Communication 707
Seminar in Instructional Communication
Spring Semester 2014
Office Hours: M 12:00-2:00; by appointment
Dr. Hellweg
Communication 243
Schedule #:
“hellweg@mail.sdsu.edu”
Course Perspective: This seminar will examine the available research literature on
communication within traditional classroom settings, as well as issues related to
communication education. In addition, the course will provide comparative analysis
between traditional classroom environments and corporate training contexts, including
curriculum design, learner communities, and pedagogical strategies.
Course Objectives:
1. To critically evaluate literature on instructor communication behaviors (e.g.,
verbal and nonverbal immediacy, performance feedback, socio-communicative
style, power use) and their potential effects on student learning outcomes
(affective/behavioral/cognitive), instructor evaluation, and student motivation.
2. To discuss the phenomena of communication apprehension and communication
reticence within classroom environments, potential intervention strategies, and
issues relating to their origins.
3. To deconstruct pedagogical issues specific to instructional delivery modalities and
communication curricula as a function of course content (e.g.. lecture versus
discussion, individual versus group tasks, learning style preferences,
encouragement of student questions).
4. To define and examine cultural diversity issues as they impact communication
dynamics in the classroom (e.g., contrasts in student-teacher interaction across
cultural boundaries).
5. To dissect interaction management issues in the classroom relating to student
compliance and resistance, administration of discipline, and the like.
6. To elucidate the role of technology in learning environments from a
communication perspective (e.g., the delivery of computer-mediated instruction
as contrasted with traditional forms of instruction).
7. To investigate student identity formation in classroom contexts.
8. To examine communicative phenomena in learning environments as a function of
various learner communities and instructional levels.
9. To contrast corporate communication training and traditional classroom processes
in terms of curricular design, learner motivations, intended outcomes, and
instructional evaluation.
10. To examine the nature of specific communication curricula in terms of their
content and strategies for their design. (curriculum design project)
11. To critically examine the status of research in a specific area of the instructional
communication literature and develop a meaningful analysis of that status and
productive future directions of inquiry. (literature review paper)
Seminar Assignments:
1. Literature Review Paper (due April 30) (25%): This assignment will entail the
development of a major seminar paper reviewing instructional communication literature
in terms of a significant area of study. The analysis should provide a statement of what
has been done to date by sub-topics and directions for future productive inquiry. The
paper should be 20-25 text pages in length, following 6th edition APA guidelines. The
paper should contain an abstract, a rationale for the area under focus, a discussion of the
literature in depth, and an integrative exploration of what has been found and what should
be explored as future inquiry. This paper should be of convention paper quality, and
therefore offer new and meaningful approaches, conceptualizations, and insights, beyond
what is available in the current literature on the topic.
2. Communication Curricular Design (due March 19) (15%): This written assignment
offers two options, as described below. These options will be discussed more fully in
class, as will general curriculum design issues (content coverage, effectiveness of
targeting the specific instructional audience “appropriately,” progression of material,
instructional delivery options, scheduling, student/trainee learning outcomes, time
devoted to subtopics, assignment design).
Corporate Context: study a particular targeted audience (e.g., trail attorneys, corporate
managers, police officers, engineers, school principals, health care professionals, military
officers, government service officers) and determine their needs (a formal needs
assessment would be ideal but that is not being required here), motivations, job
responsibilities, internal and external communication ties, and so forth; design a proposed
structure for communication training (e.g., listening skills, interviewing skills, group
process, conflict management, negotiation skills, meeting management, persuasion,
relational skills) and training objectives in detail; outline the content of the presentational
material (similar to a script, but not word for word); submit a copy of the training
exercises to augment the presentations, as well as any handouts; prepare any PowerPoint
material to be utilized and describe any other media functions to be incorporated; indicate
how the training content and trainer would be assessed by the attendees; provide a
rationale for the various components of the package, particularly in light of the audience
and level of employees serviced by the training.
Traditional Classroom Context: select a particular instructional level (e.g., high school,
community college, university); determine what specific communication course might be
offered (looking at a college catalog may help this) and its scope; formulate specific
course objectives (student learning outcomes that are presumably measurable); determine
sub-topics of the course and develop a course outline; bearing in mind whether this is a
semester or quarter term course, work out a timeline for the covering of the sub-topics in
the course (e.g. a 15-week semester term for a class that meets 42 hours at the university
level); develop a description for assignments that appear relevant, reasonable,
meaningful, and appropriate at the student level involved; determine evaluation weights
for the relative assignments/examinations; consider potential texts and readings (the
Internet may offer comparative syllabi and text descriptions); develop preliminary lecture
outlines and handouts.
3. Final Examination (May 14) (25%): The final will be structured in the way that a
comprehensive examination is, with multiple-part essay questions on the literature
discussed in class and reflected in the course student learning outcomes specified above.
Tips on studying for the examination will be reviewed in class.
4. Seminar Participation (20%): Seminar participation is vital to the achievement of
productive discussion of the pedagogical issues we will cover, in the characterization of
controversial material where scholars disagree, in arguing and debating particular
positions, in contrasting views among us, in extending research ideas beyond the
literature reviewed, and so forth. As with any graduate seminar, participation is
measured in terms of both the quantity and quality of the contributive insights.
Attendance at all seminar meetings is fully expected, as is punctuality for the start of the
seminar sessions.
5. Seminar Leadership (15%): For each seminar meeting we will attempt to cover five
readings in the order listed below. Particular topics may be examined over a number of
seminar sessions. Each graduate student will select a relatively even number of readings
for direction of the discussion and preparation of an abstract to be distributed to all the
students (for final examination preparation purposes). The student should fully expect
that all the seminar members will have done the readings in advance of the seminar. The
primary point of the seminar leadership is to offer four to five multi-faceted thoughtprovoking questions about the article presented (which are put in writing with the
abstract). Each article is to be covered in approximately 15 minutes, depending on its
exploratory value (to be determined by the instructor). The questions developed by the
student will be incorporated in the seminar leadership evaluations.
Seminar Readings:
Student as Consumer
1. McMillan, J. J., & Cheney, G. (1996). The student as consumer: The implications
and limitations of a metaphor. Communication Education, 45, 1-15.
2. Fassett, D. L., & Warren, J. T. (2004). “You get pushed back”: The strategic rhetoric
of educational success and failure in higher education. Communication Education, 53,
21-39.
Teacher Communication Style
3. Ellis, K. (2004). The impact of perceived teacher confirmation on receiver
apprehension, motivation and learning. Communication Education, 53, 1-20.
4. Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The effect of teacher confirmation on
student communication and learning outcomes. Communication Education, 57, 153-179.
5. Houser, M. L., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). The role of student characteristics and
teacher behaviors in students’ learner empowerment. Communication Education, 58, 3553.
6. Kerssen-Griep, J., Trees, A. R., & Hess, J. A. (2008). Attentive feedback during
instructional feedback: Key to perceiving mentorship and an optimal learning
environment. Communication Education, 57, 312-332.
7. King, P. E., Schrodt, P., & Weisel, J. J. (2009). The instructional feedback orientation
scale: Conceptualizing and validating a new measure for assessing perceptions of
instructional feedback. Communication Education, 58, 235-261.
8. Mottet, T. P., Beebe, S. A., Raffeld, P. C., & Medlook, A. L. (2004). The effects of
student verbal and nonverbal responsiveness on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction.
Communication Education, 53, 150-163.
9. Myers, S. A., Martin, M.M., & Mottet, T. P. (2002). Students’ motives for
communicating with their instructors: Considering instructor socio-communicative style,
student socio-communicative orientation, and student gender. Communication
Education, 51, 121-133.
10. Teven, J. J. (2004). The relationship among teacher characteristics and perceived
caring. Communication Education, 50, 159-169.
11. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Myers, S. A., Turman, P. D., Barton, M. H., & Jernberg, K.
A. (2008). Learner empowerment and teacher evaluations as function of teacher power
use in the college classroom. Communication Education, 57, 180-200.
12. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Myers, S. A., Turman, P. D., Barton, M. H., & Jernberg, K.
A. (2009). Instructor credibility as a mediator of instructors’ prosocial communication
behaviors and students’ learning outcomes. Communication Education, 58, 350-371.
13. Smith, C. D., & King, P. E. (2004). Student feedback sensitivity and the efficacy of
feedback interventions in public speaking performance improvement. Communication
Education, 53, 203-216.
14. Malachowski, C. C., Martin, M. M., & Vallade, J. I. (2013). An examination of
students’ adaptation, aggression, and apprehension traits with their instructional feedback
orientations. Communication Education, 62, 127-147.
15. Trees, A. R., Kerssen-Griep, J., & Hess, J. A. (2009). Earning influence by
communicating respect: Facework’s contributions to effective instructional feedback.
Communication Education, 58, 397-416.
16. Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, & Irwin, J. (2010). An explanation of the relationship
between instructor humor and student learning: Instructional processing theory.
Communication Education, 59, 1-18.
For further information on the use of humor in the classroom, see: Booth-Butterfield &
Wanzer (2010)
17. Finn, A. N., Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., Elledge, N., Jernberg, K. A., & Larson, L. M.
(2009). A meta-analytical review of teacher credibility and its associations with teacher
behaviors and student outcomes. Communication Education, 58, 516-537.
18. Mazer, J. P. (2013). Student emotional and cognitive interest as mediators of teacher
communication behaviors and student engagement: An examination of direct and
interaction effects. Communication Education, 62, 253-277.
For further information on instructor presentational style, see: Martin & Myers (2010)
Immediacy Behavior
19. Kerssen-Griep, J., & Witt, P. L. (2012). Instructional feedback II: How do
instructional immediacy cues and facework tactics interact to predict student motivation
and fairness perceptions? Communication Studies, 63, 498-517.
20. LaRose, R., & Whitten, P. (2000). Rethinking instructional immediacy for web
courses: A social cognitive exploration. Communication Education, 49, 320-338.
21. Witt, P. L., Wheeless, L. R., & Allen, M. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the
relationship between teacher immediacy and student learning. Communication
Education, 71, 184-207.
For further information, see Witt, Schrodt, & Turman (2010)
Classroom Climate
22. Perkins, S. J. (1994). Toward a rhetorical/dramatic theory of instructional
communication. Communication Education, 43, 222-235.
23. 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. Communication Education, 57, 20-40.
24. Schrodt, P. (2013). Content relevance and students’ comfort with disclosure as
moderators of instructor disclosures and credibility in the college classroom.
Communication Education, 62, 352-375.
25. Claus, C. J., Booth-Butterfield, M., & Chory, R. (2012). The relationship between
instructor misbehaviors and student antisocial behavioral alteration techniques: The roles
of instructor attractiveness, humor, and relational closeness. Communication Education,
61, 161-183.
26. Golish, T. D., & Olson, L. N. (2000). Students’ use of power in the classroom: An
investigation of student power, teacher power, and teacher immediacy. Communication
Quarterly, 48, 293-310.
27. Katt, J. A., & Condly, S. J. (2009). A preliminary student of classroom motivators
and de-motivators from a motivation-hygiene perspective. Communication Education,
58, 213-234.
28. 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.
29. Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., & Myers, S. A. (2009). College students’ use of behavior
alteration techniques as a function of aggressive communication. Communication
Education, 58, 54-73.
30. Mills, C. B., & Carwile, A. M. (2009). The good, the bad, and the borderline:
Separating teasing from bullying. Communication Education, 58, 276-301.
31. Rocca, K. A. (2010). Student participation in the college classroom: An extended
multidisciplinary literature review. Communication Education, 59, 185-213.
32. 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.
For further information on power, compliance, and resistance in the classroom, see:
Chory & Goodboy (2010)
Communication Apprehension
33. Behnke, R. R., & Sawyer, C. R. (2004). Public speaking anxiety as a function of
sensitization and habituation processes. Communication Education, 53, 164-173.
34. Bodie, G. D. (2010). A racing heart, rattling knees, and ruminative thoughts:
Defining, explaining, and treating public speaking anxiety. Communication Educaiton,
59, 70-105.
35. Dwyer, K. K. (1998). Communication apprehension and learning style preference:
Correlations and implications for teaching. Communication Education, 47, 137-150.
36. Finn, A. N., Sawyer, C. R., & Schrodt, P. (2009). Examining the effect of exposure
therapy on public speaking state anxiety. Communication Education, 58, 92-109.
37. Keaton, J. A., & Kelly, L. (2000). Reticence: An affirmation and review.
Communication Education, 49, 165-177.
Communibiological Paradigm:
38. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication
apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm.
Communication Monographs, 65, 197-219.
39. McCroskey, J. C., & Beatty, M. J. (2000). The communibiological perspective:
Implications for communication in instruction. Communication Education, 49, 1-7.
40. Kelly, L., & Keaten, J. A. (2000). Treating communication anxiety: Implications of
the communibiological paradigm. Communication Education, 49, 45-57.
41. Bodary, D. L., & Miller, L. D. (2000). Neurobiological substrates of communicator
style. Communication Education, 49, 82-98.
42. Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Pence, M. E. (2010). Communibiology: The rise
of a new communication research paradigm. In J. W. Chesebro (Ed.), A century of
transformation: Studies in honor of the 100th anniversary of the Eastern Communication
Association (pp. 129-142). New York: Oxford University Press.
For further information on the communibiological paradigm, see: Beatty & McCroskey,
2000a, 2000b; Beatty, McCroskey, & Valencic, 2001; Beatty & Valencic, 2000;
Valencic, Beatty, Rudd, Dobos, & Heisel, 1998
Teaching Methods
43. West, R., & Pearson, J. C. (1994). Antecedent and consequent conditions of student
questioning: An analysis of classroom discourse across the university. Communication
Education, 43, 299-311.
Learner Communities
44. Hart, R. D., & Williams, D. E. (1995). Able-bodied instructors and students with
physical disabilities: A relationship handicapped by communication. Communication
Education, 44, 140-154.
45. Orbe, M. P. (2004). Negotiating multiple identities within multiple frames: An
analysis of first-generation college students. Communication Education, 53, 131-149.
Cultural Diversity Issues
46. Bolls, P. D., Tan, A., & Austin, E. (1997). An exploratory comparison of Native
American and Caucasian students’ attitudes toward teacher communicative behavior and
toward school. Communication Education, 46, 198-202.
47. Braithwaite, C. A. (1997). Sa’ah naaghai bik’eh nozhoon: An ethnography of
Navajo educational communication practices. Communication Education, 46, 219-233.
48. Lee, C. R., Levine, T. R., & Cambra, R. (1997). Resisting compliance in the
multicultural classroom. Communication Education, 46, 29-43.
49. Neuliep, J. W. (1995). A comparison of teacher immediacy in African-American
and Euro-American college classrooms. Communication Education, 44, 267-277.
50. Boone, P. R. (2003). When the “Amen Corner” comes to class: An examination of
the pedagogical and cultural impact of call-response communication in the Black college
classroom. Communication Education, 52, 212-229.
51. Simmons, J., Lowery-Hart, R., Wahl, S. T., & McBride, M. C. (2013).
Understanding the African-American student experience in higher education through a
relational dialectics perspective. Communication Education, 62, 376-394.
52. Neulip, J. W. (1997). A cross-cultural comparison of teacher immediacy in
American and Japanese college classrooms. Communication Research, 24, 431-451.
53. Roach, K. D., & Byrne, P. R. (2001). A cross-cultural comparison of instructor
communication in American and German classrooms. Communication Education, 50, 114.
Interaction Management
54. Chory-Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Classroom justice: Student
aggression and resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication
Education, 53, 253-273.
55. Young, L. E., Horan, S. M., Frisby, B. N. (2013). Fair and square?: An examination
of classroom justice and relational teaching messages. Communication Education, 62,
333-351.
56. Claus, C. J., Chory, & Malachowski, C. C. (2012). Student antisocial compliancegaining as a function of instructor aggressive communication and classroom justice.
Communication Education, 61, 17-43.
57. Goodboy, A. K. (2011). Instructional dissent in the college classroom.
Communication Education, 60, 296-313.
58. Horan, S. M., & Myers, S. A. (2009). An exploration of college instructors’ use of
classroom justice, power, and behavior alteration techniques. Communication Education,
58, 483-496.
59. Hogelucht, K. S. B., & Geist, P. (1997). Discipline in the classroom:
Communicative strategies for negotiating order. Western Journal of Communication, 61,
1-34.
Computer-mediated Instruction
60. Lane, D. R., & Shelton, M. W. (2001). The centrality of communication education
in classroom computer-mediated communication: Toward a practical and evaluative
pedagogy. Communication Education, 50, 241-255.
61. Wood, A. F., & Fassett, D. L. (2003). Remote control: Identity, power, and
technology in the communication classroom. Communication Education, 52, 286-296.
62. Sherbloom, J. C. (2010). The computer-mediated communication (CMC) classroom:
A challenge of medium, presence, interaction, identity, and relationship. Communication
Education, 59, 497-523.
63. Ledbetter, A. M., & Finn, A. N. (2013). Teacher technology policies and online
communication apprehension as predictors of learner empowerment. Communication
Education, 62, 301-317.
Stakeholder Relationships
64. Docan-Morgan, T., & Manusov, V. (2009). Relational turning point events and their
outcomes in college teacher-student relationships from students’ perspectives.
Communication Education, 58, 155-188.
65. Hosek, A. M., & Thompson, J. (2009). Communication privacy management and
college instruction: Exploring the rules and boundaries that frame instructor private
disclosures. Communication Education, 58, 327-349.
66. Pillet-Shore, D. (2012). The problems with praise in parent-teacher interaction.
Communication Monographs, 79, 181-204.
67. Thompson, B. (2008). The characteristics of parent-teacher e-mail communication.
Communication Education, 57, 201-223.
Instructor Socialization
68. Myers, S. A. (1998). GTAs as organizational newcomers: The association between
supportive communication relationships and information seeking. Western Journal of
Communication, 60, 54-73.
Communication Pedagogy
69. Hendrix, K. G., Jackson, R L., II, & Warren, J. R. (2003). Shifting academic
landscapes: Exploring co-identities, identity negotiation, and critical progressive
pedagogy. Communication Education, 52, 177-190.
For future information on critical communication pedagogy, see various chapters in
Fassett & Warren (2010)
Grading Criteria for the Curriculum Design Project
(a) logical progression of syllabus/training package content;
(b) clarity, thoroughness, and depth of presentational materials;
(c) organization of presentational materials;
(d) communication focus of proposed curriculum;
(e) presence of student/participant learning objectives (preferably measurable);
(f) curriculum content appropriate to specified targets of the learning process;
(g) evaluation of trainer and training content specified;
(h) utility, relevance, and appropriateness of classroom assignments;
(i) utility, relevance, and appropriateness of training exercises;
(j) “sophistication” and substantive nature of presentational materials;
(k) purpose & rationale for content items addressed (e.g., assignments, exercises);
(l) timeframes addressed;
(m) mechanical considerations.
Grading Criteria for the Literature Review Papers
(a) rationale provided for the area of analysis and preview of what is to be covered
and how;
(b) relevancy, comprehensiveness, and currency of the literature (inclusion of seminal
works on the topic);
(c) depth, thoroughness, and substance of the analysis provided;
(d) quality of the critique of present literature (theory/method, as appropriate);
(e) organization of the analysis;
(f) author voice/insightfulness of the analysis;
(g) quality of claims and arguments;
(h) presence of useful directions for future research;
(i) writing “sophistication”;
(j) communication focus of the subject matter;
(k) mechanical considerations/APA format;
(l) convention paper quality: significance; presentational style; has the potential to
offer something “new” to the scholarly field.
Grading Criteria for Discussion Leadership
(a) depth of discussion points;
(b) selection of discussion points;
(c) demonstrated ability to go beyond the article and integrate the material with other
literature;
(d) demonstrated ability to spontaneously discuss points in the article without note
reliance;
(e) substantive value of discussion questions generated
(f) demonstrated ability to respond to instructor and student questions about the
article
(g) demonstrated ability to stay on track with substantive issues of the article and
avoid digressions
(h) demonstrated ability to “play with ideas” suggested by the article.
Grading Criteria for the Final Examination
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
answered all the parts of the questions;
cited seminal literature in the answers;
cited an “appropriate” amount of literature for the topic;
depth, insightfulness, and substance of answers;
quality of claims and arguments presented;
offered evidence to back-up assertions;
advanced future directions of inquiry (self-generated/suggested from literature
sources)
Grading Criteria for Seminar Participation
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
substance of seminar comments;
relevance of seminar comments;
insightfulness of seminar comments;
contributive value of seminar comments;
demonstrated ability to extend ideas into future investigatory areas;
demonstrated ability to integrate relevant literature;
demonstrated ability to think independently;
quantity of seminar inputs.
Seminar Readings Due Dates
The professor reserves the right to make changes in the assignments, due dates, and
content of the course as needed, as long as adequate prior notice is given to the seminar
students.
January 22: Course orientation; selection of seminar leaders for specific readings;
instructional communication as a disciplinary focus
January 29: McMillan & Cheney (1996); Fassett & Warren (2004); Ellis (2004);
Goodboy & Myers (2008); Houser & Frymier (2009)
February 5: Kerssen-Griep et al. (2008); King et al. (2009); Mottet et al. (2004); Myers
et al. (2002); Teven (2004)
February 12: corporate training versus traditional classroom instruction; Schrodt et al.
(2008); Schrodt et al. (2009); Smith & King (2004); Malachowski et al. (2013); Trees et
al. (2009)
February 19: Wanzer et al. (2010); Finn et al. (2009); Mazer (2013); Kerssen-Griep &
Witt (2012); LaRose & Whitten (2000)
February 26: Witt et al. (2004); Perkins (1994); Allen et al. (2008); Schrodt (2013); Claus
et al. (2012)
March 5: Golish & Olson (2000); Katt & Condly (2009); Kelsey et al. (2004); KennedyLightsey & Myers (2009); Mills & Carwile (2009)
March 12: Rocca (2010); Sidelinger & Booth-Butterfield (2010); Behnke & Sawyer
(2004); Bodie (2010); Dwyer (1998)
March 19: Finn et al. (2009); Keaton & Kelly (2000); Beatty et al. (1998); McCroskey &
Beatty (2000); Kelley & Keaton (2000) CURRICULAR DESIGN PROJECTS DUE
March 26: Bodary & Miller (2000); Beatty et al. (2010); West & Pearson (1994); Hart &
Williams (1995); Orbe (2004)
April 2: Spring Break
April 9: Bolls et al. (1997); Braithwaite (1997); Lee et al. (1997); Neulip (1995); Boone
(2003)
April 16: Simmons et al. (2013); Neulip (1997); Roach & Byrne (2001); Chory-Assad &
Paulsel (2004); Young et al. (2013)
April 23: Claus et al. (2012); Goodboy (2011); Horan & Myers (2009); Hogelucht &
Geist (1997); Lane & Shelton (2003)
April 30: Wood & Fassett (2003); Sherbloom (2010); Ledbetter & Finn (2013); DocanMorgan & Manusov (2009); Hosek & Thompson (2009) LITERATURE REVIEW
PAPER DUE
May 7: Pillet-Shore (2012); Thompson (2008); Myers (1998); Hendrix et al. (2003)
May 14: FINAL EXAMINATION (4:00-6:00)
Seminar Room Comportment
The professor reserves the right to establish reasonable expectations deemed necessary to
achieve optimal learning in this seminar. Such expectations involve actions that can be
seen as disruptive to the learning environment, pertaining to, for example, the use of
electronic devices for correspondence, e-mailing, texting, or the like; performing outside
reading, sleeping, harassing, or otherwise engaging in behaviors which suggest disrespect
for the professor or other seminar students; entering the seminar room late or leaving
early, such that it becomes disruptive to others; filming, taping, or otherwise recording
seminar interactions, without the express permission of the professor. (Consult the full
explication of departmental policy on seminar room comportment on Blackboard.)
Academic Integrity
In this seminar, there will be absolutely NO tolerance whatsoever for any form of
plagiarism or cheating on papers or the final examination. Students are responsible for
reading, understanding, and adhering to the attached School of Communication policy
regarding Academic Dishonesty.
THE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY OF THE SCHOOL OF
COMMUNICATION
Plagiarism is theft of intellectual property. It is one of the highest forms of
academic offense because in academe, it is a scholar’s words, ideas, and
creative products that are the primary measures of identity and achievement.
Whether by ignorance, accident, or intent, theft is still theft, and
misrepresentation is still misrepresentation. Therefore, the offense is still serious,
and is treated as such.
Overview:
In any case in which a Professor or Instructor identifies evidence for charging a
student with violation of academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the
presumption will be with that instructor’s determination. However, the
faculty/instructor(s) will confer with the director to substantiate the evidence.
Once confirmed, the evidence will be reviewed with the student. If, following the
review with the student, the faculty member and director determine that
academic dishonesty has occurred, the evidence will be submitted to the Office
of Student Rights and Responsibilities. The report “identifies the student who was
found responsible, the general nature of the offense, the action taken, and a
recommendation as to whether or not additional action should be considered by
the campus judicial affairs office .” (CSSR Website[1]).
[1] http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/srr/academics1.html
Intellectual Property:
The syllabus, lectures and lecture outlines are personal copyrighted
intellectual property of the instructor, which means that any organized
recording for anything other than personal use, duplication, distribution, or
profit is a violation of copyright and fair use laws.
Proper Source Attribution:
Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is
done by (a) providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and (b)
clearly designating the source of the text or information relied upon in an
assignment. Text that is identical with another source but without quotation
marks constitutes plagiarism, regardless of whether you included the original
source.
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences:
a. Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed
materials (whether represented by: (i) multiple sentences, images, or
portions of images; or (ii) by percentage of assignment length) without
proper attribution, will result in assignment of an “F” in the course, and a
report to Student Rights and Responsibilities.
b. Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks but
source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution,
will minimally result in an “F” on the assignment. Repeated or serious cases
will result in assignment of an “F” in the course, and a report to Student
Rights and Responsibilities.
Self-plagiarism:
Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write
on a given topic across more than one course assignment. In general,
there is nothing wrong with double-dipping topics or sources, but there is a
problem with double-dipping exact and redundant text. It is common for
scholars to write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is
part of developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a
topic. Scholars, however, are not permitted to repeat exact text across
papers or publications except when noted and attributed, as this wastes
precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the
particular source of original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the
original presentation. Any time that a writer simply ‘ cuts-and-pastes’ exact
text from former papers into a new paper without proper attribution, it is a
form of self-plagiarism. Consequently, a given paper should never be
turned in to multiple classes. Entire paragraphs, or even sentences,
should not be repeated word-for-word across course assignments. Each
new writing assignment is precisely that, a new writing assignment,
requiring new composition on the student’s part.
Secondary citations:
Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms,
it can present similar ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing
source A, which in turn cites source B, but it is source B’s ideas or content
that provide the basis for the claims the student intends to make in the
assignment. For example, assume that there is an article by Jones (2006)
in the student’s hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of an
article by Smith (1998). Assume further that what Smith seems to be
saying is very important to the student’s analysis. In such a situation, the
student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if
an idea is important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important
enough to locate and cite the original source for that idea. There are
several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors sometimes commit citation
errors, which might be replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors
sometimes make interpretation errors, which might be ignorantly
reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of scholarly activity is made more
difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying on only a few sources of
review, the learning process is short-circuited, and the student’s own
research competencies are diminished, which are integral to any liberal
education; (e) By masking the actual sources of ideas, readers must
second guess which sources come from which citations, making the
readers’ own research more difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the
information, the actual source of ideas is misrepresented. Some
suggestions that assist with this principle:




When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or
unique to, Smith, then find the Smith source and citation.
When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated
more with Smith than with Jones, then find the Smith source and
citation.
In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up
what Jones is saying and believes, and is independently qualified to
claim, whether or not Smith would have also said it; in such a case,
citing Jones is sufficient.
Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement
by Jones, and reproduce the reference list without actually going to look
up what those references report—the only guarantee that claims are
valid is for a student to read the original sources of those claims.
Solicitation for ghost writing:
Any student who solicits any third party to write any portion of an
assignment for this class (whether for pay or not) violates the standards
of academic honesty in this course. The penalty for solicitation
(regardless of whether it can be demonstrated the individual solicited
wrote any sections of the assignment) is F in the course.
TurnItIn.com
The papers in this course will be submitted electronically in Word
(preferably .docx) on the due dates assigned, and will require
verification of submission to Turnitin.com.
“ Students agree that by taking this course all required papers may be
subject to submission for textual similarity review to TurnItIn.com for the
detection of plagiarism. All submitted papers will be included as source
documents in the TurnItIn.com reference database solely for the purpose
of detecting plagiarism of such papers. You may submit your papers in
such a way that no identifying information about you is included. Another
option is that you may request, in writing, that your papers not be
submitted to TurnItIn.com. However, if you choose this option you will be
required to provide documentation to substantiate that the papers are your
original work and do not include any plagiarized material” (source:
language suggested by the CSU General Counsel and approved by the
Center for Student’s Rights and Responsibilities at SDSU)