Intersection of intercultural communication theory and ESL pedagogy

I recently wrote a paper for my communication theory course in which I apply intercultural communication theories to the teaching of English as a Second Language (ESL) to foreign-born students. I have reproduced a slightly revised version of the paper below.

Intercultural Communication in the English as a Second Language (ESL) Classroom 

By Divine Agodzo

Every day, new immigrants across Canada attend English as a Second Language (ESL) classes that not only immerse them in a foreign language but also a foreign culture. Instruction and learning across this cultural divide can pose significant communication challenges for both teachers and students. This paper suggests that ESL instructors can address some of these challenges by incorporating intercultural communication knowledge and practices into the classroom, using Howard Giles’ Communication Accommodation Theory, Stella Ting-Toomey’s Face-Negotiation Theory and Gerry Philipsen’s Speech Codes Theory.

I posit that ESL teachers can bridge intercultural communication and learning gaps by applying convergence, divergence, and discourse management, all concepts drawn from Communication Accommodation Theory. From Face-Negotiation Theory, awareness of facework and the concept of power distance, will help ESL teachers improve classroom interaction. Teaching practice will also be helped by an appreciation of three key propositions of Speech Codes Theory pertaining to the distinctiveness, interpretation, and force of speech codes.   

Communication Accommodation Theory
    
ESL teachers can employ convergence strategies to accommodate the learning needs of their students. Convergence occurs when you “adapt your communication behaviour in such a way as to become more similar to another person” (Griffin, 2012, p. 395). Two key areas in which ESL teachers can practice convergence relate to the rate/speed of their speech and their vocabulary. Most ESL learners speak slowly, allowing them to think before expressing their thoughts. By mimicking this speech pattern, ESL teachers will provide their students with the reflective and analytical space they need to process the teacher’s words and imbibe learning concepts.

Similarly, teachers should adapt their vocabulary to their students’ limited understanding and use of the English language. For example, telling a class of ESL students to “Ensure you have a concrete thesis at the commencement of your composition” would be a failure to apply appropriate lexicographical convergence. Instead, the teacher might say, “Tell me what you will be writing about, in a short sentence, before you begin work.”

ESL teachers will also need to use appropriate divergence in the classroom. Divergence is particularly useful in modeling correct usage and addressing common pronunciation mistakes. For instance, when a student mispronounces a word or uses a wrong grammatical form, the teacher can illustrate the correction through divergence by restating the sentence correctly, instead of pointing out the student’s error. An international student, for example, might say, “I playing soccer with a friends last weekend,” to which the teacher would say, “You played soccer with some friends last weekend?”

ESL teachers can also apply discourse management to foster intercultural engagement with their students. As Shepard, Giles and Le Poire (2001) note, “discourse management strategies focus upon the other person's conversational needs and attune to them" (p. 36). Students could be asked, for example, to select a favourite tourist attraction in their home country and explain why it is a must-see for visitors. Or the teacher might ask students to share aspects of their country’s culture with the class. Discourse management of this kind is likely to elicit greater expressiveness from ESL students and increased opportunities to practice and develop their oral communication skills because the selected topics allow them to discuss subjects in which they have expertise or interest.

Face-Negotiation Theory

The concept of facework (Ting-Toomey, 1999) helps ESL teachers understand how culture might influence students’ attitudes toward individual performance and group work. People from individualistic Caucasian cultures generally have “self-face” concerns to preserve their autonomy whereas people from collectivistic cultures mostly exhibit “other-face” concerns to “defend and support another person’s need for inclusion” (Griffin, 2012, p. 412). As most ESL learners are from collectivistic cultures, the teacher may notice a reluctance by students to stand out academically, because that could be perceived as elevating “self-face” over “other-face.”

The reservations that students from collectivistic cultures may have about standing out academically can manifest in various ways in the classroom. It may inhibit students from answering questions in class, even when they have great ideas, because exhibition of their academic abilities runs counter to other-face concerns for the class. The individualistic expectation in Western cultures that students work independently (for example during exams) may also be disregarded. By sharing answers to test questions with classmates, students from collectivistic countries like China are merely demonstrating other-face concern, not cheating.

A potential solution to the challenges posed by “face-giving” in the ESL classroom is greater reliance on team work and explaining expectations, and “rules” up front. By working as a group and sharing the same marks, the other-face concerns of students from collectivistic cultures are addressed. Multiple small groups could be created in the class, allowing for some measure of inter-group competition. The ESL teacher must however carefully facilitate discussions within the teams to prevent groupthink, a phenomenon that teams in the ESL classroom may be more prone to because challenging the ideas of group members could be perceived as not face-giving.

Another cultural factor likely to influence classroom discourse is the high power distance orientation of students from collectivistic cultures, where “there is great importance placed on status and rank” (Dainton & Zelley, 2011, p. 185). Research has shown that “for large power distance cultures…formal verbal and nonverbal interaction is expected. For small power distance cultures, informal verbal and nonverbal interaction is preferred" (Ting-Toomey, 1999, p. 265). Because teachers occupy a very high place in the social hierarchy of collectivist cultures, they are accorded much reverence and deference. Students hardly speak to the teacher and even refrain from asking questions because this is construed as not maintaining appropriate power distance. Students also treat teachers as unchallengeable bastions of knowledge, hence a “jug and mug” pedagogic model is the norm (that is, the students are just containers that the teacher must fill with knowledge). The ESL teacher will therefore need to work harder to draw these students out and get them to engage in critical thinking, as opposed to viewing themselves as mere passive receivers of knowledge.

Speech Codes Theory

Speech Codes Theory has another important lesson for ESL teachers – avoid putting all your students in one cultural box because "each community has its own cultural values about speaking and these are linked to judgments of situational appropriateness" (Philipsen, 1990, p. 11). While collectivistic cultures have commonalities, individuals from specific speech communities within these cultures have distinct communication practices and rules. Even factors such as the specific region in a country that the foreign student grew up in and the corresponding cultural, social, educational and economic context will have an impact on speech codes. For example, some students who grew up in a collectivistic culture may have been so exposed to Western cultural values that they may have speech codes closer to those of the Nacirema (the theory’s name for the archetypical North American) than other students in the class from the same country.

Philipsen’s proposition on the interpretation of speech codes will help the ESL teacher avoid the mistake of cultural over-generalization. This construct asserts that we must turn to the users of a speech code to help us interpret the code; after all, “it’s their practice; they decide what it means” (Griffin, 2012, p. 425). This demands that the ESL teacher be a pseudo-ethnographer, committed to investigating and understanding the various speech codes of students in his or her class. The teacher can begin this process by asking the students and potentially their parents to fill out a short survey prior to the start of classes. Alternatively, this could be accomplished by interviews. The questionnaire or interview questions should aim at identifying the speech values of the particular student by probing cultural do’s and don’ts and how they might help or hinder classroom communication and learning.

Finally, ESL teachers need to acknowledge the force of speech codes, implying that they have very real and practical implications and may be difficult to dismiss or alter. Cultural speech codes are not easy to break. A student who has learned from childhood that teachers must not be questioned will be under the strong influence of this cultural taboo even after the ESL teacher has explained that this does not apply in Western society. That means ESL teachers will need to be patient and continue to explain the different needs and expectations of the new learning environment to their students. The teacher should aim for slow but steady change in his students’ behaviors, recognizing that it will take some time to unlearn familiar speech codes, and that some will do this faster than others. The teacher must help his or her students along the journey of transformation by also making practical changes to course material and pedagogy that show awareness of the force of culture.

References

Dainton, M., & Zelley, E.D. (2011). Applying communication theory for professional life:
A practical introduction (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Philipsen, G. (1990). Speaking “like a man” in Teamsterville: Culture patterns of role enactment
in an urban neighborhood. In D. Carbaugh (Ed.), Cultural communication and intercultural contact (pp. 11-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Shepard, C. A., Giles, H., & Le Poire, B. A. (2001). Communication Accommodation
Theory. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 33-56). Chichester, England: Wiley. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Ting-Toomey, S. (1999). Communicating across cultures. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Lessons from Dr. Kevin Schut: Study and teach what you love

Dr. Kevin Schut may be the coolest academic you’ll ever meet. He studies video games, using his doctorate degree in communication to explore the social, psychological, economic and even spiritual dimensions of one of the hottest media genres around today (check out his new book, Of Games and God: A Christian Exploration of Video Games, to learn more).

I was thrilled to meet with the Trinity Western University communication department chair recently, to get his thoughts on learning and teaching communication. Schut, who was born and raised in Canada and pursued graduate studies in communication in the U.S., welcomed me to his Langley, British Columbia office with a warm smile and a friendly handshake. I glanced at the display of books on his office book shelf and Ronanowski’s classic Eyes Wide Open caught my eye. Not surprisingly, Romanowski’s ideas have been a strong influence on Schut’s work.

The blue-jeaned academic guru of video games told me his journey to the role of communication professor was not a straightforward one. After completing a first degree in history, he served a stint as a teacher in Cote D’Ivoire in West Africa and contemplated being a history teacher at the university. That was before an advisor suggested he consider the job market for history professors. So he made a detour to the field of communication. Then came another piece of advice from one of his profs – the road of academia is a long one so make sure you specialize in something you enjoy. This is what will keep you going when the going gets tough.

That’s when the light bulb came on for Schut. “Video games! Can you study that?” he thought.  From his youth, Schut loved gaming (and still does). It turned out he could study video games academically, and so he did. Schut says there wasn’t a lot of research literature in the burgeoning field, but there were lots of great academic questions worth investigating. And specializing in this field gave him scholarly justification to play the games he loved.
________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Schut recently made a presentation to students at Spring Arbor University, arguing that video games are a “double-edged sword.” Watch on YouTube.
________________________________________________________________________________

Video games may not be your passion, but Schut’s choice and career path offers a valuable lesson for those thinking of careers in communication scholarship. Find an area in the field that resonates with you at a personal level. If you don’t love what you are studying or teaching, your journey in academia becomes hard to sustain over the long haul.

Below is a summary of the great tips that Dr. Schut shared with me:

1.    While it’s great to study what you love, don’t forget about jobs. Do some research to find out what areas universities are focusing on in their hiring activities. You can do this by checking out current job postings. If you can align your passion to the market needs, you have a double win.

2.    Professional groups such as the National Communication Association and the International Communication Association provide excellent avenues to learn about opportunities in the field and what’s “hot” right now. By reviewing what topics are being discussed in conferences and the subjects leading presenters are focusing on, you can get a good sense of areas of relevance that you may wish to specialize in.

3.    Think global. In an increasingly globalized economy, specializations that are relevant to the networked reality of contemporary life will command appeal. Intercultural communication, for example, has applications for a world that has been made smaller by immigration and media technology.

4.    For those with an interest and background in this area, teaching communication from a Christian worldview offers good employment prospects, especially in the U.S.

5.    Don’t be afraid to combine multiple interests and theoretical perspectives to creatively arrive at an area of specialization in communication that you are passionate about. What’s most important is your ability to justify your focus as a relevant and needed contribution to the study and practice of communication. 

Many thanks to Dr. Schut for allowing me to share these insights on my blog. Watch this blog for my upcoming review of his latest book, Of Games and God.

Communication as community of thought

It is interesting to note that, etymologically, the word communication and community have the same root. Both communication and community speak to the idea of ”making common” or bringing together. In that regard, Shepherd (2001) observes that "the simultaneous experience of self and other might serve well as a definition of communication" (p. 32), adding that "when communication occurs, something communal is made… it is something synergistic. It is community" (p. 32). In communication, we "partake of one another; each is taken into the other and made a part of the other (hence another associated word, communion)" (p. 32).

This leads to a community-centred view of communication. Looked at this way, we can see that communication allows us to initiate and negotiate communities of shared understanding. Whether we are communicating with one person, a group, or mass audiences, we are engaging in community building through communication. At all levels (interpersonal, family, church, work place), the quality of the community we build will depend on the quality and character of our communication and how we are able to negotiate and share mutually beneficial meaning.

Defining communication as a meeting of minds aligns with a cultural or interpretive view of the communication process. However, early communication theorists held a transmissive view of communication, variously known as a "magic bullet theory," "hypodermic needle theory," "transportation theory" or "conveyor belt theory" of communication (Cassata & Asante, 1979, p. 79). This view is based on a linear model of the communication process, with a simplistic presupposition that the meaning encoded by the sender will largely be the same meaning decoded by the receiver of the message. Scholars today acknowledge that communication is more than the transmission of information. This cultural or interpretive approach assigns moderate effects to messages and holds that communication is not automatic, simply because a message has been sent. In this view, communication only occurs when some degree of shared meaning is in fact achieved between the sender and receiver of the message.

The perspective that one takes (transmissive or cultural view) will influence approaches to research. Those inclined towards a transmissive view will be drawn towards quantitative social science research methodologies that seeks to measure the effects of messages on the audience (with the expectation that the message would have produced the intended/expected effects). Those inclined towards a cultural view of communication are likely to use research methods drawn from the humanities, such as an ethnographic approach.

The way one defines communication also has practical implications. If a person views information and communication as synonymous, it may lead them to conclude that once a message has been expressed, understanding has resulted. In interpersonal interactions, this may result in less effort to ensure true understanding. Those who believe it takes more than messages to impart meaning are more likely to check and verify that there is consistency between intended meaning and the interpretation of the receiver. Separating message and meaning also means that the person communicating has the right to say, "This is not what I meant." The receiver who subscribes to this view will accord this right to the sender of the message, giving him/her the opportunity to clarify their intended meaning, so that true communication or "meeting of minds" can be achieved.

References

Cassata, M. B., & Asante, M. K. (1979). Mass communication: Principles and practices. New York, NY: Macmillan. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Shepherd, G. J. (2001). Community as the interpersonal accomplishment of communication. In G. J. Shepherd & E. W. Rothenbuhler (Eds.), Communication and community (pp. 25-33). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

A tale of two perspectives (and four crucial questions): Opposing schools of thought in communication theory and practice

Griffin (2012) describes communication as “the relational process of creating and interpreting messages that elicit a response” (p. 6). Communication is an incredibly complex phenomenon and scholars continue to make attempts to understand both the cognitive processes that produce it and its effects at the interpersonal, group and mass media level. These attempts to understand and explain communication take the form of theories, which could be metaphorically represented as “lenses” or “maps” helping us to better view or navigate the world of communication (Griffin, 2012, p. 5).

But while communication is one discipline, it is a divided one, with two diametrically opposing camps. One school of communication is described as objective, or in some literature, the social science or transmissive view of communication. The other school employs an interpretive or humanistic focus, also variously called the cultural or phenomenological approach. Communication theorists generally gravitate towards one or the other of these two camps. “Membership” of a particular camp has significant implications for the way the communication theorist approaches the tasks of research and scholarship. In fact, the schism is so consequential that the two schools have divergent worldviews, shown in how they answer four fundamental questions. These questions are:

1.    What is truth?
2.    Is human nature governed by determinism or based on free will?
3.    What is a higher value: objectivity or emancipation?
4.    What is the purpose of theory: to provide universal laws or serve as interpretive guides?

The conflicting assumptions of the social science and humanities schools are evident in the responses the two camps provide to these questions. Social science believes it can discover objective truth that is largely applicable to humans. The interpretive school disagrees, arguing that while truth exists, it is not universal. To this end, there are multiple truths, or “multiple realities.”

For the second question, social scientists largely see human nature as ruled by determinism. They see a cause and effect relationship in human behavior and believe that a particular communication stimulus will yield a specific behavioral response. This has been fittingly described as a “hypodermic needle” or “magic bullet” view of communication because of the direct, no-miss, effective impact messages are believed to have.

Interpretive communication theorists disagree with the idea that humans can be that subject to media manipulation. They emphasize individuality and the ability of humans to control how they respond to communication. In the opinion of interpretivists, messages are always filtered through an individual’s cultural context and experiences and this can lead to varying responses to the same message.

Should the highest goal of scholarship be objectivity or emancipation?  The social science school of communication theorists argue for the former, while the humanistic school elevates the latter. For social scientists, personal involvement opens the door to dangerous bias that will mislead researchers searching for the truth. The interpretive camp, on the other hand, places the highest premium on social transformation, particularly liberation from perceived oppression or unfair power dynamics. To achieve this, members of the interpretive school believe involvement by the scholar in his or her work is not only acceptable, but sometimes desirable.

In their answers to the fourth question, social scientists and humanistic theorists again show they are polar opposites. Tied to their response to question 2, social scientists are confident that their theories can uncover universal laws. Interpretive communication theorists wouldn’t go as far. For them, their theories only serve as interpretive guides for understanding human communicative behavior. They provide rules that are flexible and adaptable, not laws that are binding and predictable.

These critical distinctions lead to very different approaches to communication theory and practice by these two schools. It is the reason communication theorists in the social science camp focus on prediction of future events (grounded in the belief in determinism and universal laws) and data-based empirical research (quest for objective truth that can be tested). On the other hand, the core assumptions of the interpretive school serve as the basis for its commitment to societal reform (because the highest value of scholarship is emancipation) and the use of qualitative forms of research that they see as better able to distinguish and comprehend multiple experiences and realities.
Is one of these two camps stronger than the other? Are there any ways to reconcile these differences? Perhaps both perspectives have their own appeal, which would make a pragmatic stance the most practicable position for the communication scholar?

References

Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

How to achieve success in online learning (and any kind of academic pursuit, for that matter)

How can students succeed in the online learning environment? Several factors come into play, but here are some key considerations.

1. Knowledge and application of one’s learning style is helpful, but it is not a panacea for success

There are a wide range of learning style inventories available that assess students’ instructional, social interaction, and information processing preferences, as well as the connection between personality traits and learning (Lynch, 2004, p. 134). These inventories are helpful, for both online and traditional learning environments. By being aware of their learning styles, students can intentionally adopt study methods that play to their strengths. However, this does not provide a magic bullet for success. And no particular learning style provides an advantage over others in online learning. 

2. Self-regulated learning behaviors provide a significant advantage in online learning

Positive learning behaviors are centred on self-regulated learning. According to Zimmerman (2001), “this approach views learning as an activity that students do for themselves in a proactive way, rather than as a covert event that happens to them reactively as a result of teaching experiences” (p. 1). With self-regulated learning (also known as self-directed or active learning), the student takes ownership of his/her learning, developing and implementing a strategy for personal success. Scholars have identified four dimensions of academic self-regulation – the self-regulation of motive, method, performance outcomes and environmental/social setting (Schunk & Zimmeman, 1994).

If positive learning behaviors are centered on self-regulated learning, they are anchored on learner conation – the student’s motivation or drive for success. The impetus for motivation is not fully understood, but it appears to be stronger in individuals who have, among other qualities, clear goals for their learning, who are self-aware and who have curiosity about the subject matter (O’Neil & Drillings, 1994). While individuals draw their motivation from different places, it seems “the simplest and most direct motivational explanation of why some people perform better on work tasks than others is because they have different performance goals" (Locke, 1994, p. 15).

3. Learning supports enhance the online learner’s prospects for success

By learning supports, I refer to the availability of academic and physical resources needed for academic success. This includes the quality of the online program (proper accreditation is critical); course design; instructor skills, experience and accessibility; and technological infrastructure.

References

Locke, E. A. (1994). Goal setting theory. In H. F. O'Neil Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Lynch, M. M. (2004). Learning online: A guide to success in the virtual classroom. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

O'Neil, H. F., Jr., & Drillings, M. (Eds.). (1994). Motivation: theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1994). Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview and analysis. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

E-Books in College-Level Education: Annotated Bibliography

I recently put together an annotated bibliography of six good sources of information on the academic use of e-books. This is a very interesting topic that will shape the future of education for years to come. The literature reviewed below provide a good sense of developments in this area.


Polanka, S. (Ed.). (2011). No shelf required: E-books in libraries. Chicago, IL: American
Library Association. Retrieved from ebrary.

Polanka (2011) assembles contributions from academic librarians, faculty, publishers and vendors in this collection that “offers readers an opportunity to explore the challenges that e-books bring to our libraries” (p. xii). The text looks at the past and future of e-books, from Project Guttenberg to Google Books and beyond. For example, Google Books’ partnerships with academia, beginning with agreements with institutions such as Cambridge University Press, Harvard and the University of Michigan, are examined in detail. A chapter on The Academic Library e-Book discusses the University of Texas at Austin’s early foray into the world of e-books, with a contract with NetLibrary in 1999, and its “highly experimental approach to collecting e-books” (p. 79). Another case study of interest examines Pennsylvania State University’s Sony E-Book Reader Project.

Polanka, S. (Ed.). (2012). No shelf required 2: Use and management of electronic books.
Chicago, IL: American Library Association.

With the rapid changes in the e-book market, Polanka (2012) again gathers a team of experts to provide multi-faceted perspectives on e-books, including a spotlight on university libraries on the leading-edge of the e-book revolution. These include the Stanford University Engineering Library, the University of Texas at San Antonio Applied Engineering and Technology Library, and the University of Texas at Austin Undergraduate Library. The Stanford case study, for example, showcases a new library that will eventually be dedicated exclusively to digital materials and that features a gadget bar where students can borrow e-readers. Another innovative project profiled is the iPad Loaner Program of the Oberlin College Library in Ohio.

Cassidy, E. D., Martinez, M., & Shen, L. (2012). Not in love, or not in the know? Graduate
student and faculty use (and non-use) of e-books. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 38(6), 326-332. doi: 10.1016/j.acalib.2012.08.005

Cassidy, Martinez and Shen (2012) present findings from a study conducted at the San Houston State University on e-book usage by graduate students and faculty. The study revealed 38% of respondents had used the library’s e-books, split almost equally between graduate students and faculty. Among non-users, graduate students were much more open to trying e-books in future (68%) than faculty (47%). The study also found a statistically significant difference between the average age of those who used e-books (37 years) and those who did not (41 years).  The researchers speculate that the low usage of e-books may be attributed to “a disconnection between library marketing and users,” (p. 331), but clearly, features like the print book’s tangibility and the fact that it promotes “active reading techniques such as annotation and highlighting” (p. 329) continue to make it an attractive choice for advanced university researchers.

Weisberg, M. (2011). Student attitudes and behaviors towards digital textbooks. Publishing
Research Quarterly, 27(2), 188-196. doi: 10.1007/s12109-011-9217-4

In his two-year, ongoing longitudinal study of students at the Suffolk University Sawyer Business School, Weisberg (2011) examines how access to, and use of, various popular e-devices to read electronic textbooks affects students’ attitudes, behaviors and learning. The study compared findings for students who used the electronic devices and those who used print textbooks. Preliminary results show “student attitudes and behaviors are becoming receptive to and accepting of using digital textbooks each year” (p. 188). Weisberg (2011) also found no significant difference in learning outcomes among students who used different e-devices and those who used paper textbooks. The study documents a significant shift in student perceptions and behaviors about electronic textbooks after a year’s participation in the study, from a general impression that e-textbooks are better suited for elementary education to an increased preference for electronic textbooks.

Staiger, J. (2012). How e-books are used. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 51(4), 355-365.
Retrieved from Teacher Reference Center Database.

Staiger (2012) presents a literature review of 24 studies conducted between 2006 and 2011 on e-book use in post-secondary institutions. In terms of awareness of e-books, he found wide gaps in the studies, from a low awareness of 31% in one U.K. university to a high of 75% at a Cincinnati college (p. 356). For usage, the review found an aggregate of roughly 50% of participants in the various studies believe they have used e-books. The largest area of consensus among the studies relates to how e-books are used. Based on the metadata, Staiger (2012) observes that when students consult e-books, they only “extract information for their scholarly use” (p. 357) and that “they do no immerse themselves in them for extended periods of time” (p. 357). He concludes that e-books may be engendering superficial scholarship by promoting “cursory and spotty practices” (p. 361), instead of thorough reading.

No Shelf Required. [Web log]. Retrieved from http://www.libraries.wright.edu/noshelfrequired/about/

A good website for following developments in academic e-book publishing and adoption is No Shelf Required (http://www.libraries.wright.edu/noshelfrequired/), a blog affiliated with the Wright State University Libraries. The site discusses “the issues, concepts, current and future practices of eBook publishing” (No Shelf Required, n.d.). Although aimed primarily at librarians and publishers, this online resource provides a wealth of information for scholars conducting research on e-book use in academia. The site includes sections on academic libraries, Google Books, surveys and statistics, university press, and articles of interest.  Content on the site is moderated by Sue Polanka, head of reference and instruction at Wright State University Libraries.

What channel/tool should you use for your public relations campaign?

Below are five criteria that can be used to determine what particular mode of external communication (media or channel choice) should be used for a public relations campaign.

1. Audience-specific and demographic factors:  As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, “successful campaigns utilize those media that are most accessible to [target] audiences” (p. 270). This often has to do with the demographics of the audience the campaign is seeking to reach. If the goal is to reach younger audiences, social media channels should be considered, given their high use of channels such as Facebook. For older audiences, traditional media (print newspapers, magazines and television) may be better options. Mainstream media outlets can even be analysed further, based on the audience. If the campaigns aims to reach religious or conservative Christians, television networks such as FOX. If the target is African American young adults, a station like Black Entertainment Television would be an ideal choice.

2. Channel reach: Some channels or tools can reach a large audience, while others reach a smaller, targeted group. This consideration can help determine which external media to use. A company may want to use brochures and posters at its locations to reach the relatively smaller group of customers who visit its locations. If the organization wants to communicate with larger audiences (e.g. potential/future customers or external stakeholders who are not customers), channels with a larger reach (e.g. television advertising, a news release or a news conference) may need to be employed.

3. Message format/type: Certain types of messages may call for particular communication channels. For example, if the goal is to convey detailed, technical information that the audience needs to retain/remember, text/print-based channels would be more advisable. Examples of this include financial reports (print would be better than a video report). If the message to be communicated is brief (and needs to be communicated to a mass audience), Twitter might be a good choice (Twitter wouldn’t work for communication the financial report, for example). Some messages are best communicated by video, to convey a personal and emotional connection with the audience. An example might be when a CEO needs to make an important apology and convey the emotion of remorse to the audience.

4. Feedback requirements: Does the message require prompt feedback or can feedback be delayed? The need for immediate feedback will dictate particular channels, such as, use of Facebook, a video conference, or a survey on the company’s website. Channels such as newspaper articles may also elicit feedback, but this will be delayed, because feedback is not typically built into this channel.

5. Resources: Finally, resources should be a consideration. There is no point in planning and attempting to launch a campaign that the organization does not have the financial, logistical and human resources to execute. Channels such as television advertising are expensive, so the needed budget needs to be in place. Social media campaigns, on the other hand, can be executed without heavy financial investments.

Which of these five factors would you consider the most important? Why?

What is the best leadership communication style?

As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, leaders tend to be inclined towards one of three leadership styles, namely authoritarian, democratic or laissez-fair. They note that “each of these styles of communication has unique features that affect how leaders interact with followers (p. 38). While it’s easy to assume that one of these styles is the best (for example, the democratic approach), leadership contingency theory suggests that the choice of which style a leader should employ needs to be determined by situational considerations.

Below are some ideas that can help determine which leadership communication style to employ under varying circumstances. I have presented this in the form of questions the leader can ask, to help think through which leadership style may be appropriate or effective.

1. Does the process, task or goal involve public safety, issues of security or danger? If so, an authoritarian style is advisable, to help control and minimize risk. Examples include leader-follower relationships in the police and army.

2. Is the leader involved in providing training, instruction or coaching to followers? If so, a democratic style may not be the best approach because too much consultation over items such as curricula, how training should be conducted, and how progress should be assessed, will frustrate the learning process. The leader (in this case, a teacher or coach) would be best advised to adopt an authoritarian style (although a benevolent one).

3. Do the followers belong to a culture that has a high “power distance”? This is the perception that "an order of inequality exists in the world and everyone has their rightful place in that order; that differences in power are a basic fact of society and questions of the legitimacy of power are irrelevant" (Chemers, 1997, p. 117). Countries with high power distance cultures are primarily the nations outside of Europe and North America. In these countries, followers may expect their leaders to be authoritarian because that is the cultural norm for those in power. It may be advisable to avoid a democratic approach in these cultures as this will be seen as an abdication of authority.

4. Does the task require a high level of creativity/imagination or highly specialized skills? If so, the leader should consider a democratic or laissez-faire style because micro-managing this group will stifle innovation. Examples include leading scientists in a medical research lab.

5. Does the group being led lack maturity and experience? If so, a benevolent authoritarian style may be best. A good example of this is the relationship between a parent and a young child.

6. Is this a field that requires professional independence for success? If so, leaders need to adopt a laissez-faire model. Examples include the relationship between university administrators and tenure-track professors, or between the executive arm of the U.S. government and judges on the Supreme Court.

7. Are you leading low-motivated workers performing low-skill, routinized tasks? In that case, efficiency should be achieved through authoritarian leadership.

8. Are employees performing high compliance tasks in a highly regulated industry? Then the leader should consider an authoritarian style. An example is supervising work on an offshore oil rig.

9. Are you leading a group that has problems of indiscipline, poor work ethics, lack of professionalism and non-compliance with company policies and best practices? The leader faced with this situation will need to assert control and re-establish discipline through an authoritarian style.

10. Is your group or organization faced with a crisis or emergency that requires quick decision-making and the ability to act quickly? A scenario of this kind might call for an authoritarian leadership style until the situation has passed.

Do you agree with these criteria? What would you add?

References

Chemers, M. M. (1997). An integrative theory of leadership. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Hackman, M. Z., & Johnson, C.E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

13 communication theories in a nutshell

Let’s face it -- communication theories can be complicated and abstract concepts to grasp, let alone reproduce. That said, below is my attempt to capture the essence of 13 key communication theories as briefly as possible. The summaries below are derived from Griffin (2012), p. 54 – 229. See if you agree with these Cliffs Notes renditions.

Divine Agodzo

1. Symbolic interactionism

Simply put, symbolic interactionism posits that “perception is reality” or better put, “perception through interaction is reality.” The theory suggests that meaning is the interpretation we subjectively give to reality; it is not intrinsic. As we interact with others through language, we make and modify meaning, and through thinking or “minding” we provide our individual interpretation of this socially constructed meaning.

2. Coordinated management of meaning (CMM)

Like symbolic interactionism, CMM is rooted in social constructionism, the idea that communication does not describe our relationships and our reality, but in fact, creates them. This happens as much through the patterns, mood and manner of our communication (its “logical force”) as through their actual content. CMM’s reflexivity concept holds that the actions of people in communication have effects that bounce of each other, as they create the ecology of the world in which they must live.

3. Expectancy violations theory

Judee Burgoon’s expectancy violations theory contends that in some situations, breaching societal or personal expectations, is an effective communication strategy. The theory has three key concepts: “Expectancy” is what people predict will happen; “violation valence” is the degree to which the violation is perceived positively or negatively; and “communicator reward valence” is the ratio of positive to negative values attributed to the one committing the violation, and the degree to which they are seen as being able to reward or punish the person on the receiving end of the violation. The theory suggests that when a breach has a positive violation valence, it will yield superior results compared to compliance.

4. Constructivism

Constructivism proposes that the ability of individuals to communicate skillfully (or not) depends on the complexity (or otherwise) of the cognitive templates or “constructs” with which they view the world. These constructs are the contrasting features they use to classify people, and the more distinguishing they are (able to isolate subtle personality and behavior differences among people), the greater the individual’s cognitive complexity or “construct differentiation.” According to theorist Jesse Delia, individuals with higher construct differentiation are better able to adapt their communication to suit varying needs of the audience and differing situational requirements, producing what she describes as “sophisticated communication.”

5. Social penetration theory

Social penetration theory posits that relationship development is akin to penetrating increasingly resistant social layers (depicted through onion metaphor) to achieve greater depth and breadth of intimacy. According to the theory, outer layers of the “onion” (e.g. biographical data) are penetrated more easily/quickly than deeper layers (self-concept; deeply held fears/fantasies). This process occurs through self-disclosure; is guided by the “law of reciprocity” (self-disclosure by one causes the other communicant to also self-disclose); and is motivated by consideration of outcomes (perceived rewards of self-disclosure minus costs). A reverse process of “depenetration” can also occur when communicants gradually close up their lives to each other.

6.Uncertainty reduction theory

Theorist Charles Berger is of the opinion that when individuals meet for the first time (strangers), a driving goal in their communication is the reduction of uncertainty that inevitably exists about how to navigate the relationship. He notes that this is especially so if there is the expectation that future/ongoing interaction will occur; if there is something at stake in the relationship (an incentive value); or if the other party has unusual/inexplicable features (deviance). Berger developed eight axioms to explain and predict how uncertainty operates in interpersonal communication.  Uncertainty can be reduced using a passive, active or interactive strategy.

7. Social information processing theory (SIP)

Social information theory argues that Computer Media Communication is able to provide a parallel, and in some cases richer interpersonal communication experience than face-to-face communication. Theorist Joseph Walther argued that CMC uses linguistic content to compensate for the lack of non-verbal cues. The theory concedes, however, that interpersonal relations are formed at a slower rate in CMC, but given time, will attain all the features of a face-to-face relationship, and even more (hyperpersonal perspective).

8. Relational dialectics

Relational dialectics proposes that contradictory forces are at play in interpersonal relationships. This is when two forces or tendencies are interdependent (the dialectical principle of unity), and yet mutually negate one another (the dialectical principle of negation). Theorists Leslie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery identified relational dialectics at work in three key areas: integration vs. separation; stability vs. change; and expression vs. nonexpression.

9. Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPMT)

CPMT holds that, in conflict with the desire to disclose personal information as a means of building intimacy (social penetration theory), individuals have a competing desire for privacy. It is premised on the assumption that people have “ownership” of their private information; that they control the use of this information through personal privacy rules; and that when this information is shared with others, they become co-owners of the information. Theorist Sandra Petronio cautioned that co-owners of private information need to decide on mutually agreed privacy rules on disclosure.

10. The Interaction View

The Interaction View falls under the Cybernetic Tradition, which means it adopts a systems-view of communication processes. In other words, communication occurs within interconnected, interdependent systems in which one person’s behavior affects everyone in the system. According to the theory, systems, by definition, resist change, which can be accomplished through “reframing” by all parties. The theory proposes four axioms as key to understanding (and changing) communication within the system.

11. Social judgment theory

Social judgment theory posits that the opinions individuals have/form on issues are situated on (and shift across) three latitudes: a latitude of acceptance (ideas viewed as reasonable or worth considering); a latitude of rejection (range of ideas dismissed as unreasonable); and a latitude of non-commitment (range of ideas to which person is indifferent). The ability to shift an individual’s opinion across these latitudes depends heavily on their “ego-involvement,” which is the importance of an issue to them. In addition, the theory suggests that people with heavy ego-involvement tend to over-react negatively to messages they disagree with, seeing them as much more objectionable than presented (contrast error). On the other hand, they over-react positively to messages they agree with, seeing them as much more appealing than presented (assimilation error).

12. Elaboration likelihood theory

This theory posits that the chances of successfully persuading an individual on an issue depend on the cognitive route that individual is predisposed to take, in message assessment or “elaboration.” Theorists Richard Petty and John Cacioppo identified two such routes, the central route, used by those who exert higher mental effort to scrutinize facts and arguments in the message, and the peripheral route, employed by those who prefer to use a mental shortcut process that is guided by “irrelevant cues” (e.g. celebrity endorsements, presenter’s personality) as opposed to high message elaboration. The theorists hold that decisions made by the central route are most strongly held and last longer, while those made by the peripheral route, are more fickle.

13. Cognitive dissonance theory

Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory asserts that human beings have a strong aversive drive to reconcile “dissonance” or conflict between their beliefs/attitudes/opinions and their behavior/actions/reality. Festinger’s theory includes a most paradoxical hypothesis (minimal justification hypothesis), that asserts that the best way to change someone’s belief is to change their action through a minimal amount of rewards or punishment that would lead to “compliance.” Faced with dissonance between his/her “compliance” behavior and his/her beliefs (which cannot be explained by the minimal reward/punishment), the individual would then cognitively align his beliefs to his actions, to eliminate the dissonance.

References

Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th edition). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

MLK: The Quintessential Charismatic Leader

This year, the world marked the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous I Have A Dream speech. I am posting below a paper I wrote on MLK for my communication leadership course. As always, I appreciate comments.

DA

To cite this article (APA): Agodzo, D. (2013, November 1). Martin Luther King: The quintessential charismatic leader [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://learnandteachcomm.blogspot.ca/2013/11/mlk-quintessential-charismatic-leader.html

Martin Luther King: The Quintessential Charismatic Leader

This paper provides a leadership communication analysis of the life of the prominent civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., as the world marks the 50th anniversary of his famous “I have a Dream” speech. To provide insights into King’s leadership, it will review his legacy through five lenses – the roles that vision, historical factors, power, charisma, and credibility, played in his life and message. This article suggests that (a) the rallying force of a compelling vision was central to King’s success as a leader; (b) the confluence of historical and situational factors provided a fertile environment for King’s emergence as a leader; (c) King’s source of power was primarily rooted in the legitimating force of Scripture, (d) King’s leadership was seen by his followers as stemming from a charismatic “anointing” from God; and (e) King’s credibility with respect to his personal commitment and sacrifice to the vision strengthened his leadership, but credibility gaps in other areas pose challenges to those taking a retrospective look at his legacy. The paper concludes with some lessons that contemporary leaders can learn from King’s life.

Historical Highlights of Martin Luther King’s Life

Martin Luther King Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was an African-American Baptist minister responsible for leading a non-violent civil rights movement that transformed race relations in the U.S. in the 50s and 60s. King studied theology at Crozer Theological Seminary in 1951 and subsequently earned a doctorate in theology from Boston University in 1955. Following the footsteps of his father, King entered ministry, becoming pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1954 (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013).  King’s rise to prominence began when he joined Rosa Parks and other African-Americans in a boycott of segregated bus lines in Montgomery, Alabama, eventually taking a leadership role in the protests that led to the desegregation of the bus system in 1956.

Following this civil rights coup, King went on to lead the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, providing him with a platform from which to preach his message of nonviolent reform of systemic and institutional racism. For this, he endured great sacrifices, including several arrests in the 1950s and 60s (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013). In August 1963, King spearheaded the March on Washington, which was attended by more than 200,000 people (“King, Martin Luther, Jr.,” 2013). This historic event was the setting for King’s famous “I have a Dream” speech, a powerful articulation of his leadership vision and the most notable demonstration of his charismatic oratory. It is acknowledged that King’s leadership through this tumultuous time in American history played an instrumental role in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the same year in which he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize), as well as the 1965 Voting Rights Act. King faced increasing opposition to his leadership from militant civil rights activists in the mid-60s, but it was an assassin’s bullet that eventually ended his tenure on history’s stage. King was shot and killed on April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee.

I Have a Dream: The Power of King’s Vision

One of the defining qualities of a leader is a compelling vision to serve as “the fire that ignites the passion of followers” (Hybels, 2002, p. 31) and this rallying vision was central to King’s leadership communication success. Silvers (1994) notes that “Martin Luther King espoused a vision in his 'I Have a Dream' speech in which he described a world of freedom and brotherhood for all” (para. 9). In his oration, King looks forward to a day when “the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave-owners will be able to sit down together on the table of brotherhood” (BBC News website, 2003, para. 14). This was not King’s first expression of his civil rights vision but his March on Washington address was the ultimate declaration of the visionary force that King tapped to energize his followers. The potency and universal human appeal of King’s “dream” (in contrast to the nightmare of racial injustice) is seen in how this vision “has inspired countless millions of oppressed peoples around the world” (Paris, 2004, p. 10). In that regard, the leadership communication success of King had much to do with the essence of his message and its ability to arrest the minds and hearts of followers.

The Right Man at the Right Time

Martin Luther King’s accomplishments cannot be divorced from the circumstances that spawned his vision and work. Gardner (1990) rightly states that that when examining leaders, we “violate reality by lifting them out of their historical contexts” (p. 5). Kershaw (2001) notes that King was “a product of his time” and cites various social conditions including “the constant dehumanizing of African American life, the Montgomery Bus Boycott, the Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision, and, his black Baptist ministerial background” (para. 18). While this assertion indicates a situational view of King’s leadership success, it does not preclude a traits or functional perspective. King definitely had immense natural charisma and adopted needed task-related and group building/maintenance behaviors (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, pp 80 – 81) critical to the success of all leaders. Thus, a situational view in no way diminishes the personal traits and behaviors that accounted for Martin Luther King’s success, but simply paints King as a man who responded like no other to the challenges of his time. Gardner (1990) aptly expresses this balanced view of history and hero, observing that “historical forces create the circumstances in which leaders emerge, but the characteristics of the particular leader in turn have their impact on history” (p. 6). And speaking of Martin Luther King, Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey, Kershaw (2001) states that “no matter how charismatic these three leaders were, they would not have been successful if the social conditions were not ripe for group movement” (para. 16).

Authority from Above: King’s Use of Legitimate Power

As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, “leadership cannot exist without power” (p. 126) and for King, the source of this power was the legitimating sanction of scripture. One of the principal elements in King’s life and vision was “fundamental Christianity,” which was “the deepest and most pervasive theme in his life” (Gardner & Laskin, 1996, p. 209). Because of his scholarship in theology, King was well versed in the Judeo-Christian texts and tradition and viewed Christ and Moses as models. The parallel with Moses is particularly instructive. As evident from his last “Mountaintop” speech in which he compares himself to the Old Testament figure (cf. Deuteronomy 34:1), King saw himself as a type of Moses, called and empowered by God to tell America, “Let my people go” (Exodus 9:1). If “legitimate power resides in the position rather than the person” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p. 132), then King’s power was derived from his divinely appointed position as the Moses of his people, and not from his person.

The source of King’s power, then, is seen as divine. It is not surprising, therefore, that he often appealed to (and quoted) the authority of biblical truths, to legitimize his cause. In his “I have a Dream” speech, he references Amos 5:24 when he says “we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream” (BBC News, 2003, para. 10) and again borrows from Isaiah 40:4-5, yearning for a time when “the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together” (para. 20). Even when King cites the Emancipation Proclamation, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in his speech to substantiate his demands for change, he views the power of these documents as stemming from a “sacred obligation” (para. 5) that has its origin in biblical values on human dignity and equality.

King’s Charismatic Anointing

Charisma is associated with a “dynamic personality often defined as magnetic and inspirational” (Gibson, Hannon, & Blackwell, 1998, p. 11), features that clearly characterized King as a leader. Derived from the Greek word for “gift,” the early Church used the concept of charismata to denote the Holy Spirit’s empowerment of Christians that enabled them to perform miraculous feats. Thus, “this notion of charisma being a gift from God implies that it is an innate character trait rather than one that can be developed” (p. 11). In this biblical conceptualization of charisma, it becomes easy for ardent followers to understand how leaders like King are able to “describe goals by painting word pictures [and] have an exceptional ability to win the devotion and support of followers” (p. 11). This enablement, according to this view, is the result of God’s special anointing.
King’s ability to marshal thousands of supporters and inspire them to embrace his vision is at least in part the result of the perception among followers that his unique endowments and abilities were of supernatural origin. This fits with the attribution approach to charismatic leadership in which “charisma is defined in terms of the perceptions of followers” (Hackman & Johnson, 2004, p 115). Such was the mystique surrounding King that according to Baldwin (1991), “one young woman, after shaking Dr. King's hand, declared that she would never wash her hands again" (p. 2). But regardless of whether or not one views his traits as a gift from God, many who encountered King were enthralled by the “eloquent speaker who could move easily in various social circles” (Gardner & Laskin, 1996, p. 204). And there is no gainsaying the fact that King capitalized on his charisma to help him achieve the goals of the civil rights movement, effectively combining style with the substance of his thought. It may indeed be no exaggeration to suggest that King would not have realized the level of success he achieved as a leader without his charismatic rhetorical brilliance.

Questions of Credibility

When it comes to the question of credibility, the assessment of King’s legacy comes up against its greatest challenge due to two competing narratives regarding his integrity as a leader. As Hackman and Johnson (2004) note, credibility is critical to successful leadership, yet “perceptions of credibility vary over time” (p. 155). This is indeed true of the evaluation of King’s credibility. Most historians view the record of his personal stewardship of the civil rights movement as stellar. As far as the vision to create a racially just America through non-violence was concerned, King walked the talk, literally sacrificing his life for what he believed. His followers saw the consistency of his character and followed him with the same spirit of dedication.

On the other hand, recent revelations of King’s flaws have raised questions about his judgment and
moral standing. Two main issues have emerged, one related to academic plagiarism (Lischer, 1997, p. 62) and the other, to allegations of sexual promiscuity (p. 169). These events have cast a shadow on the King legacy. At best, this presents the picture of a leader who was subject to human foibles. For the Christian, seeing sin in the leader we are inclined to place on a lofty pedestal serves as a reminder that no one is perfect and that all are equally in need of the saving grace that God has freely provided – and continues to provide – to those who believe in Jesus (Romans 3: 23-24; Isaiah 64:6). In that sense, King reminds us of another great leader in Scripture who was far from perfect – King David. For King’s harshest critics, however, this is evidence of moral hypocrisy. What is certain is that regardless of the truth or falsehood of these matters, reverence for King remains strong among most Americans, as shown by the high profile celebrations that recently marked the 50th anniversary of his March on Washington speech (Tampa Bay Times website, 2013). There is perhaps the view that although there are credibility questions about some aspects of King’s character, his record in the civil rights domain remains unblemished and impregnable.

Lessons for Leaders Today

The leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. offers at least three lessons for our contemporary times. The first relates to what could be viewed as King’s definition of leadership as consensus building. King is reported to have said that "a genuine leader is not a searcher for consensus but a molder of consensus” (Benjamin, 2012). King dedicated his life to this task of bringing people together, even in the face of seeming unsurmountable differences. Today’s leaders need the same ability to build bridges across opinion lines and cultures in order to succeed. Those who are unable to bring people and ideas together are unlikely to succeed in leadership. King’s leadership also highlights the need for vision on the part of the leader. He was able to drive change because his passionate vision stirred followers to action. While contemporary leaders may not need to lead a mass movement, they can learn from King’s ability to paint a powerful and demanding picture of the end to which all efforts must be put. The third and perhaps most important lesson is that leaders need not be perfect to lead. Even the best leaders have failings and flaws, some significant. Leaders must of course strive to live up to their values and be quick to correct mistakes, but they must also learn to forgive themselves when they fail and not let the lack of perfection extinguish their vision. Those who do their very best to respond to the opportunities of leadership, striving to make a difference in the lives of others, will be remembered not for their failures, but for their ability to rise above failure.

Conclusion

Ultimately, history’s verdict on the leadership and legacy of Martin Luther King will have to take into account the full man. This paper has portrayed King as a leader who moved the nation to address the wrongs of racial justice by presenting a compelling vision for change. King was a product of the times in which he lived, but his leadership stemmed from his unique ability and willingness to respond to the pressing call of history. King viewed Scripture as the legitimating source of his power. In addition, his abilities and endowments as a leader are seen, in the biblical sense, as “charismata” – a grace gift handed down from God. King, however, is far from perfect, as borne out by his academic plagiarism and allegations surrounding adultery. The life of Martin Luther King Jr. teaches today’s leaders that bridge-building is a key part of their mission, that a compelling vision is necessary to drive change, and that while leaders must constantly strive to live up to their values, they need not be perfect to accomplish great things.

References

Baldwin, L. V. (1991). There is a balm in Gilead: The cultural roots of Martin Luther King, Jr. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.

BBC News website (2003). Text of Martin Luther King’s I have a Dream speech. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3170387.stm.

Benjamin, R. (2012, January 12). Column: MLK knew that change began with individuals. USA
Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-01-12/king-mlk-leader-change/52521152/1.

Gardner, H., & Laskin, E. (1996). Leading minds: An anatomy of leadership. New York:
BasicBooks. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Gardner, J. W. (1990). On leadership. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gibson, J. W., Hannon, J. C., & Blackwell, C. W. (1998). Charismatic leadership: The hidden
controversy. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(4), 11. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.

Hackman, M. Z. & Johnson, C. E. (2004). Leadership: A communication perspective (4th ed.).
Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

Hybels, B. (2002). Courageous leadership. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Kershaw, T. (2001). African American national leadership: A model for complementarity. The
Western Journal of Black Studies, 25(4), 211+. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

King, Martin Luther, Jr. (2013). In The Columbia Encyclopedia (6th ed.). The Columbia
University Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.

Lischer, R. (1997). The preacher king: Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Word that moved
America. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Paris, P. J. (2004). King's vision of America: An ethical assessment. In J. Echols (Ed.), I have a
dream: Martin Luther King Jr. and the future of multicultural America. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.

Silvers, D. I. (1994). Vision - Not just for CEOs. Management Quarterly, 35(4), 10+. Retrieved
from http://www.questia.com.

Tampa Bay Times website (2013). Obama leads commemoration of March on Washington’s
50th anniversary. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/obama-leads-commemoration-of-march-on-washingtons-50th-anniversary/2138902.

Is the future of education online?

Online learning is on the rise, as this recent story in the US News and World Report shows, although this is not without challenges. Is online learning the future of higher education? I believe so. Given the combination of increased time and life pressures faced by professionals today, improving technology for delivery of online programs and the cost-efficiencies for universities that shift to this format, I think online education will make strong gains in popularity over the next 10 years.

However, online learning and traditional classroom delivery of content have significant contrasts that both students and teachers need to wrestle with. I explore some of these differences below.

Differences between online and traditional learning

Online learning requires that students make a paradigm shift in order to be successful. There are many differences between online and traditional learning, but I focus below on three key ones that have implications for my academic success.

1. Social dynamics of computer-mediated learning

The computer mediated delivery of online learning, particularly its asynchronicity, affords great convenience and flexibility to working adults, but it also carries peculiar burdens. Traditional classrooms provide a form of face-to-face social connection, immediacy and sense of presence (between student and teacher, as well as among students) that is quite different from the social dynamics of the online classroom. Traditional learners may miss the characteristic social immediacy of the brick-and-mortar classroom and the interpersonal communication that it affords.

The traditional and online classroom present very different communication environments. Without proper care, the computer-mediated format can make communication in the online classroom seem impersonal at best and harsh at worst. While synchronous multimedia channels, such live video conferencing, can ameliorate some of this perceived online detachment, text-based asynchronous online learning platforms, such as group discussion boards, may accentuate them. Misunderstanding or even “flaming” may ensue because “online communicators are particularly prone to faulty assumptions because [it] excludes rich and significant cues on which people normally rely as information sources” (White, 2004, p. 44).

Fortunately, research suggests these challenges can be overcome and positive social dynamics can be forged in the online classroom (Cox & Cox, 2008). There are various strategies for preventing miscommunication and fostering psychosocial connection in the online classroom. For example, White (2004) suggests a communication approach based on warmth, responsiveness, inquisitiveness, tentativeness and empathy (the WRITE way), as well following proper netiquette (pp. 46-51).

Another important strategy good transition is the use of “communal scaffolding” and various Community Building Activities (CBAs) to provide a robust psychosocial support system in the online classroom (Woods & Ebersole, 2004). Helpful CBAs include mentorships, service learning/volunteering, and opportunities to interact with classmates and the teacher outside the requirements of the course module (e.g. by personal e-mail or phone).

2. Sage-on-the-stage vs. guide-on-your-side pedagogy

Another fundamental difference between online learning and face-to-face learning relates to the increased role of the virtual student to lead his/her own academic growth. Traditional classroom learning tends to lean towards a sage-on-the-stage pedagogy in which students may sometimes be spoon-fed with information. On the other hand, the guide-on-your-side approach of online instruction calls for self-regulated learning. According to Zimmerman (2001), “this approach views learning as an activity that students do for themselves in a proactive way, rather than as a covert event that happens to them reactively as a result of teaching experiences” (p. 1).

3. Pace and work demands

Online learning also differs from traditional classroom courses in pace and work demands. Online courses tend to incorporate a lot of reading to compensate for the lack of lectures (Baker, 2004, p. 36) and many are compressed and delivered over a shorter period of time than traditional classroom courses. This will require that students pursue their academic work with commitment and self-discipline. The heavy demands on the student’s time presents unique challenges that need to be handled with wisdom.

Several factors may account for the student’s success in handling the demands of online learning, but the single biggest determinant appears to be the source of their motivation. Compared to traditional learners, online students need stronger conative learning attributes, using their learning “as an intrinsic resource to achieve personal goals and satisfy personal needs” (Martinez, 2004, p. 67). This is confirmed by research by Rovai et al. (2007) suggesting that online learners have greater intrinsic motivation than traditional students. In practical terms, this means that the online student needs to have a clearly defined personal goal/vision that drives their academic efforts.

The online learning advantage

Notwithstanding the challenges of online learning, it provides significant opportunities to develop sound and competent scholars. In fact, online study may yield stronger value than on-campus courses, given the former’s constructionist approach to learning. As Lynch (2004) notes, “this [online learning] paradigm seems to be inherently more suited to producing deep understanding because it is based on the principle that learning must be personally constructed” (p. 141). 

References

Baker, J. D. (2004). A taxonomy of online courses. In K.W. White & J. D. Baker (Eds.), The student guide to successful online learning: A handbook of tips, strategies, and techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Cox, B., & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous
threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education, 128(4), 553-565.

Lynch, M. M. (2004). Learning online: A guide to success in the virtual classroom. New York:
RoutledgeFalmer. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

Martinez, M. (2004). Know thyself: Taking charge of your online learning. In K.W. White & J.
D. Baker (Eds.), The student guide to successful online learning: A handbook of tips, strategies, and techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Rovai, A., Ponton, M., Wighting, M., & Baker, J. (2007). A comparative analysis of student motivation in traditional classroom and e-learning courses. International journal on e-learning, 6(3), 413-432.

White, K. W. (2004). Communicating in the online classroom. In K.W. White & J. D. Baker
(Eds.), The student guide to successful online learning: A handbook of tips, strategies, and techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Woods, R. H., & Ebersole, S. (2004). Connecting for success in the online classroom. In K.W.
White & J. D. Baker (Eds.), The student guide to successful online learning: A handbook of tips, strategies, and techniques. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2001). Theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An
overview and analysis. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical Perspectives (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com

On social penetration theory

I have found the immersion into communication theory to be quite interesting – nothing shows the interdisciplinary nature of communication more clearly than the vast array of fields from which we draw our theoretical constructs. I will share some of my favourite theories as we go along on this blog.

Here’s the first one, related to interpersonal communication –social penetration theory.
This theory posits that relationship development is akin to penetrating increasingly resistant personal psychosocial layers (depicted through onion metaphor) to achieve greater depth and breadth of intimacy. According to the theory, "social interaction is generally predicted to proceed only gradually and systematically from superficial to intimate topics" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29). So, outer layers of the “onion” (e.g. biographical data) are penetrated more easily/quickly than deeper layers (self-concept; deeply held fears/fantasies).

This process occurs through self-disclosure, is guided by the “law of reciprocity”, and is motivated by consideration of outcomes. According to the theorists, "people assess interpersonal rewards and costs, satisfaction and dissatisfaction, gained from interaction with others, and that the advancement of the relationship is heavily dependent on the amount and nature of the rewards and costs" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 6). A reverse process of “depenetration” can occur, which is “a gradual process of layer-by-layer withdrawal” (Griffin, 2012, p.116).

The social penetration theory falls into the objective camp of communication theories because it is based on the assertion that self-disclosure (cause) will result in increased relational intimacy (effect). Use of language such as “law” of reciprocity is another clear indication of the deterministic bent of this theory.

Axioms of social penetration theory

The theory has four axioms related to the depth and breadth of self-disclosure.

1. Peripheral self-disclosure is the first step of the process, occurs relatively early in the relationship, and related information is exchanged more frequently and easily, compared to self-disclosure at the core of the “onion.” Peripheral self-disclosure deals with shallow conversation topics such as basic facts about the person (e.g. name; where they live; where they work; etc.). If the process of social penetration continues, the parties progress gradually to the sharing of more intimate subject matter, from personal preferences, to goals/aspirations, and ultimately to a revelation of “self” (Griffin, 2012, p. 115). As the theorists explain, "social interaction is generally predicted to proceed only gradually and systematically from superficial to intimate topics (e.g., one does not ordinarily discuss serious personal problems immediately after meeting a stranger and after exchanging only introductory biographical information)" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29).

2. Self-disclosure operates under a “law of reciprocity,” especially in the early stages of the relationship. The basic idea behind this axiom is that disclosing personal information to another causes them to also self-disclose.

3.  Social penetration is fast at the start of the relationship then slows down as the parties get to the inner layers. This is understandable given that the issues addressed in the inner layers are much more private. The lesson here is that intimacy in relationships is not achieved overnight – it requires time, work and commitment.

4. “Depenetration” (the unraveling of a relationship) is a reversal of the penetration process and similarly, occurs gradually. If parties begin to close off their private lives to each other, the relationship will deteriorate. The lesson here is that the intimacy gains in a relationship can be lost, if the relationship is not properly maintained over time.
Altman and Taylor made a distinction between “depth of penetration” (exposure related to specific area of personality) and the “breadth of penetration,” which is the range of areas in which self-disclosure takes place. Using the onion metaphor, they note that "the breadth category hypothesis involves the insertion, over time, of more and more pins into the onion, each pin entering a broad category of personality as each person gradually unfolds more of himself to the other" (Altman & Taylor, 1973, p. 29). Healthy relationships must therefore deepen and expand into and over the areas of personality.

Some applications of social penetration theory

How true are these axioms? Here are a few personal examples:

I have seen the law of reciprocity play out especially in a small group that I belonged to at church. This group dealt with difficult subjects in peoples’ past. Over time, as the more courageous individuals shared their stories, it broke the ice, so to speak, and the result was increasing reciprocity from the others.

Axiom 3 is one that we see in many work places, in interaction with peers. When we start a new job, we quickly share a lot of peripheral information with our new workmates. As the outer layers of information were exhausted, sharing does not proceed to the inner layers, in most cases, with the exception of a few close friends. Altman later theorized that environment has an impact on social penetration (Griffin, 2012, p. 121) so I would think self-disclosure/social penetration is not as strong in work places as in other spaces such as homes or community clubs.

Now to a personal example of depenetration. Having lived abroad for many years, I find that it’s now difficult to connect with friends back in Africa when I go back for a visit. So much has happened in our lives that we haven’t been able to share with each other, weakening our relationship. Although we try to catch up, the conversation can be awkward. Altman and Taylor would say that our friendship has experienced depenentration.

Social penetration theory in computer mediated communication

Recent research into the theory has looked at its application on online contexts. For example, Tang and Wang (2012) examined self-disclosure among bloggers, using the social penetration theory. The online study compared self-disclosure online and in real life, using a sample of 1,027 Taiwanese bloggers. Tang and Wang (2012) explored the topics that bloggers self-disclosed about online and in the real-world; to whom they disclosed this information; and the depth and breadth of these disclosures, based on the wedge model proposed by theorists Altman and Taylor (see Griffin, 2012, p. 115.)

The researchers came up with some interesting findings. Generally, the bloggers self-disclosed on a wide range of issues in their online and real-life communication. Tang and Wang grouped this into nine topics: attitude, body, money, work, feelings, personal, interests, experiences and unclassified. Self-disclosure varied significantly depending on the target audience or recipient of that disclosure, namely face-to-face disclosure to best friends; face-to-face disclosure to parents; and online self-disclosure on their blogs.

In both the depth and breadth of self-disclosure, the researchers discovered that the bloggers self-disclosed the most in their face-to-face interaction with their best friends. This was followed by face-to-face self-disclosure to parents and self-disclosure online, in that order. The female bloggers self-disclosed more than the males in their face-to-face communication, but there was no significant difference between the genders related to the breadth and depth of online self-disclosure. Also, younger bloggers (below 20 years) showed greater breadth in their face-to-face self-disclosure, but there was no significant difference in the depth of their online self-disclosure, compared to other age groups.

The study results tell us the following:

1. In terms of the application of the social penetration theory in online and face-to-face communities, individuals are more likely to self-disclose (both in depth and breadth) in their face-to-face interaction than online. This makes sense within the context of the theory, which suggests that self-disclosure is a gradual process and so greater penetration would be expected in relationships with people whom the bloggers know well, or whom they have known for sometime.

2. Self-disclosure to best friends, has greater breadth and depth, than self-disclosure to parents.
(I guess this is not altogether surprising so I won't comment further on it!)

3. In their face-to-face/interpersonal relationships, women show greater self-disclosure than men.

4. Those who are younger tend to have greater width of self-disclosure in their interpersonal, face-to-face communication than those who are older. I am not sure that this is accounted for in the theory as proposed by Altman and Taylor; at least I haven't seen any references to this in my readings thus far. My own hypothesis as to why younger individuals self-disclose more -- the older guys have exhausted all topics in their many years of interaction with their friends!

The key take-away for me, from this “testing” of social penetration theory in today’s online environment, is that demographic factors have an influence on the social penetration theory/process in face-to-face interpersonal communication, but appear to be insignificant or neutralized in the online context.

I welcome thoughts and reflections from readers.

Divine Agodzo

References

Altman, I. & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Retrieved from http://www.questia.com.

Griffin, E. (2012). A first look at communication theory (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Tang, J. and Wang, C. (2012). Self-disclosure among bloggers: Re-examination of social penetration theory. Cyberpsychology, behaviour, and social networking, 15 (5), 245-250.

Welcome to Learning and Teaching Communication

I designed this blog as a place to share my thoughts and learning as a graduate student in the Masters in Communication program at Spring Arbor University. Most of the content you'll find here will therefore be material produced in my coursework, although I will often include additional insights and correlations to contemporary events or communication practice. You will occasionally find original material here (unrelated to my graduate studies), including journalistic writing on the field of communication and communication pedagogy (e.g. interviews with thought leaders). Given that my concentration is communication education, my aim is to focus as much on the teaching of communication as on the professional and academic aspects of the discipline.

Spring Arbor's graduate program in communication seeks to integrate communication and a Christian worldview so you will find that this goal colours some of the content on this blog. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of the program are no different from what pertains generally in graduate communication programs. In other words, you will find reflections here on the entire historical body of knowledge related to communication scholarship, with the occasional Christian perspective as an add-on. So, if you're not a Christian, you will still find much that is of academic relevance on this blog, and you are, of course, free to read, skip or challenge the Christian analysis provided. If you are a Christian, I trust you will find the biblical worldview applied to communication extremely beneficial. Bottom line -- this blog is about communication and covers all the core concepts in the field. If anything, a Christian worldview adds, rather than takes away, from this knowledge.

Whatever reason brings you to this blog, I hope you enjoy these posts and that they provide some intellectual and professional stimulation. Communication is an exciting, interdisciplinary field that touches every aspect of our lives and I am pleased to share the learnings from my journey as a graduate student.

Divine Agodzo