Communication Education
Vol. 55, No. 4, October 2006, pp. 415 437
The Basic Communication Course at
U.S. Colleges and Universities in the
21st Century: Study VII
Sherwyn Morreale, Lawrence Hugenberg &
David Worley
This seventh in a series of investigations of the basic communication course at 2- and 4year colleges and universities that began in 1968 has as its purpose to gather longitudinal
data on the nature of the course. This latest study differs somewhat from past studies.
The survey instrument from 1999 was revised to include timely concerns such as
assessment, technology, distance education, and race/ethnicity. The study now reports the
data based on course orientation; and, this study’s survey was conducted electronically.
Data are presented from 306 responding schools covering institutional demographics and
(1) Orientation to the Basic Course and Enrollment, (2) Course Administration and
Organization, (3) Instruction and Pedagogy, (4) Technology and Distance Education,
and (5) Assessment and Evaluation.
Keywords: Basic Communication Course; Trends in the Basic Communication Course;
Teaching the Basic Communication Course; Administration of the Basic Communication
Course
‘‘Extant literature clearly indicates the need for [students obtaining] communication
training in an undergraduate curriculum’’ (Hunt, Ekachai, Garard, & Rust, 2001, p.
1). This quotation pointedly calls attention to a need for communication skills
instruction that is often fulfilled by undergraduate students taking a basic oral
communication course (Moyer & Hugenberg, 1997). Indeed, everyday, hundreds of
thousands of college students enter a basic communication course classroom, some
because the course is required and others because they want to take it. In the process,
Sherwyn Morreale (Ph.D., University of Denver, 1989) is Professor of Communications at the University of
Colorado at Colorado Springs. Lawrence Hugenberg (Ph.D., Ohio State University, 1981) is Professor in the
School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. David Worley (Ph.D., Southern Illinois University,
1996) is Associate Professor of Communication at Indiana State University. Sherwyn Morreale can be contacted
at smorreal@uccs.edu
ISSN 0363-4523 (print)/ISSN 1479-5795 (online) # 2006 National Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/03634520600879162
416 S. Morreale et al.
the basic communication course, regardless of its orientation, frequently serves as our
discipline’s first opportunity to introduce students to communication skills and
theories. Thus, the basic course is the most fertile recruiting ground for communication majors and minors. Given this reality, taking stock of trends in and the status
of our basic course is necessary periodically, as we do in this study, which is the
seventh in a series of studies examining self-report data on the ‘‘state of the basic
communication course.’’
Self-examination of the basic course echoes the call of administrators in the 21st
century, who have asked those who direct and teach the basic course to reflect upon it
and consider any needed changes. Such changes might involve academic issues
(Worley & Worley, 2006), career concerns (e.g., Darling & Daniels, 2003; National
Association of Colleges and Employers, 2006), and civic preparation (e.g., Harter,
Kirby, Hatfield, & Kuhlman, 2004; La Ware, 2004; Treinen & Warren, 2001; Troup,
2002; ‘‘What do employers really want?’’, 2005). Considering the importance of
communication skills in these various areas, the basic course stands at the forefront of
communication education at colleges and universities across the United States. While
these calls for change in the basic course are frequently articulated and vary according
to more traditional or progressive views (Goulden, 2002), the format of the basic
course remains consistent, typically employing either a public speaking or hybrid
model (includes interpersonal, group, and public speaking; Morreale, Hanna, Berko,
& Gibson, 1999).
The basic course provides numerous benefits to students. Hunt et al. (2001)
reported ‘‘that students perceive the communication skills taught in basic interpersonal communication and public speaking courses to be useful and relevant for
their future career’’ (p. 17). Additional research indicates that students with high and
moderate communication apprehension (CA) experience a reduction of CA and
improved grades as a result of completing a basic communication course supported
by a speech lab (Dwyer, Carlson, & Kahre, 2002). Similarly, two earlier studies
demonstrated a positive impact of instruction in the basic interpersonal course and in
the public speaking course on students’ perceptions of their behavioral competence,
self-esteem, and willingness to communicate (Morreale, Hackman, & Neer, 1995,
1998).
While research, as well as intuition, verifies that the basic course continues to serve
an important pedagogical function, this continuing success, while heartening, brings
into question issues of content and pedagogy. These issues are particularly critical
given the numerous changes the basic course has undergone over the years and since
the last survey sponsored by NCA (see Morreale et al., 1999). The longitudinal
context of this study of the basic course is described in the following section.
Background to the Study
This formal investigation of the basic course began in 1968 with a study conducted by
members of the Undergraduate Speech Instruction Interest Group of the Speech
Association of America (Gibson, Gruner, Brooks, & Petrie, 1970). At the time of the
Basic Course Survey
417
initial study, it was determined that subsequent studies should be conducted
approximately every five years. The purpose was to keep the information current
as such data are valuable to basic course directors, department faculty, and
administrators at the departmental and college levels. Besides, as the discipline
changes, so too might the basic course. The study was replicated in 1974 (Gibson,
Kline, & Gruner, 1974), 1980 (Gibson, Gruner, Hanna, Smythe, & Hayes, 1980), 1985
(Gibson, Hanna, & Leichty, 1985), 1990 (Gibson, Hanna, & Huddleston, 1990), and
1999 (Morreale et al., 1999). This historical background helped to shape the purpose
of the present study.
Purpose of the Present Study
The purpose of this study harmonizes with the prior studies’ purpose: to gather
longitudinal data in order to identify the nature of the basic communication course
as taught in two-year and four-year institutions. Current and prior studies collected
data with a particular emphasis on course objectives, course content, instructional
and testing methods, enrollment, staffing, and institutional support. In addition to
that list, this new study includes inquiries into communication instruction trends
emphasized in the 21st century, such as assessment, technology, distance education,
and race/ethnicity. Moreover, and unlike the six past studies, this study organizes and
interprets the data based on course orientation. Given these two changes in data
collection and analysis, the current study does not extend the longitudinal perspective
in all areas to the same extent as the previous studies. However, the definition of the
basic course remains the same as in prior studies.
Definition of the Basic Course
In the present study, as in the prior studies, the basic course is defined as ‘‘that
communication course either required or recommended for a significant number of
undergraduates; that course which the department has, or would recommend as a
requirement for all or most undergraduates’’ (Morreale et al., 1999, p. 3). This
definition was provided with the survey to clarify for all respondents what is meant
by the ‘‘basic course’’ for the purpose of this study. On some campuses, what is called
the basic course may be solely the public speaking orientation. On other campuses,
the basic course may be an interpersonal class, which may or may not include some
formal presentation instruction. The term ‘‘hybrid’’ as a course orientation is
particularly ambiguous. In this study, the term ‘‘hybrid’’ refers to a basic course that
covers interpersonal, group, and public speaking all in one class.
As noted above, while the previous studies emphasized the two most common
models for the basic course, namely public speaking or the hybrid course, this study
organizes the data according to four different course orientations. In addition to the
public speaking and the hybrid orientations, interpersonal and group are included in
this study for the benefit of schools that use those two orientations and for readers
who want to make comparisons across the four orientations. Finally, while the basic
418 S. Morreale et al.
course may take primarily a theoretical or primarily a performance approach, or a
combination thereof, it is the course that most often introduces students to the
discipline’s content and the fundamentals of communication.
Method
This study replicated those methods used with previous studies. This time, however,
data gathering and data analyses were processed electronically in the National
Communication Association (NCA) National Office.
Instrumentation
The present study relied on a modified version of the survey instrument used in the
1999 study. The categorical definitions that organized the data set in previous years
were revised to reflect current needs and interests in the basic course. New items were
added to address timely interests; for example, the technology section was expanded
to include distance education, and the assessment section was expanded to address
matters related to evaluation of student performance and the assessment of student
learning outcomes. Initially, copies of the revised survey were forwarded to basic
course directors familiar with the history of these studies to determine if needed areas
of investigation were included. Next, the revised survey was submitted to the NCA
Educational Policies Board for review. The Board suggested that the survey was too
long; consequently, redundant items were eliminated or consolidated. The final form
of the questionnaire consisted of 49 items.
Data Collection
The survey was posted to the NCA website allowing for one faculty member or
administrator from any one institution to respond electronically online. If any
participants preferred to respond in hard copy, the option of a survey being mailed to
them, as in past studies, was presented. An e-mail reminder about the survey was sent
to communication programs and departments at approximately 1300 schools and
colleges. That mailing list included junior and community colleges, as well as fouryear colleges and universities in the United States. To encourage members to go
online and respond to the survey, announcements also were posted in the NCA
newsletter, Spectra.
Of the 1300 possible respondents, 306 completed the survey, yielding a response
rate of 23.53%. In the 1999 study, surveys were mailed to 1532 schools; a total of 292
schools responded, yielding a response rate of 19.06%. Response rates in 1985 and
1990 were higher (28%). Reinard (2001) states that ‘‘for proportional data from a
population of known size and no estimate of population variability, with an N of
1,000, a sample size of 278, or 27.8%, constitutes a reasonable sample’’ (p. 286).
Consequently, the present sample size would appear to provide a reasonable, albeit
not impressive, representation of the larger population.
Basic Course Survey
419
In order to provide verifiability of the results, a second sample of basic course
experts provided additional information. The results from the larger survey data were
examined and reaffirmed by a panel of experts who either regularly direct or teach the
basic course in its various orientations and/or who are actively engaged in the use of
technology in the basic course. This process of verification harmonizes with
qualitative research traditions (Patton, 2002, p. 67). Findings from the electronic
survey, verified by the sample of experts, are now presented and discussed.
Results
The following results come from respondents who were asked 49 questions regarding
their basic communication course, 38 quantitative and 11 qualitative. In the
following discussion and tables, results are presented categorically and cover course
orientation and enrollment, course administration, instruction and pedagogy,
technology and distance education, and assessment and evaluation. The results for
each of these five categories are discussed as they are presented. Following the results,
general conclusions about the basic course across the categories are provided.
Course Orientation and Enrollment
Eight questions focused on issues of course orientation and enrollment, and included
questions that addressed the orientation of the basic course, overall size of the
institution and enrollment in the course, race and ethnicity of the student
population, number of sections offered each term, and who is required to take the
course, including its role in general education.
Orientation. Respondents to this survey indicated that the most popular approach to
the basic course continues to be public speaking (57.8%), followed by the hybrid
course (35.3%), interpersonal (1.9%), and small group (0.3%). Consistent with prior
investigations in this series, public speaking continues to be the most popular basic
course orientation. The only exception to this trend was in 1974; only 21% of
institutions reported a public speaking orientation, and 39% reported using the
hybrid orientation. Table 1 illustrates the trend in course orientation across the series
of studies.
Table 1 Percent of Schools Reporting Orientation to the Basic Course
Orientation
1968
1974
1980
1984
1988
1999
2004
Public speaking
Hybrid (interpersonal, group,
public speaking)
Interpersonal group
Fundamentals
Other (including theory)
54.5
13.2
21.3
39.4
51.3
40.3
54.0
34.0
56.0
25.0
55.0
30.1
57.8
35.3
4.7
6.0
4.0
21.3
2.2
12.8
1.3
1.9
.3
3.0
6.0
13.0
1.0
.7
4.2
420 S. Morreale et al.
Given the long history of public speaking in our discipline and the well-established
resources and pedagogy for public speaking instruction, it is not surprising that this
orientation continues as the preferred approach. On the other hand, this approach
does raise important questions about the nature of our discipline. Recently, Coplin
(2006) suggested that institutions outsource the basic course to save money. Perhaps
this debate comes about, in part, because the basic public speaking course has for
many years been the face most often seen by external audiences.
Size of institution. Respondents were asked to describe the size of their institution
using student enrollment data. Table 2 compares these results with the most recent
study (Morreale et al., 1999). More large institutions responded to the current survey
than in 1999. There are no substantive changes to the reported orientation of the
basic course based on the size of the institution. For example, 49.7% of institutions
(n 78) with over 10,000 students report a public speaking orientation, while 42.6%
of institutions of this size (n 49) report a hybrid orientation to the basic course. On
the other hand, at institutions with less than 5,000 students, 33.3% (n61) report
using the public speaking orientation, and 37.4% of institutions (n40) of this size
report using a hybrid approach to the basic course. The data from this study do not
explain why smaller institutions tend to prefer a hybrid orientation, and therefore,
this is an area that needs additional examination.
/
/
/
/
Enrollment. The history of enrollment in the basic communication course suggests it
is intended for entry-level or first-year students. Although approximately 40% of
institutions (n122) enroll first-year students in their basic course, only five
institutions (B2%) reported enrollment of entirely first-year students. Interestingly,
12 institutions reported no first-year students enrolled in their basic communication
course. Approximately 1/3 of the responding institutions (n100) indicated they
enrolled no seniors in their basic course; 85 institutions reported enrolling no juniors;
and 16 reported enrolling no sophomores. Results indicated that the basic course is
completed by students within the first two years of study at approximately 90% of the
reporting institutions.
Worley and Worley (2006) note that the basic course, with minimal pedagogical
adjustment, serves first-year students well by preparing them to succeed in college,
although one might also ask if students would be better served enrolling in the basic
course later in their academic careers in order to be well prepared for the working
/
/
/
Table 2 Size of the Student Body at the Institution
Size
Below 1,000
1,000 4,999
5,000 9,999
10,000 19,999
20,000 or more
1999
9.4%
34.3%
17.1%
21.3%
17.8%
(27)
(98)
(49)
(61)
(51)
2004
6.3%
28.7%
24.3%
19.0%
21.7%
(19)
(86)
(73)
(57)
(65)
Basic Course Survey
421
world many will enter. Ideally, however, the basic course for first-year students should
be followed by an advanced oral communication course required of students as they
draw near graduation, as is commonly seen, for example, in English requirements.
Race and ethnicity. Respondents were asked to identify the racial and ethnic
background of the entire student body of their institution and the racial and ethnic
background of student enrollment in their basic communication course. According to
the American Council on Education (2005), undergraduate college enrollment
totaled 15,325,000 students. The American Council on Higher Education (2005)
reported that student-reported ethnic and racial enrollments included 10.1 million
Caucasian students (65.9%), 1.8 million African-Americans (11.8%), 1.4 million
Hispanics (9.1%), 937,000 Asian Americans (6.1%), and 150,000 Native Americans
(1.0%). The Council included a new category that totaled 938,000 students not
wishing to indicate their racial or ethnic heritage (6.1%). This category was not
included in the present study. However, results of racial and ethnic enrollment at
reporting institutions from this study are consistent with the American Council on
Higher Education data.
Similar to the data provided by American Council on Higher Education, the
respondent-reported data about their institutions suggest a large Caucasian
enrollment and smaller ethnic and racial minority enrollment. African American,
Hispanic, and Asian American enrollments constitute the largest minority groups in
reporting institutions with Native American student enrollment the smallest.
Respondents also reported the ethnic and racial makeup of their basic communication course. As one would predict using the American Council on Higher
Education (2005) data to frame the findings, Caucasian student enrollment is the
largest group of students in the basic communication course. African American,
Hispanic, and Asian American student enrollments make up the largest minority
groups in basic course student enrollment with Native American student enrollment
the smallest. Additionally, ethnic and racial enrollment in the basic communication
course reflects enrollments of the reporting institutions. Based on the data in
aggregate, racial and ethnic enrollments in the basic communication course
constitute the same percentages as racial and ethnic enrollment reported at colleges
and universities in this study, and it is comparable to the American Council on
Higher Education results (2005). These demographics suggest that basic course
instructors, basic course directors, and department administrators may need to revisit
the substantive research on whiteness in the basic course (Treinen, 2004; Treinen &
Warren, 2001). Additionally, investigations of the nature of the basic course in
historically black institutions may offer worthwhile comparison data.
Number of sections. Respondents were asked to indicate the number of sections of the
basic communication course they offer each term (quarter or semester), and a
meaningful increase in section offerings is evident since the last study. Of the
reporting institutions, 46.6% offer 21 or more sections of the basic course (n 141)
while 34.2% offer ten or fewer sections (n 102). In the 1999 study, only 30% of
/
/
422 S. Morreale et al.
reporting institutions offered 20 or more sections, and 49% offered ten or fewer
sections of the basic course. Of institutions offering 30 or more sections each term,
27.5% (n50) offer a public speaking basic course, and 29.0% (n31) offer the
hybrid course. Nineteen percent (n34) of institutions offering five or fewer sections
reported a public speaking orientation, while 20.6% (n 22) reported a hybrid
course orientation. The growth of the basic course appears to be an emerging trend
that is likely related to the role the basic course plays in new or revised general
education requirements that emphasize oral communication and that are supported
by regional accrediting bodies.
/
/
/
/
Basic course as a requirement and in general education. For the first time in the history
of this survey project, respondent institutions were asked to indicate who is required
to take the basic course. Over half of the respondents (50.2%) reported that their basic
course is required in their institution’s general education requirements (n 215). The
public speaking course is required at 62.3% of these institutions (n124), and the
hybrid communication course is required at 36.3% (n78) of these institutions. Only
2.1% of institutions indicated that they expect students to complete the basic
communication course in the first year (n9). A quarter of the institutions (25.3%)
require students to take the basic course as part of the communication department’s
major (n 108). At 22.9% of the reporting institutions (n 96), specific colleges or
specific departments require the basic communication course as a prerequisite for
their majors. Of those colleges or departments that require a basic course, 68.7% (n
66) require the public speaking course, and 26.0% (n25) require the hybrid course.
Across all orientations, business students are the most frequently served populations,
followed by students in education and health fields. Table 3 outlines who is required to
take the basic course, based on course orientation. Given the predominance of
business students in the basic course, we suggest that future iterations of this survey
and study include a fundamental course in business and professional speaking as an
orientation to the basic course. This finding may reveal another important trend in the
basic course that has heretofore gone unnoticed. It is also possible that business and
professional speaking courses were reported as public speaking in earlier studies.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Table 3 Who Takes the Basic Communication Course?
Basic course is required of
All first-year students
All students as part of general
education requirements
Communication department
majors
Majors from specific colleges or
schools
Majors from specific
departments
Total
Public
speaking
Interpersonal
Small
group
Hybrid
No
response
5
134
0
2
0
0
4
78
0
1
75
4
1
27
1
25
1
0
5
0
41
3
0
20
1
280
10
1
134
3
Basic Course Survey
423
Where the basic course is part of an institution’s general education requirements,
only 16.7% report that the basic course is at risk of being removed as a requirement
(n 43). Nine respondents indicated that the basic course faced risk at their
institution because it is or was in danger of being removed as a requirement by the
institution, colleges, departments, programs, or other administrative structures. Eight
others identified alternative courses launched by other faculty, departments, or
colleges as the most prominent risk to the basic course on their campus, while six
respondents identified budget or financial support as the major issue facing the basic
course. Four respondents noted that ‘‘communication across the curriculum’’ has
replaced the basic course entirely. While any threat to the integrity of the basic course
should create concern, the small percentage of schools in this sample reporting the
removal of the basic course is heartening. Nevertheless, prior events and the
discussion, for example, of outsourcing instruction in the course noted above, suggest
a need for vigilance. Such issues also relate to the results presented in the next
category, which focuses on administrating and organizing the basic course.
/
Course Administration and Organization
Eleven questions in this category covered who directs and provides instruction in the
course, how it is organized and taught, costs or fees for students, and the course’s top
administrative problems.
Basic course direction. First, respondents were asked about who directs the basic
course. Approximately 33% (n 98) of reporting institutions indicated that no single
faculty member was assigned the duties of basic course coordinator, while 67% (n 202) do assign basic course duties to a faculty member. For those institutions with a
public speaking basic course, 72.7% (n 133) reported having a basic course
coordinator, and 61% (n 66) of institutions with the hybrid basic course reported
having a basic course coordinator. The most common title for this position is ‘‘basic
course director’’ or ‘‘director’’ (n 78). The second most common title included the
term ‘‘coordinator’’ (n 35). Of the schools who reported having a basic course
director, 41.3% (n 74) are assistant professors, 37.4% (n 67) associate professors,
and 21.2% (n 38) full professors.
Clearly, there are faculty whose primary role is to direct the basic course, as
evidenced, for example, by the longstanding presence of the Basic Course Director’s
Conference. However, we wonder where future faculty might receive preparation to
continue this important work. While some may argue that disciplinary specialization
is sufficient, we believe that future study of the preparation of faculty should include
an analysis of existing Ph.D. programs and how these programs prepare basic course
directors and the perceived need for such preparation.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Basic course instruction. Second, respondents were asked to indicate who teaches their
basic course (see Table 4 results). In the 1999 study, instructors most frequently
taught the basic course (n 168), and graduate teaching assistants (n78) were less
/
/
424 S. Morreale et al.
Table 4 Frequencies of Teaching Staff Teaching the Basic
Course
Type
Frequency
Part-time faculty
Graduate teaching assistants (GTAs)
Instructors
Assistant professors
Associate professors
Full professors
91
221
143
138
164
196
frequently mentioned as teachers in the course. Our results suggest a greater reliance
on GTAs as course teachers. Almost three-fourths (71.5%) of responding institutions
use GTAs to teach their basic course (n 221). Reliance on part-time faculty
(adjuncts) remains the least reported option for staffing the course. Only 29.5% of
reporting institutions rely on part-time faculty (n 91). The increase in GTA
instructors may be due to a higher percentage of M.A. and Ph.D. granting institutions
reporting their staffing data than colleges and universities offering only BA degrees.
/
/
Basic course organization. Third, respondents were asked about how the basic course
is organized in their respective institutions. Only 10.3% of institutions (n 30) use
the mass lecture/small performance laboratory system in the basic course, a slight
decrease from the 1999 study, which reported 13.2%. Using autonomous sections of
the basic course remains, by far, the most preferred pedagogical approach with 89.7%
(n 262) of institutions reporting its use. The difference in delivery of the basic
course is frequently discussed among basic course directors, although opinions vary.
While Todd, Tilson, Cox, and Malinauskas (2000) report that undergraduate students
see no essential difference in teacher effectiveness in the mass-lecture/lab and selfcontained sections of the basic course, these authors focus only on issues of teacher
immediacy. There are, no doubt, other issues, including budget, that impact
pedagogical choices in the basic course and also may impact the costs institutions
pass on to students.
/
/
Costs to students. Fourth, respondents were asked about whether they pass on
additional costs to students. A little over a quarter of institutions (n 77) reported
that they do pass some costs of the basic course, above tuition, on to students. These
additional costs to students were identified as necessary to cover the costs of printing
tests and handouts, collecting a lab or technology fee, and/or selling electronic media
or printed materials. Considerably more institutions (n 216) reported that they
pass no additional costs of the basic course on to students. We suspect that those who
pass on costs to their students do so in order to provide additional support for
departmental needs including GTA training and support, GTA and faculty travel, and
the purchase of equipment used specifically for basic course instructors, notwithstanding the widespread use of course management software, such as Blackboard and
WebCT.
/
/
Basic Course Survey
425
Top administrative problems. Respondents were asked to identify and describe the top
three problems they face in administering and teaching the basic communication
course. Their free-form responses were clustered and labeled. Table 5 presents the top
problems they identified across orientations in ranked order.
The two most frequently reported problems, consistency and use of part-time
faculty, are not surprising. These problems are consistent with the most frequently
cited problems in the 1999 study (Morreale et al., 1999). Whereas the 1999 study
identified faculty burn-out as the third most pressing problem, our data reveal that
problems associated with students ranked third. Issues related to students’ academic
preparation, inappropriate classroom behavior with resulting discipline problems,
cheating, motivation to study and prepare, attendance, and tardiness, have become
pressing. Large class size remains a problem (ranked 4th in the 1999 study), ranking
as the sixth most pressing problem. General administration and technological issues
also now appear as significant problems in the course.
The problems of consistency are the result, no doubt, of many disparate variables.
However, we wonder if some of the difficulties arise because faculty are placed in the
position of basic course director without the background to deal with the
administrative issues that emerge. On the other hand, the emergence of technological
problems is not surprising. For example, an NCA panel that focused on the results of
this study generated considerable conversation about the use of PowerPoint in the
basic course and responsibilities for training students to use it properly. Moreover,
the release of Goodnight and Wallace’s (2005) recent work on teaching the basic
course online underscores the significance of these problems for basic course
instructors and administrators. Additionally, the inclusion of issues with student
Table 5 Top 10 Administrative Problems
Problems by rank
Consistency
Part-time faculty
Students
General administration
Technology, facilities
Class size
Funding, budget
Teaching assistants
Faculty attitude
Course design
Description
Number of
Respondents
Reliability across sections in rigor, grading,
common content
Qualifications, communication,
recruitment, responsiveness
Academic preparation & performance,
attendance, motivation
Coordination, supervision, communication,
teacher evaluation
Inadequate equipment & training, access,
physical space
Classes too large, not enough sections
Insufficient resources
Recruitment, training, motivation,
international TAs
Burn-out, motivation, coherence to policy,
openness to innovation
Amount of material, lecture/lab format,
number of assignments
83
60
47
26
23
22
17
14
13
12
426 S. Morreale et al.
civility in this list of problems echoes the concerns of many instructors in higher
education (e.g., Burns, 2003; Chory-Assad & Paulsel, 2004; Feldmann, 2001;
Richardson, 1999). The top problems identified in the survey call attention to the
results reported in the next category, which focuses on teaching in the basic course.
Instruction and Pedagogy
Thirteen questions in this category asked about course standardization, topics
emphasized in each course orientation, preferred textbooks, communication across
the curriculum, support services for students taking the course, and pedagogical
innovations in the course.
Standardizing the basic course. As reported above, the most common problem in
administrating the basic communication course is uniformity or consistency across
multiple sections of the course. When asked if everyone teaching the basic course on
their campus uses the same syllabus and textbook, 62.6% (n 186) of respondents
either agreed or strongly agreed; 27.6% (n 82) disagreed or strongly disagreed.
When asked if everyone teaching the basic communication course tries to meet the
same learning objectives by using the same textbook and assignments, 64.3% (n
191) responded that they agreed or strongly agreed, while 20.8% (n 62) disagreed
or strongly disagreed.
Respondents were asked if they allowed individual teaching strategies as long as
these strategies were developed in an effort to meet the same learning objectives for
the basic communication course. Almost 80% (n 238) responded they agreed or
strongly agreed; they allowed instructors to develop whatever teaching strategies they
believed appropriate to help students reach course objectives. Almost 16% (n 47)
disagreed or strongly disagreed with this position. Nearly 57% of institutions (n
168) indicated they give instructors great autonomy in selecting materials and
designing the instructional strategies for the basic course; 30% (n 90) disagreed or
strongly disagreed with the statement.
The challenge of consistency remains a central problem. This problem is no
doubt complicated by other factors emerging from these data, including the lack of
a basic course coordinator in some instances, as well as the number of full-time
instructors and faculty who teach the basic course (n 611, 64%). Given the
number of instructors and faculty who teach the basic course, there are no doubt
issues of personal preference and academic freedom that contribute to the challenge
of maintaining consistency among multiple sections.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Topics in the basic course. In addition to standardization in the basic course,
respondents were asked to choose from 30 topics provided and then to rank order
those topics to which they give greatest emphasis in their instruction of the basic
course. Table 6 summarizes the frequencies of the highest ranked topics in the public
speaking basic course and the hybrid basic course. As one might predict, topics
related to teaching public speaking skills dominated the ‘‘most important topic’’ in
Basic Course Survey
427
Table 6 Rank Order Frequencies of Most Important Topics in Basic Course
Topic
Extemporaneous
Speaking
Speaking to
Persuade
Critical
Thinking
Speaking to
Inform
Audience
Analysis
Interpersonal
Relationships
Speech Anxiety
Group
Communication
Listening
Delivery
Public
speaking
rank #1
Public
speaking
rank #2
Public
speaking
rank #3
Hybrid
rank #1
Hybrid
rank #2
Hybrid
rank #3
49
17
15
18
1
9
27
28
18
1
12
10
25
12
6
16
8
4
18
29
23
19
6
4
18
17
22
2
9
9
0
1
2
14
19
11
12
0
4
0
6
1
11
5
7
5
0
11
3
16
4
12
11
10
6
5
6
3
5
9
the public speaking and hybrid basic courses. Again, we note that the long-standing
commitment to public speaking pedagogy in our discipline likely influences these
results.
Additionally, almost 71% (n 212) of the institutions reported they either agree or
strongly agree that issues of diversity (gender, ethnic identification, and age) are
strongly emphasized in their basic communication course. Only 11% (n 33)
indicated they either strongly disagree or disagree that issues of diversity are strongly
emphasized. We are curious as to how instructors emphasize diversity in their
courses, given the high rate of response. We suggest that additional qualitative
research in this area may bear fruitful pedagogical insights.
/
/
Textbooks in the basic course. Textbooks remain an important aspect of the basic
course. Therefore, respondents were asked to identify the single most important
factor when selecting a textbook for the basic communication course. Almost 23%
(n 71) of respondents indicated that the content or coverage of the textbook was
the most important factor. Approximately 13% (n 39) of respondents reported that
course fit or meeting course objectives was the most important factor. Others
reported the following textbook characteristics for their selections: book readability
(n 13), ancillary materials and supplements (n 6), book cost to the student (n
3), and technology support (n 2).
Respondents also were asked to identify which textbook they use in their basic
communication course. Over 80 different textbooks were identified. Table 7 reports
the most frequently selected textbooks. Whereas other textbooks and handbooks were
cited, only those reflecting five or more responses are included in the table. When
/
/
/
/
/
/
428 S. Morreale et al.
Table 7 Reported Textbook Use in the Basic Communication Course
Reported textbook
Frequency
Stephen Lucas, The Art of Public Speaking
Judy Pearson & Paul Nelson, Understanding and Sharing
William Seiler & Melissa Beall, Communicating: Making Connections
Ronald Adler & George Rodman, Understanding Human Communication
Joseph DeVito, Human Communication: The Basic Course
Michael Osborn & Suzanne Osborn, Public Speaking
David Zarefsky, Public Speaking: Strategies for Success
Stephen Beebe & Susan Beebe, Public Speaking: An Audience-Centered Approach
Steven Brydon & Michael Scott, Between One and Many
Dan O’Hair, Rob Stewart, & Hanna Rubenstein, A Speaker’s Guidebook
Rudolph Verderber & Kathleen Verderber, Communicate!
39
12
9
8
8
8
7
5
5
5
5
compared to the 1999 (Morreale et al., 1999) findings, many of the same textbooks
appear again in this survey.
Not surprisingly, as these data indicate, instructors are rather wedded to their
choice of textbooks. While publisher-sponsored reviews of textbooks may suggest
why instructors prefer some texts over others, these reviews are proprietary
information. Nevertheless, understanding the dynamics behind textbook choices
would prove an interesting and valuable addition to our knowledge, given the key
role textbooks play in the basic course. Additionally, anecdotally, both instructors and
publishers indicated that basic course texts are often accompanied by multiple
ancillaries that go unused. We wonder, therefore, how much basic course instructors
rely on ancillaries and which they use most and least often.
Communication across the curriculum. Communication across the curriculum (CAC)
has often been seen as a potential competitor with the basic course, so we asked
respondents about CAC programs. Only 33 institutions (11.1%) reported having a
‘‘communication across the curriculum’’ program. Only six institutions reported
accepting a communication across the curriculum course as an appropriate substitute
for the basic communication course in general education and/or major requirements.
These data suggest that CAC to date has not made a substantive impact on the role of
the basic course in higher education and that there are challenges in implementing
this approach (e.g., Garside, 2002).
Support services. While textbooks and CAC programs provide support for the basic
course, many respondents reported the use of some additional support services for
basic course students with the most common cited as the institution’s academic
assistance center (n 175). Fifty-four institutions reported offering no additional
support services for basic course students. Table 8 summarizes the frequencies of
support services offered for students in the basic communication course. Even
though extant research (Dwyer, Carlson, & Kahre, 2002; Hunt & Simonds, 2002;
Jones, Hunt, Simonds, Comadena, & Baldwin, 2004) indicates that speaking centers
or labs enhance the learning of students in the basic course, the use of labs is still the
/
Basic Course Survey
429
Table 8 Support Services for Basic Course Students
Type of service
University Academic Assistance Center
Worldwide Web
Peer Tutors
Department ‘‘Speaking or Communication’’ Center
Graduate Student Tutors
No additional services offered
Frequency
175
109
76
48
11
54
exception rather than the rule. Again, we suspect there are numerous reasons for the
nonproliferation of these labs, although, in all probability, a suitable budget and
securing a qualified staff may well be central stumbling blocks. Additional study
should focus on understanding this dynamic more specifically.
Innovation in the basic course. Although the term innovation is subjective, 97
respondents indicated a variety of steps they are taking to provide what they consider
a fresh approach to teaching the basic course. Twenty-six respondents indicated that
they were implementing pedagogical strategies including problem-based or active
learning, a variety of group activities, and using the traditions of classical rhetoric to
provide a basis for public speaking instruction. Twenty others emphasized the role of
emerging technology in either instruction or evaluation. Some offer video-taped
models of speech assignments, while others use video, websites, software programs,
and e-books. Ten respondents described new methods of assessment including digital
and paper portfolios, competency-based goals and grading, and the strategic use of
peer groups for exams and mutual feedback. Six respondents noted that they use
service learning as an integral aspect of the basic course, and three noted the
important role of the basic course in first-year initiatives at their institutions. Finally,
five noted that they provide a unique curricular approach that includes a personal
system of instruction, stressing listening as the key aspect of the basic course,
integrating speaking and writing, or emphasizing a critical pedagogical perspective.
The basic course, it appears, continues to be a site for creative pedagogical initiatives
that enhance student learning and, at the same time, emphasize the important role of
oral communication. The next category reports one particularly critical area of
pedagogical creativity in the basic course, the use of technology and distance
education.
Technology and Distance Education
Eight questions in this category addressed the types of media and technology now in
use in the basic course and the three issues related to distance education:
pervasiveness, challenges, and training.
Technology and media in the basic course. With the increase in communication
technologies and media available for instruction, respondents were asked to indicate
430 S. Morreale et al.
what forms are used in their basic course; these included e-mail, Internet, and
presentational software. As Table 9 indicates, there has been a dramatic increase in the
use of media/technology in the basic course. For example, in 1999, only 69
institutions reported using the Web or e-mail in their basic course compared to
211 today. Similarly, 78 institutions in 1999 indicated they used computer-based
materials stored in electronic media; today, 250 do. The ready availability of group email functions with instructional software, as well as the enhanced use of e-mail as a
major communication channel likely, explains in part this surge in use.
Institutions that use the Internet to teach the basic course were asked to report
which software they use. Ninety-five institutions use Blackboard, and 75 use WebCT.
Fifty-nine institutions indicated they use some other software package to support
their use of the Internet in the basic course. Only two institutions reported having
virtual classrooms available for instructional use in the basic course.
Respondents were asked to report which types of technology and/or media are
being taught to students in the basic course. Not surprisingly, 178 institutions
(79.1%) teach computer presentation technologies in their basic communication
course. PowerPoint is the most widely taught technology in the course. Second to
PowerPoint is the Internet (n 21), followed by list-serve (n 13) and web-delivered
presentations (n 10). Only three respondents reported teaching web-design in the
basic communication course.
/
/
/
Distance education. Sixty-two respondents (20.8%) reported delivering the basic
course in its entirety via distance learning; of these, 35 are public speaking, and 27 are
hybrid. Nearly 80% (n 236) do not deliver the basic course entirely via distance
learning. The number of institutions delivering the basic course via distance learning
in the future likely will increase as we continue to see an increase in use of
technologies as standard instructional platforms generally.
/
Challenges using distance education. Respondents were asked what they perceive as their
greatest challenges to offering the basic course as part of a distance education program.
Answers indicated that their primary challenge was managing mass-mediated channels
to enhance personal, pedagogical, and student satisfaction. They cited difficulties
associated with achieving sufficient levels of teacher immediacy and student-to-student
interaction. While these problems can be addressed to some degree by appropriate
technology, many faculty do not have access, training, or a propensity for teaching
Table 9 Types of Media and Technology
Type of media/technology
Audio visual assets (movies, speeches, etc.)
Video cassette recorders
Computer presentations (PowerPoint, etc.)
World Wide Web
CDs
DVD players
Frequency
264
257
250
211
161
127
Basic Course Survey
431
online. Additionally, Allen (2006) notes that distance education raises important
questions about enhancing student success, retention, and degree completion.
Distance education training. Respondents were also asked about the level of training in
implementing distance education, and they reported a range of training options for
teaching the basic course online. Twenty-seven respondents indicated that their
institutions did not have a distance education program or that such an initiative was
not needed. Twenty-one respondents explained that all training and support were
coordinated through a distance education or teaching center, while 20 indicated that
their institutions offered extensive training through courses, training sessions, or
online instruction. In contrast, 19 respondents noted that their institutions offer
short-term training, typically single-session workshops, while 18 indicated that they
were trained to use course software such as Web CT or Blackboard. Eleven
participants explained that peers or mentors provide individualized training; 11
others noted that they received minimal training; and another 11 explained that they
could obtain technical support when needed. The final category of results reports
how student learning is assessed and evaluated in the basic course.
Assessment and Evaluation
Nine questions in this category covered graded course assignments, evaluation and
feedback, use of videotape, and assessment tools and processes.
Graded assignments. Respondents were asked to indicate the number of graded
assignments required in their basic communication course. Most (n 182) require
46 graded assignments; 3 require more than ten. For basic public speaking courses,
74.6% (n 135) require 46 graded assignments; only 41.7% (n 45) of hybrid
basic courses require the same. Table 10 compares current data with the responses
reported in 1999. Fewer courses today (10% decrease) require 46 graded assignments, and more (15% increase) require 13 graded assignments.
/
/
/
Evaluation and feedback. Additionally, respondents were asked about how they
provide evaluation and feedback to student performances. Eighty percent of
respondents use only the teacher’s evaluation when determining a grade for students’
oral performances, with the remaining relying on a combination of teacher and peer
Table 10 Number of Graded Assignments
No. of graded
assignments
No graded assignments
1 3 graded assignments
4 6 graded assignments
7 10 graded assignments
More that 10 graded assignments
1999 study
percentages
Current data
Percentages
4.2
15.0
71.5
8.5
0.7
1.4
30.0
61.3
6.4
1.0
432 S. Morreale et al.
evaluations. As part of the evaluation process, 96% provide written feedback to the
students. Students submit their assignments primarily in hard copy (93%); only 7%
of reporting institutions allow students to submit their assignments primarily via
electronic means.
Recording student speeches. Video-recording of student speeches continues to play a
somewhat important role in student performance evaluation, especially in public
speaking courses, although almost 39% (n 42) of public speaking course instructors
do not use playback of recorded student speeches, and approximately 43% (n 45) of
instructors in hybrid communication courses do not use playback of recorded
student speeches. However, 57% (n104) of public speaking course instructors
record one to three of their graded assignments for student playback, while 53.3%
(n 56) of hybrid courses do the same. A little over 30% of respondents require no
video recording in their basic course.
Over 50% (n 147) of respondents reported that they rely on the use of taped
speeches when evaluating oral performances. In the basic public speaking course,
45% of respondents do not use these recordings in evaluating oral performance;
nearly 60% of hybrid basic courses do not use recordings of speeches for evaluation.
Almost 29% (n 84) reported using recordings for only 10% of their evaluations of
oral performances. Only 4% (n 12) used recording of students’ speeches for over
50% of their evaluation of oral performances.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Assessing student learning. While assessment of individual student performances
continues to play an important role in the basic course, the need to have an approved
general assessment plan for the basic course has increased dramatically since 1999.
Almost 85% (n 251) of the respondents rely on competency-based assessments.
Almost 69% (n 206) rely on instructor-developed measures to assess student
learning; nearly a quarter (n 73) use a department assessment process; 3% (n 8)
rely on a school or college assessment process; and 3% (n 10) use a university-wide
assessment process. Only two respondents reported not having any assessment plan
for the basic course; in 1999, as many as 33 did not attempt to assess outcomes. The
high percentage of institutions using some form of assessment suggests that it has
become, in the past five years, an important component of basic course programs.
In addition, ten respondents described new methods of assessment including digital
and paper portfolios, competency-based goals and grading, and the strategic use of peer
groups for exams and mutual feedback. When asked to indicate how assessment results
are used, no noticeable differences were obtained. An equal number of responses
indicate assessment data are used to revise course content, increase instructor
performance and/or change pedagogy, and enhance student performance.
/
/
/
/
/
Summary and Conclusions
Over the last 40 years, public speaking and hybrid courses have dominated the basic
course orientation in higher education in the United States. Today, larger institutions
Basic Course Survey
433
favor the public speaking orientation, while smaller schools favor the hybrid
approach. With these two dominant orientations to the basic course, the long
tradition in our discipline of teaching public speaking skills remains intact. At all
reporting institutions, ethnic and racial enrollment in the basic communication
course is almost identical to the ethnic and racial enrollment of the school itself. As a
discipline, the fact that racial and ethnic enrollment in the basic course is consistent
with overall university enrollments is heartening. These results suggest basic courses
are likely offering appropriate services to the intended student populations. The basic
course continues to grow; more and more institutions are reporting increasing
numbers of sections offered each term. This growing popularity may be due, in large
part, to the developing central role of communication instruction in general
education programs as colleges and universities respond to the expectations of
regional accrediting agencies. This increasing demand for communication instruction
exerts additional staffing pressures on programs because there is a corresponding
need to staff additional sections.
The dramatic increase in the reported reliance on GTAs to teach the basic course
may also be the result of the growth in the number of autonomous sections being
offered since 1999. Second, budget restrictions may have restricted the hiring of fulltime, tenure track faculty at some institutions. Even though more and more sections
of the course are being offered, a significant majority of responding institutions do
not pass additional costs for course administration and delivery on to their students.
As budgets at colleges and universities become more constricted, basic-course
programs may be forced to impose revenue-generating measures onto students.
Administrators will recognize, sooner rather than later, that imposing fees in the basic
course can be a significant revenue stream for the department and institution.
Finally, the primary administrative problems in the basic course, section
consistency and use of part-time faculty, also may be related to the increase in the
number of sections. Increasing the number of autonomous sections may be
juxtaposed to the course directors’ or departments’ efforts to standardize the basic
course. As more sections become autonomous or stand-alone, instructors may begin
to demand greater freedom in how they teach the course. Indeed, one potentially
negative result of standardizing the basic course is the restrictions, real or perceived,
that may be placed on the teachers’ autonomy and creativity in developing their own
course. However, consistency in basic course instruction is important because it is
closely related to the demands from on and off campus to assess student learning
outcomes across all sections of this one course. If students receive disparate
pedagogical experiences, assessment results will be impacted both short- and longterm. We suspect these results will be skewed in ways not anticipated by basic course
directors and program administrators. The long-term effects of these results on the
basic course will depend on how each university’s administration responds.
Topics included in the basic course and the textbooks selected for use have changed
very little since 1999. At the same time, Communication Across the Curriculum
programs (CAC) continue to have a presence on some but not many campuses, while
other support services for students are provided by academic assistance centers and
434 S. Morreale et al.
the Web. CAC programs clearly emphasize the importance of the communication
skills learned in the basic course throughout an undergraduate student’s education.
However, to be sustained, the CAC program must be administered by a qualified
communication faculty member. Frequently, colleges and universities are quite
willing to create CAC programs, but offer little incentive to faculty to monitor the
program once it is in place.
More schools are taking advantage of service learning and other civic engagement
initiatives, reflecting an increased interest in linking classroom learning to community life. Teachers are also relying more on technology and media in the basic course.
This trend is likely to continue as developing technologies offer a number of ways to
support in-class instruction and increase student learning. We can also anticipate
increased use of instructional delivery technology as available budgets continue to
decrease. If that is the case, we need to carefully consider the most effective delivery
systems for use in the basic communication course. Concomitantly, an array of
challenges impacts the process of using distance education technology to deliver the
basic course including expressed concerns about training for and the motivation of
instructors, at least as suggested by the data for this study. Allen (2006) also notes that
the rush to on-line communication education should be carefully evaluated and that
a serious conversation should occur about offering the ‘‘general education,
communication skills course’’ on-line (p. 122). In short, we would do well to think
about pedagogical impacts in the basic course from a student-learning perspective,
not only instructor or administrator perspectives.
Teachers of the basic course are requiring fewer graded assignments than they did
in 1999. One interpretation of these data is that faculty may realize in part that there
was too much included in and expected of students taking the basic communication
course. Similarly, increasing class sizes result in the need to reduce the number of inclass graded communication assignments. Others may see this decrease in graded
assignments as an unhealthy reduction of expectations. An alternative interpretation
of these data is that departments have reduced academic rigor in the basic course in
response to pressure from students or administrators or both. On another front,
while videotape is used to some extent to evaluate oral performance, survey results
suggest that oral performances are still graded live, in the classroom, and by the
instructor.
The added emphasis on assessment on all college and university campuses explains
why the number of institutions using assessment measures in their basic communication course has increased dramatically since the 1999 study. This increase in basic course
assessment programs suggests that results may be used for four important aspects of the
basic communication course: evaluating course content, improving instruction,
measuring student learning, and enhancing students’ communication skills.
Limitations and Recommendations
Previous studies examining the content and practices of the basic communication
course were both valued and criticized. While the cumulative results were deemed
Basic Course Survey
435
valuable to course administrators and faculty, limitations focused on low response
rates, usefulness of the data to various course orientations, and the failure to include
questions related to ethnicity and diversity on the survey. In the current study, despite
online availability of the survey instrument and considerable efforts to encourage an
increase in responses, the sample size remained fairly consistent with previous
studies. Future replications of the study might consider improving the response rate
by including phone sampling and on-site sampling at regional and national
communication conventions. Alternatively, if the goal is to develop a representative
sample, future research might create a random sample from the population of
approximately 1,300 colleges and universities, and vigorously pursue responses from
those respondents.
The current study addressed the second limitation of basic course design or
orientation by gathering and reporting most of the data separately, depending on the
respondent’s course orientation. Now, instructors perusing the results may consider
the findings as they relate specifically to their course and its particular orientation. In
addition, the study examined the ethnicity of students at the reporting institutions
and in the basic course, and included diversity as a topic in the course. As a result, the
data from this survey could be examined in light of the ethnic makeup of the
responding institutions. Future surveys might examine diversity in hiring practices,
teaching staff, and classroom strategies.
The current study also extended previous research by examining how technologies
are used to deliver basic course instruction. Given the emerging importance of the
relationship between technology and pedagogy, future surveys might pursue this line
of inquiry to gain greater understanding of what constitutes a good online
communication course, how an online course is assessed, and how teachers are
using technologies such as Blackboard or WebCT in the course.
For now, the present study and its findings are offered to our colleagues as a
current snapshot of the basic communication course. As we think ahead, we muse
about options and possibilities to extend this study beyond mere replication. Should
we, or others, more extensively survey students themselves about the merits or
shortcomings of the basic course? Does the basic course meet their needs
professionally and personally? What about surveying employers? Does the basic
course satisfy what employers expect in college graduates? How does the basic course
need to change to meet academic, theoretical, and skills needs identified by various
stakeholders? While we hope that the information presented here is valuable to
faculty and administrators in higher education, we also hope that it encourages other
inquiries into the changing nature of the basic course in communication.
References
Allen, T. H. (2006). Is the rush to provide on-line instruction setting our students up for failure?
Communication Education , 55 , 122 126.
American Council on Higher Education. (2005). Minorities in higher education: Twenty-first annual
status report (2003 2005) . Washington, DC: American Council on Higher Education.
436 S. Morreale et al.
Burns, M. T. (2003). The battle for civilized behaviors: Let’s begin with manners. Phi Delta Kappan ,
84 , 546 549.
Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Classroom justice: Student aggression and resistance
as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education , 53 , 253 273.
Coplin, W. D. (2006, January 27). 7 ways colleges can cut costs in their classrooms. [Electronic
version]. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Darling, A. D., & Daniels, D. P. (2003). Practicing engineers talk about the importance of talk: A
report on the role of oral communication in the workplace. Communication Education , 52 ,
1 16.
Dwyer, K. K., Carlson, R. E., & Kahre, S. A. (2002). Communication apprehension and basic course
success: The lab-supported public speaking course intervention. Basic Communication Course
Annual , 16 , 87 112.
Feldmann, L. J. (2001). Classroom civility is another of our instructor classroom responsibilities.
College Teaching , 49 , 137 140.
Garside, C. (2002). Seeing the forest through the trees: A challenge facing communication across the
curriculum programs. Communication Education , 51 , 51 64.
Gibson, J., Gruner, C., Brooks, W., & Petrie, C. (1970). The first course in speech: A survey of U.S.
colleges and universities. The Speech Teacher, 19 , 13 20.
Gibson, J., Gruner, C., Hanna, M., Smythe, M. J., & Hayes, M. (1980). The basic course in speech at
U.S. colleges and universities: III. Communication Education , 29 , 1 9.
Gibson, J., Hanna, M., & Huddleston, B. (1990). The basic speech course at U.S. colleges and
universities: IV. Communication Education , 34 , 281 291.
Gibson, J., Hanna, J., & Leichty, G. (1985). The basic course at U.S. colleges and universities: V.
Basic Communication Course Annual , 2 , 233 257.
Gibson, J., Kline, J., & Gruner, C. (1974). A re-examination of the first course in speech at U.S.
colleges and universities. The Speech Teacher, 23 , 206 214.
Goodnight, L. J., & Wallace, S. P. (2005) (Eds). The basic communication course online: Scholarship
and application . Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Goulden, N. R. (2002). Revising public speaking content, theory, and pedagogy: A review of the
issues in the discipline in the 1990s. Basic Communication Course Annual , 14 , 1 38.
Harter, L. M., Kirby, E. L., Hatfield, K. L., & Kuhlman, K. N. (2004). From spectators of public
affairs to agents of social change: Engaging students in the basic course through service
learning. Basic Communication Course Annual , 16 , 165 194.
Hunt, S. K., Ekachai, D., Garard, D. L., & Rust., J. H. (2001). Students’ perceived usefulness and
relevance of communication skills in the basic course: Comparing university and community
college students. Basic Communication Course Annual , 13 , 1 22.
Hunt, S. K., & Simonds, C. J. (2002). Extending learning opportunities in the basic communication
course: Exploring the pedagogical benefits of speech laboratories. Basic Communication
Course Annual , 14 , 60 86.
Jones, A. C., Hunt, S. K., Simonds, C. J., Comadena, M. E., & Baldwin, J. R. (2004). Speech
laboratories: An exploratory examination of potential pedagogical effects on students. Basic
Communication Annual , 16 , 105 138.
La Ware, M. (2004). The public speaking classroom as public space: Taking risks and embracing
difference. Basic Communication Course Annual , 16 , 279 291.
Morreale, S. P., Hanna, M. S., Berko, R. M., & Gibson, J. W. (1999). The basic communication
course at U. S. colleges and universities: VI. Basic Communication Course Annual , 11 , 1 36.
Morreale, S., Hackman, M., & Neer, R. (1998). Predictors of self-perceptions of behavioral
competence, self-esteem, and willingness to communicate: A study assessing impact in a
basic interpersonal course. Basic Communication Course Annual , 10 , 7 26.
Morreale, S. P., Hackman, M. Z., & Neer, M. R. (1995). Predictors of behavioral competence and
self-esteem: A study assessing impact in a basic public speaking course. Basic Communication
Course Annual , 7 , 125 141.
Basic Course Survey
437
Moyer, B. S., & Hugenberg, L. W. (1997, November). Using research to justify instruction in the basic
communication course . Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication
Association, Chicago, IL.
National Association of Colleges and Employers. (2006). Job outlook 2006 . Bethlehem, PA: National
Association of Colleges and Employers.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Reinard, J. C. (2001). Introduction to communication research (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Richardson, S. (1999). Civility, leadership, and the classroom. New Directions in Teaching and
Learning , 77 , 77 86.
Todd, T. S., Tilson, L. D., Cox, S. A., & Malinauskas, B. (2000). Assessing the perceived effectiveness
of the basic communication course: An examination of the mass-lecture format versus the
self-contained format. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration , 29 , 185 195.
Treinen, K. P. (2004). Creating a dialogue for change: Educating graduate teaching assistants in
whiteness studies. Basic Communication Course Annual , 16 , 139 164.
Treinen, K. P., & Warren, J. T. (2001). Antiracist pedagogy in the basic course: Teaching cultural
communication as if whiteness matters. Basic Course Communication Annual , 13 , 46 75.
Troup, C. (2002). Common sense in the basic public speaking course. Basic Communication Course
Annual , 14 , 39 59.
What do employers really want? (2005). Career World , 33 , 5.
Worley, D. W., & Worley, D. A. (2006). FYE and the basic course: Insights from theory and practice.
Basic Communication Course Annual , 17 , 63 101.
Received November 11, 2005
Accepted April 27, 2006