© Media Watch 8 (1) 07-19, 2017
ISSN 0976-0911 e-ISSN 2249-8818
Measuring the Impact of Course Modality on Student Knowledge, Performance and Communication Apprehension in Public Speaking Pedagogy
L. MEGHAN MAHONEY, BESSIE LAWTON & ANITA FOEMAN
West Chester University of Pennsylvania, USA
This research explores how integrating course modality changes through blended learning technologies impacts the framework of public speaking curriculum. Public Speaking is a unique area of study, as it involves a large number of student performances, requires a small class size, and incites increased communication apprehension in students. Authors of this study incorporated a blended learning course change to tackle these challenges. Through quantitative assessment comparing student knowledge, performance/skills, and communication apprehension between a blended course modality versus traditional face-to-face classes, more is understood regarding the impact of modality on public speaking
pedagogy. Results of this study demonstrate how a blended learning modality of instruction is able to enhance the quality of instruction, specifically by increasing student knowledge, improving performance/skills, and lowering communication apprehension. Challenges of hybrid modality are also discussed.
Keywords: Hybrid classroom, blended learning, modality assessment, distance education, public speaking instruction
aker, J.W. (2000) The ‘Classroom Flip’: using web course management tools to become the guide by the side, in J.A. Chambers (Ed.) Selected Papers from the 11th International Conference on College Teaching and Learning, pp. 9-17. Jacksonville: Florida Community College at Jacksonville.
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Kim, D., Watson, M., and Schaps, E. (1995). Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32,627-658.
Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student
interaction and collaboration. Distance education, 27(2), 139-153.
Bergmann, J. & Sams, A. (2012) Flip Your Classroom: reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.
Clark, R.,& Jones, D. (2001). A Comparison of Traditional and Online Formats in a Public Speaking Course. Communication Education 50(2), 109-124.
Cotellese, C., Bornak, M., & Davidson, G. (2015). Creation of an online public speaking class using web-conferencing. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 117-125.
Fujishin, R. (2009).The Natural Speaker, Boston: Pearson.
Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the 21st century: A framework for research and practice. London: Routledge/Falmer.
Garrison, D., Anderson, T. & Archer, W. (2000) Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment:
computer conferencing in higher education, The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2/3),87-105.
Garrison, D., & Kanuka, H. (2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in
higher education. The internet and higher education, 7(2), 95-105.
Glaser, H., & Bingham, S. (2012). Students’ perceptions of their connectedness in the community college basic public speaking course. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 57-69.
Hanson, T., &Teven, J. (2004). Lessons learned from teaching public speaking online. Online Classroom, 1(8).
Haynes, W. (1990). Public speaking pedagogy in the media age. Communication Education, 39(2), 89-102.
Heeger, A. (2007). A close look at distance learning. Distance Learning Today, 1(1), 1-5.
Holley, L.,& Steiner, S. (2005). Safe space: Student perspectives on classroom environment.
Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 49-64.
Ibrahim, A., & Yusoff, Z. (2012). Teaching public speaking in a blended learning environment.
International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 573.
Keegan, D. (1986). Foundations of distance education (2nd ed.)., New York: Routledge.
Leeds, E. & Maurer, R. (2009). Using digital video technology to reduce communication apprehension in business education. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 9(2), 84-92.
Lawton, B., Foeman, A., & Thompsen, P. (2014). Untethering Education: creating a pilot hybrid class to enhance learning in intercultural communication. E-learning and Digital Media, 11(4).
Levasseur, D., Dean, K., & Pfaff, J. (2004). Speech pedagogy beyond the basics: A study of
instructional methods in the advanced public speaking course.
Communication Education, 53(3), 234-252.
Linardopoulos, N. (2010). Teaching and learning public speaking online. Journal of Online
Learning and Teaching, 6(1), 198.
McCroskey, J. (1982). Communication competence and performance: A research and pedagogical perspective. Communication Education, 31(1), 1-7.
McGrath, P., Gutierrez, P., and Valadez, I. (2000). Introduction of the college student social support scale: Factor structure and reliability assessment. Journal of College Student
Development, 41, 415-426.
Middle States Commission on Higher Education. (2007). Student learning assessment: Options and resources.Retrieved from http://www.msche.org/publications/SLA_Book_0808080728085320.pdf
Missildine, K., Fountain, R., Summers, L., &Gosselin, K. (2013). Flipping the classroom to improve student performance and satisfaction. Journal of Nursing Education.
Motley, M. (1990). Public speaking anxiety qua performance anxiety: A revised model and an alternative therapy. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(2), 85.
National Communication Association (2011). Conceptual framework for assessing student learning based on three domains of learning: Cognition, behaviors, and affect. Retrieved from http://www.natcom.org/Default.aspx?id=543&libID=564
NCA (2011). The National Communication Association’s Standards for Undergraduate
Communication Programs.Retrieved August 16, 2016, from
O’Hair, D., Stewart, R., and Rubenstein, H. (2001). A Speaker’s Guidebook, Bedford/St Martin’s.
Parker, W. R. (1967). Where do English departments come from?.College English, 28(5), 339-351.
Robinson, T. E. (1997). Communication apprehension and the basic public speaking course: A national survey of in‐class treatment techniques. Communication Education, 46(3), 188-197.
Rorty, A. (1996). Essays on Aristotle’s rhetoric (Vol. 6). University of California Press.
Rovai, A. P., & Jordan, H. (2004). Blended learning and sense of community: A comparative analysis with traditional and fully online graduate courses. The International Review of
Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 5(2).
Rowan, K. (1995). A new pedagogy for explanatory public speaking: Why arrangement should not substitute for invention. Communication Education, 44(3), 236-250.
Rubin, R.B., Palmgreen, P., &Sypher, H.E. (2004). Communication research measures: A sourcebook. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schwartzman, R. (2007). Electronifying oral communication: Refining the conceptual framework for online instruction. College Student Journal, 41(1), 37.
Sellnow, D. (2005). Confident Public Speaking, California: Wadsworth.
Tu, C., &McIsaac, M. (2002). The relationship of social presence and interaction in online classes. The American journal of distance education, 16(3), 131-150.
Vanhorn, S., Pearson, J. C., & Child, J. T. (2008). The online communication course: The challenges. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 9(1), 29-36. doi:10.1080/17459430802400332
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the development of children, 23(3), 34-41.
Dr. L. Meghan Mahoney is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at West Chester University. She received her PhD from Ohio University in Media Studies. Dr. Mahoney’s scholarly work explores new media audiences, technologies and behavior change.
Dr. Bessie Lawton is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at West Chester University. She received her PhD from the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School for Communication. Dr. Lawton’s scholarly work explores issues of identification, especially for minority groups, as well as interracial relationship dynamics. She has also done work on basic course issues.
Dr. Anita Foeman is a Professor of Communication Studies at West Chester University. She received her PhD from Temple University in Communication with a concentration in Organizational Communication. Dr. Foeman’s scholarly work explores various aspects of diverse society, including technology and diversity and multicultural families and people.