Jo Sprague

Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication: Raising some unasked questions

During a time when the disciplines of education and communication have been waging lively and far‐reaching debates about models of instruction, theories of communication, and methods of inquiry, the sub‐discipline of instructional communication has remained insulated from these discussions. As a result, the research has not fully addressed many of the most compelling practical and theoretical questions about communication in education. Six questions are identified that have been insufficiently explored by instructional communication researchers. The analysis reveals that the limited approach to inquiry has had the effect of privileging existing social and political arrangements. Alternative perspectives, largely informed by critical approaches to pedagogy, suggest a rich research agenda for instructional communication scholars.

Retrieving the research agenda for communication education: Asking the pedagogical questions that are “embarrassments to Theory”

This essay is an invitation for all communication scholars to retrieve the serious discussions and focused inquiries about teaching that are so much a part of this disciplines heritage. During a period when educational scholars have been discovering that knowledge about effective teaching and learning is highly discipline specific, communication education research has tended to rely on generic educational models. In contrast to instructional communication scholarship that must cut across many fields, communication education research needs to be exceedingly content and context specific. Recognizing the ways that theory and pedagogy mutually inform each other, researchers are urged to target the particular problems of teaching various communication concepts and skills and to seek solutions in the most current theoretical understandings of communication.

Communication Education: The Spiral Continues

Anniversaries of all kinds provide wonderful opportunities for contemplation and rededication. For that reason I welcomed Editor Joe Ayre’s invitation to think about the history and the future of our journal. I am particularly honored to share this reflective space with Professor Loren Reid. I first read his Teaching Speech in 1964 as part of Margaret Woods’ speech methods class at Northern Illinois University and its special blend of idealism, pragmatism and whimsy filled me with hope as I shakily approached my student teaching assignment. I remember the feeling that I was being welcomed into a very special community of people—speech teachers—and that I had found a calling that could provide enough rewards to delight me and interesting problems to challenge me throughout an entire career. And so I had. The journal, Speech Teacher, was accessible and helpful to me as a student teacher and a Teaching Assistant. In a sense, we have grown up together moving toward more “professional” and “scholarly” orientations. Without a doubt, neither the journal nor most of us who read it are appropriately labeled “speech teachers” anymore. I could never have anticipated the incredible range and sophistication of the work that would appear in the journal that became Communication Education or the kinds of activities that turned out to be entailed in my choice to become a communication educator and researcher. I take great pride in that evolution. Yet at this admittedly nostalgic moment, I also pause to hope that those entering our profession today are still invigorated by a sense of calling and a clarity of purpose. Our journal speaks for those of us who identify with communication education and instructional communication, providing a commentary on how far we have come and on where we might go next. In preparation of this essay, I have taken the last few months to revisit my personal collection of Speech Teacher and Communication Education, which is about 80% complete since 1971. I have read and reread the tables of contents in the NCA index, occasionally being driven to the library to track down a particularly intriguing title that predates those on my shelf. Along the way I carefully noted the editorial statements of each new editor, the arrival and departure of new sections of the journals, the themes of special issues, and summary and synthesis essays such as Staton-Spicer and Wulff (1984). My own involvement with the journal includes publication of a few articles and book reviews, membership on the editorial board off and on (more on) since 1976 and a term as Book Review editor. Among my files I found a sampling of my reviews and copies of what other reviewers and editors said about those same manuscripts. My initial goal of conducting a systematic content analysis of the journal for the last twenty-five years quickly gave way to a more impressionistic survey. I first report briefly on my observations as I revisited the fifty years, particularly

A survey of reticence and communication apprehension treatment programs at U.S. colleges and universities

This survey represents the first systemmatic effort to determine exactly how many treatment programs for communication apprehension and reticence are in existence at the college and university level, what type or combination of treatment and evaluation methods are used, and how educators feel toward such programs. Fifty‐two treatment programs using a variety of formats, treatment methods and evaluation procedures were identified. The majority of respondents were favorable toward a need for more programs of this nature at the college and university level. In addition, many arguments opposing the proliferation of special treatment programs were identified

Why teaching works: The transformative power of pedagogical communication

(1993). Why teaching works: The transformative power of pedagogical communication. Communication Education: Vol. 42, When Teaching “Works”: Stories of Communication in Education, pp. 349-366.

Critical perspectives on teacher empowerment

This essay provides a review of the critical literature on teacher empowerment. Empowerment, a major theme in contemporary research on teachers, directs attention away from the individual psychological traits of teachers or their specific classroom behaviors and looks instead at the interplay of political, sociocultural, and organizational forces that constrain teachers as they try to carry out their instructional mission. The literature identifies several factors that have led to the disempowerment of teachers. For example, their work has been feminized, technologized, deskilled, intensified, and privatized. Teachers can become empowered by resisting these trends and working collaboratively to gain more organizational power; however, the most compelling arguments call for a transformation of the professional role of teaching. To support the project of teacher empowerment, teacher educators and educational researchers must radically transform their work as well.

The reduction of sexism in speech communication education

Teachers of speech communication have substantial influence on students’ perception of sex roles. Although a teacher may subscribe to a feminist‐humanist ideology, he or she may inadvertently select teaching materials or methods that perpetuate sex‐role stereotyping. Research on sexism in education is related to speech communication instruction. Additional research, self‐evaluation, and the modeling of non‐sexist behavior are advocated to insure that both male and female students have opportunities to explore the full range of their human potential.

Can't see the [old growth] forest for the logs: Dialectical tensions in the interpretive practices of environmentalists and loggers

This research examines the discourse of two groups from a community in Northern California where the future of old growth redwood forests has become a center of controversy. Based on focus group discussions with self‐identified environmentalists and loggers, two levels of analysis were conducted. First, divergent codes of personhood, time, space, and corporate responsibility were revealed. Second, there were differences in the two groups’ discursive statements about the nature of understanding and how communication functions in the controversy.