criticalconcernsfororalcommunicationeducationin...

Hindawi Publishing CorporationEducation Research InternationalVolume 2011, Article ID 948138, 12 pagesdoi:10.1155/2011/948138

Research Article

Critical Concerns for Oral Communication Education inAlabama and Beyond

Richard Emanuel

Department of Communication, Alabama State University, Montgomery, AL 36104, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Richard Emanuel, [email protected]

Received 23 August 2010; Revised 25 October 2010; Accepted 30 November 2010

Academic Editor: Eric Z. F. Liu

Copyright © 2011 Richard Emanuel. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

An examination of oral communication education in Alabama (USA) identified four critical concerns. (1) Today’s collegestudents are not getting adequate oral communication education. (2) Oral communication education is being relegated to a“module” in another discipline-specific course. (3) When an oral communication course is included in the general educationcurriculum, that course tends to be narrow rather than broad in scope. (4) An increasing number of college faculty who teachoral communication courses do not have a graduate degree in the discipline. These concerns may be indicative of similar issuesaffecting oral communication education throughout the United States and beyond. Solutions to each concern are offered, andsuggestions are provided about how decision-making bodies like state departments of education, regional accrediting agencies,the National Communication Association, and the like can address these concerns. This paper first examines the essential role oforal communication before identifying four critical concerns and offering suggested solutions for oral communication educationin Alabama. These concerns may be indicative of similar issues affecting oral communication regionally, nationally, and eveninternationally. If so, then the suggested solutions offered herein may provide direction. If not, then being proactive rather thanreactive may prevent some or all of these concerns from becoming reality.

1. The Essential Role of Communication

“We listen to a book a day, speak a book a week, read theequivalent of a book a month, and write the equivalent of abook a year” [1, page 623]. A study of how college studentsspend their time communicating showed that nearly 72% oftheir day is spent listening and speaking, while reading andwriting comprise less than 29% of their day [2]. Not onlydo people spend considerable time communicating, commu-nication skills also are essential to personal, academic, andprofessional success. In a report on fastest growing careers,the U.S. Department of Labor [3] states that communicationskills will be in demand across occupations well into the nextcentury. Good communication skills fuel self-confidenceand enable a person to exert more control over their life.Such a person knows how to effectively research, concep-tualize, organize, and present ideas and arguments. Thisis critical to citizen participation which is the foundationof a democratic society. There is an ever-increasing body

of evidence that echoes the importance of communicationskills. Morreale et al. [4] collected and annotated nearly 100articles, commentaries, and publications which call attentionto the importance of the study of oral communication incontemporary society.

Becker and Ekdom [5] list several studies which indicatethat speaking skills are more important to job successthan are specific technical skills. A survey of 500 alumniwho earned their Ph.D. from Michigan State Universitybetween 1982 and 1993 found that conflict resolution,communication, and teamwork skills were rated as vitallyimportant skills that are needed to have successful careers[6]. When Diamond [7] asked 1,000 faculty members froma cross-section of disciplines to identify basic competenciesfor every college graduate, skills in communicating toppedthe list. T. W. Harrell and M. S. Harrell [8] stated that noskill is more important to a successful career in business thangood communication. Satir [9], a pioneer in family enrich-ment, described family communication as the largest single

2 Education Research International

factor determining the kinds of relationships we make withothers.

Mosvick and Nelson [10] state that about one-thirdof a person’s time on the job is spent working in groupsor teams and attending meetings or preparing for meet-ings. Felder et al. [11] reported that engineering leadersranked communication skills to be more important thantechnical skills. A study by Darling and Dannels [12]reported that the types of communication that engineersrated as most important included message constructionskills, teamwork, negotiation, and asking and respondingto questions. A national survey of 1,000 human resourcemanagers identified oral communication skills as valuable forboth obtaining employment and successful job performance[13].

Communication is the vehicle that allows the humanrace to recall the past, think in the present, and plan for thefuture. It enables people to manage relationships with othersand to interpret and interact with the environment. Effectivecommunication is a learned skill. Most people are born withthe physical abilities to acquire necessary communicationtools, but such potential does not guarantee that they willlearn to communicate effectively.

The communication discipline is concerned withimproving students’ abilities to communicate in a variety ofways, as well as with expanding knowledge of how peoplecommunicate. The communication discipline is both one ofthe oldest and one of the newest academic disciplines. Theability to speak clearly, eloquently, and effectively has, forcenturies, been recognized as the hallmark of an educatedperson. In ancient Greece, classical rhetoric emphasizedthe need for a student of the art to become familiar withlogic, human motivation, principles of language, andperformance. The ethical responsibilities of the oratorwere also emphasized. The study of rhetoric continuedinto the Roman era and beyond, when it was one of theoriginal seven liberal arts considered necessary for a goodeducation.

Today, the discipline is much broader, encompassingintercultural communication, gender and communication,and the study of communication in many other specificcontexts. Its intense focus on what, when, where, how, andwhy humans interact is what is so special about the commu-nication discipline. Communication has provided both themeans and meaning of cultural advancement. (For a briefhistory of oral communication, see “Why Harvard DestroyedRhetoric” by Jay Heinrichs in Harvard Magazine online athttp://inpraiseofargument.squarespace.com/harvard/ and anaccompanying article —“No Public Speaking at Harvard”—by Margaret Gutman Kosko written August 18, 2006posted July 22, 2010 on Inside Higher Education online athttp://www.insidehighered.com/views/2006/08/18/klosko).

Most would acknowledge the significant role of com-munication in history and in present culture. And fewwould argue with the overwhelming amount of research andtestimonials which all point to the importance of effectivecommunication for success in business and in life. But aretoday’s college students getting the kind of communicationtraining they need?

2. Concern 1: Today’s College StudentsAre Not Getting Adequate OralCommunication Education

There is mounting evidence that students may not be gettingthe kind of communication training needed for success intoday’s rapidly changing world. A report by the BusinessHigher Education Forum found that “newly hired graduateshave impressive academic skills. However, graduates lackcommunication skills and the ability to work in teamsand with people from diverse backgrounds” [14, page4]. Executives with Fortune 500 companies indicated thatcollege students need better communication skills includingmotivating people, delegating authority, listening, directiongiving, and group problem solving [14]. The executivesstated that the qualities and skills they seek in their“perfect candidate” center around how well that candidatewill relate to coworkers and clients. Communication skills,teamwork, and interpersonal skills top the list of desirablequalities. Murane and Levy [15] cite case studies of high-wage companies which claim that essential skills for futureworkers include problem solving, working in groups, andthe ability to communicate effectively. Economist McCloskey[16] stated, “We are living in a communications revolutioncomparable to the invention of printing. . . In an age ofincreasing talk, it’s wiser talk we need most” (page 16).

When the Harvard Medical School surveyed more than2,000 patients about their office visits, poor communicationemerged as the most important factor affecting patients’trust in their doctors and as the most likely reason fordissatisfaction and cause for switching physicians [17]. TheHarvard study, published in the Journal of General InternalMedicine, highlights a need that America’s medical schoolsacknowledge: physicians need better communication skills.Physicians long out of medical school are discovering thatimproving patient communication can lead to more accuratediagnoses, better patient compliance, higher retention rates,more referrals, lower staff turnover, reduced malpracticepremiums, and fewer lawsuits [18].

Communication skills are as essential to the legal pro-fession as they are to the medical profession. Willett [19]argues that the importance of effective communicationskills between lawyers and clients is equaled only by theimperative need for sustained instruction in the developmentof communication skills for the lawyer. Especially importantare nonverbal communication skills in “reading the client”during interviews. Willett points out that courses in lawschool rarely provide more than trial practice, trial prepara-tion, or settlement and negotiation. Fledgling attorneys mustlook elsewhere to develop the nonverbal communicationskills required for effective interviewing.

A review of education literature by the University ofHawaii’s General Education Project states: “Both in and outof academe there has been agreement that students need todevelop skills such as writing and oral communication, log-ical and critical thinking, computer utilization, mathematicalanalysis, and formal reasoning” [20]. In virtually every studyand reevaluation of desirable student outcomes result-ing from an undergraduate general education curriculum,

Education Research International 3

Table 1: Oral communication requirements in the general education curriculum of Alabama’s public two-year colleges and four-yearuniversities.

Oral communication requirement Schools Number Percent

Public speakingAlabama Southern, Bevill, Faulkner, Jefferson Davis, Lawson, NorthAlabama, Northeast, Northwest-Shoals, South Alabama, Troy,Troy-Dothan, Troy-Montgomery, West Alabama

13 33%

Public speaking OR Fundamentals of oralcommunication

Enterprise, Snead, Wallace-Dothan, Wallace-Selma 4 10%

Fundamentals of oral communication Montevallo 1 3%

Speech OR a communication “module” Central Alabama, Gadsden, Jefferson, LBW, Reid, Shelton, Trenholm 7 18%

A communication course is one of manyhumanities options

Alabama, Alabama State, AUM, Bishop, Calhoun, ChattahoocheeValley, Ingram, UAB

8 20%

A speech option is offered as an Englishclass

Alabama A&M, Jacksonville State 2 5%

None Auburn, Drake, Southern Union, UAH, Wallace-Hanceville 5 13%

Totals 40 100%

Bold indicates a four-year university.

written and oral communication are inextricably linked(see e.g., [21–26].) With this reality, it is logical to concludethat oral communication courses would be as prevalent aswritten communication courses in college core curricula.But they are not.

The question is are oral communication skills essentialin this information age? If so, then today’s students andfuture leaders cannot afford an education devoid of oralcommunication instruction. In considering what shouldbe included in a well-rounded college education, there iswidespread agreement that the primary goal is for studentsto learn critical habits of mind. “A necessary prerequisite forstudying the human world is an ability to communicate in it.Therefore, it is essential that students become proficient intheir reading, writing, and speaking” [27, page 7].

2.1. Oral Communication in the General Education Cur-riculum. Although faculty, administrators, and potentialemployers express concern about students’ lack of effectiveoral communication skills, few universities have imple-mented campus-wide requirements to develop these skills.The American Council of Trustees and Alumni surveyed 100four-year institutions and found that “most are not insistingthat students study what they need to know” [27, page 2]. ABoyer Commission report [28] revealed that only 17% of thesurvey respondents reported that oral communication skillsare taught in their university’s required introductory courses,and about 27% reported that their university does not offerany courses or activities to promote development of theseskills.

However, data from 290 two-year colleges nation-widesuggests a somewhat stronger role for communicationcourses in the general education curriculum [29]. Thedata indicate that 46% of the nation’s two-year collegesrequire Public Speaking, 13% require Fundamentals of OralCommunication, 22% require both, and 19% require neithercourse in the general education curriculum. A national studyof two-year and four-year colleges [30] reported that more

than half of the responding institutions (n = 306) require abasic oral communication course in their general educationcurriculum.

In Alabama, 33% of public colleges require Public Speak-ing, 10% require either Public Speaking or Fundamentals ofOral Communication, and 3% require only Fundamentals ofOral Communication in the general education curriculum(see Table 1).

Most states have at least one decision-making bodywhose responsibilities include formulating, monitoring,and/or evaluating both the principles of the general educa-tion curriculum and/or the curriculum itself. For Alabama,that decision-making body is the Articulation and GeneralStudies Committee (AGSC). The AGSC was created throughlegislative act in 1994 to “simplify the transfer of course creditbetween public institutions of higher education” [31]. Partof the committee’s charge was to develop and implement “astatewide general studies and articulation program that facil-itates the transferability of coursework among all Alabamapublic colleges and universities” (n.p.). This is an ongoingeffort by the 10-member AGSC Committee.

The fact that only about 40% of Alabama’s colleges anduniversities require some kind of oral communication courseis not surprising. The AGSC-approved general educationcurriculum gives students the option to take an oral com-munication course or to avoid one entirely! The AGSC’sapproved general education or “core” curriculum consistsof 41 semester hours in four areas including 6 hours inwritten composition (Area I), 12 hours in humanities andthe fine arts (Area II) including 3 hours in literature and3 hours in the arts, 11 hours in the natural sciences andmathematics (Area III) including 3 hours in math, and atleast 8 hours in the natural sciences, and 12 hours in history,social, and behavior sciences (Area IV) including at least3 hours in history. Students must also complete a 6-hoursequence either in literature (Area II) or in history (Area IV).

Area I—Written Composition—states: “Effective writtencommunication skills are essential in a literate society” [31].


This rationale translates into a 6-hour English compositionrequirement for every college student in Alabama. In addi-tion, every student must also complete at least 3 hours ofliterature (Area II) and possibly 6 hours of literature if theychoose the 6-hour literature sequence instead of the 6-hourhistory sequence. In addition to the 3 or 6 hours of literaturein Area II, students are also required to complete 3 hours inthe arts. The remaining 6 hours (or 3 hours if they completedthe literature sequence) must be taken in the humanitiesand/or fine arts. An oral communication course is one ofseveral courses in the humanities from which students maychoose to complete their Area II requirements. So, studentswho have had an English course throughout their schoolyears are now required to take at least 9 more semester hoursof English at the college level. But these same students, wholikely never had a single oral communication course in theirlife, may choose to take an oral communication course at thecollege level or avoid it altogether.

Responding to a proposal made to the AGSC to repackageArea I (renaming it “Written and Oral Communication”) tooffer a total of 9 hours that focus on both written and oralcommunication, the AGSC executive director stated “whilemany [AGSC members] agree in principle to the increasedneed for oral communication throughout the curriculum,they feel there are other factors that prevent them from mak-ing it mandatory for all college students” (K. Sessions, per-sonal communication, October 19, 2007). Primary amongthese “other factors” is the financial cost to hire enoughcommunication instructors at the “big” schools (Auburn andAlabama). In fact, after the proposal, the AGSC indicatedthat if a workable plan could be developed to provide enoughcommunication instructors at the “big” schools, they mightbe more amenable to the idea of requiring a communicationcourse in the core curriculum. But when a workable plan wasoffered, the AGSC balked. In short, the AGSC acknowledgesthat oral communication skills are essential, but they claimthey cannot afford to require Alabama’s college students toreceive essential instruction in this key discipline.

Noteworthy in all this is the fact that no one seems toquestion the value of written communication skills. Nor doesanyone flinch at the notion that students must take 6 hoursof composition and at least 3 hours of literature classes at thecollege level to strengthen these skills. Nor does anyone takeissue with having to earn a “C” or higher in these courses asan acceptable measure of competency. All this is in additionto the English composition and literature courses studentshave had nearly every year from first grade through highschool. And yet, oral communication is rarely taught priorto college and is often listed as optional in many generaleducation college curricula.

2.2. Guiding Principles. One way to explore why oral com-munication is or is not included in the general educationcurriculum is to evaluate the guiding principles that give riseto that curriculum. College Learning for the New Century,a report from the National Leadership Council for LiberalEducation and America’s Promise [32], provides a list ofthe essential learning outcomes for college students. It statesthat college students should prepare for twenty-first century

challenges by gaining intellectual and practical skills includ-ing inquiry and analysis, critical and creative thinking, writ-ten and oral communication, quantitative literacy, informa-tion literacy, teamwork and problem solving. A Taxonomy ofStudent Outcomes, a report produced by the U.S. Departmentof Education [33], identified the following essential com-munication and computational skills: reading, writing, andoral communication, quantitative/computational skills, andinformation acquisition skills (technological and otherwise)(page 13). This domain includes skills in reading, writtenand oral expression, numeric calculations, and informationacquisition (including the use of libraries, informationtechnologies, and listening) (page 37).

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools(SACS) Commission on Colleges is the regional accreditingagency with oversight responsibility for degree-grantingpublic colleges in 11 southern states, Latin America, andnine other international sites [34]. Its purpose is to ensurethat “institutions meet standards established by the highereducation community that address the needs of society andstudents” (¶1). Its Standards of Accreditation requires thatevery SACS-accredited institution “offers degree programsthat embody a coherent course of study that is compatiblewith its stated mission” [35, page 17]. These same Standardsrequire that institutions “focus on learning outcomes” [35,page 19] that they identify expected outcomes, and theyassess the extent to which they achieve these outcomesincluding student learning outcomes [35, page 25]. Butthese standards are not always met. As a report on generaleducation requirements at 100 of the nation’s leading collegesand universities put it: “While most colleges today claim theyare providing a strong general education curriculum, in fact,they do so in name only” [27, page 3].

The guiding principles the AGSC used to develop thegeneral education curriculum for Alabama’s public collegesdo not include a set of generally accepted student compe-tencies or student learning outcomes that the curriculum isdesigned to meet. Even when there is a set of stated studentlearning outcomes at a particular school, there often seemsto be a disconnection between the school’s stated outcomesand its general education requirements. One clear exampleof this “disconnect” is seen at Auburn University.

Auburn University’s general education student learningoutcomes include “effective oral communication skills” [36,n.p.]. And yet, their general education requirements include12 semester hours of English courses but no oral commu-nication courses! At the very least, there is a disconnectionbetween Auburn’s stated general education outcomes andtheir general education course requirements.

It is also interesting to note that the objectives for thetwo required composition courses at Auburn University,ENGL1100 and ENGL1120, are strikingly similar. Objectivesfor ENGL1100 state that students will “become adept atusing writing processes,” “develop and articulate a claim,”“support the claim,” “become proficient in the conventionsof standard written English,” “assess. . .rhetorical effective-ness,” and “make critical judgments” [37, ¶1]. Objectivesfor ENGL1120 reflect more of the same. Students will “con-tinue to develop. . .proficiency at using writing processes,”


“develop and support claims,” “apply correctly the mechanicsof documentation and citation,” and “further develop thestudent’s critical reading skills” [38, ¶1]. Thus, the objectivesof the second composition course reflect a continuation ofthe same skills outlined in the first composition course. WhileAuburn University says it values effective oral communica-tion by including it as a key general education outcome,it offers no course requirement in its general educationcurriculum to achieve this outcome.

In Alabama, nearly two thirds (65%) of its public collegeslist oral communication as one of the key student learningoutcomes achieved by and through their general educationcurriculum (See Table 2). However, less than one third(30%) of those same schools require an oral communicationcourse in their general education curriculum. Many collegesand universities do not provide any academic goals in theform of student learning outcomes. For those that do, mostlist oral communication skills among the most desiredoutcomes, yet many of these schools do not require an oralcommunication course.

Just how widespread is the “disconnect” between missionand course requirements—between policy and practice? Theanswer may be seen in the national report of the UniversityLearning Outcomes Assessment [39] compiled annually by theCenter for Learning Outcomes Assessment, Inc., at IndianaState University. This study taps a sample of more than18,000 undergraduate students to assess seven key learningoutcome domains—critical thinking, self-awareness, com-munication, diversity, citizenship, membership and lead-ership, and relationships. An examination of the lowestscored items in each domain reveals low levels of oralcommunication skills in six of the seven domains. The reportoffers one possible explanation that “student’s low levels oforal communication behaviors may be a cause or an effect ofpassive learning in the classroom” (n.p.).

Many of today’s college students are not getting ade-quate oral communication education. Despite lofty missionstatements and student learning outcomes that focus onoral communication, many schools do not require oralcommunication in their general education curriculum. Atbest, these schools are being disingenuous; at worst, they arebeing academically negligent.

3. Solution 1

At the state level, the Alabama Department of PostsecondaryEducation and the AGSC should translate sound principlesinto best practices and require an oral communication coursein the general education curriculum for all two-year andfour-year colleges in Alabama. Area I of the AGSC generaleducation curriculum should be renamed “Written and OralCommunication” and should include a total of 9 hours thatfocus on both written and oral communication with at leastone 3-hour oral communication course.

At the regional level, SACS should hold colleges account-able for fulfilling the Standards of Accreditation. That is, if thecollege has a stated mission that includes oral communica-tion competency for its graduates, then the course of studyshould be compatible with that stated mission.

Even if these agencies will not act, colleges can and shouldstrive to improve their core curriculum. The AmericanCouncil of Trustees and Alumni aptly concluded their 2009report, What Will They Learn? A Report on General EducationRequirements at 100 of the Nation’s Leading Colleges andUniversities [27], by stating that “colleges and universitiesmust make improving general education an urgent priority.There are ample opportunities to do so. . .. Boards of trustees,in collaboration with faculty members, should insist on acourse of study that will ensure students learn the things theyneed to know” (page 23).

4. Concern 2: Oral Communication Education IsBeing Relegated to a “Module” inAnother Discipline-Specific Course

The SACS Principles of Accreditation-2010 Edition [35, Sec-tion 3.5.1], states that “the institution identifies college-levelgeneral education competencies and the extent to whichgraduates have attained them” (page 27). A review of degreerequirements at Alabama’s two-year colleges reveals that16 of the 25 schools (64%) list oral communication as adesirable student competency along with reading, writing,fundamental mathematical skills, and computer literacy (seeTable 2). However, these two-year colleges lack a consistentmethod of evaluating minimum oral communication com-petency. Central Alabama Community College’s 2009–2011Catalog [40] states that minimum competency is demon-strated “by a student achieving a grade of “C” or “higher”(page 68) in courses that address the key competencies. Thesecourses include English 101, 102, 131, Speech 106, 107, Math100, 116, or a higher level math course.

Nearly a fourth of Alabama’s two-year colleges (6 of 25schools) require a Speech course to address the oral com-petency requirement unless the requirement is accomplishedthrough “the integration of oral communication proficien-cies within a required discipline-specific course” [41, page55], or unless oral communication competencies “representan integral module in a required discipline-specific course”[42, page 59]. Lurleen B. Wallace Community College’s2009-2010 Catalog [43] states that “all degree seekingstudents must successfully complete. . . Fundamentals of OralCommunication (SPH 106). . .” (page 50). However, theirdegree requirements state that students “must complete 3semester hours in Speech unless provisions for addressingOral Communication Competencies represent an integralmodule in a required discipline-specific course” (page 44).In other words, basic instruction in oral communication isbeing relegated to a module in a course in a discipline otherthan communication.

Commenting on the American Council of Trustees andAlumni report, Fish [44] agrees with the key content areasin which 100 of the nation’s leading colleges and universitiesare evaluated. However, he points out that “credit forrequiring composition will not be given for courses thatare “writing intensive”. . ., or for courses in disciplines otherthan English and composition. . ., or for courses in publicspeaking, or for remedial courses. In order to qualify, a course


Table 2: Comparison of oral communication as a student learning outcome versus oral communication requirements in the generaleducation curriculum.

Require an oralcommunication course

Allow for acommunication“module” in anotherdiscipline-specificcourse

Do NOT require anoral communication

courseNumber Percent

List oralcommunicationas a studentlearning outcome

(12 or 30%) AlabamaSouthern, Bevill,Enterprise, Jefferson Davis,Lawson, Montevallo,North Alabama, Northeast,Snead, South Alabama,Wallace-Dothan, WestAlabama

(4 or 10%) CentralAL, Gadsden, LBW,Reid

(10 or 25%) AlabamaA&M, Alabama State,

Auburn, AUM,Bishop,

Chattahoochee Valley,Jefferson, UAB, UAH,

Wallace-Hanceville

26 65%

Do NOT list oralcommunicationas a studentlearning outcome

(6 or 15%) Faulkner,Northwest-Shoals, Troy,Troy-Dothan,Troy-MontgomeryWallace-Selma

(2 or 5%) Shelton,Trenholm

(6 or 15%) Alabama,Calhoun, Drake,

Ingram, Jacksonville,Southern Union

14 35%

Number ofschools

18 6 16 40

Percent of schools 45% 15% 40% 100%

Bold indicates a four-year university.

must be devoted to [English composition].” Fish furtherstates that “courses that center on another content and failto provide concentrated training in those skills are reallycourses in another subject.” This same argument, appliedto oral communication, would necessitate a dedicated oralcommunication course in the general education curriculum.In short, attempting to provide adequate oral communica-tion education in other discipline courses fails to provideconcentrated training in oral communication.

The final report of the Committee on Written andSpoken English [45] at Washington University reached asimilar conclusion:

“While the Committee is unanimous in sup-porting the need to develop oral communica-tion, it is not clear that the burden for suchtraining could be assumed by [other-discipline]courses. Not only is the incorporation of oralpresentation skills into the curriculum difficult,but student presentations also consume a greatdeal of class time. . .. To support courses inoral communication it would be importantto persuade students that their future careeropportunities will also benefit from them. Thereare very few professions or businesses today thatdo not depend on the speaking abilities of theiremployees, be it in the form of comments beforea judge or Committee, presentations to clients,or collaborative work with colleagues [45, ¶6and ¶46].”

At the state level, the AGSC lists specific criteria for oralcommunication courses taught in Alabama’s public colleges.Oral communication courses must:

(i) include historical foundations of rhetoric,

(ii) include performance in oral communication includ-ing both verbal and nonverbal messages and anability to overcome speaker apprehension,

(iii) emphasize critical thinking skills including researchskills, audience awareness, and ethical assessment,

(iv) emphasize organizational skills including logicalarrangement and linguistic choices,

(v) emphasize language facility including grammaticalcorrectness, audience appeal and appropriateness,

(vi) ensure that competent performance in oral commu-nication is necessary for passing the course [46, ¶1–5].

The notion that all of these criteria can be adequately metin some other discipline-specific course strains credibility.This “module” approach is not even an attempt at “commu-nication across the curriculum.” The reality is that there areno “communication across the curriculum” programs at anyof Alabama’s public two-year or four-year colleges.

Data from 290 two-year colleges across the United States[29] reveal that only 11% (26 of 285) schools have acommunication across the curriculum program. Of these,92% (24 of 26) require an oral communication coursein their general education curriculum. Only one of the290 two-year colleges has neither an oral communicationdegree nor a required oral communication course in theirgeneral education curriculum. Speech (oral communication)at this college is located in the English department. Andeven writing-across-the-curriculum programs are academicsupplements to not replacements for required English com-position courses.


Friedland [47] claimed that many colleges are recogniz-ing a need for oral communication across the curriculum.The rationale is that many small colleges do not have facultyin communication. The article describes a pilot programin oral communication “coaching” provided by faculty intheater and education. This is flawed reasoning that exposesan unwillingness to hire the needed faculty. Another exampleof this flawed reasoning is St. Olaf College in Minnesota.They had a four-year grant to establish an oral commu-nication across the curriculum program. Their rationalewas that “some [colleges] have no communication facultyat all; others have communication departments that aretoo small to meet a campus-wide need for communicationinstruction” [48, ¶1]. These small colleges have sufficientnumbers of faculty in other core areas like English andmathematics. This approach is an indictment of the school’sunwillingness to hire adequate numbers of fully qualified oralcommunication faculty.

A “module” approach to oral communication is prob-lematic for several reasons.

(1) Oral communication instruction is either not pro-vided at all, or the instruction is being reduced to a“module” in a course rather than providing studentsan entire course in this critical discipline.

(2) The evaluation of students’ ability to demonstrateoral communication competency is being done byinstructors who are not trained or properly creden-tialed in oral communication.

(3) Diminishing oral communication to a “module”in some other discipline’s course is inconsistentwith the approved guidelines and criteria for oralcommunication which state that “course gradingcriteria must ensure that competent performancein oral communication is necessary for passing thecourse” [46, ¶4].

(4) No other key competencies are being treated thisway. Only oral communication competencies arebeing “farmed out” to other courses. Imagine if therequirement was for students to complete 3 semesterhours in mathematics unless provisions for address-ing math competencies represent an integral mod-ule in a required discipline-specific course. Wouldthe trained, properly credentialed math faculty beconcerned that nonqualified or undercredentialedinstructors are teaching math and evaluating stu-dents’ math competency? What if written commu-nication competency was treated like oral com-munication competency? Would English faculty beconcerned if a psychology teacher or a history teacherwere the evaluator for the written communicationcompetency?

(5) This kind of treatment may “open the door” to otheressential skills being “farmed out” and reduced to amodule in other courses.

(6) No compelling rationale is provided for treating oralcommunication competencies in this way.

Many courses throughout university curricula requirestudents to orally present material as a major componentof the course. However, merely assigning communicationprojects and grading them will not by itself promote bettercommunication. At least two English composition coursesare required in most college general education curricula. Therationale is that written communication skills are important.However, no rationale ever seems to be provided as to whyit takes two courses to meet this basic skill especially sincestudents have had English composition courses throughouttheir academic life. Similarly, at least one mathematics courseis required in most general education curricula to meet com-putational competency requirements. The missing piece isalmost always the oral communication component. Either anoral communication course is required, or it is not required,or it is relegated to a “module” in another discipline’s coursewhere it is somehow taught, demonstrated, and evaluated.

5. Solution 2

While this “module” problem seems to exist only amongsome of Alabama’s community colleges for now, the realconcern is that if this practice goes unchecked and unchal-lenged, it may spread to four-year colleges. A reasonable andmore academically responsible approach is to address oralcommunication competency in the same manner as writtencommunication competency. That is, since there are requiredEnglish composition courses in the general education cur-riculum to address written communication competency, thesame rationale should require an oral communication courseto address oral communication competency.

At the state level, the Alabama Department of Postsec-ondary Education and the AGSC have an opportunity toprovide leadership by renouncing the academically unsoundpractice of a course being reduced to a “module” as part ofanother discipline’s course. Oral communication skills aretoo important to students’ success to merit anything less thana full-fledged course.

At the regional level, SACS should hold colleges account-able for fulfilling their Standards of Accreditation. SACS couldalso clarify that their intent is for qualified oral communi-cation faculty to evaluate oral communication competen-cies.

6. Concern 3: When an Oral CommunicationCourse Is Included in the General EducationCurriculum, That Course Tends to Be NarrowRather Than Broad in Scope

A nation-wide study of two-year and four-year collegesrevealed that for those institutions that require a communi-cation course in their core curriculum, the majority (62%) ofthose institutions (n = 124) offer public speaking [30]. One-third (13 of 40) of the public two-year and four-year collegesin Alabama require Public Speaking, ten percent require pub-lic speaking or fundamentals of oral communication, andone university requires only fundamentals of oral communi-cation (see Table 1). A communication course is an option


at eight Alabama colleges, and there is a communication“module” option at seven two-year colleges. Five Alabamacolleges have no communication course requirement oroption in their general education curriculum.

If an oral communication course is included in the gen-eral education curriculum, the key question is: which oralcommunication course should be included? The AGSC pro-vides a list of approved general education courses for all ofAlabama’s two-year colleges. In the communication disci-pline, that list consists of Fundamentals of oral communi-cation, fundamentals of public speaking, and Introductionto interpersonal communication. These three courses areapproved transfer courses for all Alabama institutions ofhigher education.

The basic fundamentals of oral communication (SPH106) class is a hybrid course that includes instructionand accompanying skill training in listening, language,nonverbal, public speaking, voice and diction, interpersonal,problem solving, group dynamics, leadership, and commu-nication ethics. The public speaking class (SPH 107) typicallyincludes coping with communication apprehension, audi-ence analysis, topic selection, research skills, organization,presentation aids, delivery, informative speaking, persuasivespeaking, and special occasion speaking. Introduction tointerpersonal communication (SPH 116) focuses on com-munication in dyadic situations. This course is rarely taughtin any of Alabama’s colleges.

It is worth noting that other disciplines offer introduc-tory courses. For example, the fine arts course options atmost colleges and universities include introductory coursesin art, music, and theater. Each of these courses is a broad-based introduction to their respective disciplines rather thanmore narrowly focused courses like painting, sculpting, mu-sical composing, orchestral conducting, acting, or directing.

The choice is whether to provide a broad-based intro-ductory communication course which includes a publicspeaking component, or to offer only a public speakingcourse that will focus on that specific skill. Since mostcollege students who take a communication class take onlyone, it is reasonable to offer a course that is as broad-based and exhaustive as possible [49]. This means that thebasic Fundamentals of oral communication course shouldbe the preferred course offering since it is broad-basedand it includes a public speaking component. The AGSCgeneral studies core curriculum web site echoes this sameperspective. The web site indicates that courses fulfillingthe Humanities requirement “should be broad in scope andcontent rather than specific and should emphasize a globalperspective” [31, n.p.]. A two-year college course syllabus forfundamentals of oral communication (SPH106) is providedon the AGSC’s Approved General Course Listings by Area [50]web site. That syllabus clearly specifies that the course willbe broad-based and will prepare students to demonstrate aknowledge of intrapersonal, interpersonal, small group, andpublic communication [51, n.p.].

Even the professional organization for the communica-tion discipline—the National Communication Association(NCA)—is on record supporting a broad-based approachto teaching much needed communication skills [52]. NCA

members agree that rather than focusing on narrow applica-tions, a required oral communication course should empha-size the most basic and universal concepts and skills that cutacross many fields such as listening respectfully and critically,explaining points clearly, asking questions to gain under-standing, adapting messages to different contexts, and solv-ing problems in groups. The platform statement concludesthat, above all, it is imperative that students are introducedto the complex ethical issues that will face communicators ina multicultural and technologically complex society.

The public speaking course is narrowly focused and doesnot address broader communication issues or skills. A 2002NCA conference presentation, “Communication and Tech-nology in Action,” stated that the speech communicationdiscipline has tended to emphasize public speaking and maybe denying itself an opportunity to teach students moreabout the scope of communication. The panelists went on tosay that in most cases, the typical student will only take onecourse in communication, and therefore that course shouldbe more representative of the field than what is typicallyoffered in a public speaking course [53].

Fundamentals of public speaking is more of a how-to“formula” course which covers basic speech writing anddelivery “mechanics.” Students demonstrate their under-standing of those mechanics by presenting a variety ofspeeches. Student speeches also take up as much as one-third of the class sessions thereby dramatically reducing thenumber of lectures an instructor has to prepare or present. Ofthe ten senior institutions in Alabama that offer bachelor’sdegree programs in speech or communication studies, onlyone offers a broad-based course.

7. Solution 3

At the state level, the Alabama Department of PostsecondaryEducation could provide strong leadership by insistingon a broad-based oral communication course as part oftheir prescribed general education curriculum. Studentstaking a basic Fundamentals of oral communication courseare exposed to a wide range of communication contextsand essential skills. Offering public speaking as the onlyrequired communication course would provide publicspeaking training at the exclusion of the other kinds ofcommunication skills workers in business and industrycontinue to advocate. Colleges need not malnourish theirstudents when it comes to communication education. Thefundamentals of oral communication course is a well-balanced academic meal complete with the vital skills andconcepts that can well serve today’s students and tomorrow’sleaders. It should be the main course.

8. Concern 4: An Increasing Number ofCollege Faculty Who Teach OralCommunication Courses Do Not Havea Graduate Degree in the Discipline

Data from a nation-wide study of two-year colleges suggeststhat an alarming proportion of college faculty who teach


oral communication courses do not have a graduate degreein the discipline [29]. Nearly half (46%) of the nation’scommunity colleges have full-time faculty teaching commu-nication courses who do not have a graduate degree in thecommunication discipline. These faculty members teachingout of their discipline represent more than half the full-timecommunication faculty at their school. For the Southernregion (which includes Alabama), 58% of full-time two-year college communication faculty do not have a degree incommunication [54]. They have degrees in English (44%),theater (38%), and mass communication (19%), but not oralcommunication.

Teaching a fundamentals of oral communication courserequires a broad, deep understanding of the field of com-munication including its theory, research, and techniques.This course, which includes a public speaking component,is a much more challenging course to teach. It requires awell-trained communication professional to guide studentsthrough the various contexts and applications of communi-cation. Oral communication education provides instructionand guidance to help students develop and improve their oralcommunication skills. The effective application of those skillsis evidence of communication competence. Morreale et al.[4], in their robust rationale for the centrality of the studyof communication, state that “communication education ismost appropriate and effective when it is taught by facultytrained in the discipline and in departments that are devotedto the study of communication” (page 23).

The SACS Faculty Credentials Guidelines [55], specifiesthat faculty who teach degree courses designed for transferto a baccalaureate degree, or general education courses atthe undergraduate level, or baccalaureate courses, must haveearned “a doctor or master’s degree in the teaching disciplineor master’s degree with a concentration in the teachingdiscipline (a minimum of 18 graduate semester hours in theteaching discipline)” (¶1d). No other regional accreditingbody specifies that 18 graduate semester hours in a disciplinequalifies someone to teach that discipline. Since there is nodemonstrable shortage of degreed people in the communica-tion discipline, requiring only 18 graduate semester hours ofsome kind of communication-related courses unnecessarilydiminishes faculty credentials standards when it comes tooral communication.

The Higher Learning Commission Guidance on Deter-mining Qualified Faculty (n.d.) [56] states that “facultyteaching in undergraduate programs should have completeda significant program of study in the discipline they willteach. . .with substantial coursework at least one level abovethat of courses being taught or developed” (page 1). In avery detailed Faculty Credentials Operations Manual [57],Hillsborough Community College (Florida) affirms the factthat “both full-time and part-time faculty members arerequired to meet the standards set by SACS” (page 4). Foreach discipline/program, Hillsborough’s manual specifies theminimum faculty requirements and qualifying fields. ForSpeech (oral communication), a faculty member must havean earned master’s degree in speech or a master’s degree withat least 18 graduate semester hours in any combination ofthe qualifying fields. The manual then specifies the qualifying

fields as communications, oratory, and speech. Obviouslyabsent from this list of qualifying fields is English and theater.

If English and/or theater were acceptable qualifyingfields, then communication faculty would also be qualifiedto teach English and/or theater courses too. However, thisis not happening, nor is it likely to happen. Ironicallyand inexplicably, however, English and theater faculty oftenteach oral communication classes. There is no questionthat English and theater and communication are separatedisciplines. Each has their own professional associations,conventions, academic journals, lines of research, and soforth. Further, there is no shortage of fully qualified andproperly credentialed communication graduates nationally,regionally, or in Alabama.

The National Center for Education Statistics survey ofdegrees in Communication from 1998-1999 shows that 6,650graduate degrees in Communication were conferred in asingle academic year. This figure includes degrees in generalcommunication, advertising, journalism, broadcast journal-ism, public relations, organizational communication, andradio and television broadcasting. Examining only graduatedegrees in communication studies, speech communication,and rhetoric, the National Center’s survey shows the numberof degrees conferred was 2,441 in 2006-2007 [58]. Based onthis data, there were enough people who earned a graduateCommunication degree in one year to fill at least one facultyposition at every public two-year and four-year college (n ≈1, 699) in the United States!

No, there is no shortage of qualified and properlycredentialed communication graduates. But some of thosegraduates who desire to teach oral communication courses atpublic colleges are not being hired because English graduates,theater graduates, speech-language pathology graduates, andso forth are teaching the courses instead. Imagine the outcrythat would be heard if an English composition course waslisted as an oral communication course or taught by anythingother than a fully qualified and properly credentialed Englishfaculty member!

At some Alabama colleges, the communication disciplinehas been adopted! Alabama A&M and Jacksonville State bothoffer oral communication courses with an English courseprefix. The implication is that if they are English courses,then faculty with a master’s degree in English would bequalified to teach them. This is nothing less than academicdishonesty.

9. Solution 4

Whether or not a faculty member should have at least amaster’s degree in the teaching discipline can be addressedphilosophically or realistically. Philosophically, one couldargue that any person with particular skills may be able toeffectively teach those skills whether they have a graduatedegree or any degree at all. Realistically, accrediting agencies,institutions of higher learning, and tradition all call forfaculty members who have completed specific academictraining with a certain number of courses in the teachingdiscipline. This is considered by the academic community


and those it seeks to serve as reasonable, responsible andprudent.

On a regional level, SACS should follow the lead ofthe other regional accrediting agencies and delete the “18graduate semester hours” language. Instead, SACS shouldreaffirm the value of a graduate degree in communicationstudies, speech communication, and/or rhetoric as theappropriate degree for those who teach college oral com-munication courses. Until then, the Alabama Department ofPostsecondary Education should require all college facultymembers to have at least a master’s degree in the teachingdiscipline.

Like solutions 1 and 2, this is not a treatise in defenseof the communication discipline; rather, it is a recom-mendation to follow the traditionally accepted pedagogicalapproach used in colleges and universities across the nation.Like other core skill sets, college students are best servedby completing at least one core course taught by a properlycredentialed faculty member. This is standard practice whenit comes to writing and computational skills. And so it shouldbe with oral communication skills.

10. Conclusion

Alabama has an opportunity to demonstrate a renewedcommitment to academic integrity by moving forward withthese recommended solutions. On a broader level, theNational Communication Association (NCA) carries theprimary responsibility for preserving, protecting, defending,and advocating the Communication discipline. Beyondsimply drafting policy statements, the leadership of thisnearly century-old professional organization can stronglyurge accrediting agencies, college presidents and academicdeans, communication departments, and decision-makingbodies (like Alabama’s AGSC and the Alabama Depart-ment of Postsecondary Education) throughout the countrythat:

(1) properly credentialed communication professionalsshould be hired to teach oral communication courses,

(2) a broad-based fundamentals of oral communicationcourse should be included in the general educationcurriculum.

Further, the NCA Basic Course Division and the Com-munity College Section can partner to promote oral commu-nication in college general education curricula. Studies likethe national [29] and regional [59] study of communicationeducation in two-year colleges and the ongoing basic coursesurvey [30] of two-year and four-year colleges are helpfulresources in this effort.

The concerns outlined here point to the heart of howAlabama (and possibly other states) makes decisions thataffect communication education. These concerns expose atendency among policy makers, at times, to do the expedientat the expense of the important. The research continues toconfirm that both oral and written communication skills

are essential for success in contemporary society. The cur-ricula and faculty at our nation’s colleges should reflect thistruth.

References

[1] M. H. Buckley, “Focus on research: we listen a book a day;speak a book a week: learning from walter loban,” LanguageArts, vol. 69, pp. 622–626, 1992.

[2] R. Emanuel, J. Adams, K. Baker et al., “How college studentsspend their time communicating,” International Journal ofListening, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13–28, 2008.

[3] “Career Projections to 2005: Fastest Growing Careers,” U.S.Department of Labor Report. Chevy Chase, Md, USA, 1995.

[4] S. P. Morreale, M. M. Osborn, and J. C. Pearson, “Whycommunication is important: a rationale for the centrality ofthe study of communication,” Journal of the Association forCommunication Administration, vol. 29, pp. 1–25, 2000.

[5] S. Becker and L. R. V. Ekdom, “That forgotten basic skill: oralcommunication,” Iowa Journal of Speech Communication, vol.12, pp. 1–18, 1980.

[6] G. Crawley and K. Klomparens, The 1997-98 MSU Ph.D.Alumni Survey, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Mich,USA, 2000.

[7] R. Diamond, “Curriculum reform needed if students are tomaster core skills,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, B7.

[8] T. W. Harrell and M. S. Harrell, “Stanford MBA careers: a 20-Year longitudinal study,” Graduate School Business ResearchPaper 723, Graduate School Business, Stanford, Calif, USA,1984.

[9] V. Satir, Peoplemaking, Science & Behavior Books, Los Altos,Calif, USA, 2nd edition, 1988.

[10] R. K. Mosvick and R. B. Nelson, We’ve Got to Start Meeting LikeThis: A Guide to Successful Meeting Management, Park Avenue,Indianapolis, Ind, USA, 1996.

[11] R. M. Felder, D. R. Woods, J. E. Stice, and A. Rugarcia, “Thefuture of engineering education: part 2. Teaching methods thatwork,” Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 26–39, 2000.

[12] A. L. Darling and D. P. Dannels, “Practicing engineers talkabout the importance of talk: a report on the role of oralcommunication in the workplace,” Communication Education,vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2003.

[13] J. L. Winsor, D. B. Curtis, and R. D. Stephens, “Nationalpreferences in business and communication education: asurvey update,” Journal of the Association of CommunicationAdministration, vol. 3, pp. 170–179, 1997.

[14] “Graduates are not prepared to work in business,” AssociationTrends, 4, June 1997, http://www.ubuntu.com.

[15] R. Murane and F. Levy, Teaching the New Basic Skills, FreePress, New York, NY, USA, 1996.

[16] D. N. McCloskey, “The neglected economics of talk,” Planningfor Higher Education, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 11–16, 1994.

[17] N. L. Keating, D. C. Green, A. C. Kao, J. A. Gazmararian, V. Y.Wu, and P. D. Cleary, “How are patients’ specific ambulatorycare experiences related to trust, satisfaction, and consideringchanging physicians?” Journal of General Internal Medicine,vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 29–39, 2002.

[18] “Patients consider dropping doctors who are poor commu-nicators,” Center for the Advancement of Health, September2009, http://www.eurekalert.org/pub releases/2002-01/cfta-pcd010702.php.


[19] T. H. Willett, “Reading the client: nonverbal communicationas an interviewing tool,” in Proceedings of the Annual Meetingof the Speech Communication Association, ERIC, Chicago, Ill,USA, November 1984.

[20] “Review of General Education Literature,” University ofHawaii General Education Project, 1996, http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/gened/litrev.htm.

[21] “Report of the University General Education Committee June30, 2008,” Mercer University, January 2010, http://www.mer-cer.edu/oie/qep/GenEd08.pdf.

[22] “General education in the 21st century,” Tech. Rep., Center forStudies in Higher Education, University of California, Berke-ley, Calif, USA, 2007, http://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/docs/GEC-WEB.FINAL.pdf.

[23] “Improving the Transfer of General Education Credit: Alter-native Policies for Florida Public Postsecondary Institutions,”2003, http://askew.fsu.edu/current/masters/actionreport/su2003/Matthew%20Bouck%20-%20Improving%20the%20Transfer%20of%20General%20Education%20.pdf.

[24] “HLC Reaccreditation Subcommittee Report Common Aca-demic Experience: the general education curriculum,” Univer-sity of Iowa’s Higher Learning Commission (HLC), February2010, http://www.uiowa.edu/reaccreditation/pdf/Common%20Academic%20Experience-Final.pdf.

[25] “Review of general education literature,” General EducationProject, University of Hawaii, 1996, http://www.hawaii.edu/ovppp/gened/litrev.htm.

[26] “Strong foundations: twelve principles for effective generaleducation programs,” Prepared by participants in the Projecton Strong Foundations for General Education, The Asso-ciation of American Colleges, 1994, http://wise.fau.edu/∼ecou1533/strongfoundations.htm.

[27] “What will they learn? A Report on General EducationRequirements at 100 of the Nation’s Leading Colleges and Uni-versities,” January 2009, https://www.goacta.org/publications/downloads/WhatWillTheyLearnFinal.pdf.

[28] “Reinventing Undergraduate Education: Three Years After theBoyer Report,” Boyer Commission on Educating Undergrad-uates in the Research University. Carnegie Foundation for theAdvancement of Teaching, Menlo Park, Calif, USA, 2001.

[29] I. N. Engleberg, R. C. Emanuel, T. Van Horn, and D. L. Bodary,“Communication education in U.S. community colleges,”Communication Education, vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 241–265, 2008.

[30] S. Morreale, L. Hugenberg, and D. Worley, “The basiccommunication course at U.S. colleges and universities in the21st century: study VII,” Communication Education, vol. 55,no. 4, pp. 415–437, 2006.

[31] “What is the AGSC?” February 2007, http://stars.troy.edu/agsc/what agsc.htm.

[32] College Learning for the New Century, “A report fromthe National Leadership Council for Liberal Education &America’s Promise,” p. 15, 2007, www.aacu.org.

[33] P. Terenzini, “U.S. Department of Education. National Centerfor Education Statistics. Student Outcomes Information forPolicy-Making, NCES 97-991, prepared for the Council ofthe National Postsecondary Education Cooperative WorkingGroup on Student Outcomes from a Policy Perspective,”Washington, DC, USA, 1997.

[34] Commission on Colleges, “Southern Association of Collegesand Schools,” January 2010, http://www.sacscoc.org.

[35] Principles of Accreditation, “Southern Association of Col-leges and Schools Commission on Colleges,” January 2010,http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/2010principlesofacreditation.pdf.

[36] Auburn University General Education Outcomes—Oral Com-munication, “Office of Undergraduate Studies,” October 2009,http://www.auburn.edu/academic/provost/undergrad stud-ies/oral measures.html.

[37] “Objectives for ENG 1100. (n.d.) Auburn University Depart-ment of English,” August 2009, http://media.cla.auburn.edu/english/cs/engl1100.cfm.

[38] “Objectives for ENG 1100. (n.d.) Auburn University Depart-ment of English,” August 2009, http://media.cla.auburn.edu/english/cs/engl1120.cfm.

[39] University Learning Outcomes Assessment (UNILOA),“National Report of Means, 2008-2009. The Center forLearning Outcomes Assessment, Inc., Indiana State University,Terre Haute, Ind, USA,” October 2010, http://www.uniloa.com/NationalnormPublicRelease2010.pdf.

[40] Central Alabama Community College 2009–2011, February2010, http://www.cacc.edu/clientuploads/catalog/2010 Cata-log.pdf.

[41] “Jefferson State Community College 2010-2011 Catalog,” Sep-tember 2010, http://www.jeffstateonline.com/Catalog/PDFs/201011JSCCCatalog.pdf.

[42] “Gadsden State Community College 2009-2010 Catalog andStudent Handbook,” February 2010, http://catalog.gadsden-state.edu/content.php?catoid=1&navoid=46.

[43] B. Lurleen, “Wallace Community College 2009-2010 Catalog,”February 2010, http://www.lbwcc.edu/Uploads/files/Publica-tions/college catalog 2010-2011.pdf.

[44] S. Fish, “What should colleges teach?” The New York TimesOpinionator, October 2010, http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/what-should-colleges-teach/.

[45] “Committee on Written and Spoken English,” Final Report,Washington University, St. Louis, Mo, USA, December 1998,http://rescomp.wustl.edu/∼ucouncil/writtenspoken.html.

[46] “Specific Guidelines and Criteria for Courses Submitted inCommunication Studies,” Alabama Articulation and Gen-eral Studies Committee. Area II Guidelines, October 2010,http://stars.troy.edu/agsc/submit/commstudies.htm.

[47] E. Friedland, “Oral communication across the curriculum:what’s a small college to do? Report of a collaborative pilot bytheatre and education faculty,” Journal of General Education,vol. 53, no. 3-4, pp. 288–310, 2004.

[48] “FIPSE grant database—Saint Olaf College. 2000,” October2010, http://fipsedatabase.ed.gov/grantshow.cfm?grantNum-ber=P116B971551.

[49] R. Emanuel, “The case for fundamentals of oral communica-tion,” Community College Journal of Research and Practice, vol.29, no. 2, pp. 153–162, 2005.

[50] Approved AGSC General Course Listings by Area, “Two-year institutions,” October 2010, http://stars.troy.edu/stars/CRSLISTS/2yr-a.htm.

[51] “SPH106—Fundamentals of Oral Communication,” Coursesyllabus, 2004, http://stars.troy.edu/stars/CRSLISTS/TWO-YEAR/SPH-106.pdf.

[52] “Policy Platform Statement on the Role of CommunicationCourses in General Education,” November 1996, http://www.natcom.org/Default.aspx?id=146&terms=policyplatform-statement.

[53] S. J. Messman, “Communication and Technology in Action:Thoughtfully investigating the use of technology to enhancelearning in the basic course. Panel presentation at the NationalCommunication Association Convention,” New Orleans, La,USA, November 2002.


[54] R. Emanuel, “A regional analysis of communication educationin U.S. community colleges,” American Communication Jour-nal, vol. 10, no. 4, 2008.

[55] Faculty Credentials Guidelines, Southern Association of Col-leges and Schools Commission on Colleges, 2010,http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/081705/faculty%20credentials.pdf.

[56] “Guidance on Determining Qualified Faculty (n.d.) HigherLearning Commission. A Commission of the North Cen-tral Association of Colleges and Schools,” October 2010,http://www.ncahlc.org/download/FacultyQual.pdf.

[57] Faculty Credentials Operations Manual 2008-2009, Hillsbor-ough Community College, October 2010, http://www.hccfl.edu/media/53041/faculty credentials manual 0809.pdf.

[58] Digest of Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, Table 275, Bachelor’s,master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by degree-grantinginstitutions, by sex of student and discipline division: 2006-2007, 2007, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07 268.asp.

[59] Community College Section, “Regional Summaries,” 2008,http://www.freewebs.com/communitycollege/nationalsurvey-project.htm.

Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com

Child Development Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Education Research International


Biomedical EducationJournal of



Psychiatry Journal

ArchaeologyJournal of



AnthropologyJournal of


Research and TreatmentSchizophrenia


Urban Studies Research

Population ResearchInternational Journal of


CriminologyJournal of


Aging ResearchJournal of



NursingResearch and Practice

Current Gerontology& Geriatrics Research

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

Volume 2014

Sleep DisordersHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

AddictionJournal of


Depression Research and TreatmentHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


Geography Journal


Research and TreatmentAutism


Economics Research International

criticalconcernsfororalcommunicationeducationin...

Documents