HOPE AT LUTHER, NCA INSTITUTE FOR FACULTY, 2004

THE CURRICULUM AND TRACKS IN COMMUNICATION

Stage One: 1979-1980

When One Size truly did Fit All

Between 1979 and 1981, the Speech and Theatre Department at Adrian College remained stable, and consisted of required training in theatre (set design and history of theatre), speech pathology, and radio/television performance (on WVAC the -FM, and AC-TC community access TV.) [1]

Staffing consisted of two full-time, tenured or tenure track (theatre-performance and theatre-set design) faculty, a one year full-time appointment (public speaking, forensics, debate, etc.), a radio-television engineer and several adjuncts taken from the ranks of local high schools. [2]

The Department fielded an exit-required, 100-level, basic public speaking course.

Enrollment in this service course supported the continued presence of the Department.

There were between two and six students majoring in Speech and Theatre during any given semester. [3]

The implications of this arrangement were that theatre and broadcast performance, followed by speech pathology, were of paramount importance to a well-rounded graduate from the Department. The one-year appointment was a nod to rhetoric. However, the all campus exit-required basic public speaking course was the Department bread and butter.

It kept the program alive, and allowed full-time faculty to round out their class loads when enrollment for major courses was low (fewer than five students in a course.) Of note was the existence of a radio station, WVAC-FM, and a cable television station, AC-TC television. These co-curricular changes created the need for courses [4] in broadcasting. Their emergence as student-run facilities on campus required the theatre- performance faculty to retrain and teach broadcast-performance courses. Production courses for radio and television were not offered. Much of the programming for radio and television consisted of community talent, KIDS-FM, a feed from a local elementary school, and selections made by the radio-television engineer on staff. [5]

1 The theatre program emphasized set design and construction. The broadcasting program was taught by an elocutionist/speech pathologist with a strong theatre history background. The rhetoric program changed on a yearly basis, according to the talents and training/interest of the faculty member in the position. This rotating position, called the 'basic speech position' was actually a monitoring service for the varying administrative needs of the all-campus basic public speaking program. (3.0 FTE)

2 The engineer worked with the students to assist their capabilities. The broadcasting program consisted of on-the-job training. There was no formal classroom preparation for on-air activities. Most of the on-air programming for the college was from KIDS radio, an elementary school radio feed, or from Michigan State University's VHS tapes for the television station. Additionally, local musicians came to both the studios and performed from time to time. Through the use of tapes, the engineer had created a situation wherein the (radio) station was on the air continuously. Television was another matter. Although the Department possessed studio cameras, a board, and video editing equipment, they were seldom used.

3 The public speaking program, staffed by local high school teachers and speech/theatre faculty who needed a course or two to fill their teaching minimum, was still seeking a benchmark for its curriculum. Since it was an exit requirement, rather than an entry requirement, there was no need to standardize the program at the time.

4 Beyond a minimum number of credit hours, there were no general requirements and no tracks/track requirements for the successful completion of a major in Speech/Theatre. That minimum was tailored to each individual student by the department chairperson (the theatre/set design faculty.) With fewer than ten majors at any given time, this approach was possible. It really does represent the idea that one-size-fits-all from both the point of view of the Department at that time, and the point of view of the students who came to the Department. Often, a large percentage of the credit hours necessary for successful completion of the major turned out to be activities courses that consisted of set building for theatre productions or equipment monitoring for the radio and/or TV studios. Of note is the consequence that students actually demanded to be assigned only those courses they wished, rather than fulfilling any required courses for the major. The studios and production rooms were used as temporary housing for students over holiday breaks and during the summers, rather than as educational facilities The student presence was part of the monitoring program put in place during past years, and created further opportunity for the more carefully tailored approach to majoring in Speech/Theatre.

5 This first stage began to bring into focus the choice that faculty and administration would ultimately have to make: would the Department be shut down for lack of majors and devolved into servicing the rest of the academic majors as a service course, or would it evolve into an academically viable program? The fact that the two tenured faculty members in the Department were soon to leave or to retire made the former choice a very real (and convenient) possibility. Nothing was being done to recruit and retain majors for the Department, and the course offerings were based on a semester-by-semester basis of what each faculty member preferred to teach at that moment. Often, the Admissions personnel of the College would create a vision of what the Department might be, based most commonly on the talents of the terminal faculty member. However, the terminal faculty position changed from year to year, and sometimes from semester to semester, creating academic and financial uncertainty for the Department. Additionally, the compounded difficulties created obstacles for any hiring that might take place. Only a group of academics possessing varying combinations of energetic ambition and patient, flexible attention to detail could hope to turn around the problems in the Speech and Theatre Department at Adrian College.

Stage Two: 1981-1984

Changes begin to Appear

Between 1981 and 1984, the curriculum of the Speech and Theatre Department began to change and incorporate more courses in rhetoric and rhetorical processes as well as a senior capstone/thesis course. Theatre courses were focused toward acting and directing, and away from set design. While WVAC-FM continued to broadcast as it did a few years earlier, AC-TC cable television was discontinued. 1

Staffing dictated much of the change in curriculum. Budgets and enrollment were responsible for the facilities changes. Although the theatre-performance faculty continued to teach broadcast-performance and the production engineer continued to serve the Department, the theatre-set design faculty was replaced by a theatre-direction/casting faculty member, and the one-year, full-time appointment in rhetoric evolved into a tenure track position, and was filled by a specialist in rhetoric, argumentation, and debate. A half-time position, intended to be permanent in the Speech and Theatre Department, was created for an alumna of Adrian College who was additionally assigned as a half-time faculty member in the English Department. 2

The Department continued to field the exit-required, 100-level basic public speaking course. Now, however, the sections were increasingly taught by the new specialist in rhetoric and the new half-time staff member. There continued to be between two and six departmental majors in any given semester. 3

The implications of the changes that occurred during this period ultimately focused on the philosophy of teaching, recruitment, and departmental development brought to the Department on the one hand by the half-time staff member, whose special interest was theatre, and on the other hand by the specialist in rhetoric, argumentation, and debate. 4

Both the specialist in rhetoric and the half-time staff member had a vested interest in the growth of the rhetoric and theatre programs, respectively. Each taught the basic public speaking course as an introduction to/recruitment for their chosen emphasis within the department. The former used the course to recruit into rhetoric. The latter used the course to recruit for theatre-direction/casting. 5 No one recruited for broadcast-performance. Although unintentional, the departmental divisions apparent at this stage presaged several of the tracks ultimately developed in the coming years.

1 A series of courses in argumentation and debate, persuasion, rhetorical criticism, and the senior capstone course were designed by the new specialist in rhetoric. The shift in status of the rhetoric position from terminal to tenure track, coincident with the hire, gave future significance to these early curricular developments. During these same years, though, the theatre position was filled by another new faculty member, an MFA whose interests were more direction/casting than set design or history. Consequently, theatre courses were redesigned. The most senior, and sole continuing, faculty member was the elocutionist/speech pathologist whose task it was to work with the radio and TV broadcasting programs. Two thirds of the Speech/Theatre program courses were redesigned in this three-year period n an effort to create more unified academic rigor for the students majoring in the Department. Nonetheless, the chairperson, now the elocutionist/speech pathologist, continued the past practice of allowing students to meet minimum major requirements through courses individually tailored to the student. These 'courses' continued to consist of activities and co-curricular work. Standardized classroom training was not yet part of the program. The administration of Adrian College began to take an interest in the falling numbers in the Department, and, as a financially wise move, started to consider canceling the Department, altogether. The new MFA in theatre, although a later hire, was promoted ahead of the slightly more senior Ph.D. in rhetoric. The fact that this choice was intentional, and intentionally divisive, was acknowledged by the College's lawyer when he used it as a goad during faculty contract negotiations.

2 The College sought a safe harbor for an alumna who had been in the theatre/set design program in earlier years and had been hired half-time in the English Department. A half-time appointment, teaching basic public speaking and working in the theatre program, was their answer. This meant that there were actually three relatively new faculty members in the Speech/Theatre Department, with the very senior elocutionist/speech pathologist as chairperson. (3.5 FTE)

3 The new faculty members, including the alumna, wished to build a program. Their future seemed to depend upon it, and there was much discussion as to which direction the program should take. One of the possibilities not yet envisioned was that a multifaceted Department with curricular tracks could be successfully launched. The choices under discussion reflected the interests of each of the (relatively) new faculty members, and were seen as mutually exclusive.

4 Professional relationships within the Department deteriorated into threats and shouting. No new majors were recruited. Students recognized the polarization of faculty interests and took full advantage of their opportunity to heighten the already elevated demands for a personalized curriculum. The senior capstone course, designed by the specialist in rhetoric, was now required of all majors wishing to graduate from the program-regardless of their area/s of interest.

5 Department meetings, although contentious, began to focus on curricular issues and outcomes. The younger faculty began to consider the development of programs under the larger departmental umbrella.

Stage Three: 1985-1990

Growing Pains create further Opportunity for Change

Between 1987 and 1989, the curriculum of the Speech and Theatre Department changed and grew. Unofficially it developed three tracks/emphasis areas, based on faculty interests: theatre-direction/casting, radio broadcast-performance, and rhetorical studies. [1]

Staffing was enlarged to include a new, full-time specialist in radio production, and a one year, full-time film production specialist, in addition to full-time theatre-performance (teaching in radio-performance), theatre-direction/casting, and rhetorical studies faculty. The Department retained the radio engineer, the half-time alumna, and adjuncts on an as-needed basis. [2]

Now required to field an all-campus entry (rather than exit) -required, basic public speaking course, Speech and Theatre offerings became a minor appendage to the newly positioned public speaking requirement: instead of offering two to four sections of basic public speaking per term, taught by full-time faculty, the department now fielded taught six to eight sections per term, increasingly staffed by adjuncts. [3] The number of majors in any given term did not increase from previous levels. The implications of the change in the basic public speaking course from exit to entry - requirement were both enormous and confusing. [4] The new, full-time specialist in radio production had been hired on the basis of staffing needs for the increase in entry - requirement sections to be fielded. Surprisingly, a decision was made within the Department to staff those same additional sections with adjuncts. Based on the perception held by the then full-time theatre faculty that public speaking is not part of our field, this decision stalled earlier efforts to use the basic course as a recruitment device for the competing interest areas contained within the Speech and Theatre major at Adrian College. To suggest that this position caused strain between the specialist in rhetoric and the theatre-leaning faculty is an understatement. The result, however, was that once again radio broadcasting/production and radio studies fell through the cracks. The new specialist in radio was only just arrived, and it was uncertain as to whether Adrian College would be willing to financially support the growth of his area within the Department. [5]

1 Using the past practice of individually tailored requirements for each student, tracks based on trends were easily developed. Word-of-mouth advertising allowed the faculty and students of the Department to share information on which courses or co-curricular activities best satisfied the prevailing vision/s of those tracks. The upshot of this system was that the area with the larger faculty group received the most attention. However, the students in the majority area of interest, sponsored by the larger faculty group, also had to pass the senior capstone course to complete the major, and this course had been designed, and was taught, by the faculty member in the minority area of interest. Given the aforementioned professional climate in the Department, the situation quickly came to an impasse. The solution, developed by the larger faculty group, was to waive the senior capstone course for majors, without telling the faculty member teaching said course. This did not solve the problem/s, but, rather, exacerbated them.

2 The academic dean permitted the specialist in rhetoric, rather than the elocutionist/speech pathologist, to interview candidates and make the final hiring decisions for both new positions. The new faculty chosen were young, freshly trained academics, with an interest in building, or rebuilding, an academic department. Their presence was not necessarily welcomed by the elocutionist/speech pathologist who had in earlier years been required by a previous administration to develop a broadcasting program. Territoriality, regardless of training and experience, created tension between the old and the new broadcasting faculty. (FTE: 5.5)

3 The change in the status of the basic public speaking requirement (COMM 102) resulted in an increase in enrollment in the sections devoted to the requirement. Enrollment jumped from 40+ per semester to over 150 per semester. It was on the basis of this shift that the two new hires were ultimately justified, even though their academic training supported growth in the broadcasting area.

4 The increase in enrollment represented a missed opportunity to recruit freshmen into the major. The theatre faculty group felt that public speaking did not belong in the Department at all. The specialist in rhetoric was ethically unwilling to recruit students into the then prevailing curricular and professional circumstances of the Department. The two new hires, minus the assistance of the engineer, were busy trying to decipher the tangle of equipment in the radio and TV studios. The engineer commiserated with the elocutionist/speech pathologist who felt his studios were being invaded. By 1990, the administration made the decision to dismantle the major over a two year period, keeping only the basic public speaking course as a service course for the rest of the campus.

5 In a surprising and contradictory move, the same administration that had decided to dismantle the Department, bought new radio and television equipment for both broadcasting areas. The now-retiring elocutionist/speech pathologist reluctantly handed over the keys to the studios, and the new hires began to develop production courses for both areas. Somewhat encouraged, the newly-tenured specialist in rhetoric and the tenure track specialist in radio production began to plan a new curriculum that formalized tracks. They called it 'Communication Arts and Sciences.' The tracks were called 'areas of emphasis.' A public relations track was written and a community-based specialist in public relations was contacted about a possible position in the new Department.

Stage Four: 1991-1996

The Emergence of Communication Arts and Sciences

In the spring of 1991, the Department's name was changed from Speech and Theatre to Communication Arts and Sciences. Its curriculum was rewritten to include three tracks.

1. Argumentation and Advocacy (rhetoric & ethics emphasis)
2. Media Studies (radio studies/production emphasis)
3. Public Relations (organizational communicatoin. emphasis)

The curricular changes were structured to emphasize unifying features of Communication as an area of study, while at the same time allowing students to pursue specific goals within the different tracks.[1] By 1996 a theory core required of all COMM majors, in addition to the specific requirements of each track within the Department, [2] had been created. The core consisted of courses that would bring all COMM majors together at significant points in their undergraduate experience:

COMM 218                  COMM 280             
Introduction to Theory    Communication Ethics     
Identify theory           Identify applications	            
COMM 308                  COMM 421
Communication Criticism   Senior Project
Critically apply theory   Execute research

Staffing for the Department was reduced to include the specialist in rhetoric, specialist in radio production, a new specialist in public relations, all three of whom were tenured by the end of the fourth stage. The radio engineer, and some adjuncts were also on hand. The theatre faculty and the half-time alumna departed. [3]

With some support from adjuncts, the specialist in rhetoric and the new specialist in public relations, taught the entry-required basic public speaking course (renamed COMM 102). [4] The specialist in radio dropped the television program and concentrated on moving towards the new Media Studies track by creating a link between radiobroadcasting and classroom training for radio production and broadcasting. COMM 102, COMM 109 (basic Radio Studies), and COMM 180 (Communication Ethics-now COMM 280) became the recruitment vehicles for each of the three tracks in the Communication Department. Between 1991 and 1996 the number of majors was 35 - 40 during any given term. [5]

The implications of these changes were both encouraging and challenging for the COMM Department faculty. The explosion in number of majors across all tracks put upward pressure on the dramatically downsized (FTE of three, down from FTE of five and one half) Department to give more attention to courses in the three tracks, and downward pressure on a growing adjunct staff to teach more and more of the all campus, entry-required sections of basic public speaking. 6 Adrian is a small community, and it was initially challenging to find qualified adjuncts to teach public speaking.

Fortunately, several recent alumni of the newly constituted Department were willing to accept positions as adjunct faculty as they prepared for graduate school (a goal of the new program was to send its graduates on to Masters work as graduate assistants. 7 This kind gesture by the alumni allowed the Department to staff COMM 102 with teachers who understood the role of the public speaking program as it related to Communication Arts and Sciences.

It is of interest to note that several of these early adjuncts have or are in the process of completing the highest degree and have been hired at law firms and at major institutions of higher education--these outcomes are in line with the mission statement of the Department as written when it became Communication Arts and Sciences. [8]

[1] The past practice of individually tailoring minimum requirements for a major to each student was being put aside in favor of a more standardized curriculum with tracks branching from the main core of courses. The appeal of the individualized attention was preserved via the creation of the three tracks-students still had a choice. Additionally, they had input into the design of the new studios and the affective component of departmental relationships. The goal of the Department was to train responsible, junior colleagues.

[2] The theory core courses focused on assisting majors to develop the ability to reason in written and public performance and hybrid electronic venues, and then how to support their positions with appropriate evidence. The courses in the three tracks provided content materials in the specific area of emphasis. By design, COMM majors in the different tracks were brought together in the core courses for at least one semester per academic year.

[3] The MFA in theatre was permitted to create his own one-person department. The alumna received a full-time appointment in English. The elocutionist/speech pathologist retired. The youthful faculty of the very new COMM Department, reduced by almost one half, had been slated for extinction. Only a rapid increase in the number of majors would create the kind of enrollment needed to postpone, if not change, its fate. The new Department vigorously promoted its redesigned curriculum to incoming freshmen, as well as undecided upperclassmen. Students were given the opportunity to acquire the abilities necessary to design and conduct research in their area/s of interest.

[4] In lieu of courses yet to be developed by the new Department, the service course became its in-class recruitment vehicle. It was clear that high school juniors and seniors, as yet unexposed to communication studies in secondary education, would only be able to choose the major once they understood more about it. The basic public speaking course, required of all freshmen, was a wonderful opportunity to discuss the importance of communication ethics and freedom of speech. This time, the Department decided to avail itself of the opportunity. Once additional introductory offerings were in place, however, the full-time faculty of the Department was required to spend more time and energy focused on the major. Their efforts were rewarded with an additional increase in departmental enrollment. The service course was standardized across sections for the adjunct staff.

[5] The course offerings at the 100 and 200 levels were reconstructed and expanded as rapidly as possible, given human resource limitations and the disinclination of the College, and often interdepartmental colleagues, to financially and administratively assist a department slated for cancellation. Unfortunately, some of the academic departments on our campus were accustomed to the under-populated devolution of the old Speech and Theatre Department. They were startled by the perceptible, increasing movement of students to the new COMM offerings. More than once, and in more than one venue, for various reasons, the Department was cast as an academic pariah by its campus peers.

[6] Initially, it was thought that the Department would need to return to the past practice of hiring high school teachers. This was not a desirable option, as departmental vision suggested something more intellectually advanced. The service course was standardized, therefore, across sections for the adjunct staff. Later, however, the academic dean cancelled the position of COMM 102 coordinator and periodic adjunct staff meetings took the place of the initial effort. The full-time faculty worked to insure that those professionals hired to teach the service course clearly understood the expectations of the Department, and a close rapport was developed.

[7] The service course and, occasionally, other 100 level COMM courses, often provided an opportunity for growing professionals to demonstrate their abilities. Young alumni, trained in the precepts of the Department's theory core, served as excellent adjuncts because they understood the mission of the Department and were trained to articulate that mission with its concomitant teachings in communication ethics and freedom of speech.

[8] While they were undergraduates, they were treated as junior colleagues. Their academic and attitudinal preparedness assisted them to excel in their chosen pursuits. A degree in Communication Arts and Sciences from Adrian College became more than the possibility of certification, of content-based vocational training. It became the assisted, self-creation of readiness for an ethically appropriate life of thought and action.

Stage Five: 1997-2004

Cooperation & Support among Tracks within Communication Studies

After 1997, the Communication Arts and Sciences Department continued to refine both major offerings and the basic public speaking course. [1] The three tracks, Argumentation and Advocacy, Media Studies, and Public Relations each developed well-populated, customized introductory courses and at the same time promoted common themes across tracks. In the best interests of the institution, the student body, and the staff, the COMM faculty worked toward professional cooperation and support. [2]

Staffing continued to consist of the three original full-time, tenured faculty members, the radio engineer, [3] and between three and six adjunct faculty teaching the service course and/or introductory courses in the major. Occasionally, courses were taught by qualified guest faculty from other departments on campus. [4]

The Department continued to field the all campus entry-level public speaking requirement. [5] The Department grew to between 40 and 55 students majoring among the tracks in Communication during any given semester. [6] It is notable that each of the tracks served approximately equal numbers of majors. Unlike the contention of earlier periods in the last quarter-century, there was cooperation rather than competition among the emphasis areas, and the faculty of the Department actively sought to 'send' students to the track of best fit while working as a group to develop courses within those tracks to more clearly reflect the expansiveness of the COMM field.

[1] The full-time faculty continued to revisit the role of public speaking in Communication Arts and Sciences. They also solicited ideas from their adjunct faculty on the subject.

[2] Students were required to take courses across the tracks at an introductory level, and often found themselves wishing to change tracks within the major. When this occurred, the faculty of the Department assisted the student to make the change. This was a dramatic shift from the contentious atmosphere and outcomes of the prior group. One problem that persists is pressure from the administration of the College to collapse the tracks and create a one-size-fits-all department with larger enrollment in each remaining course offering. The equalization of enrollment across tracks suggests this is neither necessary nor desirable, especially in light of the Department's more ancient history.

[3] The engineer adapted to the new Department and began to work with the young faculty. His assistance was invaluable.

[4] Faculty from other departments began to exhibit an interest in the Communication Arts and Sciences programs. Those with appropriate academic training often became adjuncts for the Department.

[5] The requirement was by that time standardized on the basis of what had become past practice in Communication Arts and Sciences Department.

[6] As a matter of comparison, the average number of majors in an academic department at Adrian College is approximately 25 in any given semester.