Western education. The study of rhetoric helped
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014

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.

Origins of Communication Education

As a form of communication education, classical rhetoricians instructed students in
understanding, discovering, and developing the available means of persuasion for
particular situations. Even prior to the coining of the term communication, the
Roman orator, Cicero (1876), provided this excellent rationale for studying the
spoken word and for training in its use:

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.

Emergence of Communication Education as a Modern Field of Inquiry

Communication education extended its reach beyond rhetoric in more modern times
and developed into its own area of inquiry. To understand this expansion and
development in the contemporary academy, it is first useful to distinguish between
two somewhat different, though related, areas or fields of contemporary scholarship,
communication education, and instructional communication (Frymier & Richmond,
2010; McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006). Communication education scholars explicitly
consider how best to teach students to improve their communication knowledge and
skills. They focus on teaching communication subjects, such as interpersonal and
workplace communication, small group communication, and public speaking.
Scholars of instructional communication concern themselves with the role of
communication in the instructional process generally, how to use communication
regardless of academic discipline or instructional setting. These researchers consider
the communication process in all teaching and learning contexts, public and private,
and at all grade levels. Although these two areas of inquiry appear to represent clear
and distinct categories of scholarship, they may sometimes overlap. For example, a
study about the impact of teachers’ immediacy behaviors on student learning in a
public speaking course could be categorized as communication education and
pedagogy, but also as instructional communication.

Communication Education and Instructional Communication in the

20th Century
The emergence of communication education as an expansive field of study aligns
with the beginnings of communication as an academic discipline in American
education (Eadie, 2009; McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2006). In the
beginning of the 1900s, the founders of the first regional academic association in
the field (now the Eastern Communication Association) and the 17 founding scholars
 Communication Education 347
of the first national association (now the National Communication Association)
separated from teachers of written English by identifying oral communication as their
main pedagogical focus and area of research. This focus on oral communication led
to the first journal published by the National Communication Association (NCA), the
Quarterly Journal of Speech (1915 to present). The journal’s purpose was (and still is)
to understand and improve the instruction of public speaking and to analyze the
rhetoric of public figures. Continuing in this vein, the work of most early researchers
throughout the first half of the 20th century was in the area of communication
education and pedagogy, particularly speech and public speaking. In 1952, the NCA
(then The Speech Association of America) launched another journal dedicated to
communication instruction generally and speech in particular, The Speech Teacher.
The expressed purpose of this new journal was to publish articles on speech
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014

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.

Teachers should demonstrate competence

Type of messages
Informative messages
Affective messages
Imaginative messages
Ritualistic messages
Persuasive messages
Source: Cooper (1988).
in how they send and receive messages that:
Give or obtain information
Express or respond to feelings
Speculate, theorize, or fantasize
Maintain social relationships and facilitate interaction
Seek to convince

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.

Contemporary Areas of Study in Communication Education and Instructional

Communication
As communication education research continued to evolve, scholars who previously
focused on students’ public speaking skills and performance began to inquire in
related areas such as communication apprehension, public speaking anxiety, and
reticence. McCroskey (1976), one of the most prolific and influential researchers in
this area, clarified apprehension and anxiety conceptually and published numerous
 Communication Education 349
Table 2 Categories of Research on Communication and Instruction in 1977 and 1984.

1977 categories of research 1984 categories of research

Teachers as sources and receivers Teacher characteristics
Students as sources and receivers Student characteristics
Message variables Teacher strategies
Learning strategies Speech criticism and student evaluation
Media Speech content
Feedback and reinforcement Speech communication programs
Sources: Scott and Wheeless (1977) and Staton-Spicer and Wulff (1984).

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

ethnicity of the student populations, in their research studies. The impact of

instructor factors and behaviors on student learning also were considered. For
example: teachers’ use of power and affinity-seeking strategies, nonverbal immediacy,
assertiveness, responsiveness cues, humor, and self-disclosure were all researched to
determine the effects of these variables on classroom communication (Beebe &
Mottet, 2009).
During this swell of interest in communication education and instructional
communication, some type of meta-analysis of the expanding field of inquiry
appeared to be needed. In 1977, Scott and Wheeless classified research on commun-
ication and instruction into the categories listed in the first column of Table 2. In
1984, two other communication scholars reapproached the challenge of categorizing
and synthesizing theory and research published in the area from 1974 to 1982
(Staton-Spicer & Wulff, 1984). Like their predecessors, Scott and Wheeless (1977),
these scholars produced a set of categories descriptive of existing research (see
column 2 in Table 2). In 2001, a third systematic review of the literature on
communication and instruction categorized programs of research in the 1990s into
the groupings presented in Table 3 (Waldeck, Kearney, & Plax, 2001). This
categorization system of the research shows both similarities to and differences
from the lists presented in 1977 (Scott & Wheeless) and 1984 (Staton-Spicer &
Wulff). For example, and not surprisingly, pedagogical methods and technology
became a new and distinct category in the 1990s.

Table 3 Programs of Research on Com-

munication and Instruction in the 1990s.
Programs of research
Student communication
Teacher communication
Mass media effects on children
Pedagogical methods and technology
Classroom management
Teacher–student interaction
Source: Waldeck et al. (2001).
 350 S. Morreale et al.
Contemporary Theoretical Perspectives in Communication Education and
Instructional Communication
In addition to considering trends in areas of study, clarity about the contemporary
evolution of instructional communication also can be provided by considering three
main theoretical paradigms or perspectives identified by scholar teachers in the field
(Cortez, Gayle, & Preiss, 2006). The first theoretical perspective, often referred to as
the process-product paradigm, is based on the notion that teacher behaviors precede,
and are most responsible for, student learning and achievement. Theorists and
researchers taking this approach see teaching and learning as a process that includes
the verbal and nonverbal messages teachers use to influence students. The process-
product paradigm is grounded in a rhetorical perspective on teaching and learning,
with the teacher as the speaker and students as audience members influenced by the
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.

Interdisciplinary, National, and International Contributions in the 21st Century

Communication scholars did extend their work to instructional methods outside
communication classrooms, starting in the 1970s. In the 1980s, as a continuation of
this maturation of the field, these scholars began to advocate for the interdisciplinary
nature of communication. An initiative called Communication-Across-the-Curriculum
 Communication Education 351
encouraged the inclusion of communication instruction in a broader array of
collegiate studies. As an example of that movement, communication education
experts, Darling and Dannels (2003), responded to requests from the engineering
discipline and industry to train engineers in the development of enhanced
communication skills specific to their field. The scholars collaborated with engineer-
ing educators to incorporate speaking and writing into engineering programs of
study. In 2009, Dannels and Housely Gaffney provided a meta-analysis of the many
collaborations of communication education with a variety of disciplines, under the
auspices of the Communication-Across-the-Curriculum initiative (Dannels & Hous-
ley Gaffney, 2009).
In 2001–2002, another national initiative, the Carnegie Foundation for the
Advancement of Teaching, acknowledged communication’s national role as one of
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014

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.

Summary and Looking Forward

We began this article by describing the critical role of rhetoric and communication
education in ancient societies. We also suggested, in our review of the history of this
area of inquiry, that communication education and instructional communication
have and still are experiencing a resurgence. That renaissance is evidenced by the
presence of communication expectations and instruction in initiatives like the
Common Core State Standards in K-12, the AAC&U Initiative for higher education,
and programs like the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Moreover communication education and instructional communication’s worldwide
expansion indicates that our discipline’s educational arm is well positioned at this
moment in time.
As witness to this import, NCA’s 2013 President, Steven Beebe, focused his
Presidential Initiative on communication education by supporting the basic
communication course across the United States. He likened the basic course to the
“front porch” of our discipline, the educational entry point for students in higher
education. According to Beebe, designing an attractive and functional front porch
will invite yet more students into Communication Studies and will increase the
discipline’s educational impact and centrality in the academy. Of course, when
success is at your doorstep—or perhaps on your front porch—that is the best time to
ponder the future.
 Communication Education 353
Scholar teachers in communication education and instructional communication
are looking forward and embracing an array of emerging trends. Who better than
they to study the communication challenges embedded in technology and the college
classroom? Who better to examine social media’s potential as a pedagogical tool?
And, who better to consider the opportunities and the communicational challenges
associated with online education, teaching public speaking as a global course of
instruction, for example?
This, the 100th year of the NCA, marks the occasion when 17 public speaking
teachers struck out on their own with the goal of developing and improving teaching
and learning in the communication discipline. Much has changed since 1914, but
much remains the same. Commitment to the high goals for communication
education of those 17 scholar teachers continues as the discipline embarks on its
Downloaded by [Mercer University] at 11:49 04 November 2014

next hundred years.

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.