Capitalizing on the Inevitable: Adapting to Mobile Technology in the Basic Communication Course

It is undeniable that college classrooms have evolved. Students are reliant on, and connected to, friends, family, and endless amounts of information through convenient, affordable, and mobile technology (Kuznekoff & Tisworth, 2013). Although Wei and Leung (1999) reported students found classrooms to be the least acceptable public place for cell phone use, this has not deterred the classroom from becoming “deeply saturated” by mobile devices (Kuznekoff, Munz, & Titsworth, 2015, p. 344). Instructors report technology challenges their “beliefs about the nature of learning and their role in the classroom” (Fairchild, Meiners, & Violette, 2016, p. 99). Despite student and faculty perceptions about technology in classroom, Burns and Lohenry (2010) found 94% of students owned a cell phone and Elder (2013) reported that an astounding 99% of students admitted using their cell phones during class with the average student using his or her cell phone between 3 and 7 times per class (Duncan, Hoekstra, & Wilcox, 2012). Instructor reactions to mobile technology have often manifested as anger and annoyance characterized by statements about students’ disrespect, sense of entitlement, incivility, and has resulted in technology policies and outright prohibition (Burns & Lohenry, 2010; Campbell, 2006). As “one of the biggest challenges that instructors face,” it is critical to facilitate a discussion about ways to adapt to this challenge (Kuznekoff et al., 2015, p. 344)

Communicative facework in marital dissolution and post-dissolution processes

Divorce affects nearly 24,000 adults (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2008) and one million children yearly (Amato, 2000), often with negative consequences for those who are involved (Amato, 2000; Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). Unlike previous research which focused on predictors of divorce, this dissertation (2 studies) focused on the communicative processes that occur when divorce is initiated and in turning points which comprise the interactions in post-divorce relationships. In study one, participants (N = 69) reported on the conversation where the decision to divorce was made, the face threats and facework which were communicated during that conversation, and the individual and relational outcomes associated with that conversation. Results indicate that the divorce conversation is indeed face threatening, that face threats play an integral role in the emotions experienced, and the participants\u27 affect and attachment to the former spouse in the post-divorce relationship. In study two, participants (N = 165) reported on post-divorce turning points that they perceived as either positive or negative, the face threats and facework in that turning point, and individual and relational outcomes. Results indicate that negative turning points were perceived as most face threatening, while positive turning points were perceived to have higher levels of facework practiced. Further, the face threats and facework which emerged in the post-divorce turning points continued to influence emotions and the post-divorce relationship. However, the face threats and facework in turning points differed from the conversation where the divorce decision was made in that face threats and facework contributed to the individuals\u27 levels of stress and well-being. Considered together, facework appears to be salient communicative strategy with the potential to alleviate some of the negative consequences associated with divorce and post-divorce interactions

Basic Communication Course Annual releases Volume 33

New volume has 12 peer-reviewed research articles on learning, leading and teaching basic communication in the popular and often required college course

Parsing and Paring Pandemic Pedagogy: What Should Stay, What Should Go?

The Basic Communication Course Annual asks college-level communication faculty and graduate students to share what pandemic teaching innovations did and didn\u27t work for which audiences, for what reasons, and whether they should stay or go. The deadline for short essays is Oct. 20