PDF Handbook of Instructional Communication 2Nd Edition Marian L Houser and Angela M Hosek Ebook Full Chapter

Handbook of Instructional
Communication 2nd Edition Marian L.

Houser And Angela M. Hosek
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-instructional-communication-2nd-edition
-marian-l-houser-and-angela-m-hosek/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Design and Analysis of Experiments 2nd Edition Angela

Dean
https://textbookfull.com/product/design-and-analysis-of-
experiments-2nd-edition-angela-dean/
Communication Pathways 2nd Edition Joseph M. Valenzano

Iii
https://textbookfull.com/product/communication-pathways-2nd-
edition-joseph-m-valenzano-iii/
Gender Ideas Interactions Institutions 2nd Edition Wade

L And Ferree M M
https://textbookfull.com/product/gender-ideas-interactions-
institutions-2nd-edition-wade-l-and-ferree-m-m/
Learning Disabilities Sourcebook 6th Edition Angela L.

Williams
https://textbookfull.com/product/learning-disabilities-
sourcebook-6th-edition-angela-l-williams/
Genetic Disorders Sourcebook 7th Edition Angela L.
Williams
https://textbookfull.com/product/genetic-disorders-
Pregnancy and Birth Sourcebook 4th Edition Angela L.

Williams (Editor)
https://textbookfull.com/product/pregnancy-and-birth-
sourcebook-4th-edition-angela-l-williams-editor/
A Handbook Of Primary Commodities In The Global Economy

Marian Radetzki
https://textbookfull.com/product/a-handbook-of-primary-
commodities-in-the-global-economy-marian-radetzki/
Sexually Transmitted Diseases Sourcebook 7th Edition

Angela L. Williams
https://textbookfull.com/product/sexually-transmitted-diseases-
Black Mirror and Critical Media Theory Angela M Cirucci
https://textbookfull.com/product/black-mirror-and-critical-media-
theory-angela-m-cirucci/
Communication
The Handbook of Instructional Communication offers a comprehensive collection of theory

and research focusing on the role and effects of communication in instructional environ-
ments. Now in its Second Edition, the handbook covers an up-to-date array of topics that
includes social identity, technology, and civility and dissent. This volume demonstrates how
to understand, plan, and conduct instructional communication research as well as consult
with scholars across the communication discipline. Designed to address the challenges fac-
ing educators in traditional and nontraditional settings, this edition features a wealth of
in-text resources, including directions for future research, suggested readings, and surveys
for instructional assessment.
Marian L. Houser (Ph.D., 2002, University of Tennessee-Knoxville) is Professor in the Com-

munication Studies Department at Texas State University. Her research focus is instructional
communication and the student-teacher relationship in various contexts that include organ-
izations, training, health campaigns, and interpersonal relationships. Dr. Houser was the
recipient of the Texas State Presidential Award for Research and recently named an Eastern
Communication Association Research Fellow (2016).
Angela M. Hosek (Ph.D., 2011, University of Nebraska, Lincoln) is Assistant Professor and
Basic Course Director in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University. Her
published research focuses on student-teacher relationships, social identity, privacy and dis-
course, social media, and student success in the instructional context.
Communication
Rhetorical and Relational Perspectives
Second edition
Edited by Marian L. Houser and Angela M. Hosek

With Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey, and Timothy P. Mottet
This edition published 2018
by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
and by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2018 Taylor & Francis
The right of the editors, Marian L. Houser & Angela M. Hosek, to be identified as the authors of the
editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance
with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form
or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
First edition published by Pearson Education, Inc. 2006
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Hosek, Angela M., editor. | Houser, Marian L., editor.
Title: Handbook of instructional communication : rhetorical and relational perspectives /
[edited by] Angela M. Hosek, Marian L. Houser.
Description: 2nd edition. | New York : Routledge, 2018.
Identifiers: LCCN 2017007661 | ISBN 9781138729438 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781138729445 (pbk.) | ISBN 9781315189864 (ebk.)
Subjects: LCSH: Communication in education. | Teacher-student relationships. |
Interaction analysis in education.
Classification: LCC LB1033.5 .H27 2018 | DDC 371.102/2—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017007661
ISBN: 978-1-138-72943-8 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-1-138-72944-5 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-18986-4 (ebk)
Typeset in Minion Pro

by Apex Covantage, LLC
Contents
Preface by Marian L. Houser and Angela M. Hosek viii

About the Authors xiii
CHAPTER 1 Historical Roots and Trajectories of Instructional

Communication 1
Kristen LeBlanc Farris, Marian L. Houser, and Angela M. Hosek
UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RHETORICAL PERSPECTIVES

OF INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION 21
Marian L. Houser and Angela M. Hosek
CHAPTER 2 Instructor Message Variables 22

Joseph P. Mazer
CHAPTER 3 Instructor Credibility 38

Scott A. Myers and Matthew M. Martin
CHAPTER 4 Student Participation and Engagement in the Classroom 51

Ann B. Frymier and Marian L. Houser
CHAPTER 5 Instructional Dissent 65

Alan K. Goodboy and San Bolkan
CHAPTER 6 Student Orientations Toward Communicating in

the Classroom 80
Steven A. Beebe and Seth S. Frei
UNIT 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

OF INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION 95
Marian L. Houser and Angela M. Hosek
CHAPTER 7 Immediacy and the Teacher-Student Relationship 97

Virginia P. Richmond, Marian L. Houser, and Angela M. Hosek
vi Contents
CHAPTER 8 [Re]Negotiating Power and Influence in the Classroom 112

Rebecca M. Chory and Sean M. Horan
CHAPTER 9 Rapport in the Instructional Context 126

Brandi N. Frisby and Marjorie M. Buckner
CHAPTER 10 Communication Perspectives on Classroom Emotion 138

Scott Titsworth and Caroline Waldbuesser
UNIT 3 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL IDENTITY IN THE

INSTRUCTIONAL CONTEXT 151
Angela M. Hosek, Valerie Rubinsky, and Jordan Soliz
CHAPTER 11 Race/Ethnicity in the Classroom 158

Tina M. Harris and Mollie Murphy
CHAPTER 12 Sexual and Gender Identity in the Classroom 170

Jimmie Manning, Danielle M. Stern, and Rebecca Johnson
UNIT 4 INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGY IN THE

INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT 183
Angela M. Hosek and Marian L. Houser
CHAPTER 13 Human-Machine Communication in the Classroom 184

Autumn Edwards and Chad Edwards
CHAPTER 14 Instructional Communication and the Online Learning

Environment: Then, Now, and Next 195
Deanna D. Sellnow and Renee Kaufmann
UNIT 5 INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES 207
Angela M. Hosek and Marian L. Houser
CHAPTER 15 Cognitive Approaches in the Instructional Context 209

Angela M. Hosek, Rebekah P. Crawford, and Sally Vogl-Bauer
CHAPTER 16 Affective Approaches in the Instructional Context 223

Derek R. Lane, T. Kody Frey, and Nicholas T. Tatum
Contents vii
CHAPTER 17 Biological and Physiological Approaches in the

Instructional Context 236
Kory Floyd, Tamara D. Afifi, and Ariana F. Shahnazi
CHAPTER 18 Critical Communication Pedagogy 248

Deanna L. Fassett and Keith Nainby
Index 260
Preface
Welcome to the second edition of the Handbook of Instructional Communication: Rhetorical

and Relational Perspectives! We are happy to have the opportunity to bring you the most
up-to-date instructional communication perspectives, research, and theory since the genesis
of the 2006 Handbook. We hope you will enjoy the new areas of instructional research we
have added to this text as well as the updated sections of our tried-and-true communication
skills, behaviors, variables, and theoretical perspectives that have framed our discipline. We
believe this Handbook will prove most useful for teachers at any level of education, trainers
and leaders, and graduate and undergraduate students hoping to learn and understand the
importance of instructional communication research and theory.
What we know for sure: Communication is at the heart of the teaching and learn-
ing process. Instructional communication scholars, whose work appears in this Handbook,
examine how communication links teachers to students, students to teachers, students to
students, and all parties to the broader social community. This book is a comprehensive
distillation of nearly five decades of social scientific research that focuses on the role and
effects of communication in instructional settings. The chapters in the second edition of this
text explain how instructional communication works, why it works, the effects of instruc-
tional communication, the contextual implications that impact instructional communica-
tion, and how practitioners can use communication most effectively in instructional settings
to enhance student learning.
This Handbook makes research and theory accessible to graduate and undergraduate
students who want to learn more about teaching, communication, and learning. It also makes
research and theory immediately available to teachers, educational leaders, and trainers who
are responsible for learning outcomes. The Handbook enhances an individual’s ability to
(a) understand instructional communication research, (b) plan and conduct instructional
communication research, (c) practice effective instructional communication methods and
skills, and (d) consult with other teachers and trainers about their use of instructional com-
munication. Individuals who have an interest in becoming primary and secondary teachers,
higher education faculty, community educators, directors of organizational learning, com-
munication consultants, or training and development specialists will find this Handbook to
be a useful and practical guide.
Why Rhetorical and Relational Perspectives?

The framework for much of this text focuses on the rhetorical and relational perspectives
that reflect the long-standing traditions within the communication studies discipline. From
a rhetorical perspective, instructors intentionally use verbal and nonverbal messages to
influence students; the focus is on the message. From the relational perspective, teachers and
Preface ix
students mutually create and use verbal and nonverbal messages to manage relationships
with each other. Rather than focusing exclusively on message content, teachers and students
also acknowledge and address feelings and emotions. Although it may seem we compare
and contrast the rhetorical and relational perspectives, it is neither appropriate nor practical
to view these two traditions as polar opposites. Each typically functions in tandem with
the other and simply reflect different emphases of the instructional communication process.
The rhetorical approach is most often teacher directed, though we do present research that
addresses the influential messages students utilize in the classroom. The relational approach
is primarily a collaborative approach that exists between instructor and student.
The Handbook’s Organization

Following Chapter 1—“Historical Roots and Trajectories of Instructional Communication”—
this Handbook is divided into five units: Rhetorical Perspectives, Relational Perspectives,
Social Identity in the Instructional Context, Technology in the Instructional Environment,
and Instructional Communication Methodological Approaches. Units 3—Social Identity—
and 4—Technology—are completely new to the Handbook. Chapter 1 introduces readers
to the interdisciplinary foundations of instructional communication that is reflected in the
three areas of communication, communication pedagogy, and educational psychology. This
chapter places specific emphasis on updates to the trajectory of the instructional communi-
cation discipline—recognition of where we have been and where we are going is pivotal to
understanding the value and impact of our discipline. Unit 1—The Rhetorical Perspectives
of Instructional Communication—features an introductory rationale for the section and
Chapters 2–6. Chapter 2 focuses on instructor message variables that ultimately impact the
student-teacher relationship: clarity, relevance, humor, swearing, confirmation, and disclo-
sure. Chapter 3 presents research on teacher credibility and instructor effectiveness in the
classroom. Chapter 4 examines the student message variables including student participa-
tion and engagement. Chapter 5 reviews the more recent research on instructional dissent,
the benefits and drawbacks, and current scholarship on dissent and learning. Rounding out
Unit 1 is Chapter 6, which focuses on student orientations toward classroom communica-
tion: apprehension, reticence, and willingness to communicate.
Unit 2 begins the Handbook’s focus on The Relational Perspectives of Instructional
Communication and includes an introductory rationale for the section and Chapters 7–10.
Chapter 7 examines immediacy and the teacher-student relationship. Chapter 8 presents the
research on power in the classroom and student compliance. New research on perceptions
of classroom justice balances out past research on the bases of power. Chapter 9 expands our
understanding of the importance of student-teacher relationships and turns to the differen-
tial forms of rapport in the classroom. Completing Unit 2 is Chapter 10 on classroom emo-
tions and the theoretical underpinnings of this important component of instructor-student
communication exchange.
Units 3 and 4 are new to the second edition of the Handbook and present some of
the contemporary scholarship trends in the instructional communication discipline. Unit 3
presents our research on the vastness of diversity that is related to social identity. The unit
begins with an introductory rationale to explain the decision to focus on the elements
of race/ethnicity and sexual/gender identity in the classroom and offers the intergroup
x Preface
perspective and its related theoretical frameworks for continued study. These contemporary
areas of research are essential to teaching and learning in contemporary educational con-
texts. Chapter 11 highlights research that promotes an understanding of race/ethnicity in
the classroom and Chapter 12 presents scholarship and ideas related to sexual and gender
identity in the instructional context. Unit 4 presents and examines the impact of technology
and instructional communication. It begins with an introductory narrative that explains the
need for understanding this highly specialized and contemporary area of research and leads
the reader into Chapter 13 on human-machine communication. Chapter 13 specifically
approaches research that develops theory and practice of instructional interactions between
human and machine: instructional robotics and AI gamification/avatar relations. Chapter 14
reviews the “then, now, and next” of the online learning environment. The authors present
not only the future of mediated learning but also cover the “best practices” for instructor
communication within this unique learning environment.
Unit 5, the final section of the Handbook, relates historical and contemporary approaches
to the field of instructional communication. The opening narrative in this unit frames the
preceding four chapters. Chapter 15 examines the cognitive measures within the learning
environments and the ongoing debate within instructional communication on how to accu-
rately measure knowledge and student learning. Chapter 16 reflects the contemporary views
of the value and measurement of affective learning in addition to recent criticism and ways we
might reframe this important construct. Chapter 17 presents the prospective possibilities of
utilizing biological and physiological approaches to understanding communication impacts
within the classroom. Finally, Chapter 18 examines a growing trend to approach teaching and
learning from a critical communication perspective, which presents a more complete exami-
nation of both rhetorical and relational components in the learning context.
Chapter Features
The Handbook maintains consistent pedagogical features in each chapter to allow students,
practitioners, and instructional leaders to more easily understand and examine the research
and theory discussions and to extract the communication behaviors and skills that have been
shown to enhance instructional outcomes. Thus, Chapters 2–18 feature:
• Knowledge Claims: A bulleted list that synthesizes the key learnings from the research
in the chapter.
• Teaching Communication Practices: Theory at Work: This new feature of the
Handbook includes rhetorical questions that teachers, students, and trainers can
reflect on as methods by which they can engage the chapter content in their teaching.
Additionally, this feature also includes recommendations for practical application to
move the chapter content to practice.
• Instructional Communication Research Practices: This new feature of the Handbook
includes rhetorical questions that allow researchers to consider how, if at all, they are
or could engage with ideas from the chapter in their own scholarship. This feature also
includes suggestions for future research that needs to be conducted.
• Assessment Instruments: Consistent with the first edition, we again include survey
instruments and supplemental measurement items in-text. This feature serves to
Preface xi
broaden the methodological scope to include interpretive/qualitative, critical, and

biosocial assessment as needed.
• Additional Readings: This new feature includes at least two or three additional
readings at the end of each chapter for continued learning.
Our Talented Author Team

We scoured the most recent research in the instructional communication discipline and
believe we have located the most highly respected and prolific authors and scholars in the
field. In fact, a review of our authors reveals that many are listed among the top 100 most
prolific researchers in the communication discipline, with six listed in the top 1% between
2007 and 2011. Additionally, the authors featured in this Handbook have extensive and
varied experience in teaching and training. These professionals have led workshops, pre-
service and in-service programs for public school teachers, graduate teaching preparatory
workshops, and seminars for professionals and college/university faculty on the role and
impact of communication in learning. Many continue to serve as corporate trainers and
communication consultants. The authors’ academic experience, coupled with their pro-
fessional work experience, enables them to effectively bridge research and theory with
practice. In summary, these talented authors examine and investigate communication as
an applied science.
Acknowledgments
It is wonderful to have the opportunity to acknowledge the friends and colleagues who
inspired, supported, and helped update this Handbook. First and foremost, the editors would
like to thank the previous editors, Tim Mottet, Virginia Richmond, and James C. McCroskey
(1936–2012). We recognize this book was the result of decades of personal involvement in
this important research and essential work with the many scholars featured in the text. We
could not continue your “labor of love” without your guidance and faith in our ability to
do your book justice. We would also be remiss if we did not thank the authors of the first
edition of the Handbook. Your detailed review and writing served as a pivotal guide as we
constructed the second edition.
Of course, we would also like to thank the current chapter authors for their contribu-
tions to this text. Without their research and prolific scholarship, this Handbook would not
be complete. As co-editors, we also acknowledge the fun we had working on this project and
are grateful to have had this journey together. The editors would like to thank their team
of editors, reviewers, and colleagues who have guided this project. We thank the Taylor &
Francis team for their commitment to developing this text and for their support and guid-
ance. We could not have moved forward without the continued leadership of editor Laura
Briskman and production editor Nicole Salazar. Thank you for your patience and prompt
feedback as we try to manage the numerous details and deadlines.
Marian would like to thank members of her family, including her mom and dad (Mar-
ilyn and Marvin); husband, Steve; and children Staci and Drew and Carri Houser. Your love
and continued support of my work is incredibly helpful and always remembered. Marian
xii Preface
also sends her appreciation to her colleagues at Texas State University, where she has honed
her skills as an instructor and author.
Angela would like to thank her family, including her husband, Tim, for always know-
ing what she is capable of and doing all he can to help her “get it done.” Her children Lillie
Marie, Ayden Michael, and the newest addition to their family, Genevieve Rose, who are a
constant source of wonder and joy. Angela would also like to thank her mom, Mary, whose
presence and pride are always felt, and her father, Ralph, for his unending support. Thanks
to colleagues and friends at Ohio University who champion and encourage her work and to
all her forever and future students who enrich her life with beautiful purpose.
Marian L. Houser, Texas State University

Angela M. Hosek, Ohio University
About the Authors
Tamara D. Afifi (Ph.D., 1999, University of Nebraska–Lincoln) is a professor in the Depart-

ment of Communication at the University of California Santa Barbara. Her work focuses
on communication patterns that foster risk and resiliency in families and other interper-
sonal relationships.
Steven A. Beebe (Ph.D., 1976, University of Missouri–Columbia) is Regents’ and University
Distinguished Professor of Communication Studies at Texas State University. He is the
author and co-author of 12 books and numerous articles and presentations. He has been
a visiting scholar at both the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge and
served as President of the National Communication Association.
San Bolkan (Ph.D., 2007, University of Texas at Austin) is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Communication Studies at California State University, Long Beach. His
research interests are in applied communication, specifically, in the areas of instructional
communication and business communication. His work includes areas of study such as
transformational leadership in the classroom, instructor clarity, student motivation, and
students’ self-control as applied to academic success.
Marjorie M. Buckner (Ph.D., University of Kentucky) is an Assistant Professor in the
Department of Communication Studies at Texas Tech University. Her work investigates
expressed dissent in educational contexts examining related antecedents and outcomes.
Rebecca M. Chory (Ph.D., 2000, Michigan State University) is an Assistant Professor of
Management at Frostburg State University. Her research focuses on fairness as it relates to
workplace romances and friendships, manager-employee relationships, student-instructor
relationships, and women’s leadership.
Rebekah P. Crawford is a doctoral student in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio
University. She uses narrative and rhetorical strategies to study the intersection of faith
traditions and mental health.
Autumn Edwards (Ph.D., Ohio University) is Professor of Communication in the School
of Communication at Western Michigan University and a Co-Director of the Commu-
nication and Social Robotics Labs. Her scholarly interests include interpersonal commu-
nication and communication theory in the human-machine context. In 2014, Autumn
received the Distinguished Teaching Award from Western Michigan University.
Chad Edwards (Ph.D., University of Kansas) is Professor of Communication in the School
of Communication at Western Michigan University (WMU) and a Co-Director of the
Communication and Social Robotics Labs. He has served as a President of the Central
States Communication Association. In 2009, Chad received the Distinguished Teaching
Award from Western Michigan University (the highest teaching award given by WMU).
xiv About the Authors
Kristen LeBlanc Farris (Ph.D., University of Texas at Austin) is a Senior Lecturer and Basic
Communication Course Director at Texas State University. Kristen’s research interests
center on the ways in which individuals use communication to cope with life stressors
or chronic illnesses and the influences on partners’ relational, psychological, and health
outcomes. Kristen has published her instructional communication research in the Basic
Communication Course Annual.
Deanna L. Fassett (Ph.D., 2000, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale) is Professor of
Communication Pedagogy and Department Chair in the Department of Communication
Studies at San José State University. She is the author (with John T. Warren) of Critical
Communication Pedagogy (SAGE, 2007) and the editor (with John T. Warren) of The SAGE
Handbook of Communication and Instruction (SAGE, 2010). Her published research has
appeared in a variety of communication studies journals, including Communication and
Critical/Cultural Studies, Communication Education, and Text and Performance Quarterly.
Kory Floyd (Ph.D., 1998, University of Arizona) is a Professor in the Department of Com-
munication at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the communication
of affection in close relationships and on its associations with health and physiological
function.
Seth S. Frei (Ph.D., 2017, University of Texas at Austin) is a lecturer in the Department of
Communication Studies at Texas State University. He teaches various courses in organi-
zational, interpersonal, and instructional communication. His research has appeared in
various communication journals and focuses on the use and development of communi-
cation skills in professional and instructional contexts.
T. Kody Frey is a doctoral student and instructor in the College of Communication and
Information at the University of Kentucky. He is mainly interested in instructional com-
munication and communication education, with a specific focus on the basic communi-
cation course. His research investigates the use of technology, pedagogical innovation,
assessment, and training as potential mechanisms for enhancing the general education
experience for both students and instructors. Kody has published in both Communication
Education and the Basic Communication Course Annual.
Brandi N. Frisby (Ph.D., 2010, West Virginia University) is Associate Professor in the School of
Information Science at the University of Kentucky. Her research examines instructor-student
relationships, student engagement, and learning.
Ann B. Frymier (Ed.D., 1992, West Virginia University) is a Professor and Associate Dean
of the Graduate College at Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. Her program of research has
examined effective teacher communication behaviors. Ann’s work appears in Communi-
cation Education, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Communication Quarterly,
and Psychological Reports. She is the author of the text Persuasion (3rd ed.).
Alan K. Goodboy (Ph.D., 2007, West Virginia University) is an Associate Professor in the
Department of Communication Studies at West Virginia University. His research is in
the areas of instructional communication, interpersonal communication, research meth-
ods and statistics. Alan’s recent research examines bullying in educational, organizational,
interpersonal, intergroup, and mediated contexts. He also has an avid interest in statistics
and continues his education by regularly attending advanced courses in statistical analyses.
About the Authors xv
Tina M. Harris (Ph. D., 1995, University of Kentucky) is Professor in the Department of
Communication Studies at the University of Georgia. Tina is the recipient of the Dis-
tinguished Josiah T. Meigs Teaching Professorship and the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning award from the University System of Georgia Board of Regents for her research
on pedagogy and race.
Sean M. Horan (Ph.D., 2009, West Virginia University) is Associate Professor of Commu-
nication at Texas State University. His research centers on affection, deception, workplace
romance, and classroom justice. Sean writes a relational blog for Psychology Today and
was listed in the top 25 most prolific scholars in the communication discipline.
Angela M. Hosek (Ph.D., 2011, University of Nebraska, Lincoln) is an Assistant Professor
and Basic Course Director in the School of Communication Studies at Ohio University.
Her published research focuses on student-teacher relationships, social identity, privacy
and discourse, social media, and student success in the instructional context.
Marian L. Houser (Ph.D., 2002, University of Tennessee-Knoxville) is Professor in the
Communication Studies Department at Texas State University. Her research focus is
instructional communication and the student-teacher relationship in various contexts
that include organizations, training, health campaigns, and interpersonal relationships.
Marian was the recipient of the Texas State Presidential Award for Research and named
an Eastern Communication Association Research Fellow (2016).
Rebecca Johnson is a doctoral student at the University of Kansas where she is studying
interpersonal relationships, computer-mediated communication, and gender/sexuality.
Based on her publication and service record, she recently received the top student award
from her M.A. program.
Renee Kaufmann (Ph.D., 2014, University of Kentucky) is currently an Assistant Professor
in the School of Information Science at the University of Kentucky. Her research inter-
ests are in the areas of communication and technology and instructional communication.
Some of her research has appeared in national and international journals such as Commu-
nication Education, Communication Methods and Measures, and Health Communication.
Derek R. Lane (Ph.D., 1996, University of Oklahoma) is Senior Dean in the College of Com-
munication and Information at the University of Kentucky. Derek’s research can be clas-
sified in the broad area of face-to-face and mediated message reception and processing to
affect attitude and behavior change in instructional, organizational, and health contexts.
His research has been funded by the U.S. Department of Education, the National Institute
of Drug Abuse, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Science Founda-
tion and appears in Communication Monographs, Communication Education, Media Psy-
chology, Communication Research Reports, Health Promotion Practice, American Journal
of Communication, the Journal of Engineering Education, and the Journal of Experimental
Education.
Jimmie Manning (Ph.D., 2006, The University of Kansas) is Associate Professor of Com-
munication at Northern Illinois University. His research explores relationships, health,
and/or computer-mediated communication, often in conjunction with sexuality. He has
published over 70 articles/chapters, books, or other publications and has received multi-
ple teaching awards.
xvi About the Authors
Matthew M. Martin (Ph.D., 1992, Kent State University) is a Professor in the Department of
Communication Studies at West Virginia University. His main areas of research include
bullying, student-instructor communication, and communication traits.
Joseph P. Mazer (Ph.D., 2010, Ohio University) is Associate Professor and Associate Chair
of the Department of Communication at Clemson University. Joseph is Director of the
Social Media Listening Center, an interdisciplinary research lab and teaching facility. He
has published articles and book chapters on communication and social media, social and
academic support, emotion in teaching and learning, and measurement issues and trends
in communication research. He is currently ranked in the top 1% of prolific scholars in
the communication discipline spanning 2007–2011.
Mollie Murphy (M.A., 2014, University of Montana) is a doctoral student in the Department
of Communication Studies at the University of Georgia. Her research focuses on issues of
environmental justice, gender, and race from a rhetorical perspective.
Scott A. Myers (Ph.D., 1995, Kent State University) is Professor in the Department of Communi-
cation Studies at West Virginia University. His main areas of research include student-instruc-
tor communication, adult sibling relationship, and communication pedagogy. Scott’s research
has been ranked in the top 1% of prolific scholars in the communication discipline.
Keith Nainby (Ph.D., 2003, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale) is Professor of Commu-
nication Pedagogy and Department Chair in the Department of Communication Studies at
California State University, Stanislaus. His published research has appeared in venues such
as Communication Education, the Journal of International and Intercultural Communication,
Educational Studies, and The SAGE Handbook of Communication and Instruction.
Virginia P. Richmond (Ph.D., 1977, University of Nebraska) is Professor in the Department
of Communication Studies at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Virginia is a
distinguished researcher and professor and has written books on topics including pub-
lic speaking, organizational, nonverbal, instructional, and apprehension communication.
She spent many years at West Virginia University where she won numerous awards for
her teaching and research, including an honorary Doctorate of Letters from the Univer-
sity System of West Virginia Board of Trustees and West Virginia University Institute of
Technology. Virginia was the recipient of the Donald H. Ecroyd and Caroline Drummond
Ecroyd Teaching Excellence Award from the Eastern Communication Association.
Valerie Rubinsky (M.A., 2014, Emerson College) is a doctoral student in the School of
Communication Studies at Ohio University. Valerie researches intergroup and interper-
sonal communication, and her focus is primarily on sex and relationship communication
within nonnormative relationships.
Deanna D. Sellnow (Ph.D., 1991, The University of North Dakota) is a research professor
of strategic communication in the Nicholson School of Communication at the Univer-
sity of Central Florida. Her research focuses on strategic instructional communication
in a variety of contexts including risk, crisis, and health as well as face-to-face and online
settings. She has conducted funded instructional message design and testing research for
About the Authors xvii
the United States Geological Survey, as well as for the Department of Homeland Security,
and Centers for Disease Control and Protection. She has published her work in national
and international journals, as well authored or co-authored several books including The
Challenge of Effective Speaking in a Digital Age, Communicate!, and The Rhetorical Power
of Popular Culture.
Ariana F. Shahnazi (B.A., 2013, University of California, Santa Barbara) is a doctoral stu-
dent in the Department of Communication at the University of Iowa. Her scholarship
focuses on the ways in which communication impacts resilience against disease and its
progression within the experience of cancer, chronic illness, and health care.
Jordan Soliz (Ph.D., 2004, University of Kansas) is an Associate Professor in the Department
of Communication Studies at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. His research focuses
on communication and intergroup processes primarily in personal and family relation-
ships. He also investigates processes and outcomes of intergroup contact and potential
communication processes that minimize out-group attitudes (e.g., ageism) and/or buffer
effects of discrimination.
Danielle M. Stern (Ph.D., 2007, Ohio University) is Associate Professor of Communication
at Christopher Newport University. Her research engages the role of feminism in trans-
forming popular culture and pedagogy. Her more than 20 scholarly articles have been
published in various journals and edited books.
Nicholas T. Tatum is an instructor in the Department of Communication and Sociology at
Abilene Christian University and Ph.D. student in the College of Communication and
Information at the University of Kentucky. He primarily studies instructional commu-
nication. His interests include scale development, quantitative methods, communication
technology, and training and development with research presented at numerous state,
regional, and national conferences. Nicholas’s work appears in Communication Education,
the Training Journal, and the North Dakota Journal of Speech and Theatre.
Scott Titsworth (Ph.D., 1999, University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is a Professor in the School
of Communication Studies and Dean of the Scripps College of Communication at Ohio
University. Scott’s research emphasizes classroom emotionality, teacher clarity, and stu-
dent note-taking.
Sally Vogl-Bauer (Ph.D., 1994, University of Kentucky) is Professor and an award-winning
teacher recognized by the College of Arts and Communication at the University of
Wisconsin–Whitewater for her research and service contributions. She is a former chair
of the Department of Communication and was one of the first Peer Coaches, a program
designed to assist faculty and staff with their classroom instruction. Sally is actively
involved in learning and assessment practices and implementation.
Caroline Waldbuesser (M.A., 2015, Texas State University) is a doctoral student in the
School of Communication Studies at Ohio University. Caroline researches teacher
emotions in the classroom, student nonverbal responsiveness, and graduate student
experiences.
1 Historical Roots and Trajectories
of Instructional Communication
Kristen LeBlanc Farris
Texas State University
Marian L. Houser
Texas State University
Angela M. Hosek
Ohio University
Introduction 2
Historical Overview of Instructional Communication 2
Interdisciplinary Foundations of Instructional Communication 4
Educational Psychology: Learner Focus 4
Pedagogy: Instructor Focus 4
Communication: Message Focus 4
Communication as Action 5
Communication as Interaction 5
Communication as Transaction 5
Rhetorical Tradition 7
Relational Tradition 7
Current State of the Discipline 8
An Integrative Review 8
Future of Instructional Communication Scholarship: Methodological Advances 12
Longitudinal Design 12
Dyadic Data Collection and Analysis 12
Sample Recruitment 13
Theoretical Advances 13
Content and Context Advances 14
Communication Technologies 14
Identity Studies 15
Biosocial Approach 15
Dark Side 16
Summary 17
References 17
2 Kristen LeBlanc Farris et al.
Knowledge is valuable in itself, but no matter how much one knows, there is no guarantee he or she
can teach that knowledge to others. Communication is the crucial link between a knowledgeable
teacher and a learning student. From the vantage point of a professional educator, then, the differ-
ence between knowing and teaching is communication in the classroom.
(Hurt, Scott, & McCroskey, 1978, p. 3)
Introduction
For more than four decades, instructional communication scholars have explored the inter-
actions between instructors and students with the goal to improve student learning and
teaching effectiveness. Hence, instructional communication is conceptualized as “the pro-
cess by which teachers and students stimulate meanings in the minds of each other using
verbal and nonverbal messages” (Mottet & Beebe, 2006, p. 5). This definition asserts the
communication between teachers and students is transactional in nature and acknowledges
that both teachers and students are affected by the communication they share. For over
40 years, teacher-student interactions examined by instructional communication scholars
have been reported to influence student learning, motivation, and engagement as well as
teacher satisfaction, credibility, self-efficacy, and a myriad of other positively and negatively
valenced outcomes.
The overarching goal of this chapter is to present the history and trajectories of
instructional communication scholarship beginning with its roots in varied disciplines.
The first section of this chapter focuses on the history of the discipline followed by the
interdisciplinary foundations of instructional communication. Next, we review a content
analysis of 10 years’ worth of instructional communication scholarship in an attempt to
gain a holistic view of the literature since the publication of the previous edition of this
Handbook. Finally, this chapter concludes with opportunities for research reflection, and
directions for future research.
Historical Overview of Instructional Communication

The history and future of the instructional communication discipline has been discussed at
length in various manuscripts, book chapters, and a more recent focus in a special issue of
Communication Education (Frymier, 2014; Nussbaum & Friedrich, 2005; Preiss & Wheeless,
2014; Scott & Wheeless, 1977; Staton-Spicer & Wulff, 1984; Waldeck, Kearney, & Plax, 2001).
We too aim to provide an overview of the history and future of the discipline. To begin, we
trace the roots of the discipline from its infancy with the goal to examine the trajectory and
future directions of instructional communication research.
The origins of instructional communication scholarship can be traced back to 1972 when
Barbara Lieb-Brilhart and Robert Kibler were instrumental in creating and gaining approval
for the Instructional Communication Division of the International Communication Associa-
tion (ICA). Although other divisions centered on the exploration of teaching communication
content earlier, this was the first interest group devoted specifically to the study of instructional
communication and officially recognized by one of communication’s professional associations.
ICA’s recognition legitimized the study of instructional communication and provided schol-
ars the opportunity to present their research endeavors at ICA conventions (McCroskey &
Roots and Trajectories 3
McCroskey, 2006). Additionally, when ICA launched its inaugural publication outlet, Commu-
nication Yearbook, in 1977, instructional communication scholars who authored top papers at
the convention were invited to publish their manuscripts in the yearbook. Thus, ICA housed
instructional communication scholarship, and much of the research from 1972 to 1986 was
published in Communication Yearbook (McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006). After this, editors
in other communication journals such as Communication Quarterly and Communication
Research Reports began to invite instructional communication scholarship.
The first doctoral program in instructional communication was developed at West Vir-
ginia University in 1973. This occurred after faculty in the department began teaching a class
entitled “Communication in the Classroom” for K–12 instructors. Doctoral students in the
instructional communication program at West Virginia University team-taught the course
for elementary and secondary education teachers while simultaneously learning about the
field as part of their coursework. According to data provided by the National Communi-
cation Association (2012), three instructional communication doctoral programs currently
exist. However, students interested in studying instructional communication at the graduate
level are able to find coursework and faculty advisors who study instructional communica-
tion at numerous institutions such as: Illinois State University, Ohio University, San Diego
State University, Texas Christian University, Texas State University, University of Kentucky,
University of Miami of Ohio, and West Virginia University, to name a few.
Additionally, instructional communication scholars are able to find professional homes
at many regional, national, and international associations. Communication Education, formerly
known as The Speech Teacher, is considered the flagship journal in instructional communica-
tion and is published by the National Communication Association. Dallas C. Dickey served
as the first editor (Frymier, 2014), and the emphasis was originally, and solely, on teaching
communication content. Today, the journal is focused more specifically on publishing instruc-
tional communication scholarship. Many of the international, national, and regional associa-
tions have interest groups and subdivisions that center on the study of teaching and learning:
International Communication Association, National Communication Association, Central
States Communication Association (CSCA), Eastern Communication Association (ECA), and
Western States Communication Association (WSCA). CSCA has recently announced it will
sponsor a new journal entitled Journal of Communication Pedagogy that will invite manuscripts
focused on both instructional communication and communication education.
Additionally, the Basic Course Directors’ conference is held annually, where faculty
from across the United States discuss issues involving communication curricula, commu-
nication assessment, and instructional communication practices. Research surrounding the
basic communication course has its own outlet in the Basic Communication Course Annual,
currently published online through the University of Dayton. Communication Teacher also
predominantly publishes manuscripts focused on communication education, although
instructional communication scholars seek both of these outlets for publishing. Along with
these publications, instructional communication scholars continue to publish in journals
devoted to more general communication scholarship including Communication Quarterly,
Communication Research Reports, and the Western Journal of Communication.
In addition to exploring the history of the discipline, we trace the interdisciplinary
roots of instructional communication as a field of study. In the following section, we provide
a discussion of three distinct disciplines that have contributed to the development of instruc-
tional communication scholarship.
Interdisciplinary Foundations of Instructional Communication

The beginnings of instructional communication occur at the intersection of three disciplines:
educational psychology, pedagogy, and communication. Instructional communication schol-
ars apply theory and findings from these related, albeit distinct, areas of inquiry to understand
the intersections of our discipline. The following sections are devoted to a discussion of each
of these areas and how they influence instructional communication research and practice.
Educational Psychology: Learner Focus

Educational psychology refers to the investigation of the underlying psychological and intel-
lectual processes that explain and predict student learning. Thus, the focus of scholarship in
this area is on each individual student/learner. The goal of research in educational psychol-
ogy is to explore issues including how students learn, how learners process information, and
how personality traits and other individual differences may influence the learning process
(Mottet & Beebe, 2006). Both instructional communication and educational psychology are
concerned with predicting and understanding cognitive (Anderson, Krathwohl, & Bloom,
2001; Bloom, 1956), affective (Krathwohl, Bloom, & Masia, 1964), and behavioral learn-
ing (Bandura, 1969). These three learning domains focus on the acquisition of knowledge
(cognitive learning), how students feel about what they are learning (affective learning), and
the development of physical skills (behavioral learning; Mottet & Beebe, 2006). However,
instructional communication scholars focus more specifically on exploring how the interac-
tions between teachers and students influence these three learning outcomes, whereas edu-
cational psychologists are concerned with student traits that might impact these domains
of learning. Although educational psychology has played a large role in the development
of instructional communication scholarship, pedagogy researchers, or those who explore
theories of teaching and learning, have also contributed to instructional communication as
a discipline.
Pedagogy: Instructor Focus

Whereas educational psychology places the emphasis on the individual learner, pedagogy
centers on the exploration of teaching and methods to deliver content. Thus, whereas educa-
tional psychologists focus on teaching philosophies, curricular development, and assessment
practices, pedagogy scholars are interested in issues related to teachers’ classroom manage-
ment strategies, their influence on student motivation, and implementation of various con-
tent delivery methods (e.g., facilitating in-class discussions, experiential activities). Pedagogy
scholars are interested in what content and how content is being taught (Ball & Bass, 2000;
Darling-Hammond, Chung, & Frelow, 2002; Mottet & Beebe, 2006; Shulman, 1986; Wilson,
Floden, & Ferrini-Mundy, 2002). Educators and researchers alike continue to debate whether
course content or pedagogical strategy is more important in terms of teacher training and
research. As reported in the previous edition of this Handbook, most K–12 teachers and
higher education instructors receive more training in their content area than on the processes
of teaching and learning (McCroskey, Richmond, & McCroskey, 2002; Mottet & Beebe, 2006).
Communication: Message Focus

In contrast to educational psychologists and pedagogy scholars, communication researchers focus
on the examination of the meaning of messages. As McCroskey (1968) conceptualized, commu-
nication is the process of stimulating meaning in the minds of others using verbal and nonverbal
messages. Instructional communication scholars believe teaching and learning is an inherently
communicative process and that learning could not exist without the sharing of verbal and nonver-
bal messages between instructors and students. To better understand the teaching-learning pro-
cess as communication, three models have been developed over the years to depict the evolution of
communication as action, interaction, and transaction (Beebe, Beebe, & Ivy, 2016).
Communication as Action
The model referred to as “communication as action,” presented by scholars beginning in the
late 1940s (Lasswell, 1948; Shannon & Weaver, 1949), assumes the process is linear and a source
encodes a message and shares this with a receiver. The receiver is not provided the opportunity
to respond. The communication as action model is not commonly used by instructors, as it
places greater emphasis on the instructor rather than the interaction between teachers and
students (Mottet & Beebe, 2006). One example of this linear process model in education envi-
ronments might be when instructors record their lectures and allow their students to watch the
videos asynchronously. Students would interpret the messages that their instructor conveyed in
the video but would not be able to provide feedback within the same interaction.
Communication as Interaction
The communication as interaction model introduces a feedback loop from the receiver to
the source, and receivers now have the opportunity to encode messages to deliver back to the
source. Although Schramm (1954) was the first to identify the feedback loop in a depic-
tion of the communication process, other scholars, particularly those from the cybernetic
tradition, also influenced communication scholars to commonly include a feedback loop
into models of human communication (Rogers, 1994). In the classroom context, instructors
who predominantly serve as the source of messages, yet allow students the opportunity to
respond to questions as well as ask questions themselves, exemplify this model. Further,
Mottet and Beebe (2006) asserted that an instructor’s ability to adapt their verbal and non-
verbal messages to meet the needs of students (conveyed to them via a feedback loop) is a
vital component of the communication as interaction model.
Communication as Transaction
Both partners in the communication as transaction model simultaneously enact the roles of source
and receiver. Scholars view this model as a nonlinear one in which both interactants co-create and
negotiate shared meaning through verbal and nonverbal messages (Berlo, 1960; Mottet & Beebe,
2006). In classroom settings, instructors who ascribe to the notion that both teachers and stu-
dents learn from one another tend to model this form of communication. Further, participants in
these learning environments openly share and respect each other’s ideas, opinions, and feelings.
Seminar-style classes often promote this transactional model of communication.
As demonstrated in Figure 1.1, the conceptualization of communication occurs across
a continuum with communication-as-action and communication-as-transaction acting as
the bipolar endpoints and communication-as-interaction as midpoint. Further, the model
depicts the nature of the communication models in relation to the rhetorical and relational
traditions of the discipline (Cohen, 1994; Howell, 1954; McCroskey & Richmond, 1996;
Mottet & Beebe, 2006; Shepherd, 1992; Wallace, 1954). These two perspectives have largely
influenced instructional communication scholarship; thus, the following section of the chap-
ter is devoted to a discussion of these traditions.
FIGURE 1.1 Instructional Communication Models

Rhetorical Tradition
The rhetorical tradition centers on instructor use of verbal and nonverbal messages to influ-
ence or persuade students with the goal of either changing or reinforcing their attitudes,
beliefs, values, or behaviors. McCroskey and Richmond (1996) noted that rhetorical com-
munication functions “to get others to do what you want or need them to do and/or think the
way you want or need them to think” (p. 234). In the classroom setting, this might involve
getting students to comply with requests or encouraging them to believe the course content
is important to their personal, professional, or public lives.
The roots of the rhetorical tradition are traced back to Aristotle’s Rhetoric in 333 bce,
in which he discussed ethos, pathos, and logos as primary means of persuasion. Ethos
refers to the ethical character of the instructor and emphasizes the speaker’s credibil-
ity. Student perceptions of instructor credibility involve trustworthiness, competence,
and caring or goodwill (McCroskey, Holdridge, & Toomb, 1974; Teven & McCroskey,
1997). Students are more likely to be influenced by instructors they perceive to be
ethical or to enact ethos via verbal and nonverbal messages. Chapter 3 of this Hand-
book presents an overview of the instructional communication literature related to
instructor credibility.
Pathos refers to the use of emotional messages to influence others. In the classroom
context, emotion plays a key role in teacher (i.e., emotion labor, burnout) and student (i.e.,
affect, motivation) outcomes. For instance, previous research has demonstrated that emo-
tion is vital to the teaching-learning process (Doan, 2010; Hascher, 2010; Titsworth, Quin-
lan, & Mazer, 2010). Chapter 10 discusses communication behaviors that influence emotion
and arise as a result of emotional responses.
Logos refers to the use of logic and reasoning in messages to persuade or influence oth-
ers. At least part of conveying logically sound and rational messages in the classroom deals
with instructor clarity, or “the fidelity of instructional messages” (Powell & Harville, 1990,
p. 372). Chapter 2 includes a discussion on the findings in the instructional communication
literature about teacher clarity and its associated outcomes.
More generally, instructors teaching from the rhetorical tradition tend to enact more
linear communication models in their classrooms (i.e., communication as action, interac-
tion). From this perspective, teachers are viewed as the primary source of messages in the
classroom, whereas students are perceived to be the primary receivers of those messages.
Relational Tradition
Instructors who ascribe to the relational tradition enact verbal and nonverbal messages with
the aim of establishing a relationship or ongoing connection with their students (Beebe,
Beebe, & Redmond, 2017; Mottet & Beebe, 2006). The relational perspective involves “two
(or more) people coordinat[ing] to reach a shared perspective satisfactory to all. Of para-
mount concern is the relationship between the two people and the perceived well-being of
the ‘other’” (McCroskey & Richmond, 1996, p. 234).
In the late 1950s, Martin Buber described distinctions between “I-It” relationships and
“I-Thou” relationships. “I-It” relationships predominantly include impersonal communica-
tion where partners respond only through reliance on role expectations and communication
scripts (Buber, 1958). Communication in “I-Thou” relationships are more spontaneous and
unique to the relational partner in the interaction. In the classroom context, instructors and
students involved in an “I-It” relationship may engage in little self-disclosure, and therefore,
knowledge about the other person is limited. Interactions would focus specifically on infor-
mation transmission and course content. If teachers and learners are involved in an “I-Thou”
relationship, they communicate on the basis of their knowledge of the other person and thus,
are characterized by increased sharing. Although most teacher-student relationships exist
somewhere in between on this continuum, many scholars have discussed these relationships
as interpersonal in nature.
The relational tradition emphasizes shared characteristics of interpersonal relation-
ships that include relational development (DeVito, 1986), emotional expression (Ellis, 2000,
2004; Mottet & Beebe, 2006), goal-oriented communication, conflict management, and
inequity of power that exists in specific interpersonal relationships (i.e., parent-child; Fry-
mier & Houser, 2000).
Although this section emphasizes distinctions between the rhetorical and relational
traditions of the discipline, these perspectives should merely be considered opposite sides
of the same coin. Instructors communicating from the relational and rhetorical traditions
have the same goal in mind—to effectively facilitate student learning. The means of accom-
plishing this goal may differ, depending on which perspective an instructor ascribes to (i.e.,
more teacher centered or more collaborative in nature). Therefore, instructional communi-
cation scholars should continue to use relational and rhetorical perspectives as a framework
to guide the study of the discipline.
Current State of the Discipline

A primary goal of this chapter is to include a review of the literature during the past 10 years
in an attempt to gain a holistic understanding of the current state of the discipline and to
provide a context within which readers may interpret the remaining chapters in this Hand-
book. In order to examine the current research trends in instructional communication, the
first author of the chapter conducted a content analysis of the articles published within the
last 10 years in the National Communication Association’s flagship journal, Communication
Education. Featured next is an overview of the content, theory, and methods promoted since
the first edition of the Handbook in 2006. The three primary goals/questions that frame this
section are (a) How are the different methodologies (quantitative, qualitative, critical/
rhetorical) represented in the instructional communication literature?; (b) What theories
have been used by instructional communication scholars over the past 10 years?; and
(c) What constructs have been investigated by instructional communication scholars over
the past 10 years?
An Integrative Review
To answer the three questions regarding the state of the discipline, an integrative review
technique was selected to allow for the combination of diverse methodologies (e.g., exper-
imental and nonexperimental research) (Whittemore & Knafl, 2005) and to establish the
“lay of the land.” All articles published between 2006 and 2016 in Communication Edu-
cation were downloaded, and a randomized list of the articles was created. We employed
a systematic random sampling technique and a 95% confidence level to identify a subset
of articles (n = 140) from the sampling frame. Articles were not retained in the final data
set if they did not include empirical data or a rhetorical/critical analysis. In other words,
forums, editorials, commentaries, and other reviews of the literature were excluded from
this sample.
After the random sample was identified, a codebook was created containing article
characteristics of interest: authors of the manuscripts, purpose of the study, key variables of
interest, methodology (i.e., critical/rhetorical, qualitative, quantitative), data analysis tech-
nique, and theoretical framework or model guiding the studies. After initial coding, the first
author compared the categories and collapsed similar concepts and theories. For instance,
“affective learning” and “cognitive learning” were combined to create a category labeled “stu-
dent learning outcomes.”
Although the goal of this chapter is to examine the current state of the literature, it
must be noted that because of the sampling procedure it would be inappropriate to defini-
tively state this analysis is representative of the literature as a whole. However, the use of a
random sampling technique and identifying a sample within a 5% sampling error bolsters
confidence in the general trends, which are reported as follows: 105 studies (75%) examined
student perceptions, eight studies examined teacher or faculty perceptions (5.7%), and three
studies recruited from both student and teacher participant pools. The smallest study sample
included was 32 college students (Thompson, 2008) who engaged in in-depth daily diary
interviews analyzed using grounded theory. The largest study sample included in this review
was 6,166 college students (Richards, 2012) whose data were gathered as part of student
completion of coursework and analyzed using various statistical analyses (i.e., t-test, multi-
ple regression). The typical large-sample study ranged from approximately 100–300 partic-
ipants (most frequently college students), whereas the typical small-sample study included
30–40 participants. Seven studies (5%) collected data from students, teachers, or parents in
K–12 education settings. Eight studies (5.7%) included in the sample recruited students or
teachers from international universities and schools. Finally, most of the study samples were
recruited from one educational institution.
The questions we posed centered on identifying the research methodologies most
commonly used, the key theories that guided the studies, and the most commonly studied
constructs. See Table 1.1 for a report of the study descriptives and results. All study meth-
odologies are included in the table. However, only theories that appeared at least twice and
constructs that appeared at least 10 times in the data set were reported in the table. It should
be noted that theories were coded as such if the authors explicitly stated a model, framework,
or theory in the literature review section of the manuscript. However, many of those studies
did not systematically test the propositions of the theories.
Two major themes regarding the state of the instructional communication litera-
ture emerged from the results of the content analysis. First, the results continue to support
Waldeck and colleagues’ (2001) assertion that instructional communication scholarship is
largely “variable-analytic [research that] . . . perpetuates the notion that instructional com-
munication research is atheoretical” (p. 225). Further, the studies guided by theory continue
to feature those borrowed from other disciplines (i.e., psychology, education) or from other
areas of communication scholarship (i.e., interpersonal, organizational) instead of research
TABLE 1.1 Summary and Descriptives of Included Articles
n %
Q1 Results—Methodologies
Quantitative Methodology 103 73.6%
Survey 66 47.1%
Experiment 26 18.6%
Meta-Analysis 4 2.9%
Quasi-Experiment 3 2.1%
Qualitative Methodology 17 12.1%
Interview 8 5.7%
Narrative/Open-Ended Survey Responses 5 3.6%
Textual Analysis 4 2.9%
Participant Observations 2 1.4%
Mixed Methodology 21 15.0%
Quantitative/Qualitative 20 14.3%
Qualitative/Critical 1 0.7%
Rhetorical Methodology (Discourse Analysis) 1 0.7%
Q2 Results—Theories
Atheoretical 64 45.7%
Instructional Communication Theory 8 5.7%
Emotional Response 5 3.6%
Rhetorical/Relational Goal 3 2.1%
Instructional Humor Processing 2 1.4%
Psychology Theory 9 6.4%
Attribution 5 3.6%
Feedback Intervention 2 1.4%
Information Processing 2 1.4%
Interpersonal Communication Theory 9 6.4%
Relational Power 3 2.1%
Communication Privacy Management 2 1.4%
Interaction Adaptation 2 1.4%
Predicted Outcome Value 2 1.4%
Language-Based Theory (Face/Politeness) 6 4.3%
Learning Model (Affective Learning) 2 1.4%
Mediated Communication Theory (Media Richness) 2 1.4%
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from
the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

PDF Handbook of Instructional Communication 2Nd Edition Marian L Houser and Angela M Hosek Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PDF Handbook of Instructional Communication 2Nd Edition Marian L Houser and Angela M Hosek Ebook Full Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Instructional

Communication 2nd Edition Marian L.

Design and Analysis of Experiments 2nd Edition Angela

Communication Pathways 2nd Edition Joseph M. Valenzano

Gender Ideas Interactions Institutions 2nd Edition Wade

Learning Disabilities Sourcebook 6th Edition Angela L.

Pregnancy and Birth Sourcebook 4th Edition Angela L.

A Handbook Of Primary Commodities In The Global Economy

Sexually Transmitted Diseases Sourcebook 7th Edition

Black Mirror and Critical Media Theory Angela M Cirucci

The Handbook of Instructional Communication offers a comprehensive collection of theory

Marian L. Houser (Ph.D., 2002, University of Tennessee-Knoxville) is Professor in the Com-

Edited by Marian L. Houser and Angela M. Hosek

Typeset in Minion Pro

Preface by Marian L. Houser and Angela M. Hosek viii

CHAPTER 1 Historical Roots and Trajectories of Instructional

UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO THE RHETORICAL PERSPECTIVES

CHAPTER 2 Instructor Message Variables 22

CHAPTER 3 Instructor Credibility 38

CHAPTER 4 Student Participation and Engagement in the Classroom 51

CHAPTER 5 Instructional Dissent 65

CHAPTER 6 Student Orientations Toward Communicating in

UNIT 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

CHAPTER 7 Immediacy and the Teacher-Student Relationship 97

CHAPTER 8 [Re]Negotiating Power and Influence in the Classroom 112

CHAPTER 9 Rapport in the Instructional Context 126

CHAPTER 10 Communication Perspectives on Classroom Emotion 138

UNIT 3 INTRODUCTION TO SOCIAL IDENTITY IN THE

CHAPTER 11 Race/Ethnicity in the Classroom 158

CHAPTER 12 Sexual and Gender Identity in the Classroom 170

UNIT 4 INTRODUCTION TO TECHNOLOGY IN THE

CHAPTER 13 Human-Machine Communication in the Classroom 184

CHAPTER 14 Instructional Communication and the Online Learning

UNIT 5 INTRODUCTION TO INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION

CHAPTER 15 Cognitive Approaches in the Instructional Context 209

CHAPTER 16 Affective Approaches in the Instructional Context 223

CHAPTER 17 Biological and Physiological Approaches in the

CHAPTER 18 Critical Communication Pedagogy 248

Welcome to the second edition of the Handbook of Instructional Communication: Rhetorical

Why Rhetorical and Relational Perspectives?

The Handbook’s Organization

broaden the methodological scope to include interpretive/qualitative, critical, and

Our Talented Author Team

Marian L. Houser, Texas State University

Tamara D. Afifi (Ph.D., 1999, University of Nebraska–Lincoln) is a professor in the Depart-

Historical Overview of Instructional Communication

Interdisciplinary Foundations of Instructional Communication

Educational Psychology: Learner Focus

Pedagogy: Instructor Focus

Communication: Message Focus

FIGURE 1.1 Instructional Communication Models

Current State of the Discipline

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

Section 1. General Terms of Use and

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing