In light of NCA’s summer event cancellations due to COVID-19, NCA has developed a special speaker series. This series is aimed at offering faculty and students the opportunity to learn about new directions in Communication research and teaching, and to spark ideas about their own research, teaching, and course/program offerings. The series began June 1, 2020 with speakers presenting a seminar each full week of June. Each seminar is comprised of five virtual seminars, hosted on the NCA website. Seminar leaders also provide readings to accompany each seminar.
Seminar leaders include Scott Myers (West Virginia University), Amy Clark (University of Virginia’s College at Wise), Richard Craig (George Mason University), and Jimmie Manning (University of Nevada, Reno). Seminar topics, descriptions, and dates are as follows:
Scott A. Myers, Ph.D.
Professor, Chair, and Peggy Rardin McConnell Endowed Teaching Chair
Department of Communication Studies
West Virginia University
Learning the Three C’s: Becoming a Competent Classroom Communicator
The purpose of this seminar is to reflect on, and develop further, our classroom teaching practices and behaviors, with a particular focus on improving the ways in which we communicate with our students and gaining a perspective on how students view us through our classroom communication. This seminar will cover five topics, which are developing a sense of teaching effectiveness, teaching from a student perspective, teaching from a rhetorical perspective, teaching from a relational perspective, and teaching from a presentational traits perspective.
(*Additional suggested reading)
- Briggs, N., & Pinola, M. (1985). A consideration of five traditional educational philosophies for speech communication. Central States Speech Journal, 36, 305-314.
- Galvin, K. M. (1999). Classroom roles of the teacher. In A. L. Vangelisti, J. A. Daly, & G. W. Friedrich (Eds.), Teaching communication: Theory, research, and methods (2nd ed., pp. 243-255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Kramer, M. W., & Pier, P. M. (1999). Students’ perceptions of effective and ineffective communication by college teachers. Southern Communication Journal, 65, 16-33.
- *Myers, S. A., Tindage, M. F., & Atkinson, J. (2016). The evolution of instructional communication research. In P. L. Witt (Ed.), Handbooks of communication and science: Communication and learning (Vol. 16, pp. 13-42). Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter/Mouton.
- *Nussbaum, J. F. (1992). Effective teacher behaviors. Communication Education, 41, 167-180.
- Pratt, D. D. (2002). Good teaching: One size fits all? New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 93, 5-15.
- *Scott, M. D., & Nussbaum, J. F. (1981). Student perceptions of instructor communication behaviors and their relationship to student evaluation. Communication Education, 30, 44-53.
- Worley, D., Titsworth, S., Worley, D. W., & Cornett-DeVito, M. (2007). Instructional communication competence: Lessons learned from award-winning teachers. Communication Studies, 58, 207-222.
1. Based on the readings and your teaching experience, how would you conceptualize teaching effectiveness? Which characteristics of teaching effectiveness do you exemplify?
2. To what extent is your teaching effectiveness dependent on your communication behaviors? How can you change or modify your behaviors to become a(n) (more ) effective instructor?
3. Complete the questionnaire on pages 305-306 in the Briggs and Pinola (1985) article. What is your primary educational philosophy? How does this philosophy inform your teaching effectiveness?
4. Go to www.teachingperspectives.com/tpi/, register, and complete the Teaching Perspectives Inventory. What is your dominant perspective? How does this perspective inform your teaching effectiveness?
5. Based on today’s session, what is one thing you could do when the Fall 2020 semester begins to increase your teaching effectiveness?
(*Additional suggested reading)
- *Bassett, J. F., & Nix, P. M. (2011). Students’ first day of class preferences: Factor structure and individual differences. North American Journal of Psychology, 13, 373-382.
- Martin, M. M., Myers, S. A., & Mottet, T. P. (2002). Student motives for communicating in the college classroom. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication for teachers (pp. 35-46). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
- *Myers, S. A. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of students’ motives for communicating with their instructors. Communication Education, 66, 467-473.
- Myers, S. A., & Claus, C. J. (2012). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and classroom environment. Communication Quarterly, 60, 386-402.
- Myers, S. A., & Huebner, A. D. (2011). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and perceived instructor credibility, attractiveness, and homophily. College Student Journal, 45, 84-91.
- Myers, S. A., & Martin, M. M. (2018). Instructor credibility. In M. L. Houser & A. M. Hosek (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 38-50). New York, NY: Routledge.
- Myers, S. A., & Thorn, K. (2013). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors, course effort, and course workload. College Student Journal, 47, 485-488.
1. How important is it to you that your students consider you to possess credibility, attraction, and homophily? Why? How important is it for students to be motivated to communicate with you for relational, functional, participatory, excuse making, or sycophantic reasons? Why?
2. To what extent is this importance linked or associated with your perceptions of your own teaching effectiveness?
3. What can you do strategically to highlight your credibility, attraction, and homophily? What can you do to encourage your students to communicate with you?
4. How can your awareness of student impressions and student motives to communicate influence your development of a supportive, connected, and personalized classroom climate?
5. Based on today’s session, what is one thing you could do to encourage your students to communicate with you beginning with the Fall 2020 first day of class?
(*Additional suggested reading)
- *Bolkan, S., Griffin, D. J., & Goodboy, A. K. (2018). Humor in the classroom: The effects of integrated humor on student learning. Communication Education, 67, 144-164.
- Chesebro, J. L. (1999, November). Teacher clarity: A definition, review, and a profile of the clear teacher. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Chicago, IL.
- Goldman, Z. W., Cranmer, G. A., Sollitto, M., LaBelle, S., & Lancaster, A. L. (2017). What do college students want? A prioritization of instructional behaviors and characteristics. Communication Education, 66, 280-298.
- Knoster, K. C., & Myers, S. A. (2020). College student perceptions of frequency and effectiveness of use of relevance strategies: A replication and extension. Communication Studies, 71, 280-294.
- *Simonds, C. J. (1997). Classroom understanding: An expanded notion of teacher clarity. Communication Research Reports, 14, 279-290.
- Titsworth, S., & Mazer, J. P. (2016). Teacher clarity: An analysis of current research and future directions. In P. L. Witt (Ed.), Handbooks of communication and science: Communication and learning (Vol. 16, pp. 105-128). Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter Mouton.
- Wanzer, M. B., Frymier, A. B., Wojtaszczyk, A. M., & Smith, T. (2006). Appropriate and inappropriate uses of humor by teachers. Communication Education, 55, 178-196.
- *West, M. S., & Martin, M. M. (2019). Students’ perceptions of instructor appropriateness and humor homophily. Communication Education, 68, 328-349.
1. How important is it to you that your students consider you to use clarity, relevance, and humor? Why?
2. How often do you monitor your use of clarity, relevance, and humor? What are your strengths in using these rhetorical behaviors? What are your weaknesses in using these rhetorical behaviors?
3. What are some ways in which you can improve your use of clarity and relevance behaviors?
4. To what extent does your use of humor seem appropriate in the classroom? How effective is this use of appropriate humor? Are there times when you use inappropriate humor? If so, for what reason(s)?
5. Based on today’s session, how can you begin to incorporate clarity, relevance, or humor into your teaching repertoire for Fall 2020?
(*Additional suggested reading)
- Frymier, A. B. (1993). The impact of teacher immediacy on students’ motivation: Is it the same for all students? Communication Quarterly, 41, 454-464.
- Frymier, A. B. (1994). The use of affinity-seeking in producing liking and learning in the classroom. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 22, 87-105.
- *Goldman, Z. W., & Goodboy, A. K. (2014). Making students feel better: Examining the relationships between teacher confirmation and college students’ emotional outcomes. Communication Education, 63, 259-277.
- Goodboy, A. K., & Myers, S. A. (2008). The effect of teacher confirmation on student communication and learning outcomes. Communication Education, 57, 153-179.
- Henning, Z. T. (2012). From barnyards to learning communities: Student perceptions of teachers’ immediacy behaviors. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 13, 37-43.
- *Myers, S. A., Baker, J. P., Barone, H., Kromka, S. M., & Pitts, S. (2018). Using rhetorical/relational goal theory to examine students’ impressions of their instructors. Communication Research Reports, 35, 131-140.
- *Myers, S. A., Goodboy, A. K., & Members of COMM 600. (2014). College student learning, motivation, and satisfaction as a function of effective instructor communication behaviors. Southern Communication Journal, 79, 14-26.
- Wanzer, M. B. (1998). An exploratory investigation of student and teacher perceptions of student-generated affinity-seeking behaviors. Communication Education, 47, 373-382.
1. How important is it to you that your students consider you to use immediacy, affinity seeking, and confirmation? Why?
2. Of the numerous verbal and nonverbal immediacy behaviors which instructors can use, which behaviors are easier for you to use? Which behaviors are more difficult for you to use? Which behaviors appear to be more sincere and natural for you to use?
3. To what extent are you comfortable using affinity-seeking strategies with your students? Which strategies would be the most effective for you in your classes? Would you use the same strategies to increase liking for both you and your content matter?
4. How willing are you to behave in a confirming manner toward your students? To what extent are you able to do so?
5. Based on today’s session, how can you begin to incorporate immediacy, affinity seeking, or confirmation into your teaching repertoire for Fall 2020?
(*Additional suggested reading)
- Cayanus, J., & Martin, M. M. (2016). Teacher self-disclosure. In P. L. Witt (Ed.), Handbooks of communication and science: Communication and learning (Vol. 16, pp. 241-258). Berlin, Germany: DeGruyter/Mouton.
- Cayanus, J. L., Martin, M. M., & Goodboy, A. K. (2009). The relation between teacher self-disclosure and student motives to communicate. Communication Research Reports, 26, 105-113.
- Comadena, M. E., Semlak, W. D., & Escott, M. D. (1992). Communicator style and teacher effectiveness: Adult learners versus traditional undergraduate students. Communication Research Reports, 9, 57-63.
- Communicator Style Measure. [Graham, E. E. (1994). Communicator style measure. In R. B. Rubin, P. Palmgreen, & H. E. Sypher (Eds.), Communication research measures: A sourcebook (pp. 134-141). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
- *Martin, M. M., & Myers, S. A. (2010). The relational side of instructional communication: An examination of instructors’ presentational communication traits. In D. L. Fassett & J. T. Warren (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of communication and instruction (pp. 263-280). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
- Myers, S. A., & Rocca, K. A. (2007). The relationship between college student class participation and perceived instructor communicator style. Speech and Theatre Association of Missouri Journal, 37, 114-127.
- *Potter, W. J., & Emanuel, R. (1990). Students’ preferences for communication styles and their relationship to achievement. Communication Education, 39, 234-249.
1. Complete the Communicator Style Measure. What is your cluster? Of the attributes in your cluster, which ones are the recommended attributes for teaching?
2. As a composite style, are you an actor, a human, or an authority? Based on your past teaching experiences, what are the pros and cons of utilizing this composite style?
3. Based on today’s session, what steps can you take to ensure that you are employing the appropriate communicator style attributes for Fall 2020?
4. Read the Cayanus and Martin chapter. After reading this chapter, how likely are you to increase your self-disclosure in your teaching?
5. Taking this week’s seminar into consideration, what is the most valuable take-away? How can you apply this take-away to your future teaching endeavors?
Amy D. Clark, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair, Department of Communication Studies
Co-Director, Center for Appalachian Studies
Director, Appalachian Writing Project
University of Virginia's College at Wise
The Rhetoric of Death in Central Appalachia from Mid-19th Century to Early 20th Century: A Case Study in Teaching and Researching Rhetorical History
The material culture of death, such as gravestones, records, and death photography, may be considered rhetorical memory spaces that were created with the expectation of visual interpretation, a way of interacting with the living. This seminar will explore a complex system of signs inherent in the 19th century gravestones of an enslaved community, as well as those in death photography, records, and other artifacts belonging to the White family who owned the property. The seminar will also include a tour of the site and artifacts used in this study, which offer a cultural understanding of a marginalized community whose histories may be revised by a close reading of symbols left behind.
- Anderson, et al (2011) Gardens of stone: Searching for evidence of secularization and acceptance of death in grave inscriptions from 1900-2009. Omega 63 (4), 359-371.
- Prown, J.D. (1982) Mind in Matter: An Introduction to Material Culture Theory and Method, Winterthur Portfolio, 17(1), 1-19.
- The Rhetoric of Death Part I PowerPoint
- The Rhetoric of Death Part I PDF
- Clark A., Johnson A., Mathews D. (2018) The Gendered Language of Gravestones: A Comparative Study of Central and Northern Appalachian Cemeteries. In: Brunn S., Kehrein R. (eds) Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer, Cham.
- Herat, M. (2014). The final goodbye: The linguistic features of gravestone epitaphs from the nineteenth century to the present. International Journal of Language Studies, 8(4), 127-150.
- Thomson, G. (2006) Tombstone lettering in Scotland and New England: An appreciation of a vernacular culture, Mortality, 11:1, 1-30.
- The Rhetoric of Death Part II and III PowerPoint
- The Rhetoric of Death Part II and III PDF
- Foucault, M. (1967). Des espace autres [Of other spaces: Utopias and Heterotopias]. Architecture/Mouvement/Continuite, 16(1), 46-49. Retrieved from https://foucault.info/documents/heterotopia/foucault.heteroTopia.en/
- The Rhetoric of Death Part II and III PowerPoint
- The Rhetoric of Death Part II and III PDF
- Wright, E. (2005). Rhetorical spaces in memorial places: The cemetery as a rhetorical memory place/space. Rhetoric Society Quarterly. 35(4), 51-81.
- The Rhetoric of Death Part IV and V PowerPoint
- The Rhetoric of Death Part IV and V PDF
Richard T. Craig, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Communication
Director, Master's Program
George Mason University
"Is That How They See Me?”: Discussing Media Representations of Marginalized Groups
By telling stories to inform or entertain, media have the ability to present images of individuals and groups, as well as ideologies that influence audience understandings of others and self. This seminar will explore how the US media have historically framed marginalized US groups. This seminar will challenge our knowledge and thoughts about how media representations may shape a person's sense of value and belonging dependent upon the media content they regularly consume.
- Hall, S. (1985) Signification, representation, ideology: Althusser and the post‐structuralist debates, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2:2, 91-114.
- Lang, G. E., & Lang, K. (2009) Mass Society, Mass Culture, and Mass Communication: The Meanings of Mass. International Journal of Communication 3, 998-1024.
- Media Education Foundation Study Guide written by Laurie Oulette (1997). Gerbner Series: The Killing Screens.
- Mohammad Firoj Al Mamun Khan, M.A. (2014) Semiotics: The Representation, Construction and Evaluation of Reality. Language in India, 14.8. www.languageinindia.com.
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part I PowerPoint
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part I PDF
- Budarick, J. (2018). Ethnic Media and Counterhegemony: Agonistic Pluralism, Policy, and Professionalism, International Journal of Communication, 12, 2406-2420.
- Carragee, K. M. (1993) A critical evaluation of debates examining the media hegemony thesis, Western Journal of Communication, 57:3, 330-348.
- Cloud, D. L. (2006) The Matrix and Critical Theory's Desertion of the Real, Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 3:4, 329-354.
- Klein, A. (2016) Using the “wife-beater” shirt to teach about hegemony and counterhegemony, Communication Teacher, 30:2, 100-105.
- Lull, H. (1995) Hegemony, Media, Communications and Culture: A Global Approach, Columbia University Press, 33-36.
- M. Hemalatha, M.Phil. Scholar, Discourse and Context of Marginalism through Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus by Louis Althusser. Prof. Dr. S. Chelliah, Editor: Select Papers of the International Conference on Paradigms of Marginality in Literature - Exploring the Nuances. Language in India, www.languageinindia.com. ISSN 1930-2940 19:9 September 2019.
- Stabile, C. A. (1995) Resistance, recuperation, and reflexivity: The limits of a paradigm, Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 12:4, 403-422.
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part II PowerPoint
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part II PDF
- Crider, D. (2014) For Those (Men) About to Rock: Rock Radio and the Crisis of Masculinity, Journal of Radio & Audio Media, 21:2, 258-271.
- Dasgupta, D. (2018) Gender Portrayal in Age of Social Networking Sites: An Analytical Discussion, Amity Journal of Media & Communication Studies, 8(1), 42-48.
- Dubrofsky R. E. & Ryalls, E. D. (2014) The Hunger Games: Performing Not-performing to Authenticate Femininity and Whiteness, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 31:5, 395-409.
- Hoover, S. M. & Coats, C. D. (2011) The Media and Male Identities: Audience Research in Media, Religion, and Masculinities, Journal of Communication, 61(5), 877-895.
- Lundell, Å. K. & Ekström, M. (2008) The Complex Visual Gendering of Political Women in the Press, Journalism Studies, 9:6, 891-910.
- Shome, R. (2011) “Global Motherhood”: The Transnational Intimacies of White Femininity, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 28:5, 388-406.
- Yakalı-Çamoğlu, D. (2019) Characters from a Different Story: Media, Narratives of Love and Construction of Gender Identities in Children’s Worlds In B. Deirdre & W. Y. Ade (Eds.), Fluid Gender, Fluid Love (pp. 77-92). Brill | Rodopi.
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part III PowerPoint
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part III PDF
- Aubrey, J. S., Gamble, H. & Hahn, R. (2017) Empowered Sexual Objects? The Priming Influence of Self-Sexualization on Thoughts and Beliefs Related to Gender, Sex, and Power, Western Journal of Communication, 81:3, 362-384.
- Jackson, S., & Vares, T. (2016) ‘Too many bad role models for us girls’: Girls, female pop celebrities and ‘sexualization’, Sexualities, 18(4), 480-498.
- Lamb, S., Graling, K., Wheeler, E. E. (2013) ‘Pole-arized’ discourse: An analysis of responses to Miley Cyrus’s Teen Choice Awards pole dance, Feminism & Psychology, 23(2), 163-183.
- McDade-Montez, E., Wallander, J. & Cameron, L. (2017) Sexualization in U.S. Latina and White Girls’ Preferred Children’s Television Programs, Sex Roles 77, 1–15.
- Ringrose, Jessica; Barajas, Katarina Eriksson (2011) Gendered risks and opportunities? Exploring teen girls' digitized sexual identities in postfeminist media contexts, International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 7(2), pp. 121-138.
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part IV PowerPoint
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part IV PDF
- Behm-Morawitz, E., Miller, B. M., & Lewallen, J. (2018) A Model for Quantitatively Analyzing Representations of Social Class in Screen Media, Communication Research Reports, 35:3, 210-221.
- Bunds, K. S., Newman, J. I., & Giardina, M. D. (2015) The Spectacle of Disposability: Bumfights, Commodity Abjection, and the Politics of Homelessness, Critical Studies in Media Communication, 32:4, 272-286.
- Lee, M. J., & Moscowitz, L. (2013) The “Rich Bitch”, Feminist Media Studies, 13:1, 64-82.
- O'Sullivan, S. E. M. (2016) Playing “Redneck”: White Masculinity and Working‐Class Performance on Duck Dynasty, The Journal of Popular Culture, 49(2), 367-384.
- Paulson, E. L., O’Guinn, T. C. (2017) Marketing Social Class and Ideology in Post-World-War-Two American Print Advertising, Journal of Macromarketing, 38(1), 7-28.
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part V PowerPoint
- Is This How They See Me Masses, Messages and Meanings Part V PDF
Jimmie Manning, Ph.D.
Chair and Professor, Communication Studies
School of Social Research & Justice Studies
University of Nevada, Reno
Extending and Expanding Notions of 'Family' in the Interpersonal and Family Communication Classroom
This seminar examines how families are defined and represented in interpersonal and family communication classrooms. Including a mix of classic and hot-off-the-press readings as well as classroom-tested teaching activities, this seminar will consider how they can help students to expand their understanding of what a family is and how communication plays a vital role in that understanding. Importantly, the seminar also focuses on diversity and inclusion in family communication studies, especially in the sense of who is and is not represented in family communication theory.
- Galvin, K. M., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2014). Theory and research from the communication field: Discourses that constitute and reflect families. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6(1), 97-111.
- Olson, L. N., Baiocchi-Wagner, E. A., Kratzer, J. M., Symonds, S. E., & Mbure, W. (2012). Conceptualizing the “dark side” of family communication. In L. N. Olson, E. A. Baiocchi-Wagner, J. M. Kratzer, & S. E. Symonds, The dark side of family communication (pp. 1-23). Polity.
- Symonds LeBlanc, S. (2019). The third day of class. In Casing the family: Theoretical and applied approaches to understanding family communication (pp. xviii-xxviii). Kendall Hunt.
- Harris, T. M., Youn-Heil, F., & Duong, H. (2020). Negotiating and communicating about identity within multi-ethnic/multi-racial families. In J. Soliz & Colaner, C. W. (Eds.), Navigating relationships in the modern family: Communication, identity, and difference (pp. 19-32). Peter Lang.
- Johnson, E. P. (2001). "Quare" studies, or (almost) everything I know about queer studies I learned from my grandmother. Text and Performance Quarterly, 21(1), 1-25.
- Manning, J. (2020). Queering family communication. In J. Soliz & Colaner, C. W. (Eds.), Navigating relationships in the modern family: Communication, identity, and difference (pp. 69-86). Peter Lang.
- Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3-19). Sage.
- Scharp, K. M., & Dorrance Hall, E. (2017). Family marginalization, alienation, and estrangement: Questioning the nonvoluntary status of family relationships. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(1), 28-45.
- Schwartz, L. L. (1996). Adoptive families: Are they non-normative? In M. Harway (Ed.), Treating the changing family: Handling normative and unusual events (pp. 97-114). Wiley.
- Boylorn, R. M. (2013). Four. In Sweetwater: Black women and narratives of resilience (pp. 34-39). Peter Lang.
- Calafell, B. M., & Castaneda, N. (Forthcoming). Performance. In J. Manning, J. Allen, & K. J. Denker (Eds.), Family communication as Metaphors for thinking about family communication (pp. 1-11). Wiley.
- Chawla, D. (Forthcoming). Object. In J. Manning, J. Allen, & K. J. Denker (Eds.), Family communication as Metaphors for thinking about family communication (pp. 1-14). Wiley.
- McAlister, J. F. (2011). Figural materialism: Renovating marriage through the American family home. Southern Communication Journal, 76(4), 279-304.
- Abetz, J., & Moore, J. (2018). “Welcome to the mommy wars, ladies”: Making sense of the ideology of combative mothering in mommy blogs. Communication Culture & Critique, 11(2), 265-281.
- Faulkner, S. L. (2016). TEN (The promise of arts-based, ethnographic, and narrative research in critical family communication research and praxis). Journal of Family Communication, 16(1), 9-15.
- Moore, J., & Manning, J. (2019). What counts as critical interpersonal and family communication research? A review of an emerging field of inquiry. Annals of the International Communication Association, 43(1), 40-57.
- Suter, E. A. (2016). Introduction: Critical approaches to family communication research: Representation, critique, and praxis. Journal of Family Communication, 16(1), 1-8.