Instructional Communication

INSTRUCTIONAL COMMUNICATION
The ability to speak clearly, eloquently, and effectively has been
recognized as the hallmark of an educated person since the
beginning of recorded history. Systematic written commentary on
how to develop this ability goes back at least as far as The Precepts
of Kagemni and Ptah-Hotep (3200-2800 B. C. E.). This document,
the oldest remnant of the Egyptian Wisdom Books of the Middle
and New Kingdoms (used as a manual of advice to train
individuals headed for positions as scribes and officials), contains
forty-five maxims, one-third of which are related to effective
communication, such as (1) keep silent unless there is something
worth saying, (2) wait for the right moment to say it, (3) restrain
passionate words when speaking, (4) speak fluently but with great
deliberation, and (5) above all, keep the tongue at one with the
heart so the truth is always spoken.
Under the label of "rhetoric," the theory and practice of oral
discourse was a central concern of Greek, Roman, medieval,
Renaissance, and early modern education. In the United States,
teachers of communication, from the beginning, devoted
considerable intellectual effort to the development of theory and
research that was supportive of effective communication
instruction—efforts focused on the strategies, techniques, and
processes that teachers could use to facilitate the acquisition and
refinement of communication competence.
Communication instructors sought to share this knowledge with
their colleagues in other classrooms. Donald K. Smith (1954)
suggests that speech courses for teachers were offered at Indiana
University in 1892; within two decades, the appearance of such
courses at other universities was general.
Early efforts applied communication theory and research
generated in noninstructional contexts to the tasks of the
classroom teacher. What had been learned, for example, about the
principles of effective speech making or group discussion was
applied to the tasks of preparing a lecture or leading a class
discussion. More recently, and largely in conjunction with the
development of the International Communication Association's
Division 7 (the Instructional and Developmental Communication
Division, founded in 1972), communication educators have
focused on developing communication theory based on empirical
research that is conducted in the instructional context.
This entry explores the subset of communication studies known as
communication education. Communication education is the study
of communication in instructional (pedagogical) contexts. It is
concerned with the study of three categories of phenomena:

(1)
oral communication skills—instructional strategies that
communication instructors use to facilitate the acquisition of
communication competence (e.g., What can communication
teachers do to help students learn how to be more effective in job
interviews?),

(2) instructional communication—communication
skills and competencies that are used by all instructors in the
process of engaging in teaching and learning (e.g., How can all
teachers communicate in ways that help their students learn?

(3) communication development—the normal developmental
sequence by which children acquire communication competence
(e.g., Are there certain stages that individuals go through as they
learn how to detect deception?).
The primary focus here will be on the second component of the
phenomena covered by the term "communication education"—that
is, on what communication scholars have learned about the
process of communication as individuals interact in instructional
settings.
The development of instructional communication theory and
research in the United States has been guided by two primary
forces: the nature of the communication discipline and the
broader context of academia's social and behavioral science
research traditions.
Robert Craig (1989) suggests that communication is a discipline
wherein the essential purpose is to cultivate communication as a
practical art through critical study. The defining characteristic of
the discipline is, in his view, "the intimate tie that exists between
the discipline's work and practical communicative activities"