Here
is my attempt to lay out the scope and interests of communication education as
a field of scholarship and research, culled from a recent term paper.
According
to the website of the National Communication Association, communication
education is “the study of communication in the classroom and other pedagogical
contexts” (NCA, n.d.). However, as Rubin
(2002) observed, communication education represents scholarship in at least
three distinct though interrelated domains and it is helpful to distinguish
between these areas. These three
separate domains, which are sometimes subsumed under the broad label
“communication education,” are education for communication, communication in
education, and communication about education (Rubin, 2002). Education for communication draws on research
to provide pedagogical strategies and curricula specifically for the teaching
of communication subjects; communication in education investigates the effects
of behavioral and individual difference variables on teaching-learning
encounters; and communication about education centers on discussions of
educational policy and practices by citizenry (Rubin, 2002).
To
be precise, communication education, then, properly refers to the education for
communication domain. Regarding this
field, Morreale, Backlund, and Sparks (2014) note that “communication education
scholars explicitly consider how best to teach students to improve their
communication knowledge and skills” (p. 346) through subjects such as public
speaking, group communication, workplace communication, interpersonal
communication, and the like. Preiss and Wheeless (2014) echo the same point
that “communication education traditionally emphasized teaching communication
educators to teach communication” (p. 310).
Four goals serve as the foundation of communication education, namely
the transmission of cultural knowledge, developing students’ intellectual
skills, providing career preparation to learners, and reshaping societal values
(Sprague, 1999).
Communication
in education—often described as instructional communication—has a different
focus than communication education (i.e. the teaching of communication). As Preiss and Wheeless (2014) observe, “the
field of instructional communication is at the intersection of the teacher, the
student, and the meanings exchanged between and among teachers and learners”
(p. 312). In turn, Morreale et al. (2014)
explain that “scholars of instructional communication concern themselves with
the role of communication in the instructional process generally, how to use
communication regardless of academic discipline or instructional setting” (p.
346).
Instructional
communication has seen an ambitious research agenda over the years that has
spanned investigations of student communication traits, teacher communication
behaviors, teacher messages, feedback, environmental and system factors,
student communication, mass media effects on children, pedagogical methods and
technology, classroom management, and teacher-student interaction (McCroskey,
Richmond, & McCroskey, 2002; Morreale et al., 2014; Preiss & Wheeless,
2014). Key constructs, concepts, and
variables that have been the focus of much research in the instructional
communication literature include communication apprehension, willingness to
communicate, shyness, self-perceived communication competence, teacher
immediacy, teacher clarity, teacher socio-communicative style, and teacher use
of power and influence (McCroskey et al., 2002). Notably, much of this research has employed
quantitative methodologies.
Another
area of inquiry for scholars interested in the education-communication nexus is
multicultural education and critical communication pedagogy (Sprague, 1992). As Sprague (1992) explains, “the critical
paradigm…is not characterized by a research method so much as by a point of
view” (p. 3). Critical communication and multicultural education scholars interrogate
longstanding assumptions with respect to issues such as the purpose of schools,
the role of teachers, the nature of development, and the function of language
in education (Sprague, 1992). Critical multicultural education scholarship in
particular has foregrounded issues of race, gender, language, (dis)ability, and
socio-economic status that serve as forces of privilege or subordination in
educational contexts (e.g. Castagno, 2013; Jay, 2003).
Finally,
another area of relevance to scholars working at the intersection of
communication and education is the field of development communication (or
communication for development), including research in Information and
Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D) and Entertainment Education
(Singhal, 2004). Development
communication maintains a strong emphasis on education as a means to bring
about socio-economic improvement to individuals and communities, drawing on
educational approaches to address challenges related to health, economic
empowerment, democratic participation, human rights, basic education, and adult
literacy in target populations (Mefalopulos, 2008).
References
Castagno,
A. E. (2013). Multicultural education and the protection of whiteness. American
Journal of Education, 120(1),
101-128.
Jay,
M. (2003). Critical race theory, multicultural education, and the hidden curriculum
of
hegemony. Multicultural Perspectives,
5(4), 3-9.
McCroskey,
L. L., Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (2002). The scholarship of teaching
and learning: Contributions from the discipline
of communication. Communication Education, 51(4), 383.
Mefalopulos,
P. (2008). Development communication
sourcebook: Broadening the boundaries of
communication. Washington,
D.C.: World Bank.
Morreale,
S., Backlund, P., & Sparks, L. (2014). Communication education and instructional
communication: Genesis and evolution as fields
of inquiry. Communication Education, 63(4), 344-354.
NCA
(n.d.). What is communication? Retrieved from http://www.natcom.org/discipline/
Preiss,
R. W., & Wheeless, L. R. (2014). Perspectives on instructional communication's
historical path to the future. Communication
Education, 63(4), 308-328.
Rubin,
D. L. (2002). Binocular vision for communication education. Communication
Education,
51(4), 412.
Singhal,
A. (2004). Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, and
practice.
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sprague,
J. (1992). Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication:
raising
some unasked questions. Communication
Education, 1, 1-25.
Sprague,
J. (1999). The goals of communication education. In A. L. Vangelisti, J. A.
Daly, & G.
W. Friedrich (eds.), Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods
(2nd ed.)(pp. 15-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
