the persons who produce the relations (Schmidt, et al., 1989)
•Small-group discussion appears to be one way that learners can learn things that they do not relate to, or that are incompatible with existing beliefs, because it helps the learner become aware of his or her own perspective and the potential limitations of that perspective (Schmidt, et al., 1989; see also Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 2000; Schwartz, 1995).
•When students provide explanations and elaborate upon those explanations, there is increased learning (O’Donnell, 2006; Webb, Franke, De, Chan, Freund, Shein, & Melkonian, 2009).
•In a meta-analysis of forty-two empirical research studies on discussion in the classroom, classroom discussion was shown to be “highly effective at promoting students’ literal and inferential comprehension” (Murphy, et al., 2009).
As illustrated by the above points, students who have the opportunity to speak about their learning or hear how others have construed a problem or approached a solution benefit by seeing that there are multiple ways to approach an issue or problem, expanding the possibilities for exploring an issue in new ways. To realize that there are multiple paths to a solution or to come to understand the strengths and limitations of various paths is a gift that many students never receive. Discussions about life experiences—as related to course content—whether offered by students who have experienced discrimination or by students who have had a change of perspective, expand horizons in ways otherwise not possible. Speakers who struggle with apprehension and get the courage to make a claim and argue for it during a class discussion gain valuable experience that can move beyond the classroom. Oral communication assignments and activities have the potential of changing students: their learning, their outlook on life, their approach to interaction. Students’ engagement with communication activities can have significant effects on their learning, their ultimate success in the professional world, their interactions as citizens, and their interpersonal relationships. Therefore, we suggest it is important for you to consider additional ways in which you can use communication in your course. We advocate, though, that you do this in a way that will help you meet your teaching goals. For some, you might design high stakes, formal, graded assignments that focus on fostering professional communication competencies. For others, professional communication competencies might not be as relevant, so your focus might be on lower stakes, ungraded assignments in which students use communication competencies to learn course material. It is important to note that ungraded communication activities may only be low stakes in terms of grades, but they are in fact quite high stakes in the sense that we ask students to disclose their thoughts and opinions. Class discussion and small-group discussions, for example, are highly self-disclosive activities. We are asking students to disclose their thinking while it may still be quite unformed. We are asking students to make public their opinions and attitudes when those opinions and attitudes may not be shared. We are asking them to let others in on their degree of expertise, their ability to do close reading, their ability to analyze, etc. The stakes for how an individual is seen by others, and how that person sees him or herself are pretty high.
Communication Competence
As you begin to think about what kinds of assignments and activities you want to design for your course, it is important to consider the question: “What counts as a competent communicator in my course or discipline?” Communication competence has been defined in a number of different ways within the communication discipline. Although there are numerous models of communication competence, many share similar assumptions, four of which are important here. First, communication competence is measured in some degree by the achievement of a communicator’s goals. Second, competence must not only focus on individual achievement of goals, but also is dependent on whether the communicator is interacting in ways that are effective and appropriate to the social relationship (Spitzberg, 1988). That means maintaining an awareness of an appreciation for the goals and objectives of the other parties to the communication event: The other member of a dyad, the other members of a group, the audience for a public presentation. Third, communication competence is also dependent on the constraints of the social context in which the communication is occurring. Finally, although we often judge competence solely by looking at the actual behavior displayed, as noted earlier, many scholars suggest competence is not only about the skills of communication, but also about the motivation a communicator has toward particular communication events and the knowledge a communicator has about how to act within that situation (Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984).
The dynamics of competence show through in common experiences. First, consider a typical interaction you might have when buying a car. Your goal might be to get a used car for a less-than-bluebook price. One measure of communication competence is whether you actually purchase the car for your price. Yet, a more full measure of communication competence would also consider the extent to which you used strategies that were effective and appropriate to the relational and situational context. You might get the car for the price you wanted but not use strategies that were necessarily appropriate for the situation. If you communicate in a way that leaves a bad impression, for example, you might not be able to return to this dealership and expect good service on your car. Or, you might eventually get the car for the price you want but it might take you a number of different strategies to be effective with a particular salesperson. In this case, you would not be considered as competent as someone who was able to use more appropriate and effective interactions. Part of being successful in this situation is having the knowledge about what it means to negotiate for a used car and the motivation to engage in the interaction fully. The most competent buyer, then, is the one who not only achieves his or her goals, but who does so with the knowledge and skills appropriate to the relationship and situation.
In a different example, imagine a doctor interacting with a patient. It is paramount that the patient understands the conditions requiring a particular treatment or medication, and the importance of taking the medication as prescribed. The communicative competence of the doctor might be measured in terms of the level of understanding of the patient—but we also know that simply understanding does not necessarily mean compliance. The doctor must take into consideration the concerns and issues (the objectives, if you will) of the patient. Can the patient afford the medication? Are there mitigating factors that will make it difficult or impossible for the patient to enact the treatment plan? In this case, as with our used car example, part of being successful is having the knowledge about what it means to clearly articulate the problems and the ways to address those problems, and also to listen carefully to the needs and concerns of the other party in this interaction, having the motivation to engage fully in the interaction. The most competent communicator, then, is the one who not only achieves his or her goals, but who does so with the knowledge and skills appropriate to the relationship and situation.
Moving back to the classroom, helping your students become competent might not only involve the behavioral aspects, but also the knowledge and motivation aspects relevant to the situation and relationship. As you design graded formal communication assignments or ungraded, more informal, communication activities, it is important to consider the important skills, motivation, and knowledge involved in being successful within the communication activity—to consider how you want students to communicate well in these situations that you design.
Communication as a Situated Activity
Clearly, being successful as a competent communicator can vary across contexts, disciplines, and courses—and it should. Much as writing-in-the-disciplines scholarship argues against a one-size-fits-all approach to writing, we believe communication is a situated, disciplinary activity. We do not advocate for generic communication instruction being dropped in your courses and curricula. Your students need to learn to communicate within your discipline (Dannels, 2001) and within the norms, values, and expectations that your discipline holds. For example, what kinds of questions are valued and expected in the humanities? What form should those questions take? How do these question forms differ from those asked in physics? In sociology? In composition? Should questions lead to answers that are quantitative? Should questions be focused on discerning evidence, or upon expanding vision? Are narrative answers appropriate? How
