See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/241737535

Using Discussion Pedagogy to Enhance Oral and Written Communication Skills

Article  in  College Teaching · July 2008

DOI: 10.3200/CTCH.56.3.163-172

CITATIONS READS

69 4,598

3 authors, including:

Elise Dallimore Marjorie B. Platt

Northeastern University Northeastern University
21 PUBLICATIONS   579 CITATIONS    66 PUBLICATIONS   2,970 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Classroom Discussion and Student Participation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Elise Dallimore on 07 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 USING DISCUSSION
PEDAGOGY TO ENHANCE
ORAL AND WRITTEN
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Elise J. Dallimore, Julie H. Hertenstein, and Marjorie B. Platt

Abstract. This research project examines students’ voluntary, only those who volunteer and
participate most frequently may obtain its
reactions to in-class discussion as an instructional tech- benefits. As a result, researchers (Dalli-
nique by investigating the effect of participation prac- more, Hertenstein, and Platt 2004; 2006)
advocate encouraging a broader range of
tices on communication-based skill development. The student participation through graded par-
findings provide evidence that active preparation and ticipation and even the use of cold-calling
(i.e., calling on students whose hands
participation in class discussion can be linked to stu- are not raised) to extend the benefits of
dents’ reports of improved oral and written communica- in-class discussion to all students. This
study seeks to assess students’ percep-
tion skills. Conclusions suggest that discussion can be tions of class discussions and to deter-
a useful addition to cross-curricular programs (such as mine whether the use of this pedagogy
influences students’ oral and/or written
writing and speaking across the curriculum) and stand- communication-skill development.
alone courses (such as public speaking). This tech- The Importance of
nique can be used in combination with other strategies. Communication-Based Skills
Reasons for emphasizing communica-
tion range from the impact of these skills
Keywords: class participation, cold-calling, in-class discussion, oral on the political process and effective
and written communication citizenship (Hobson and Zack 1993) to
the importance of communication skills

A ttempts to demonstrate the impor-

tance of the communication stud-
ies’ discipline often include appeals to
the value of communication-based skills
such as writing and speaking in a wide
range of professional and personal con-
texts. The need for communication com-
petence has motivated many colleges and
universities to institute required courses
designed to enhance students’ writing and
speaking skills and to implement univer-
sity-wide initiatives designed to integrate
the development of these skills in non-
writing and speaking courses.
In addition to institutionally based
efforts, many individual faculty have
made writing and speaking assignments
part of their regular course curriculum.
Both institutions and faculty ought to con-
sider the ways in which particular peda-
gogical strategies might also foster stu-
dent competence in writing and speaking.
Advocated as an alternative to traditional
lecture-based instruction, class discussion
is active and linked to the development
of critical-thinking and problem-solving
skills. However, one concern over the
use of discussion is that if participation is
for the success of business executives
(Barnard 1938; Harlow 1957; McEwen
1998). Further, more generally, a vari-
ety of reports identify verbal and writ-
ten communication skills as the most
Elise J. Dallimore is an associate professor of
communication studies with a joint appointment in
the College of Business at Northeastern University.
Julie H. Hertenstein is the Harold A. Mock Professor
of Accounting and Sam and Nancy Altschuler
Fellow in the College of Business at Northeastern
University. Marjorie B. Platt is a professor and
group coordinator of the Accounting Group in the
College of Business at Northeastern University.
Copyright © 2008 Heldref Publications

Vol. 56/No.
55/No. 3
2 163
important workplace skills for employees
(Bauer 1995; Howe 2003; Wayne and
Mitchell 1992).
Discussions about how best to prepare
students to succeed in the workplace (and
to function productively in the world)
raise issues about what role communica-
tion-skill development ought to play in
higher education. This is certainly not
a new concern. Berlin (1987) acknowl-
edges, “No matter what else it expects of
its schools, a culture insists that students
learn to read, write, and speak in the offi-
cially sanctioned manner” (1).1 However,
an ongoing question is how best to help
students develop these skills.
Current Approaches to Writing
and Speaking Instruction
Historically, writing and speaking skills
have been taught in stand-alone courses.
More recently scholars have discussed the
relative benefits of the “centralized writ-
ing approach” (Kinheavy 1983) with more
discipline-based approaches (Herrington
and Moran 1992; Jamieson 1996; Morello
2000). Considerable research has focused
on how best to teach writing (e.g., College
Entrance Examination Board 2003; Free-
man 1999; Harnett 1997; McCormack
2002; Rosenberg 1987; Savage 1992;
Shook 1982; Stotsky 1999) and speaking
(e.g., Haynes 1990; Huffman 1985; Lee
and VanPatten 1995; Ridout 1990). There
is also research (e.g., Allen and Bourhis
1996; Burk 2001; Daly and Friedrich
1981) focusing on understanding and
overcoming communication apprehension
(i.e., the fear or anxiety associated with
communicating with others).
Communication apprehension research
that focuses specifically on classroom
apprehension (i.e., the fear of communi-
cating in a classroom context) is notable
(Aitken and Neer 1993; Hoffman and
Sprague 1982; Myers and Rocca 2001).
One such study (Aitken and Neer) focus-
es on “college student question-asking.”
We would argue that equally important
to our understanding of comfort—and
to the success of communication-skill
development—would be a focus on ques-
tion-answering by students (e.g., student
participation in class discussions). There-
fore, research should not be limited to
a discussion of the benefits of required
writing and speaking versus discipline-
164 Summer 2008
based courses that incorporate writing and
speaking assignments. Researchers ought
to examine how a broader range of peda-
gogical choices might impact the develop-
ment of writing and speaking skills.2
Since oral and written communication
share a rhetorical tradition (Berlin 1987;
Bizzell and Herzberg 1990; Rogers 1994),
examining them together also makes sense.
Both focus on skills acquisition in trans-
forming ideas into words by developing,
organizing, supporting, and presenting
arguments (Hjortshoj 2001; Sprague and
Stuart 2003). Additionally, Hidi and Hild-
yard (1983) found that counter to earlier
research, the “semantic well-formedness
and the structural organization of the writ-
ten protocols was essentially identical to
that of the oral protocols” supporting their
hypothesis “that the same discourse sche-
ma is used to guide the oral and the written
productions of a particular genre” (103).
Skill Development through
Pedagogical Choices
Whereas skill development is enhanced
through integrating writing and speaking
assignments in a wide range of courses,
an important question is whether spe-
cific pedagogies might also be beneficial.
We are interested in ways pedagogical
choices contribute to skill development in
less formal and more ongoing ways. For
example, one strategy to enhance speak-
ing skills would be to require students
to prepare and deliver formal presenta-
tions. However, because so much of the
important communication that takes place
in the workplace and in the world more
generally is informal, students’ commu-
nication skills should also be enhanced
through more informal communication
opportunities. One method for doing so
is through oral participation in classroom
discussion.
Class discussion has been advocated
for a variety of reasons, including its
inherently democratic nature (Brook-
field and Preskill 1999; Lempert, Xavi-
er, and DeSouza 1995; Redfield 2000),
its emphasis on active learning (Cooper
1995; Hertenstein 1991), and its impact
on the development of problem solving
(Davis 1993; Gilmore and Schall 1996)
and critical thinking skills (Delaney 1991;
Robinson and Schaible 1993). Instruc-
tional developers suggest that compared
to the traditional lecture method, discus-
sion elicits higher-level reflective thinking
and problem solving and that information
learned through discussion is generally
retained better than information learned
through lecture (Ewens 2000). However,
equally important is the role that student
participation during discussion might play
in communication-skill development.
Voluntary Participation Does Not
Guarantee Involvement by All
Increased attention has been paid to
the use of class discussion (Christensen,
Garvin, and Sweet 1991; Davis 1996;
Neff and Weimer 2000); however, despite
support for its use, not all students are
equally likely to participate, limiting the
value of discussion for students (Brook-
field and Preskill 1999). In discussing
strategies for effective facilitation of class
discussion, Davis (1993) emphasizes the
importance of encouraging all students
to participate, and she provides strategies
for encouraging student participation in
discussion (e.g., by using e-mail, assign-
ing roles to students, or requiring each
student to speak a specific number of
times during a given class). Others man-
age participation during discussions by
assigning roles in discussions (Smith and
Smith 1994), using technology (Arbaugh
2000; Bump 1990), using study questions
and response logs (Fishman 1997) and
establishing instructor expectations (Scol-
lon and Bau 1981). Grading class partici-
pation can motivate students to participate
(Lyons 1987) and send positive signals to
students about what kind of learning and
thinking the instructor values (Bean and
Peterson 1998). Some (Lowman 1995;
Tiberius 1990), however, suggest that par-
ticipation in class discussion should be
done voluntarily rather than for a grade.
Despite scholars’ support for partici-
pation from a broader range of students
than those who might normally volun-
teer, references to cold-calling as a strat-
egy for doing so are surprisingly absent.
However, several references to solicita-
tion of nonvoluntary participation (which
would fit our definition of cold-calling)
are found in an edited book about teach-
ing and the case method (Christensen and
Hansen 1987).3
Dallimore et al. (2006) explicitly state
that cold-calling is an effective means
COLLEGE TEACHING
to increase participation and thus extend
active-learning benefits to more students.
Despite potential benefits, instructors’ resis-
tance to using cold-calling suggests they
may consider it harmful to students. Dal-
limore et al. (2006) refute the assumption
that cold-calling makes students uncom-
fortable. Rather, they find that a classroom
environment characterized by cold-calling
and graded participation increases student
preparation and frequency of participation,
particularly among students who charac-
terize themselves as infrequent discussion
participants. They further find that these
two factors lead to increased student com-
fort participating in class discussions.4
Certainly, students’ comfort impacts their
willingness to participate in class discus-
sion, but other factors, such as familiarity
with and preparation for discussion, as well
as the number of students participating, are
also likely to influence participation. If, as
previously suggested, participation in class
discussion is linked to communication-
skill development, then such factors may
also influence these skills.
Research Expectations
The effect that discussion classes have
on students’ oral communication may
result partially from their prior experience
with and attitudes toward class discus-
sion. Students who enter a course already
familiar with class discussion and liking
it may find it easy to become engaged in
the discussion and to participate actively.
This, in turn may contribute to the devel-
opment of oral communication skills.
Thus we expect:
RE 1: Familiarity with class discussion
prior to the course will be positively asso-
ciated with students’ self-reported oral
communication skills.
RE 2: Liking of class discussion prior
to the course will be positively associated
with students’ self-reported oral commu-
nication skills.
The acquisition of skills that transform
ideas into words requires developing,
organizing, supporting, and presenting
arguments, and, as previously discussed,
in-class discussion has been shown to
support the development of these skills.
When students participate frequently
in the class discussion, they have more
opportunities to develop oral communica-
tion skills. Thus we expect:
Vol. 56/No. 3
RE 3: Frequency of participation in
class discussion will be positively associ-
ated with students’ self-reported oral com-
munication skills.
One outcome of using cold-calling to
increase the number of students partici-
pating is that students report increased
preparation for the discussion class. The
increased effort directed at preparation
provides for the students’ own oral com-
munication-skill development. They may
develop greater insight into the issues and
may better understand the arguments and
counterarguments. Thus we expect:
RE 4: Preparation for class discussion
will be positively associated with stu-
dents’ self-reported oral communication
skills.
Further, the greater the number of stu-
dents participating in the discussion, the
more one’s arguments are challenged. This
increases the opportunity to think through
problems and solutions, formulate coun-
terarguments, and respond thoughtfully.
Thus we expect:
RE 5: The number of students partici-
pating in class discussion will be positive-
ly associated with students’ self-reported
oral communication skills.
Arguably, links can be made between
content and process-based learning. Class
discussion is a means for active learning
of course content while reinforcing the
skills required to engage in the discus-
sion process (i.e., making connections,
forming arguments, articulating them in
spoken or written form). Therefore, as
students engage in higher-order cognitive
thinking (i.e., application, analysis, syn-
thesis and evaluation) relative to course
content, they are required to practice com-
munication-based skills to demonstrate
content acquisition. Thus we expect:
RE 6: Learning of the subject matter
will be positively associated with students’
self-reported oral communication skills.
As previously discussed, there is exten-
sive published research on understanding
and overcoming communication appre-
hension to teach students how to speak
and write effectively. As students are
more comfortable participating in the dis-
cussion, and as they gain confidence in
their ability to participate in class discus-
sions, they may take more opportunities
to develop and practice communication
skills. Thus, we expect:
RE 7: Student comfort with participa-
tion will be positively associated with
students’ self-reported oral communica-
tion skills.
RE 8: Student confidence about partici-
pation will be positively associated with
students’ self-reported oral communica-
tion skills.
Finally, as discussed earlier, oral and
written communication share a rhetorical
tradition, focus on similar skill develop-
ment, and are guided by similar discourse
schema. Thus the expectations related
to written communication are parallel to
those for oral communication.
Methodology
Research Design
To begin to assess the effect of peda-
gogical choice on skill development, a
pilot study was conducted. Two question-
naires were used to examine the effects
of a particular classroom environment on
students’ development of oral and writ-
ten communication skills. This classroom
environment, based primarily on class
discussion of business cases, is character-
ized by the extensive use of cold-calling
and a heavy emphasis on graded par-
ticipation. Full-time, second-term MBA
students were asked during the first meet-
ing of a required course to respond to a
pretest about their experiences with and
responses to class discussion. Subse-
quently, at the end of the course they were
asked questions specifically about this
particular course. The data were all gath-
ered from one instructor’s students as no
other instructor was teaching this course
that term; therefore, no other sections
were available for comparison purposes.
Despite the limitations of this one-group
pre-post design, inferences can be made
about the impact of the class environment
on dependent measures of interest.
Course
This research was conducted in an
MBA program, in the required manage-
ment accounting course that emphasizes
the development of critical thinking skills
for management situations. The course
focuses on typical management tasks such
as analyzing the performance of busi-
nesses or managers and developing action
plans. The pedagogy is primarily case
165
discussion, although there was some use
of written case analyses, student presen-
tations, and lecture.
The instructor was an experienced case
teacher with high expectations regard-
ing student preparation and participation
in class. Prior to the administration of
the pretest questionnaire, the instructor
stressed the importance of preparation
and participation in her opening remarks
on the first day of class. Students were
told to expect to be called on when their
hands were not raised, and the syllabus
THE PURPOSE OF THE PRETEST QUESTIONNAIRE WAS TO ESTABLISH
A BASELINE PRIOR TO THE COURSE OF THE STUDENTS’ ATTITUDES
AND BEHAVIORS RELATED TO CLASS PARTICIPATION. THE POSTTEST
QUESTIONNAIRE FOCUSED ON PARTICIPATION FREQUENCY, PREPARATION,
COMFORT, AND PERCEIVED COMMUNICATION-SKILL DEVELOPMENT IN
THIS COURSE.
also stated, “It is only fair for me to tell
you that I frequently call on students
whose hands are not raised.” In addition,
the syllabus stated that class participation
counted for 40 percent of a student’s final
grade and that:
Class participation is an essential element
of your learning. Your participation grade
will be based on your contributions to the
class discussions, and your participation in
team projects and presentations. The qual-
ity of your contributions is more important
than their frequency. Quality will be judged
not only by the insight, accuracy, and clar-
ity of the comment but also by its fit into
the flow and progress of the discussion.
Additionally, the instructor lists a series
of questions designed to help students
reflect on and evaluate their participa-
tion on an ongoing basis.5 To assess stu-
dent participation, the instructor briefly
recorded each student’s participation after
each class session. Further, students were
required to complete a self-assessment of
their participation mid-semester (the self-
assessment form that was used has been
included as appendix A). The instruc-
tor then responded in writing to each
student’s self-assessment with her own
assessment (i.e., including a letter grade).
166 Summer 2008
Further, students were encouraged to dis-
cuss their participation feedback with the
instructor and raise with her any ques-
tions or concerns they had.
Faculty members’ past observations of
this instructor had noted that cold-calling
was used extensively and that it exceed-
ed the amount typical at this institution.
Thus, data for this study were gathered in
a single classroom environment charac-
terized by cold-calling and an emphasis
on graded participation.
Sample
Fifty-four students were present on
the first and last days of class, and all
returned pre- and posttest questionnaires.6
For both questionnaires, 12 respondents
(22 percent) were female and 42 were
male. To ensure confidentiality, students
were not asked for their names on the
questionnaires; however, they were asked
for a PIN to enable pre- and posttest
questionnaires to be paired for analysis
purposes. Only half the students were
able to remember and supply their cor-
rect PIN for the posttest questionnaires.
Therefore, the analysis sample contained
only 27 respondents. Of these, two were
female, about 7 percent.7
Data
Students were told that the question-
naires were part of a “research project
on the effectiveness of students’ partici-
pation in class discussions as a learning
tool.”8 To ensure candid responses, ques-
tionnaires were distributed and collected
by a researcher who was not the instruc-
tor, and students were assured that the
instructor would not review the question-
naires until final grades were submitted.
The purpose of the pretest question-
naire was to establish a baseline prior
to the course of the students’ attitudes
and behaviors related to class participa-
tion. The posttest questionnaire focused
on participation frequency, preparation,
comfort, and perceived communication-
skill development in this course. Appen-
dix B lists pretest and posttest questions
analyzed in this study. Students respond-
ed to these questions using a seven-point
Likert scale; they also provided graduate
grade point average and gender. All data
are student self-reported measures.9
Analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis of pre-
and posttest survey questions was con-
ducted. In addition, pairwise correlation
coefficients will be calculated between
the communication variables and the pre-
and other posttest variables.
Results
Descriptive Statistical Findings
Table 1 contains descriptive statistical
results of student self-reported responses.
As shown in table 1, respondents were
knowledgeable about class discussion
when they began this course. They were
familiar with class discussion (5.56) and
liked it (5.48). At the end of the course,
they reported that their preparation level
was high (6.19) and that they expected
to participate frequently in this course
(5.74). The results also indicate that com-
pared to other courses, students reported
higher levels of preparation (5.52), more
frequent participation (5.0), relatively
more comfort when they participated,
(5.19), and that the number of students
who participated in the class discussion
was relatively higher (5.11). Further,
students indicated that class participa-
tion enhanced their learning (5.43) and
that their confidence about participation
in future courses had increased (5.37).
Finally, students’ assessment of how the
course affected their written and oral
communication skills were 4.70 and 4.67,
respectively.
Correlation Analysis: Oral
Communication
We next analyzed these data further
using correlation analysis. Each variable
COLLEGE TEACHING
 TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics: Pretest and Posttest Survey Results

Anchor points
Survey question n M SD 1 7

Pretest
Familiarity-pre 27 5.56 1.31 Not familiar Very familiar
Liking-pre 27 5.48 1.45 Not at all Very much
Posttest
Preparation-post 27 6.19 0.92 Low High
Preparation comparison-post 27 5.52 1.45 Much lower Much higher
Expected frequency-post 27 5.74 0.98 Not at all Very frequently
Frequency comparison-post 27 5.00 1.36 Less frequently More frequently
Number participating-post 27 5.11 1.12 Much lower Much higher
Enhance learning-post 27 5.43 1.71 Not at all A lot
Comfort-post 27 5.19 1.44 Uncomfortable Comfortable
Confidence-post 27 5.37 1.08 Decreased Increased
Oral communication skill 27 4.67 1.73 No impact Significant effect
Written communication skill 27 4.70 1.81 No impact Significant effect

Note. See appendix B for full wording of survey questions.

of interest was correlated with oral and
written communication. Table 2 contains
the correlation coefficients with oral com-
munication. As shown in table 2, the only
variables that were not related to students’
assessment of how the course affected
their oral communication skills were the
pretest variables, familiarity with class
discussion and liking of class discussion.
Thus research expectations one and two
are not supported by the data. All the
other variables were significantly and
positively related to oral communication
skills, which confirm, research expecta-
tions three through eight. It is particularly
notable that when students prepared for
TABLE 2. Correlation Analysis: Oral Communication Skills
Survey question
Pretest
Familiarity-pre
Liking-pre
Posttest
Preparation-post
Preparation comparison-post
Expected frequency-post
Frequency comparison-post
Number participating-post
Enhance learning-post
Comfort-post
Confidence-post
Note. See appendix B for full wording of survey questions.
*
p < .05. **p < .01.
class discussion and actively participat- in table 3. The results are quite similar to
ed in discussion within a classroom that those presented earlier for oral communi-
engaged more students within the con- cation skills. The only difference is that
versations, they tended to report that the the written communication was not relat-
course had a significant effect on their ed to students’ expected levels of partici-
oral communication skills. Further, there pation for the course. With that exception,
was a significant positive relationship all other relationships were both positive
between comfort with in-class discussion and statistically significant, as reported
and oral communication skills. for oral communication skills.
To summarize, we examined correla-
Correlation Analysis: Written tions between oral and written communi-
Communication cation-skill development and many vari-
A similar correlation analysis was con- ables reported at the end of a graduate
ducted with respect to the effect of the accounting course regarding preparation
course on students’ written communica- for class discussion, levels of participa-
tion skills. The results of this analysis are tion in discussion, comfort with participa-
tion, confidence about future participation
and the effect of participation on learn-
ing. The findings provide evidence that
n r p
active preparation for and participation,
in class discussion can be linked to stu-
dents’ reports of improved oral and writ-
27 –.051 .801 ten communication-skill development. In
27 –.010 .960 this course both cold-calling and graded
participation were used to ensure that all
27 .498 .008** students participated in class discussions.
27 .408 .035*
27 .399 .039* Theoretical and Practical Implications
27 .539 .004**
27 .634 .000** We look at the value of in-class discus-
27 .574 .002** sion, foregrounding it in the context of oral
27 .549 .003** and written communication-skill develop-
27 .830 .000**
ment. By examining student participation
in class discussions as an alternative, or
addition, to more formal speaking and
writing assignments, we are extending

Vol. 56/No. 3 167


TABLE 3. Correlation Analysis: Written Communication Skills
Survey question n r p focus on writing (and speaking) that may be
Pretest
Familiarity-pre 27 –.009 .965
Liking-pre 27 .100 .619
Posttest
Preparation-post 27 .471 .013*
Preparation comparison-post 27 .455 .017*
Expected frequency-post 27 .257 .196
Frequency comparison-post 27 .484 .011*
Number participating-post 27 .584 .001**
Enhance learning-post 27 .555 .003**
Comfort-post 27 .536 .004**
Confidence-post 27 .844 .000**
Note. See appendix B for full wording of survey questions.
*
p < .05. **p < .01.
the literature regarding what counts as ticipating may also increase students’
an explicit tool with benefits to students’ comfort as participation may be seen as
communication-skill development. something to be done by every student,
Further, this pilot study supports the not just a few. However, the relationship
argument advanced by Hidi and Hildyard between the number of student partici-
(1983) that written communication and pants and comfort is one that remains to
oral communication require the same dis- be explored in future research.
course schema and skills. Here we have Additionally, future research might
some evidence that an informal approach seek to measure the impact of in-class dis-
to communication through the use of class cussion on actual student learning, includ-
discussion has an effect on the students’ ing written and oral communication-skill
perceptions of communications skills development. While this pilot study begins
and that a single pedagogy can positively to address the connection between individ-
impact skill development in both writing ual pedagogies and communication-skill
and speaking. development, our conclusions are based
This study suggests that an individual’s on students’ self-assessment of their com-
comfort (i.e., fear, anxiety, apprehension, munication-skill development; an objec-
etc.) during class discussion is associated tive measure of any actual improvement
with a significant effect on both oral and in students’ communication-based skills
written communication. Further, the num- would further enhance the conclusions
ber of students participating in the dis- reached here.
cussion also impacts students’ perception This research, however, adds to the
of both oral and written communication ongoing discussion about the relative
development. value of writing and speaking cross cur-
Prior research (Dallimore, Hertenstein, ricular programs versus specific writing
and Platt 2006) has shown that prepara- and speaking courses for overall com-
tion and frequent participation increase munication-skill development. It further
students’ comfort with participating. suggests that current programmatic and
Cold-calling and grading participation curricular efforts might be missing an
are two means to encourage preparation important opportunity to develop commu-
and to increase participation frequency. nication-based skills through individual
These techniques also provide ways to pedagogies such as in-class discussion (in
increase the number of students partici- this case, using cold-calling and graded
pating in the discussion (thereby increas- participation). One advantage of such an
ing the range of student voices that are approach is that these classroom strate-
heard and perspectives that are shared). gies, regardless of course content or level,
Increasing the number of students par- can be identified and implemented.
168 Summer 2008
NOTES
1. It should be noted that some researchers
(Berlin 1987) argue that there is a renewed
due to “reasserting the centrality of rhetoric to
the humanities tradition,” (Kinheavy 1983, 14)
something not seen, according to Kinheavy,
since the middle of the eighteenth or the begin-
ning of the nineteenth century.
2. This is supported by research by Dwyer
(1998) that examines the impact of learning
styles on communication apprehension and
communication-skill development.
3. Hansen (1987) discusses the practice of an
instructor beginning a case discussion by “call-
ing on a student ‘cold,’” in which she defines
“cold” as “without previous warning” (134).
Rosmarin (1987) discusses her experiences as
a participant in a seminar in which different
students were asked to lead off each class
session’s discussion by presenting an analysis
of an assigned case. She notes “because we did
not know in advance who would be called on,
we all came prepared” (235). A less direct form
of what we would call cold-calling is described
by Frederick (1987), who discusses the tech-
nique of asking all students to prepare one or
two questions about their reading prior to com-
ing to class, which they may then be asked to
share at the beginning of a class session.
4. In addition, student preparation and fre-
quency of participation are also associated
with students’ experiences prior to a course,
such as their familiarity with class participa-
tion, their liking of class participation, how
frequently they generally participate, and
their prior expectations of participation in this
course.
5. The questions included in the syllabus
for use by students to help evaluate their class
participation on an ongoing basis include the
following:
• Are the points made relevant to the dis-
cussion in terms of increasing everyone’s
understanding and moving the discussion for-
ward, or are they merely a regurgitation of case
facts?
• Do the comments take into consideration
the ideas offered by others earlier in the class,
or are the points isolated and disjointed? The
best class contributions reflect not only excel-
lent preparation but also good listening, inter-
pretative and integrative skills.
• Do the comments show evidence of a
thorough reading and analysis of the case?
• Are you willing to interact with other
class members by asking questions, answering
questions, challenging conclusions, or engag-
ing in dialogue?
6. The questionnaires are available from the
authors on request.
7. Because of the potential for response
bias, mean values for pre- and posttest items
between the full sample and the analysis sam-
ple were compared using t-tests. The analysis
of mean responses for pre- and posttest vari-
ables did not yield any significant differences
between the full sample of 54 respondents and
COLLEGE TEACHING
the analysis sample of 27 students for whom
pre- and posttest responses were matched.
Thus, the potential for response bias appears
to be low.
8. To avoid biasing the responses, neither
questionnaire used the phrase “cold-call” nor
did they refer in a general way to calling
on students whose hands were not raised.
Similarly, the questionnaires did not ask about
graded versus ungraded participation. Further,
the researchers who administered the question-
naires specifically did not mention cold-calling
or graded participation. Two pretest questions
related to evaluating participation: “In general,
my achievement in class participation has been
(Low or High)” and “Have you ever taken a
course where class participation was a graded
component? (Yes or No)”
9. Because of the need for anonymity and
confidentiality of response, no course work
data such as actual class participation behavior
or course grades were available for analysis.
REFERENCES
Aitken, J. E., and M. R. Neer. 1993. College
student question-asking: The relationship
of classroom communication apprehension
and motivation. Southern Communication
Journal 59 (1): 43–81.
Allen, M., and J. Bourhis. 1996. The rela-
tionship of apprehension to communication
behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication
Quarterly 44 (2): 214–26.
Arbaugh, J. B. 2000. The virtual classroom
versus physical classroom: An exploratory
study of class discussion patterns and stu-
dent learning in an asynchronous internet-
based MBA course. Journal of Management
Education 24 (2): 213–33.
Barnard, C. 1938. The functions of the execu-
tive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bauer, T. N. 1995. How three factions rank job
and applicant attributes. Journal of Career
Planning and Employment 55 (1): 43–46.
Bean, J. C., and D. Peterson. 1998. Grad-
ing class participation. New Directions for
Teaching and Learning 74:33–40.
Berlin, J. A. 1987. Rhetoric and reality: Writ-
ing instruction in American colleges, 1900–
1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois Uni-
versity Press.
Bizzell, P., and B. Herzberg, eds. 1990. The
rhetorical tradition: Readings from classi-
cal times to the present. Boston: Bedford/St
Martin’s.
Brookfield, S. D., and S. Preskill. 1999. Dis-
cussion as a way of teaching: Tools and
techniques for democratic classrooms. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bump, J. 1990. Radical changes in class dis-
cussion using networked computers. Com-
puters and the Humanities 21:49–65.
Burk, J. 2001. Communication apprehension
among master’s of business administration
students: Investigating a gap in communica-
tion education. Communication Education
50 (1): 51–58.
Vol. 56/No. 3
Christensen, C. R., D. A. Garvin, and A. Sweet,
eds. 1991. Education for judgment: The
artistry of discussion leadership. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Christensen, C. R., and A. J. Hansen, eds.
1987. Teaching and the case method: Text,
cases, and readings. Boston: Harvard Busi-
ness School Publishing.
College Entrance Examination Board. 2003.
The neglected “r”: The need for a writing
revolution. http://www.writingcommission.
org/prod_downloads/writingcom/neglect
edr.pdf (accessed June 24, 2008).
Cooper, P. J. 1995. Communication for the
classroom teacher. 5th ed. Scottsdale, AZ:
Forsuch Scarisbrick.
Dallimore, E. J., J. H. Hertenstein, and M. B.
Platt. 2004. Classroom participation and
discussion effectiveness: Student-Generated
Strategies. Communication Education 53
(1): 103–15.
———. 2006. Nonvoluntary class participa-
tion in graduate discussion courses: Effects
of grading and cold-calling on student com-
fort. Journal of Management Education. 30
(2): 354–77.
Daly, J. A., and G. W. Friedrich. 1981. The
development of communication apprehen-
sion: A retrospective analysis of contribu-
tory correlates. Communication Quarterly
29 (4): 243–55.
Davis, B. G. 1993. Tools for teaching. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, J. 1996. Better teaching, more learning:
Strategies for success in post-secondary set-
tings. Washington, DC: American Council on
Education/Oryx Series on Higher Education.
Delaney, E. 1991. Applying geography in the
classroom through structured discussions.
Journal of Geography 90 (3): 129–33.
Dwyer, K. K. 1998. Communication apprehen-
sion and learning style preference: Correla-
tions and implications for teaching. Commu-
nication Education 42 (2): 137–50.
Ewens, W. 2000. Teaching using discussion. In
Classroom communication: Collected read-
ings for effective discussion and question-
ing, ed. R. Neff and M. Weimer, 21–26.
Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Fishman, S. M. 1997. Student writing in
philosophy: A sketch of five techniques.
New Directions for Teaching and Learning
69:53–66.
Frederick, P. 1987. The dreaded discussion:
Ten ways to start. In Teaching and the case
method: Text, cases, and readings, ed. C. R.
Christensen and A. J. Hansen, 211–16. Bos-
ton: Harvard Business School Publishing.
Freeman, M. S. 1999. Building a writing com-
munity: A practical guide. 2nd ed. Gaines-
ville, FL: Maupin House Publishing House.
Gilmore, T. N., and E. Schall. 1996. Staying
alive to learning: Integrating enactments
with case teaching to develop leaders. Jour-
nal of Policy Analysis and Management 15
(3): 444–57.
Hansen, D. J. 1987. Background information
on a graduate school of business administra-
tion. In Teaching and the case method: Text,
cases, and readings, ed. C. R. Christensen
and A. J. Hansen, 133–34. Boston: Harvard
Business School Publishing.
Harlow, R. F. 1957. Looking around. Harvard
Business Review 35 (6): 145–56.
Harnett, C. G. 1997. A functional approach to
composition offers as alternative. Composi-
tion Chronicle 10 (5): 5–8.
Haynes, W. L. 1990. Public speaking pedagogy
in the media age. Communication Education
38:89–102.
Herrington, A., and C. Moran. 1992. Writing,
teaching, and learning in the disciplines.
New York: Modern Language Association
of America.
Hertenstein, J. H. 1991. Patterns of participa-
tion. In Education for judgment: The art-
istry of discussion leadership, ed. C. R.
Christensen, D. A. Garvin, and A. Sweet,
175–91. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Hidi, S. E., and A. Hildyard. 1983. The com-
parison of oral and written productions in
two discourse types. Discourse Processes 6
(2): 91–105.
Hjortshoj, K. 2001. The transition to college
writing. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Hobson, C. G., and D. R. Zack. 1993. Educat-
ing for democracy: The close up story. The
Social Studies 84 (5): 189–95.
Hoffman, J., and J. Sprague. 1982. A survey of
reticence and communication apprehension
treatment programs at U.S. colleges and
universities. Communication Education 31
(3): 186–93.
Howe, M. 2003. Importance of communication
skills. wysiwyg://9/http://www.howewritey-
ourare.com/articles/communicationskills_
0103.html (accessed March 10, 2004).
Huffman, M. 1985. The maze as an instruc-
tional instrument for public speaking. Com-
munication Education 34 (1): 63–68.
Jamieson, S. 1996. Shaping the contact zone:
Designing WAC? WID assignments for
composition courses. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the Conference on
College Composition and Communication,
Milwaukee, WI.
Kinheavy, J. L. 1983. Writing across the cur-
riculum. ADE Bulletin 76:14–21.
Lee, J. F., and B. VanPatten. 1995. Making
communicative language teaching happen.
Vol. 1. Blacklick, OH: McGraw-Hill.
Lempert, D., N. Xavier, and B. DeSouza.
1995. Escape from the ivory tower: Student
adventures in Democratic experiential edu-
cation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Higher
and Adult Education Series.
Lowman, J. 1995. Mastering the Techniques
of Teaching. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Lyons, P. R. 1987. Participation performance
and behavioral expectations. ERIC Docu-
ment Reproduction Service No. ED 346 082.
McCormack, R. 2002. Learning to learn:
The next step. Teaching adults how to read
and write academic discourse. Melbourne,
169
 Australia: Victoria University of Technolo-
gy. ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 476 315.
McEwen, T. 1998. The impact of type and
level of college degree on managerial com-
munication competence. Journal of Educa-
tion for Business 73:352–58.
Morello, J. T. 2000. Comparing speaking
across the curriculum and writing across
the curriculum programs. Communication
Education 49 (1): 99–113.
Myers, S. A., and K. A. Rocca. 2001. Per-
ceived instructor argumentativeness and
verbal aggression in the college classroom:
Effects on student perceptions of climate,
apprehension, and state motivation. Com-
munication Education 65 (2): 113–37.
Neff, R., and M. Weimer. 2000. Classroom
communication: Collected readings for
effective discussion and questioning. Madi-
son, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Redfield, J. 2000. On discussion teaching.
In Teaching at Chicago: A collection of
readings and practical advice for beginning
teachers. http://teaching.uchicago.edu/hand
book/tac10.html (accessed June 24, 2008).
170 Summer 2008
Ridout, S. R. 1990. An integrated language
arts teacher education program. ERIC Doc-
ument Reproduction Service No. ED 324
683.
Robinson, B. D., and R. Schaible. 1993.
Women and men teaching “Men, Women,
and Work.” Teaching Sociology 21:363–70.
Rogers, E. M. 1994. A history of communica-
tion study. New York: Free Press.
Rosenberg, R. 1987. Mapping arguments: A
self-monitoring composing strategy. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the New
Jersey Council of Teachers of English,
Brunswick, NJ.
Rosmarin, A. 1987. The art of leading a dis-
cussion. In Teaching and the case method:
Text, cases, and readings, ed. C. R. Chris-
tensen and A. J. Hansen, 235–40. Boston:
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Savage, G. 1992. Beyond evangelism: Ideol-
ogy and social responsibility in WAC. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Con-
ference on College Composition and Com-
munication, Cincinnati, OH.
Scollon, S., and K. Bau. 1981. Professional
development seminar: A model for making
higher education more culturally sensitive.
Paper presented at the Conference of the
National Association for Asian and Pacific
American Education, Honolulu, HI.
Shook, R. 1982. The odd couple: How we
teach and how they learn. ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 281 198.
Smith, L. J., and D. L. Smith. 1994. The dis-
cussion process: A simulation. Journal of
Reading 30:582–84.
Sprague, J., and D. Stuart. 2003. The speak-
er’s handbook. 6th ed. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
Stotsky, S. 1999. Civic writing in educa-
tion for democratic citizenship. Bloom-
ington, IN: Eric Clearinghouse for Social
Studies/Social Science Education. ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED
431 706.
Tiberius, R. G. 1990. Small group teaching:
A trouble-shooting guide. Toronto: Ontario
Institute for Studies in Education Press.
Wayne, F. S., and R. B. Mitchell. 1992. Vital
communication skills and competencies in
the workforce of the 1990s. Journal of Edu-
cation for Business 67 (3): 141–47.
COLLEGE TEACHING
 APPENDIX A
Class Participation Self-Evaluation Criteria

Read the descriptions below, which are numbered I, II, and III. Decide which one most close-
ly describes your class participation to date. Then, on the second sheet, give yourself a grade
which describes the degree to which you fit the criteria in the description you selected.
I. I participate regularly, contributing to the discussion in nearly every class. My pat-
tern of contribution has been steady; the frequency of my participation has not fallen off
recently. I make major, substantive contributions. For example, I am likely to make a con-
tribution like explaining how a firm’s cost system works, or explaining how I derived the
resultant product costs, in detail. In some instances, I believe my contributions have added
a unique insight to the discussion, or have made a significant impact on the discussion. I
am in my seat before Professor XXX begins the class. I have missed at most one class, and
if I did miss a class, I telephoned Professor XXX before class (or immediately thereafter if
the reason for my absence was something that was impossible to foresee).
II. I have participated in the discussion several times. The frequency of my participation has
been steady, or the frequency has increased as I became more familiar with the class and the
material. Most of my contributions have been fairly brief responses to straightforward ques-
tions. For example, I may have provided the calculation of an overhead rate. However, it is
clear that I am prepared and am able to give an appropriate answer that is helpful to the class
discussion. I raise my hand to volunteer to answer questions a moderate amount. I almost
always am in my seat before Professor XXX begins the class. I have missed at most one class.
III. I speak infrequently, but I have spoken at least one time. I don’t raise my hand very
often, and it is likely that on those occasions I have spoken, Professor XXX called on
me when my hand was not raised. I have spoken largely on straightforward topics.
When I was called on, I may not have been well prepared to answer the question, or my
answer may have been weak or insufficient.
Attendance is a problem for me. I have arrived at more than one class after Professor
XXX has started the class.
I have missed two classes.
Class Participation Self-Evaluation Form

(Print your name)

A I meet all of the criteria under Description I.
A– I meet nearly all of the criteria under Description I, but I fail to fully meet
every criterion.
B+ I meet or exceed all criteria under Description II. I meet some criteria under
Description I.
B I meet all criteria under Description II.
B– I meet nearly all of the criteria under Description II, but I fail to meet
every criterion.
C+ At least one paragraph under Description III characterizes me, although I
also meet some criteria under Description II, as well.
C At least one paragraph under Description III applies to me.
NG No grade. I have never spoken in the class discussion. OR I have missed 3
or more classes.
Additional Comments: What would you like to add which might be helpful in interpreting or
evaluating your class participation? What else would you like to say about your participation?

(Signature) (date)

Vol. 56/No. 3 171

 APPENDIX B
Questions Contained in the Pretest and Posttest Questionnaires

Question Variable Label

Pretest questionnaire
Attitude
How familiar are you with class discussion? (1 = Not familiar, 7 = Very familiar) Familiarity-pre
How much do you like class discussion? (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much) Liking-pre
Posttest questionnaire
Preparation
What was your typical level of preparation for this course? (1 = Low preparation, 7 = High preparation) Preparation-post
Compared to other courses, my level of preparation for this course was: (1 = Much higher, Preparation comparison-post
7 = Much lower)
Frequency of Participation
In this course, I expected to participate: (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very frequently) Expected Frequency-post
Compared to other courses, I participated in class discussion in this course: (1 = Less frequently, Frequency comparison-post
7 = More frequently)
Number of Participants
Compared to other courses, the number of students who participated in class discussion was: Number participating-post
(1 = Much lower, 7 = Much higher)
Learning
How much did your participation in class discussions in this course enhance your learning of the Enhance learning-post
subject matter? (1 = Not at all, 7 = A lot)
Comfort
Compared to other courses, when I participated in class discussion, I felt (1 = Uncomfortable, Comfort-post
7 = Comfortable)
Confidence
My confidence about participation in future courses has: (1 = Decreased, 7 = Increased) Confidence-post
Communication Skills
How did this course affect your oral communication skills? (1 = No impact, 7 = Significant effect) Oral communication skill-post
How did this course affect your written communication skills? (1 = No impact, 7 = Significant effect) Written communication skill-post

172 Summer 2008 COLLEGE TEACHING

View publication stats