Perspectives On Instructional Comunication Preiss Wheeless

This article was downloaded by: [Carnegie Mellon University]
On: 13 October 2014, At: 15:29

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Communication Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rced20
Perspectives on Instructional
Communication's Historical Path to the
Future
Raymond W. Preiss & Lawrence R. Wheeless
Published online: 20 Jun 2014.
To cite this article: Raymond W. Preiss & Lawrence R. Wheeless (2014) Perspectives on
Instructional Communication's Historical Path to the Future, Communication Education, 63:4,
308-328, DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2014.910605
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.910605
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Communication Education
Vol. 63, No. 4, October 2014, pp. 308–328
Perspectives on Instructional
Communication’s Historical Path to the
Future
Raymond W. Preiss & Lawrence R. Wheeless
Downloaded by [Carnegie Mellon University] at 15:29 13 October 2014
The field of communication education celebrates the centennial year of the National
Communication Association. Many conceptual and theoretical advances have been
made during these years, and assessing the history of instructional communication
provides a clearer appreciation of the field’s trajectory. We trace how the boundaries of
instructional communication expanded to include theories and perspectives originating
in other subdisciplines of the national organization. We also point to secular trends
that may complicate and disrupt the prospects of the next-generation scholars. These
trends are assessed, and recommendations are proposed for instructional research and
theory development in the digital age.
Keywords: Instructional Communication; History; Speech Communication; NCA

Centennial Year
It is a common impulse to use anniversaries as opportunities to reflect, reappraise, and

reevaluate. Communication education is mindful of its history and evolution as the
National Communication Association marks its 100th year as an academic organiza-
tion. In this article, we review the conceptual advances that draw us together and
secular trends that threaten to disrupt and destabilize our work. We believe that our
disciplinary history reveals principles that have served us well. Our openness to diverse
views and our roots in the teaching enterprise provide a rich perspective for future
research in instructional communication. Join us in a journey tracing the instructional
concepts and related research in our field. We will travel the intertwined paths of the
National Communication Association, the area of communication education, and
instructional communication’s development. We direct our review at recent scholars
Raymond W. Preiss (Ph.D., University of Oregon, 1988) is a Professor of Communication Studies at Viterbo
University. Lawrence R. Wheeless (Ph. D., Wayne State University, 1970) is a Professor Emeritus of
Communication Studies at the University of North Texas. Correspondence to: Raymond W. Preiss, Viterbo
University, Communication Studies, 800 Viterbo Dr., La Crosse, WI 54601, U.S.A. Email: rwpreiss@viterbo.edu.
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) © 2014 National Communication Association

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.910605
Perspectives on Instructional Communication 309
who may not be familiar with the events and conversations in the field, especially
during the mid and late twentieth century. Seasoned instructional communication
scholars, as well as recent scholars, may find sections of interest. This type of
collective introspection is important in establishing a sense of identity (Nerone, 2006)
and directing our attention to challenges and opportunities (Kahl & Lederman, 2009;
Lieb-Brilhart, 1976). Insights gained from historical decisions may also identify
strategies for managing the disruptive forces and amazing opportunities we face.
The Early Years Cast Long Shadows

In the earliest days, our founders were defining a discipline concerned with oral
communication. Eadie (2011) described the difficulties they faced when he summar-
ized the speech, journalism, and communication narratives of the field. He pointed
to tensions between academic levels (high school and college), disciplines (English
and speech), and objectives (teaching and scholarly). In Eadie’s (2011) narrative
account of these struggles and quarrels, new scholars will recognize many of the
luminaries who established the paths we walk today. These differences and tensions
were managed by broadly defining the new field (The National Association of
Teachers of Speech [italics added]). Teaching was the core that united the new field,
but the content and methods were diverse. Charles Woolbert’s (1923) definition of
the speech component of the discipline included the study of all forms of talk,
including the rhetoric motivating speech. He included oral performance, the study
of vocal mechanisms (speech audiology and pathology), and speech science, a
compendium of significant findings that can be used by others to guide decisions and
actions. In effect, these foundational principles managed disagreements by embracing
multiple objectives, multiple methods, and multiple audiences. This new, expansive
field was as noisy then as it is today.
Broad and inclusive disciplinary boundaries allowed members to have an
organizational platform for their remarkably different approaches. Most speech
departments were affiliated with English departments. The broad definition of
“speech” allowed early scholars to study public address in departments that were
largely concerned with written texts. Rhetoric, public address, public speaking, and
theatre found a home in the inclusive speech department. Of course, this diversity
was also a source of tension, and not all of the disagreements were resolved over
the years. Teachers and scholars went about their work and spoke about their
commitments with the clarity and passion of the times.
In an important review of Communication Education, Sprague (2002) reflected on
the breadth and depth of topics and approaches covered in the field’s flagship
instructional journal. She adopted an “upward spiral” account for the progression of a
field that is evolving “with a sense of calling and a clarity of purpose” (Sprague, 2002,
p. 337). In the 1970s, that spiral resembled a vortex. Work was aggregating across the
communication studies (then speech) discipline. Concepts clarifying processes in
persuasion, interpersonal, and group contexts were folded “back” into the educational
mission of the field. Communication Education (then, the Speech Teacher) was at the
310 R. W. Preiss and L. R. Wheeless
center of this vortex, and Sprague’s description of the topics and methods (pp. 338–
341) published in those early years nicely captures the energy of the controversies and
competing approaches of the day. We were a noisy group of rhetoricians, thespians,
debaters, critics, scientists, speech teachers, and trainers, and each constituent group
had its advocates and champions. We have always been a busy field, and the range of
topics apparent in Communication Education speaks to the passions of many genera-
tions of prolific writers and thoughtful educators. It is worth remembering that an
important, new instructional tradition emerged during those discussions about
methods, approaches, perspectives, and findings. We describe the tensions created by
social scientific approaches in the next sections. At the time, few understood the
direction we would “spiral,” but everyone had an opinion about where we should
go next.
In the 1960s, a new group of the professorate joined the discussion. Trained in the
methods of social science, many were paying attention to research programs in
psychology and sociology that addressed communication concerns. These scholars
formed what is now the International Communication Association (ICA, formerly
the National Society for the Study of Communication) as a venue for circulating
research findings. Groups of communication scholars schooled in the philosophy and
methods of the social sciences advocated a process-centered research agenda. Those
committed to rhetorical, historical, and humanistic methods bristled at the
introduction of “foreign” methods into the speech field. Following the publication
of the report on the New Orleans special conference on communication (Kibler &
Barker, 1969) the entire field roiled. Eadie (2011) reported the far reaching nature of
the discipline’s recalibration. Sproule (2008) described the churn and confluence of
events in stunning detail (pp. 169–171). The discussion was between and within
camps, and the discipline debated methods, approaches, perspectives, theories, and
variables.
While the scope and detail of the clashes are beyond our purpose, the outcome was
informative. In the midst of the rancorous argument, the publication of B. Aubrey
Fisher’s (1978) Perspectives on Human Communication made the case for diversity of
method and multiplicity of approach. The field of communication studies emerged
from an “agreement” that more, not less, communication would promote theory
development, understanding, and application of knowledge. Of course, the disagree-
ments continued, and all sides interrogated rival approaches and reflected upon their
own limitations. More importantly, scholars went back to work in their libraries,
laboratories, control rooms, classrooms, media rooms, performance venues, and field
projects. The discipline had embraced “more communication” as the route to theory
development and relevance. Fisher’s view won the day. The discipline became broader
and more nuanced.
Instructional Communication Research Takes Root

The path recounted thus far sets the stage for theorizing about communication in the
education context. Communication education traditionally emphasized teaching
communication educators to teach communication. Many envisioned a larger
instructional mission. While it is true that the ICA established the Instructional
Communication Division in 1972, the organization offered no guidance on how to
explore “the role of communication in all teaching and training contexts” (McCroskey
& McCroskey, 2006, p. 35). No one had to. Berlo’s (1960) The process of commun-
ication inadvertently provided the scaffolding for building Woolbert’s idea of a
“speech science” composed of significant and useful facts and principles. Berlo’s
simple model had several roots, including Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) view of
communication that stressed efficient information transmission. The Shannon–
Weaver model compartmentalizes the elements of communication (source, transmit-
ter, signal, receiver, and destination) and describes how information (a measure of
entropy and uncertainty) moves to the destination. Berlo (1960) adapted the basic
mechanism of the Shannon–Weaver approach while “humanizing” the nature of
information. The S-M-C-R model (source, message, channel, receiver), stresses source
characteristics (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) while a message (not information
and uncertainty) moves through a channel to a receiver. Rooted in scientific
sensibilities, Berlo stressed interdependence in a persuasive process (pp. 106–120)
and embraced nonverbal as well as verbal messages.
In the 1970s, instructional communication was compatible with the variables of the
S-M-C-R taxonomy. Researchers were unfolding and explicating the processes of
communication, and the application of these principles to classroom dynamics was a
logical step. It is noteworthy that many of these leading researchers were neither
admirers nor followers of Berlo. They understood that by following the linear
approach, attention was diverted from alternative theories stressing learning,
relationships, and cognitive processes. They argued that the S-M-C-R perspective
was quite mechanistic and linear, and research generated from this perspective tended
to be very pragmatic (applied), overemphasized the source (teacher), and under-
estimated the receiver (student). The channel was assumed to be face-to-face
(auditory and visual), although the mass lecture had replaced classroom contact
with senior professors in some of the undergraduate curriculum. In spite of these
flaws, skeptics embraced S-M-C-R because it was useful and logical, and provided a
counterpoint for more process-oriented accounts of communication. It organized the
information in Woolbert’s speech science, and the movement of information from
source to receiver was the vehicle for summarizing the processes operating at each
step. Instructional communication scholars renamed the journal The Speech Teacher
to Communication Education, institutionalizing their focus on communication
scholarship. The fragmentation and convergence Eadie described and the spiral
Sprague venerates reflect, also, a consolidation of persuasion, interpersonal, and
group processes into the instructional communication enterprise.
The bias toward the source and the application of linear findings has many roots,
including the tradition of speech education. Public-speaking education was tradi-
tionally offered by speech departments. The rationale for skills development stressed
civic obligations (participatory democracy), personal development (empowerment
and potential), and economic success (employment and advancement). These same
concerns are expressed today (Bertelsen & Goodboy, 2009; Morreale & Backlund,
2002). It is worth remembering that the earliest days of the communication education
field were dynamic and uncharted. Reid (1990) provided an inside look at university
life as a speech teacher in the 1940s and 1950s. The pressure of the war and the ability
to overcome adversities speaks to the resiliency of our organizational ancestors.
The draft diverted students into the war effort, budgets were frozen, governance
obligations multiplied, and faculty were called to service. During this same period, no
fewer than six influential books were published that defined the speech discipline and
specified the methods of speech criticism. Currently available online (natcom.org),
Reid’s personal account documents what university life was like in speech depart-
ments during those formative years. The photo gallery associates faces with the names
seen in this and other historical narratives about the communication discipline. Most
readers will be enthralled by the stories of the day-to-day life of a speech scholar in
the early- to mid-twentieth century.
When solders returned from World War II and used their GI Bill, they filled
university classrooms, entered graduate schools, and taught at universities while the
Korean and Vietnam Wars escalated and simmered. As the social turmoil of the
1960s and 1970s destabilized the civic functions of education, the S-M-C-R type
approach flourished because it was flexible and pragmatic. During this time, of
course, other models replaced the S-M-C-R model in speech communication
textbooks (e.g., Ross, 1965). These models specified a more complete process
involving the context of the communication, message encoding, receiver decoding
of the message, and feedback. Earlier, however, the World War II generation that
built the highway system and electrified the nation also set the standards for
delivering higher education. Their “can do” styles of management and planning were
deployed to organize higher education. New technologies were quickly absorbed into
the university environment. Because the S-M-C-R model was a clear way to
benchmark “what works” in education, it resonated with the pragmatic thinking of
the time. A linear application of general instructional communication principles
privileged the traditional teacher-to-student flow of information, and it became a
stepping-stone path the new field traversed as it sought legitimacy in the academy.
The field of speech communication embraced speech, rhetoric, persuasion, interper-
sonal communication, group communication, organizational communication, mass
media, journalism, and communication education.
The Area of Instructional Communication Emerges

There is considerable agreement that the field of instructional communication is at
the intersection of the teacher, the student, and the meanings exchanged between and
among teachers and learners (Myers, 2010). McCroskey, Richmond, and McCroskey
(2006) believed that instructional success requires content expertise, pedagogical
skill, and competence in instructional communication. From this view, instructional
communication (communication in education) is concerned with teaching and
learning that may be situated at any level, in any setting, or about any subject matter
(Myers, 2010). Myers reported the rise of variable-analytic instructional commun-
ication research in the 1970s and 1980s. Berlo’s (1960) influence is apparent, as
teacher characteristics are linked to message features, delivery technologies, and
student responses. The emphasis on research and application about source, message,
and receiver variables was strong. The list of these instructional techniques and
related outcomes is impressive, including variables such as teacher immediacy
behavior, the use of classroom humor, and the effects of classroom management
techniques. Berlo’s “channel” category can be seen in studies on the use of film strips,
overhead projectors, digital notes, online learning, and blogs. Receiver variables
include such variables as receiver apprehension, test anxiety, and self-regulated
learning. The pattern of source orientation and application is evident in this list, and
the proliferation of new journal outlets allowed for replication studies of variable-
analytic claims. In recent years, meta-analytic summaries have quantified the
direction and magnitude of bodies of literature, occasionally offering path models
of variables across S-M-C-R categories. Woolbert’s call for a useful and significant
“speech science” took root and flourished in the instructional communication
literature. The linear source bias went largely unquestioned for many years.
Mile Posts and Memorial Markers

There were early efforts to avoid, or at least resist S-C-M-R bias, and Scott and
Wheeless (1977) approached the issue by examining communication outcomes.
Communication education involves research that “facilitate(s) the acquisition of
communication skills among students” (Scott & Wheeless, 1977, p. 495). Thus,
instructional communication research explored how communication affected the
learning process and learning outcomes. Thirty five years later, McCroskey,
Richmond, and McCroskey (2002) asserted that instructional communication is
concerned with the teaching–learning process in all fields of education and training,
not just in the teaching of speech or communication. They embraced the “applied”
emphasis and equated instructional communication with other applied areas such as
mass communication, organizational communication, health communication, polit-
ical communication, and relational communication. The number of contexts
proliferated, while the role of theory remained underemphasized.
Another marker of the rise of the instructional communication field involves the
nature of the theorizing occurring within the contexts. Eadie (2011) provided an
account of the tensions evident in the 1970s and 1980s, especially tensions between the
educational legacies of speech and journalism scholars. Eadie described the rise of the
“received view” of knowledge where evidence is ascertained by empirical hypothesis
testing. Myers (2010) observed the influence of logical positivism in theorizing about
communication education. This was the genesis of the variable-analytic tradition
where instructional communication researchers applied concepts from within the
communication field to the learning context. The result was a variety of evidence-
based claims about the many contexts and variables in learning environments.
During the first few years of research in the area of instructional communication,
most of the investigations involved variables and/or findings from the areas of
persuasion, interpersonal communication, or rhetorical communication. Very little
attention was directed toward mass communication or instructional technology,
although that would change in the 1980s. In an attempt to unify the area, Lashbrook
and Wheeless (1978) translated learning theory into an instructional communication
theory. The next year, Wheeless and Hurt (1979) wrote about instructional systems,
arguing that instructional strategies operate as communication systems. Rather than
the S-M-C-R typology, researchers were urged to consider action, interaction, and
transaction models to guide the execution classroom strategies. The process
orientation of this approach allowed educators to match processes, not categories,
with learning objectives, a development that shifted emphasis away from the teacher
in favor of the student receiver. Thus, efforts to promote learning theory as a unifying
explanation were widely accessible, but the impulse to validate general communica-
tion theories in the classroom context prevailed.
One reason for the speed of developments in instructional communication research
involved the editorial policies of the ICA. During this time, Communication Yearbook
showcased instructional communication research, and the top papers in the
Instructional Communication Division of ICA were published along with an
overview chapter that summarized recent trends or offered theoretical and conceptual
perspectives (McCroskey & McCroskey, 2006). This served as a unifying voice within
the area and called discipline-wide attention to new developments and findings. The
subversive subtext, of course, was that those pursuing general theories elsewhere
could bring their work to the Instructional Communication Division. Although this
editorial policy ended in 1986, the common forum was invaluable for publicizing the
division’s work in the early years. As others have noted, the newly renamed journal
Communication Education filled this vital role and published the markers described
in this section: common definition, contextual theorizing, variable-analytic hypothes-
izing, and portable reasoning where general communication principles were applied
to learning situations.
The silhouette of the developments in the instructional communication field in the
next sections is not an exhaustive review of the literature contained in each domain.
Nevertheless, it is informative to count the mile posts that mark progress along the
road. Along the way, we will see the slow but irreparable weathering of the four gables
of S-M-C-R’s research roof. Many of the topics covered are flourishing today, and
they illustrate the creative application of Sprague’s “upward spiral” and Eadie’s
“fragmentation and convergence.”
Teacher behaviors
Reflecting the complexity of the classroom, research rapidly aggregated on a variety of
source-oriented techniques associated with instructional success. The list roughly
conforms to the S-M-C-R typology, although some conceptualizations question the
linear taxonomy by combining categories. For example, Nussbaum and Scott (1980)
found that interaction between students and teachers facilitated learning, conflating
the source-receiver categories. S-M-C-R thinking does not specifically address mutual
or sequential communication acts (nor does it exclude these possibilities). Kearney,
Plax, Richmond, and McCroskey’s (1985) work on power in the classroom was rather
source-oriented, while Schrodt and his colleagues’ theorizing about teacher immedi-
acy (Andersen, 1979) stressed message features as a route for perceptions of a teacher
credibility (Schrodt & Witt, 2006) and student learning (Allen, Witt, & Wheeless,
2006). Thus, theorizing tended to draw attention to the receiver through S-M-C-R
refraction. Similarly, Norton (1977) theorized about the effect of teacher commun-
ication style on learning outcomes. Later, Rubin and Feezel (1985, 1986) took this
approach when they identified communication skills associated with successful
instruction. The result was a style resembling communication competence, an
educational hybrid of variables arising in the interpersonal communication literature.
Teacher messages
Research about instructional communication frequently leans toward message
features. Gail Sorensen’s (1989) work on instructors’ self-disclosure explored the
learning consequences of revealing personal information to students, a message-
centered approach that continues today (Lannutti & Strauman, 2006). This message
orientation can be seen in many variable-analytic approaches to instruction.
McCroskey and Richmond’s (1983) theorizing about instructional power evolved
into Behavior Alteration Techniques (BATs) and Behavior Alteration Messages
(BAMs) that were an application of the compliance-gaining literature to the
instructional context (Kearney et al., 1985). Recent conceptualizations and research
on attitudes toward teacher credibility (Finn et al., 2009) indicated that messages
conveying caring can promote teacher credibility and learning. Schrodt et al. (2009)
found that teacher credibility mediates perceived student confirmation and teacher
clarity to positively affect student learning. Thus, teacher messages are thought to be
more than a vehicle for information transfer, as confirmation and clarity increase
receptivity to information and understanding.
There are many examples of variables classified under the rubric of instructional
messages. Prominent on this list would be the association between student–student
interaction and solidarity (Nussbaum & Scott, 1980), the benefits of classroom
participation (Rocca, 2010), the use of humor (Bryant, Comiskey, Crane, & Zillman,
1980; Downs, Javidi, & Nussbaum, 1988; Wanzer, Frymier, & Irwin, 2010), and the
use of affinity-seeking strategies (Andersen, 1979; Bell & Daly, 1984; McCroskey &
McCroskey, 1986; Wanzer, 1998). Also, instructor use of classroom questions was
found to affect student involvement (Myers, Edwards, Wahl, & Martin, 2007), and
student use of questions can signal gaps in understanding (Kendrick & Darling,
1990). Evidence continues to aggregate in each of these areas, and the progress
toward theoretical paradigms associated with message-related educational outcomes
is unmistakable.
Receiver characteristics
The cluster variables associated with anxiety-based low verbal output have a storied
history in the communication studies field (and in other disciplines). The variety of
terms used to describe communication apprehension (CA; McCroskey, 1977) will be
familiar to most readers (e.g., shyness, reticence, and stage fright). While CA is often
viewed as a factor limiting someone from being an effective source, in educational
contexts CA can affect receiver functions as well (McCroskey & Andersen, 1976).
Classroom CA has most often been associated with low course satisfaction (Scott &
Wheeless, 1975), low cognitive performance (Bouris & Allen, 1992), higher drop-out
rates (McCroskey, Booth-Butterfield, & Payne, 1989), women’s learning style
preferences (Dwyer, 1998), and perceptions of learning (Allen, Long, O’Mara, &
Judd, 2008). While research on CA and student learning typically focused on receiver
disruptions, studies also examined CA characteristics in college teachers (Kearney &
McCroskey, 1981), primary and secondary teachers (McCroskey, Andersen, Rich-
mond, & Wheeless, 1981), and teaching assistants (Roach, 1998). Thus, CA provided
a process bridging source-receiver content, execution, and reception that complicated
the linear view of instruction. CA is also an example of processes developed in the
speech communication and interpersonal communication contexts being imported to
the instructional context.
There have been attempts to resist theorizing that overemphasizes or privileges the
source. A recent example, termed receiver empowerment (Frymier, Shulman, &
Houser, 1996; Houser & Frymier, 2009), rebalanced theoretical emphasis away from
the source. A source’s empowerment message or behavior is thought to impact student
receivers and produce a receiver-based motivational state associated with affective and
cognitive learning. Teachers who employ strategies that make content relevant can
elicit student empowerment, and students who experience empowerment tend to value
course content, see connections between content and their lives, and report using more
learning behaviors. Therefore, students are seen as engaged participants who inquire,
consider, and assess information. By shifting emphasis toward receiver agency,
empowerment provides a more balanced view of the learning process.
Of course, source-oriented theorizing was also resisted in the early days of the field.
Wheeless (1975) theorized that individuals were more often receivers than sources
and that anxiety functions in both roles. He defined receiver apprehension as a
broad-based fear associated with misinterpreting, inadequately processing, or failing
to adjust psychologically to others’ communication. A meta-analysis by Preiss,
Wheeless, and Allen (1990) indicated that apprehensive receivers were ineffective
listeners, experienced anxiety when processing messages, were ineffective when
processing information, and approached message interpretation in a cognitively
simple manner.
Receiver apprehension evolved considerably from the early source-anxiety com-
parison, as it resisted source bias by emphasizing message processing. Wheeless,
Preiss, and Gayle (1997) argued that messages that are complex or abstract, or require
intellectual flexibility during processing may evoke anxiety and antipathy that
mediates an individual’s ability to manage information. Termed informational
reception apprehension (IRA), this anxiety was conceptualized as a threshold
and filter that moderates informational reception, perception, and/or adjustment
(Wheeless et al., 1997). IRA proposes a dynamic message-filtering and message-
processing system associated with anxiety and antipathy. When flexibility, complex-
ity, and abstractness exceed preferred thresholds, the resulting apprehension may
distort message processing and alter perceptions of the information being considered.
There is support for this reasoning, as high levels of IRA have been associated with
conservative religious and political orientations (Wheeless & Schrodt, 2001) and
lower levels of student motivation (Schrodt, Wheeless, & Ptacek, 2000), and may
occur during face-to-face interactions (McEwen & Reed, 1999).
Feedback factors
While feedback was never part of Shannon and Weaver’s (1949) typology, the
concept came to be associated with receiver responses. The feedback “loop” became a
standard part of the speech communication and interpersonal communication
literature and came to be featured prominently in instructional studies based upon
compliance-gaining strategies (i.e., power in the classroom; Kearney et al., 1985) and
compliance-resistance strategies (Burroughs, 2007; Burroughs, Kearney, & Plax,
1989). Attempts to understand classroom management involved compliance-gaining,
power, and resistance. Student misbehavior was thought to rupture classroom
climate, and this type of logic led to a long list of student responses to teacher
misbehaviors (Kearney, Plax, Hayes, & Ivey, 1991; Kelsey, Kearney, Plax, Allen, &
Ritter, 2004). These misbehaviors, especially incompetence, tended to elicit instruc-
tional dissent (Goodboy, 2011a) and resistance (Goodboy, 2011b).
Similar to the way dissent leads to student agency, student perceptions of
instructors’ communication can motivate teacher contact (Goodboy & Bolkan,
2011) and teacher–student communication (Goodboy, Martin, & Bolkan, 2009).
Even in classroom situations that are clearly source-oriented, rebalancing can bring
the receiver’s role into perspective. For example, the perceived teacher confirmation
literature stresses teacher behaviors. Schrodt, Turman, and Soliz (2006), however,
emphasized student responses to confirmation as the basis for understanding,
instructional ratings, and motivations for learning. Sidelinger and Booth-Butterfield
(2010) found that teacher confirmation and classroom climate were associated with
conditions leading to self-regulated learning. The “coconstruction” of these percep-
tions is the rebalancing that reflects receiver agency. Similarly, Turman and Schrodt
(2006) provided paradigmic balance when examining the role of confirmation
behaviors on student perceptions of instructor power. These approaches look to the
student as the motivational bases for learning outcomes (Pintrich, 2003) through
processes such as self-regulation and meta-cognition.
Environmental and system factors

Because the S-M-C-R model was used to bring general communication theories and
research into instructional contexts, early researchers were quick to notice that
classrooms were unique when compared to other environments. For this reason, our
scholars consulted the literature from related disciplines and contexts to assemble
“useful knowledge” about the instructional environment. Often, nonverbal categories
associated with interpersonal communication (e.g., proxemics, oculesics, kinesics,
haptics, paralinguistics, attractiveness, etc.) were documented by citing social
scientific evidence from communication and social psychology journals. When
environmental issues were addressed, few communication studies were available to
be used as evidence. Beebe (1980), for example, cited no instructional communication
research in his discussion of room color, room aesthetics (i.e., the classic beautiful
versus ugly room studies), and room size. It was later that attention was devoted to
the nonverbal aspects of the classroom such as class size and seating arrangement.
McCroskey and McVetta (1978) developed a conceptual basis for different seating
arrangements in the classroom. Students appeared to understand the interaction-
inhibiting nature of traditional (column and row) seating environments. For required
courses, this structure was preferred, and for elective courses, interaction-promoting
configurations (horseshoe, circle) were desired. Interestingly, high CA was positively
associated with traditional seating while low CA students favored seating that
facilitated interaction. Today, there is more evidence that class size is associated with
student involvement in the classroom (Rocca, 2010; Sidelinger & Booth-Butter-
field, 2010).
Attention to the environment is important because the source orientation has
oversimplified theorizing about environmental variables within the educational
context. This understanding is vital to the online and distance learning enterprises,
and while attention has recently shifted to these contexts, our theorizing is rather
limited. For example, the use of technology by instructors using different levels of
immediacy (Schrodt & Witt, 2006) has refined our understanding of distance
learning. Rocca’s (2010) thoughtful review of the literature on student participation
illustrated how S-M-C-R thinking obscures dynamic qualities of the instructional
environment. Thus, it is unclear if computer-mediated communication (CMC)
immediacy is comparable with face-to-face immediacy, as participation, both dynamic
and pallid, can dramatically affect student engagement and learning (Rocca, 2010).
The variables included in Rocca’s review transcend S-M-C-R categorization, and
combinations of conditions, levels of measurement and interaction effects defy simple
interpretation. It is difficult to find parallels between CMC immediacy and fluid,
interpersonal dynamics.
More attention will likely need to be directed at the content and the climate of
CMC and classroom participation. While confirmation messages are undoubtedly
essential, it is difficult to confirm sexist, racist, or uninformed student participation.
Also, one aspect of good teaching is creating a classroom where there is volatility and
vulnerability (Henry, 1994), and where dominant ideologies are challenged (Mayo,
2002). A learning community is often a process of tension as students wrestle with
and through concepts and social issues at a cognitive and emotional level (Jehangir,
2012). Creating safe spaces for difficult dialogues and emotional exchanges can
reduce these tensions (Boostrom, 1998; Hackford-Peer, 2010; Mayo, 2010; Stengel &
Weems, 2010), although this type of classroom climate has received little theoretical
attention in the instructional communication literature. A safe classroom refers to
inclusive groups of learners. The goal of an academic safe place is to create an
“inclusive and effective learning environment in which opportunities for complex
cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal development exists for all students”
(Baxter Magolda, 2000, p. 94). A safe classroom promotes dialogue (Littlejohn &
Domenici, 2001), inclusion (Boostrom, 1998), and respect (Adams, 1997).
Gayle, Cortez, and Preiss (2013) argued that a safe space is an educational
metaphor for designing classrooms that address difficult or tension-filled learning
encounters (Boostrom, 1998; Holley & Steiner, 2005; Mayo, 2010). This approach
reduces source bias because students feel empowered to take risks by expressing their
unique insights and disagreeing with others’ points of view (Boostrom, 1998; Holley
& Steiner, 2005). Empowerment shifts theoretical emphasis toward receivers and
away from teachers, as a safe space is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to
foster higher-order reasoning. Safe spaces do not guarantee that students will grapple
with opposing viewpoints, and safety alone may not be sufficient to promote deep
understanding. Safety may, however, promote learning of problematic content. For
example, Mayo (2010) examined difficult dialogues about multicultural issues. Her
work indicates that a sense of safety is required to overcome the tension-filled
moments during conflict-laden discussions. Safe spaces affect both what and how
much students learn (Holley & Steiner, 2005), and assignments may be crafted that
help students explore their own progress (Montero, 1995) and develop self-motivated
learning (Ortiz, 2000). The tensions between these qualities suggest that classroom
climate is not a static concept but a system-like, synchronous process that evolves
within classes and across sequences of classes as students mature intellectually. Thus,
there are reasons to question the ability of distance learning, virtual classes, and
massively open online classes (MOOCs) to build safe spaces on important, difficult
topics. The challenge for variable-analytic theory-building is to blend immediacy,
safety, and content into a digital pedagogy that is both relevant and engaging.
Secular Trends, Disruptive Forces, and Opportunities

As we look at the trajectory of communication education theory, research, pedagogy,
and curriculum, it is prudent to consider the context facing the next generation of
students and faculty. Some changes and developments may be cyclical or seasonal,
demonstrating recurring patterns and pressures. Other trends are secular, observable
over years or decades or longer. We describe one such secular trend cautiously,
reminded of Eadie’s fragmentation and convergence and Sprague’s spiral. We offer a
new story, a “technology story,” that instructional communication scholars must
consider and understand. It has its own champions and advocates who make
remarkable claims about the role of digital technology and the nature of a 21st-
century education. We offer no evidence for the vision articulated by elite groups of
entrepreneurs, corporations, and politicians. These stories and arguments will be
familiar to all who follow the current gloomy discourse surrounding higher
education.
The dire assessments are interlaced with the digital revolution. The narrative
asserts that digital technology will democratize education and transform universities
(public and private; for-profit and not-for-profit) into the purveyors of online and
distance learning. Technology becomes immersive, and education is made efficient,
cost-effective, and available at all times of the day. Students move from high school
directly into employment and select classes that are tailored to their career needs and
advancement prospects. Technology must become higher education’s tool if the
university is to remain relevant, affordable, and effective. When economic disruptions
occur, the university provides online retraining, skills upgrades, and placement
services. The technology story does not privilege status or pedigree. Nonaccredited
private-for-profit universities can be niche players addressing specialty skills and
occupations. Larger, accredited virtual universities can offer a full portfolio of degrees
and certificates. Education may move into the 21st century as a commodity that adds
value and leverages security in uncertain times. If even a portion of this secular vision
has merit, communication educators must consider digital technology as an integral
component of their theorizing about instructional communication.
S-M-C-R Assumptions Pass Away

The variable-analytic approach to research tended to break dynamic processes into
components that can be used to construct systems of relationships that organize and
explain complex relationships. Our historical reflections indicate that this type of
thinking has been well suited to incremental adjustments and advancements in
instructional practices and theories, but the new narrative goes beyond the use of
these assumptions. The secular trend is redefining the very nature of information
transfer. Anderson and McGreal (2012) asserted that the “full-service higher
education model” has resulted in millions of learners being priced out of the
educational market. They make the case for a no-frills education platform that is
currently being developed by for-profit entrepreneurs. More importantly, the effects
of this new, technology-driven platform will fundamentally alter the functions of
university research, teacher education, curriculum and pedagogy, faculty employment
(full versus part-time), student services, university administration, assessment, and
accreditation. King and Sen (2013) outlined four “attacks” that undermine the
traditional university business model: the Internet, distance learning, for-profit
universities, and online start-ups. They believe that universities are embracing the
methods of their competitors while failing to understand the threats posed by the
competition. The suggestions for effectively countering the attacks are very
compatible with the continuing work conducted by instructional communication
scholars for many years: (1) research ways to improve teaching and learning, (2)
reach out and discover how to educate underrepresented groups, and (3) draw
students into the discovery process by involving them in faculty research (King &
Sen, 2013). Such an agenda must begin with an understanding of the ways technology
transforms learning and teaching.
We are optimistic that times will be better than they now appear and that
communication educators are making significant progress in understanding the role
of technology in the learning process (Sherblom, 2010). Soukup (2011) provided a
historical view of educational technology and made the case for theory-building
related to the characteristics of each technology. Such work is beginning to bear fruit.
Our students are intimately involved with immersive digital media, and these digital
natives (Prensky, 2001) are conversant with the range of new media technologies that
mark the information age. They use these tools for entertainment, self-expression,
relationship development, information acquisition, and employment searches. Our
instructional research must develop a digital pedagogy and curriculum that exploits
these tools and the relationship students have with new technologies. For example,
Liu (2010) found that Facebook, Wikipedia, and YouTube were the most frequently
used social media. Social engagement, direct communication, immediate feedback,
relationship building, and locating new friends were the common reasons for
adopting social media. These motives provide avenues for research that make our
curriculum relevant for the digital age.
In addition to efforts to examining the role of teacher credibility and immediacy in
distance-learning courses, wikis can be used as a learning environment where
students can edit the content of a website to extend content as their learning
progresses (Boudet & Talon, 2012). Flatley (2005) reported on the effectiveness of
blogging in a business communication classes. McCorkle and McCorkle (2012) used
LinkedIn to deliver social media content in a marketing course. Lin, Hoffman, and
Borengasser (2013) studied Twitter as an optional, extra credit classroom activity.
Students tended to consume, rather than produce, tweets. Also, there were privacy
concerns regarding this messaging channel, and although support for Twitter
increased during the term, a majority of students found the technology to be
distracting in the classroom. These are the types of variable-analytic investigations
that will continue to assist educators interested in applying (and assessing) new media
technology in their courses.
Of course, the application of new media platforms must be theory-driven and
appropriate. Schwartzman (2006) made this point when describing the use of
threaded discussion boards to teach virtual problem solving. The field of instructional
communication must be forward looking as it considers and assesses evolving
technologies. For the new generation of technology users, social media appears to be
more than a matter of student motivation or self-regulated learning. The channel is
not like our grandfather’s television or our grandmother’s telephone, as these
technologies have converged with computers, often in the form of interactive mobile
devices. Our pedagogy and curriculum have emphasized online learning as the
environment became transient and characterized by multitasking. This development
may provide opportunities for flipped classes where some work (e.g., information
acquisition) is shifted to mobile devices, and the “free time” may be used for analysis,
synthesis, and decision-making. Flipping is not a new concept, as instructors have
been urging students to read books before coming to class for longer than the
National Communication Association has been a professional organization. That
said, there is something important going on when students experience different forms
of lectures outside of class, search Communication and Mass Media Complete from
their iPads, form virtual discussion groups where they become familiar with key
positions, and then return to the classroom to solve problems or resolve controver-
sies. Students become teachers to one another and advocates for positions and
interpretations, a type of higher-order thinking that may promote deeper learning. In
essence, technology may “flip” content ownership, not classes, and it may create a
powerful pedagogy once fully understood and “deployed.”
The communication studies field is now steeped in technology. To be competent in
instruction, we in instructional communication must know how to use the technology

that is “natural” for our student, and that technology must be natural for us as well.
This may mean that our graduate school curriculum needs to teach new commun-
ication technologies to the next generation of scholars. Perhaps the next generation
will teach their advisors and professors. The goal is to teach how to use
communication technology as well as theorize about the ways it is used. The new
generation of researchers (or virtual research teams) will probably be proficient at
video editing, image manipulation, and Web design, as well as being better observers
of instructional practice. Technique, when informed by theory, may evolve into new
instructional designs and a curriculum that is more interconnected with a host of
student needs, motivations, and practices. In a fundamental way, the speech,
journalism, and communication stories were always linked to the secular trend of
technology. We were quick to study print, radio, television, and cinema, but
understanding new communication technologies focuses our attention on receivers
who are content producers (sources).
Nearly 10 years ago, Holaday (1995) advocated for the convergence of new media
and communication education. While he was unaware of (or uninterested in) the
progression of research in the field, he posed the thesis that understanding new media
is essential if we are to explore “new possibilities and a grander vision of the future”
(p. 188). Our review of the history of instructional research points to a continuing
path, and to expanding our understanding well beyond where S-M-C-R led us. We
can develop unifying new research models to extend our stories and provide direction
to the spiral of our research efforts. Perhaps communication research rooted in
general systems theory (Luppicini, 2005) or game-based learning (Kiili, 2005) will
provide the foundation for instructional research in the age of social media. Learning
theories have long been associated with instructional communication (Lashbrook &
Wheeless, 1978; Wheeless & Hurt, 1979), and developments such as discovery
learning theory (de Jong, 2006) could provide a theoretical background for immersive
models of new media and learning.
Our story of the interlaced history of the National Communication Association,
communication education, and instructional communication research reveals a
widening discipline that is becoming mobile, immersive, and virtual. Teaching and
instructional processes will continue at the core of our field if we deal effectively with
the disruptive forces and amazing opportunities we face. The secular trend of
technological development and exploitation is unlikely to reverse itself. Instructional
communication researchers can be ready for cerebral chips, information-processing
tattoos, and password pills along with, perhaps, comparable skin lotions, nasal sprays,
and hair coloring. Will we investigate how these can be mated with human biological
predispositions and abilities or disabilities in the modification of learning? How then
will we assess the higher-order learning that we mentioned? A brave generation of
instructional communication scholars will be ready for this new world.
References
Adams, M. (1997). Pedagogical frameworks for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. E. Bell, &
P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 30–43). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Allen, J. L., Long, K. M., O’Mara, J., & Judd, B. B. (2008). Students’ predispositions and orientations
toward communication and perceptions of instructor reciprocity and learning. Communica-
tion Education, 57, 20–40. doi:10.1080/03634570701670908
Allen, M., Witt, P. L., & Wheeless, L. R. (2006). The role of teacher immediacy as a motivational
factor in student learning: Using meta-analysis to test a causal model. Communication
Education, 55, 21–31. doi:10.1080/03634520500343368
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo
(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Anderson, T., & McGreal, R. (2012). Disruptive pedagogies and technologies in universities.
Educational Technology & Society, 15, 380–389.
Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2000). Teaching to promote holistic learning and development. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, 82, 88–98. doi:10.1002/tl.8209
Beebe, S. E. (1980, November). The role of nonverbal communication in education: Research and
theoretical perspectives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Communication
Association, New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov
Bell, R. A., & Daly, J. A. (1984). The affinity-seeking function of communication. Communication
Monographs, 51, 91–115. doi:10.1080/03637758409390188
Berlo, D. K. (1960). The process of communication. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Bertelsen, D. A., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). Curriculum planning: Trends in communication studies,
workplace competencies, and current programs at 4-year colleges and universities.
Communication Education, 58, 262–275. doi:10.1080/03634520902755458
Boostrom, R. B. (1998). “Safe spaces”: Reflections on an educational metaphor. Journal of
Curriculum Studies, 30, 397–408. doi:10.1080/002202798183549
Boudet, J. M. F., & Talon, J. L. H. (2012). Use of a wiki as a postgraduate education tool: A case
study. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28, 1334–1340.
Bouris, J., & Allen, M. (1992). Meta-analysis of the relationship between communication
apprehension and cognitive performance. Communication Education, 41, 68–76.
doi:10.1080/03634529209378871
Bryant, J., Comiskey, P. W., Crane, J. S., & Zillman, D. (1980). Relationship between college
teachers’ use of humor in the classroom and students’ evaluations of their instructors. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 72, 511–519. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.72.4.511
Burroughs, N. F. (2007). A reinvestigation of the relationship of teacher nonverbal immediacy and
student compliance-resistance with learning. Communication Education, 56, 453–475.
doi:10.1080/03634520701530896
Burroughs, N. F., Kearney, P., & Plax, T. G. (1989). Compliance-resistance in the college classroom.
Communication Education, 38, 214–229. doi:10.1080/03634528909378758
de Jong, T. (2006). Scaffolds for scientific discovery learning. In J. Elrn & R. E. Clark (Eds.),
Handling complexity in learning environments (pp. 107–128). Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier.
Downs, V. C., Javidi, M., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1988). An analysis of teachers’ verbal communication
within the college classroom, use of humor, self-disclosure, and narratives. Communication
Education, 37, 127–141. doi:10.1080/03634528809378710
Dwyer, K. K. (1998). Communication apprehension and learning style preference: Correlations and
implications for teaching. Communication Education, 47, 137–150. doi:10.1080/036345298
09379118
Eadie, W. F. (2011). Stories we tell: Fragmentation and convergence in communication disciplinary
history. The Review of Communication, 11, 161–176. doi:10.1080/15358593.2011578257
Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Elledge, N., Jernberg, K., & Larson, L. M. (2009). A meta-
analytical review of teacher credibility and its association with teacher behaviors and student
outcomes. Communication Education, 58, 516–537. doi:10.1080/03364520903131154
Fisher, B. A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Flatley, M. E. (2005). Blogging for enhanced teaching and learning. Business Communication
Quarterly, 68, 77–80. doi:10.1177/108056990506800111
Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. L. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment
measure. Communication Education, 45, 181–199. doi:10.1080/03634529609379048
Gayle, B. M., Cortez, D., & Preiss, R. W. (2013). Safe spaces, difficult dialogues, and critical
thinking. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7, Article 5.
Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol7/iss2/5
Goodboy, A. K. (2011a). The development and validation of the Instructional Dissent Scale.
Communication Education, 60, 422–440. doi:10.1080/036345232011.569894
Goodboy, A. K. (2011b). Instructional dissent in the college classroom. Communication Education,
60, 296–313. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.537756
Goodboy, A. K., & Bolkan, S. (2011). Student motives for communicating with instructors as a
function of perceived instructor power use. Communication Research Reports, 28, 109–114.
doi:10.1080/08824096.2011.541368
Goodboy, A. K., Martin, M. M., & Bolkan, S. (2009). The development and validation of the Student
Communication Satisfaction Scale. Communication Education, 58, 372–396. doi:10.1080/
03634520902755441
Hackford-Peer, K. (2010). In the name of safety: Discursive positionings of queer youth. Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 29, 541–546. doi:10.1007/s11217-010-9197-4
Henry, A. (1994). There are no safe places: Pedagogy as powerful and dangerous terrain. Action in
Teacher Education, 15, 1–4. doi:10.1080/01626620.1994.10463171
Holaday, D. A. (1995). New media and communication education: Two histories, one future. Media
Asia, 22, 183–188.
Holley, L. C., & Steiner, S. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroom environment.
Journal of Social Work Education, 41, 49–64. doi:10.5175/JSWE.2005.200300343
Houser, M. L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). The role of student characteristics and teacher behaviors in
students’ learner empowerment. Communication Education, 58, 35–53. doi:10.1080/0363452
0802237383
Jehangir, R. R. (2012). Conflict as a catalyst for learning. About Campus, 17, 2–8. doi:10.1002/
abc.21073
Kahl, M. L., & Lederman, L. C. (2009) Reflections on the Eastern Communication Association
centennial convention: The association at 100. Communication Quarterly, 57, 376–378.
doi:10.1080/01463370903320948
Kearney, P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1981). Relationships among teacher communication style, trait
and state communication apprehension and teacher effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 533–551). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Hayes, E. R., & Ivey, M. J. (1991). College teachers’ misbehaviors: What
students don’t like about what teachers say and do. Communication Quarterly, 39, 309–324.
doi:10.1080/01463379109369808
Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1985). Power in the classroom III:
Teacher communication techniques and messages. Communication Education, 34, 19–28.
doi:10.1080/03634528509378579
Kelsey, D. M., Kearney, P., Plax, T. G., Allen, T. H., & Ritter, K. J. (2004). College students’
attributions of teacher misbehaviors. Communication Education, 53, 40–55. doi:10.10/
0363452032000135760
Kendrick, W. L., & Darling, A. L. (1990). Problems of understanding in classrooms: Students’ use of
clarifying tactics. Communication Education, 39, 15–29. doi:10.1080/03634529009378784
Kibler, R. J., & Barker, L. L. (Eds.). (1969). Conceptual frontiers in speech-communication: Report
of the New Orleans conference on research and instructional development. New York, NY:
Speech Association of America.

Kiili, K. (2005). Digital game-based learning: Towards an experiential gaming model. Internet &
Higher Education, 8, 13–24. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.12.001
King, G., & Sen, M. (2013). The troubled future of colleges and universities. PS: Political Science &
Politics, 46, 83–89. doi:10.107/S1010490965120011606
Lannutti, P. J., & Strauman, E. C. (2006). Classroom communication: The influence of instructor
self-disclosure on student evaluations. Communication Quarterly, 54, 89–99. doi:10.1080/
10463370500270496
Lashbrook, V. J., & Wheeless, L. R. (1978). Instructional communication theory and research: An
overview of the relationship between learning theory and instructional communication. In B.
D. Rubin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 2 (pp. 439–456). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Books.
Lieb-Brilhart, B. (1976). Communication education in the USA: Past, present, and future.
Communication, 4, 16–36.
Lin, M-F. G., Hoffman, E. S., & Borengasser, C. (2013). Is social media too social for class? A case
study of Twitter use. TechTrends, 57, 39–45. doi:10.1007/s11528-013-0644-2
Littlejohn, S. W., & Domenici, K. (2001). Engaging communication in conflict: Systematic practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liu, Y. (2010). Social media tools as a learning resource. Journal of Educational Technology
Development and Exchange, 3, 101–114.
Luppicini, R. (2005). A systems definition of educational technology in society. Educational
Technology & Society, 8, 103–109.
Mayo, C. (2002). The binds that tie: Civility and social differences. Educational Theory, 52, 169–186.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2002.00169.x
Mayo, C. (2010). Incongruity and provisional safety: Thinking through humor. Studies in
Philosophy and Education, 52, 509–521. doi:10.1007/s11217-010-9195-6
McCorkle, D. E., & McCorkle, Y. L. (2012). Using LinkedIn in the marketing classroom:
Exploratory insights and recommendations for teaching social media/networking. Marketing
Education Review, 22, 157–166. doi:10.2753/MER1052-8008220205
McCroskey, J. C. (1977). The classroom consequences of communication apprehension. Commun-
ication Education, 26, 27–33. doi:10.1080/03634527709378196
McCroskey, J. C., & Andersen, J. (1976). The relationship between communication apprehension
and academic achievement among college students. Human Communication Research, 3,
73–81. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1976.tb00506.x
McCroskey, J. C., Andersen, J., Richmond, V. P., & Wheeless, L. R. (1981). Communication
apprehension of elementary and secondary students and teachers. Communication Educa-
tion, 30, 122–133. doi:10.1080/03634528109378461
McCroskey, J. C., Booth-Butterfield, S., & Payne, S. K. (1989). The impact of communication
apprehension on college student retention and success. Communication Quarterly, 37, 100–
107. doi:10.1080/01463378909385531
McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (1986). The affinity-seeking of classroom teachers.
Communication Research Reports, 3, 158–167.
McCroskey, J. C., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). Instructional communication: The historical
perspective. In T. P. Mottet, V. P. Richmond, & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of
instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 33–47). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
McCroskey, J. C., & McVetta, R. W. (1978). Instructional communication theory versus student
preferences. Communication Education, 27, 99–111. doi:10.1080/03634527809378281
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1983). Power in the classroom I: Teacher and student
perceptions. Communication Education, 32, 175–184. doi:10.1080/03634528309378527
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, L. L. (2006). The role of communication in
instruction: The first three decades. In B. M. Gayle, R. W. Preiss, N. Burrell, & M. Allen, M.
(Eds.), Classroom communication and instructional processes: Advances through meta-analysis
(pp. 15–42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McCroskey, L. L., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2002). The scholarship of teaching and
learning: Contributions from the discipline of communication. Communication Education,
51, 383–391. doi:10.1080/03634520216521
McEwen, J. S., & Reed, W. R. (1999, November). The relationship of informational receptivity to
trait interaction involvement and other factors. Paper presented at the meeting of the
National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
Montero, J. (1995). Safe space or separation? Mediating the tension. Educational Record, 76, 37–40.
Morreale, S. P., & Backlund, P. M. (2002). Communication curricula: History, recommendations,
resources. Communication Education, 51, 2–18. doi:10.1080/03634520216498
Myers, S. A. (2010). Instructional communication: The emergence of a field. In D. L. Fassett & T.
Warren (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 149–159). Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Myers, S. A., Edwards, C., Wahl, S. T., & Martin, M. M. (2007). The relationship between perceived
instructor aggressive communication and college student involvement. Communication
Education, 56, 495–508. doi:10.1080/03634520701461398
Nerone, J. (2006). The future of communication history. Critical Studies in Media Communication,
23, 254–262. doi:10.1080/07393180600801856
Norton, R. W. (1977). Teacher effectiveness as a function of communicator style. In B. Rubin (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 525–542). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Nussbaum, J. F., & Scott, M. E. (1980). Student learning as a result of teacher student interaction. In
D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 4 (pp. 533–552). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Books.
Ortiz, A. M. (2000). Expressing cultural identity in the learning community: Opportunities and
challenges. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 82, 67–79. doi:10.1002/tl.8207
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation, learning
and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.95.4.667
Preiss, R. W., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (1990). Potential cognitive processes and consequences of
receiver apprehension: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5,
155–172.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9, 1–6.
Reid, L. (1990). Speech teacher: A random narrative. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication
Association.
Roach, K. D. (1998). Teaching assistant communication apprehension, willingness to communicate
and state communication anxiety in the classroom. Communication Research Reports, 15,
130–140. doi:10.1080/08824099809362107
Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended multidisciplinary
literature review. Communication Education, 59, 185–213. doi:10.1080/03634520903505936
Ross, R. S. (1965). Speech communication: Fundamentals and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Rubin, R. B., & Feezel, J. D. (1985). Teacher communication competence: Essential skills and
assessment. Central States Speech Journal, 36, 4–13. doi:10.1080/10510978509363194
Rubin, R. B., & Feezel, J. D. (1986). Elements of teacher communication competence. Commun-
Schrodt, P., Turman, P. D., & Soliz, J. (2006). Perceived understanding as a mediator of perceived
teacher confirmation and students’ rating of instruction. Communication Education, 55, 370–
380. doi:10.1080/03634520600879196
Schrodt, P., Wheeless, L. R., & Ptacek, K. M. (2000). Informational reception apprehension,
educational motivation, and achievement. Communication Quarterly, 48, 60–73. doi:10.1080/
01463370009385580
Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function of
students’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Commun-
Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Turman, P. D., Myers, S. A., Barton, M. H., & Jernberg, K. A. (2009).
Instructor credibility as a mediator of instructors’ prosocial communication behaviors and
student outcomes. Communication Education, 58, 350–371. doi:10.1080/03634520902926851
Schwartzman, R. (2006), Virtual group problem solving in the basic communication course: Lessons
for online learning. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 33, 3–14.
Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1975). Communication apprehension, student attitudes, and levels
of satisfaction. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 41, 188–198. doi:10.1080/
10570317709389611
Scott, M. D., & Wheeless, L. R. (1977). Instructional communication theory and research: An
overview. In B. D. Rubin (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 495–511). New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction Books.
Shannon, C., & Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press.
Sherblom, J. C. (2010). The computer-mediated communication (CMC) classroom: A challenge of
medium, presence, interaction, identity, and relationship. Communication Education, 59,
497–523. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.486440
Sidelinger, R. J., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Co-constructing student involvement: An
examination of teacher confirmation and student-to-student connectedness in the college
classroom. Communication Education, 59, 165–184. doi:10.1080/03634520903398867
Sorensen, G. (1989). The relationships among teachers’ self-disclosive statements, students’
perceptions, and affective learning. Communication Education, 38, 259–277. doi:10.1080/
03634528909378762
Soukup, P. A. (2011). Communication technology and education. Communication Research Trends,
30, 3–36,
Sprague, J. (2002). Communication education: The spiral continues. Communication Education, 51,
337–354. doi:10.1080/03634520216532
Sproule, J. M. (2008). “Communication”: From concept to field to discipline. In D. W. Park & J.
Pooly (Eds.), The history of media and communication research: Contested memories (pp.
163–178). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Stengel, B. S., & Weems, L. (2010). Questioning safe place: An introduction. Studies in Philosophy &
Education, 29, 505–507. doi:10.007/s11217-010-9205-8
Turman, P. D., & Schrodt, P. (2006). Student perceptions of teacher power as a function of
perceived teacher confirmation. Communication Education, 55, 265–279. doi:10.1080/
03634520600702570
Wanzer, M. B. (1998). An exploratory investigation of student and teacher perceptions of student-
generated affinity-seeking strategies. Communication Education, 47, 373–382. doi:10.1080/
03634529809379144
Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship between
instructor humor and student learning: Instructional humor processing theory. Commun-
Wheeless, L. R. (1975). An investigation of receiver apprehension and social context dimensions of
communication apprehension. The Speech Teacher, 24, 261–268. doi:10.1080/0363452
7509378169
Wheeless, L. R., & Hurt, H. T. (1979). Instructional communication theory and research: An
overview of instructional strategies as instructional communication systems. In D. Nimo

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 525–541). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Wheeless, L. R., Preiss, R. W., & Gayle, B. M. (1997). Receiver apprehension, informational
receptivity, and cognitive processing. In J. A. Daly, J. C. McCroskey, J. Ayres, T. Hopf, & D.
M. Ayers (Eds.), Avoiding communication: Shyness, reticence, and communication apprehen-
sion (2nd ed., pp. 151–187). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Wheeless, L. R., & Schrodt, P. (2001). An examination of cognitive foundations of informational
reception apprehension: Political identification, religious affiliation, and family environment.
Communication Research Reports, 18, 1–10. doi:10.1080/08824090109384777
Woolbert, C. H. (1923). The teaching of speech as an academic discipline. Quarterly Journal of
Speech Education, 9, 1–18. doi:10.1080/00335632309379407

Perspectives On Instructional Comunication Preiss Wheeless

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Perspectives On Instructional Comunication Preiss Wheeless

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

Perspectives On Instructional Comunication Preiss Wheeless

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Carnegie Mellon University]

On: 13 October 2014, At: 15:29

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.910605

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Keywords: Instructional Communication; History; Speech Communication; NCA

It is a common impulse to use anniversaries as opportunities to reflect, reappraise, and

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

The Early Years Cast Long Shadows

Instructional Communication Research Takes Root

The Area of Instructional Communication Emerges

Mile Posts and Memorial Markers

educational hybrid of variables arising in the interpersonal communication literature.

Environmental and system factors

Secular Trends, Disruptive Forces, and Opportunities

S-M-C-R Assumptions Pass Away

instruction, we in instructional communication must know how to use the technology

Fisher, B. A. (1978). Perspectives on human communication. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Speech Association of America.

overview of instructional strategies as instructional communication systems. In D. Nimo

You might also like