Basic Course & General Education

Since the birth of the Communication discipline in 1914, the Basic Course has served as the foundation upon which the field has developed. For many undergraduate students, the Basic Course acts as their first exposure to the study of communication. For many faculty and administrators, the Basic Course offers opportunities for employment and professional development.

• Read: Our "Front Porch" by Steven A. Beebe

According to Joseph M. Valenzano III of the University of Dayton, the Basic Course plays a significant role in undergraduate student academic success, professional development, and personal growth. At most, but not all, schools the basic Communication course is a central component of the General Education program. With that placement come three roles the course can and should play. First, the course often provides the only training students receive in oral communication, a skill identified by employers as one of the most important they seek when making hiring decisions. Second, the course offers an opportunity for students to see how their education in other departments and majors can manifest through their use of communication skills, thus making the Basic Course one of the few General Education courses that connects material from their entire education. Third, the course is both a recruiting ground for potential new majors by exposing them to the interesting and vast nature of our field, as well as the financial backbone of many departments.

• Read: Resolution on the Role of Communication in General Education (adopted by the NCA Legislative Assembly, November 17, 2012)

The content taught in the Basic Course is rooted in the rhetorical traditions dating back to Plato, Aristotle, Isocrates, and Quintilian, among others. In 1956, Donald Hargis conducted the first study on the state of the Basic Course; this evolved into a series of studies conducted every five years since 1970 on the trends, issues, and challenges associated with teaching the course.

• Weaver (1976)/Directing the Basic Communication Course
  This article discusses the role that the Basic Course Director plays in the administration of the Basic Course. Weaver offers practical tips and suggestions for how the Basic Course should be organized and administered, and provides several recommendations for developing the criteria to be used when hiring a Basic Course Director.
• Valenzano, Wallace, & Morreale (2014)/Consistency and change: The (r)evolution of the Basic Communication Course
  This article explores the evolution of the Basic Course, beginning with the early traditions and trends in oral communication instruction in ancient Rome and Greece and ending with the curricular issues encountered by the Basic Course during the 20th century. Valenzano et al. focus extensively on the relationship that began in the 1960s between General Education and the Basic Course that still is in existence today. As the Basic Course moves into the 21st century, they encourage researchers and practitioners to continue examining the role that the Basic Course plays in General Education requirements in higher education.

The 2013 NCA Task Force on Core Communication Competencies identified seven competencies that students enrolled in any Basic Course should be able to achieve. These seven core communication competencies are Monitoring and Presenting Your Self, Practicing Communication Ethics, Adapting to Others, Practicing Effective Listening, Expressing Messages, Identifying and Expressing Fundamental Communication Processes, and Creating and Analyzing Message Strategies.

• National Communication Association Core Competencies Task Force Report, December 2013
• The Case for Core Competencies in Introductory Communication Courses, 2014
• Core Competencies for Introductory Communication Courses handout, April 2014

As Professor Emeritus Isa N. Engleberg of Prince George’s Community College notes, introductory communication course objectives effectively align with General Education requirements when: (1) the institution’s General Education goals are generic (e.g., inquiry and critical thinking; communication, teamwork, and problem solving; intercultural awareness; information literacy) and (2) the introductory communication course’s objective are applicable across contexts. For example, the objective Demonstrate critical thinking in researching, developing, presenting, and responding to argument in persuasive speeches may be more effective and applicable without the phrase persuasive speeches in it. Objectives such as Demonstrate effective listening strategies and skills in various communication contexts and Use critical thinking skills to develop, analyze, and evaluate messages apply to all types of introductory courses and also dispel misperceptions by other faculty members and administrators that all we do is study and teach public speaking or offer simplistic, unrelated, context-limited courses. To align objectives with General Education requirements, it is necessary to ensure that course objectives reflect the expressed core competencies needed and/or advocated by higher education associations, employers, and the complex cultures in which students live and work.

Historically, the Basic Course has been designed to focus on one of four content areas: public speaking; foundations of oral communication, which can include interpersonal communication, small group communication, and public speaking units; interpersonal communication; and small group communication.

• Public Speaking
  This course introduces students to the study of speech fundamentals and critical thinking through frequent public speaking practice, including setting, purpose, audience and subject.
  Additional Syllabi
• Foundations of Oral Communication (hybrid)
  This course examines various principles underlying effective communication in the interpersonal, public speaking, and small group contexts. This course presents principles to help students develop appropriate and effective communication strategies in one-to-one and small group communication settings. This course places emphasis on analyzing and assessing the communication skills necessary to create and sustain effective communication in personal and professional relationships.
  Additional Syllabi
• Principles of Oral Communication (hybrid)
  This course introduces students to the relationship between communication and democratic life in contemporary and historical contexts. Specifically, it will define and discuss the importance of communication skills in achieving mutual understanding, not necessarily agreement. This course will provide students with the opportunity to demonstrate effective and ethical dialogic communication, structure messages that deliver complex information to non-experts, effectively advocate a position, and critique the messages of others. These skills are important for developing and being an active participant in a diverse and democratic community.
• Interpersonal Communication
  This course introduces student to topics such as the development of the self-concept, perception, language, nonverbal communication, and conflict management. Students participate in various graded and ungraded communication exercises designed to increase students’ interpersonal communication competency in family, social, and work environments.
  Additional Syllabi
• Small Group Communication
  This course introduces students to the small group communication process through service learning. Through lecture, group projects and presentations, and individual assignments, students develop an understanding of the small group communication process and learn how to communicate effectively when working in a small group.
  Additional Syllabi

Textbook selection can be an individual decision or a committee decision; it also can be made by a Basic Course Director or Department Chair. Regardless of who selects the Basic Course textbook, it is important to consider the options available, as well as the protocol that can be used to guide textbook selection.

• Options for textbooks
  Several options exist for textbook selection. One option is to select a textbook that has been written by an expert or team of experts in the content area, published by a nationally known publishing house, and used at colleges and universities across the United States. A second option is to select the same textbook as described in the first option, but to modify it. That is, instead of using the textbook as it has been published, some textbook content is retained while other textbook content is deleted, replaced with material from another source, or revised for a particular student population. A third option is for an author or group of authors to write a textbook that contains content targeted specifically toward a student population. Labeled as a custom textbook, this practice of textbook selection is becoming increasingly popular as it allows instructors to select the specific content that they want their students to learn. Consider that while many instructors require their students to purchase or rent a hard copy of the course textbook, it is not uncommon for some instructors to ask their students to purchase an e-copy of the textbook.
• Sample protocol for selecting a textbook
  Selecting a textbook can be an arduous process for those individuals who have yet to do so. To facilitate textbook selection, consider the protocol for textbook selection written by Joseph M. Valenzano III of the University of Dayton and adapted by Melissa Broeckelman-Post of George Mason University.

There are four common modes of delivery for the Basic Course. The first mode is face-to-face, which is the traditional mode used to teach the Basic Course. In this mode, classroom instruction is delivered by instructors who meet with their students in a classroom for a pre-determined amount of time. The second mode is lecture-lab, where students first attend a mass lecture delivered by their instructor, after which they are assigned to a small group (typically anywhere between 20-25 students) led by an instructor (often times a graduate teaching assistant, or GTA) who engages in more individualized instruction. The third mode is a hybrid that incorporates face-to-face instruction with some element of online instruction. The fourth mode is a fully online course, where all classroom instruction occurs asynchronously between instructors and students.

Cheri J. Simonds of Illinois State University explains the specific duties of a Basic Course Director as these duties are organized around five categories: Advocacy, Curriculum Development, Training, Assessment, and Management & Leadership.

• Read: Basic Course Director Duties and Responsibilities

Suzy Prentiss of the University of Tennessee conducted a survey to obtain a more detailed understanding of the role of Basic Course Directors and the Basic Course itself across all levels of institutions of higher education. Specifically, the project examined five key questions:

• What are the roles and responsibilities of a Basic Course Director?
• What classes are housed under the responsibilities of the Basic Course Director?
• What training/supervision/and resources are provided for Instructors of the basic course(s) and are those provided by the Basic Course Director?
• What is the job title/rank of the Basic Course Director?
• What training/resources/support would be helpful for Basic Course Directors to fulfill their roles?

• Read: Basic Course Director Registry Survey Results

Jon A. Hess of the University of Dayton believes that resource needs vary widely based on the nature of the course, particularly between those programs taught using a common syllabus and staffed with GTAs and adjunct instructors versus those programs taught independently by full-time faculty. At a minimum, a Course Director/Coordinator is needed, and that person—preferably a ranked faculty member—should get a course reduction. Beyond that, financial support for instructor training (e.g., pre-semester workshops, teaching conference attendance) and potentially GTA or adjunct instructor support for rigorous assessment are helpful when possible. Additional financial support for director development (e.g., attendance at the Basic Course Director’s Conference), course materials (e.g., recording equipment), or other needs can help strengthen a course considerably.

Cheri J. Simonds of Illinois State University discusses her tenure and promotion experiences and offers advice and counsel for Basic Course Directors seeking tenure and promotion.

• Read: Getting Tenure and Becoming Full Professor - As a Basic Course Director 

Basic Course Directors and instructors have professional development opportunities that are appropriate for training and developing new and experienced Basic Course Directors and instructors. These opportunities provide a space for Basic Course Directors and instructors to connect with others who have experienced similar challenges on their campuses.

• Basic Course Directors Conference
  This conference started in 1962 as a meeting of the Big Eight schools (Colorado, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Missouri, and Nebraska) plus the University of Iowa and Colorado State University. Today, the Basic Course Directors Conference is an annual conference typically held in the spring that highlights what Basic Course Directors and Basic Courses do well and how Basic Courses and Basic Courses are constantly evolving and improving.
• NCA Basic Course Director Summer Institute
  This institute addresses the need for developing quality administration of the basic course in communication departments around the country. It is designed to appeal to current and future Basic Course Directors and help fill the “training gap” by developing skills for those faculty responsible for this important course in areas such as course design, assessment, supervision and training, campus and community advocacy, and other issues often encountered when directing the basic course. The first Institute was held at the University of Dayton in 2014.
• ECA Bi-Annual Basic Course Conference
  This conference is held in odd numbered years during the first day of the ECA Annual Convention.

The Distinguished Faculty Award recognizes a current or former Basic Course Director or instructor who has demonstrated a commitment to the Basic Course in any format; made significant contributions to the development of a strong Basic Course program through research, training or assessment; or provided evidence of teaching excellence in the basic course over a prolonged period of time.

• Distinguished Faculty Award Winners
  • William J. Seiler, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  • Cheri J. Simonds, Illinois State University
  • Donald Yoder, University of Dayton
  • Sam Wallace, University of Dayton
  • Kristina Galyan, University of Cincinnati
  • Melissa L. Beall, University of Northern Iowa
  • Andrew D. Wolvin, University of Maryland

The NCA Basic Course Division promotes the teaching, study, research, assessment, and administration of communication in Basic Course settings. Focusing on teaching fundamental communication skills and theory to undergraduate students, the Division is concerned with a broad spectrum of issues relevant to the maintenance and development of quality basic courses to benefit students, scholars, and the discipline. The Division emphasizes both qualitative and quantitative approaches to scholarly work in basic course teaching and administration.

• Recent NCA Basic Course Division Chairs
  • Joshua N. Westwick, South Dakota State University
  • Tiffany R. Wang, University of Montevallo
  • Joseph M. Valenzano, III, University of Dayton
  • Angela M. Hosek, Ohio University
  • Melissa A. Broeckelman-Post, George Mason University
  • Suzy Prentiss, University of Tennessee

The NCA Basic Course Division awards an annual Program of Excellence and Program of Distinction Award. The purpose of the awards is to (1) recognize the distinctive excellence of basic course programs and (2) identify programs that can serve as best practice models for other programs across the country.

• Program of Excellence Award
  • 2016 Recipient: George Mason University
  • 2014 Recipient: University of Dayton
  • 2013 Recipient: South Dakota State University
  • 2012 Recipient: Virginia Tech University
  • 2011 Recipient: Texas State University
  • 2010 Recipient: University of Nebraska-Omaha
  • 2009 Recipient: University of Nevada-Las Vegas
  • 2008 Recipient: Illinois State University

• Program of Distinction Award
  • 2018 Recipient: Louisiana Tech University
  • 2017 Recipient: Purdue University
  • 2016 Recipient: University of Connecticut 
  • 2015 Recipient: University of Alabama, Colorado State University, and University of Kansas
  • 2014 Recipient: University of Maryland
  • 2013 Recipient: Gustavus Adolphus University
  • 2012 Recipient: University of Kentucky and Purdue University
  • 2010 Recipient: Texas State University

• Hunt, Wright, and Simonds (2014)/Securing the future of Communication Education: Advancing an advocacy and research agenda for the 21st century
  This essay evaluates the progress, or lack thereof, that scholars in the discipline have made toward Cassandra Book’s call for those in our discipline to pursue research interests in communication pedagogy, and provides suggestions for advancing a communication pedagogy advocacy and research agenda for the 21st century.

According to Katherine Denker of Ball State University, assessment is a large part of today’s academia and should include both formative and summative work. When instructors solicit student feedback, using that information to shape later instruction, they are utilizing formative assessment or assessment for learning. Formative assessment can be conducted via muddiest point activities or through classroom use of student response systems. Summative assessment, or assessment of learning, answers questions at the end of the course such as what percentage of students demonstrate competency with a concept. Faculty can conduct summative assessment by evaluating final speeches using the NCA Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form rubric, or by evaluating overall student success with different concepts on their final exams.

• Association of American Colleges and Universities VALUE rubrics
  The AAC&U provides well-developed rubrics to measure collegiate learning, including oral communication, critical thinking, and other skills that are important in the Basic Course. The rubrics are free and can be downloaded from the link above.
• The NCA Competent Speaker Speech Evaluation Form
  This form can be used to evaluate speeches in class, for test-out, for instructing and advising students, and to generate department or institutional assessment data.
• Willingness to Communicate and Personal Report Communication Apprehension
  These instruments can be used to assess the degree to which a course increases students’ willingness to communicate and reduces students’ communication apprehension.
• Speaking and Listening Competencies for College Students
  These documents detail expected outcomes for speaking and listening for the Basic Course, General Education, Basic Skills, and Advanced Skills.
• Conversational Skills Rating Scale
  This instrument is a multi-trait, multi-method approach to assessing interpersonal communication competence.
• Measuring College Learning in Public Speaking
  This report identifies several concepts, competencies, and learning outcomes for public speaking courses to help develop a next generation of assessment tools that can be useful across public speaking programs. This report was developed as part of the Measuring College Learning project at the Social Science Research Council.
• Persuasive Speech Rubric
  This rubric can be used in assessing persuasive speech in the Basic Course.
• Informative Speech Rubric
  This rubric can be used in assessing informative speech in the Basic Course.
• Procedures for Rubrics
  Explanation of the creation and use of Persuasive Speech and Information Speech Rubrics.

• LeFebvre, LeFebvre, Blackburn, & Boyd (2015)/Student estimates of public speaking competency: The meaning extraction helper and video self-evaluation
  This article examines how students evaluate one of their public speaking presentations, and how these evaluations are related to their estimates of the grade received for the presentation.
• Hooker & Denker (2014)/The Learning Loss Scale as an assessment tool: An empirical examination of convergent validity with performative measures
  This article assesses whether the Learning Loss scale--a measure of cognitive learning--is correlated with both a performative measure of cognitive learning and student exam scores.
• Hunter, Westwick, & Haleta (2014)/Assessing success: The impacts of a fundamentals of speech course on decreasing public speaking anxiety
  This article demonstrates how departments can assess large Basic Courses by assessing the degree to which a large multi-section Basic Course reduced public speaking anxiety for students across campus.
• McIntyre and Sellnow (2014)/A little bit can go a long way: An examination of required service in the basic communication course
  This article explores the relationship between the amount of time students spend completing service-learning projects and their achievement of service-learning outcomes in the Basic Course.
• Denker (2013)/Student response systems and facilitating the large lecture basic communication course: Assessing engaging and learning
  This article assesses the effectiveness of using “clickers” in the Basic Course to enhance student learning.
• Dwyer and Davidson (2013)/General education oral communication assessment and student preferences for learning: E-textbook versus paper textbook
  This article identifies Basic Course students’ preferences for the course materials that they report facilitate their learning.
• Steimel (2013)/Community partners’ assessment of service-learning in an interpersonal and small group communication course
  This article examines the positive outcomes and the problems community partners identify in regard to the service learning projects completed by students enrolled in an interpersonal/small group communication course.
• Mazer and Titsworth (2012)/Passion and preparation in the basic course: The influence of students’ ego-involvement with speech topics and preparation time on public speaking grades
  This article examines the extent to which students’ ego-involvement with a speech topic is related to their selection of a speech topic, preparation time and activities, and grades received on an informative speech and a persuasive speech.
• Myers (2012)/Students’ perceptions of classroom group work as a function of group member selection
  This article explores how students’ commitment, trust, relational satisfaction, and learning differ as a result of the method used to select their group members in a classroom group.
• Schneider (2011): Assessing the readability of college textbooks in public speaking: Attending to entry level instruction
  This article examines the readability level of 22 Basic Course textbooks.
• Meyer, Kurtz, Hines, Simonds, & Hunt (2010)/Assessing preemptive argumentation in students’ persuasive speech outlines*
  This article examines students’ use (i.e., quantity, quality) of preemptive argumentation in their persuasive speech outlines.
• Simonds, Meyer, Hunt, & Simonds (2009)/Speech evaluation assessment: An analysis of written speech feedback on instructor evaluation forms in the basic communication course*
  This article provides the results of a portfolio assessment conducted in the Basic Course at Illinois State University.
• Meyer, Hunt, Comadena, Simonds, Simonds, & Baldwin (2008)/Assessing classroom management training for basic course instructors*
  This article reviews the effects of proactively training GTAs on classroom management at two points in time during a semester.
• Meyer, Hunt, Hopper, Thakkar, Tsoubakopoulos, & Van Hoose (2008): Assessing information literacy in the basic communication course
  This article uses a pre-test/post-test design to assess the effectiveness of information literacy instruction in the Basic Course.
• Jones, Simonds, & Hunt (2006): The use of application essays as an effective tool for assessing instruction in the basic communication course
  This article content analyzes 369 student samples of a writing assignment (i.e., an application essay) to assess the effectiveness of the assignment and to subsequently modify the assignment.

* This manuscript is available through The Basic Communication Course Annual and can be accessed at http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/

• Frontline Arguments Against Increasing Class Size
• NCA Guidelines for Undergraduate Communication Programs
  These two reports offer recommendations for restricting class size in the Basic Course as well as guidelines for creating and administering the Basic Course.
• Report from the Task Force on Strengthening the Basic Course - 2013
  This report highlights the work of the task force created as part of former NCA President Steven Beebe’s presidential initiative to strengthen the Basic Course. The primary goal of the task force was to strengthen the Basic Communication Course and, via the Basic Course, to enhance the profile of the Communication discipline in U.S. colleges and universities.
• The State of the Basic Course
  This series of research articles highlights the state of the Basic Course across colleges and universities in the United States.
  • 1970 – The First Course in Speech: A Survey of U.S. Colleges and Universities
  • 1974 – A Re-Examination of the First Course in Speech at U.S. Colleges and Universities
  • 1980 – The Basic Course in Speech at U.S. Colleges and Universities: III
  • 1985 – The Basic Speech Course in U.S. Colleges and Universities: IV
  • 1990* – The Basic Course at U.S. Colleges and Universities: V
  • 1999* – The Basic Communication Course in U.S. Colleges and Universities: VI
  • 2006 – The Basic Communication Course at U.S. Colleges and Universities in the 21st Century: Study VII
  • 2010 – The Basic Communication Course at two- and four-year U.S. Colleges and Universities: Study VIII–The 40th Anniversary
  • 2016 – Study IX of the basic communication course at two- and four-year U.S. colleges and universities: A re-examination of our discipline's “front porch”
• Morreale and Pearson (2008)/Why Communication Education is important: The centrality of the discipline in the 21st century
  This article provides a strong rationale for the importance of communication instruction in the 21st Century. Morreale and Pearson’s thematic analysis illustrates the importance of communication instruction to students’ personal and professional development.
• Hess (2012)/Building support for the introductory oral communication course: Strategies for widespread and enduring support on campus
  This article offers compelling and insightful strategies for gathering and maintaining support of the Basic Course on campus. Hess utilizes the example of a recent curricular reform that threatened to eliminate a required oral communication course to reflect on strategies departments can use to build widespread and lasting support for the course.
• Seiler (1995)/The Nebraska Department of Communication Studies story: There are happy endings that go beyond football and a good crop year
  This essay discusses the proposed elimination of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Department of Communication Studies in 1992 and describes how the department overcame this difficult challenge.
• Hart Research Associates/Falling short? College learning and career success: Selected findings from online surveys of employers and college students conducted on behalf of the Association of American Colleges & Universities
  This report highlights selected findings from both research among employers and the survey of current college students. The objective of the survey was to identify the learning outcomes employers believe are most important to acquire to be able to succeed in today’s economy, report the preparedness of recent college graduates, and identify employers’ feelings about the importance of applied and project-based learning in college. The results of the study suggest that employers rank communication skills as the top desired employee ability.

* This manuscript is available through The Basic Communication Course Annual and can be accessed at http://ecommons.udayton.edu/bcca/

Scott Titsworth of Ohio University notes that universities are increasingly emphasizing entrepreneurship and innovation, which requires a constellation of soft skills emphasizing creativity, teamwork, group problem solving, and the ability to present persuasive arguments. The Basic Course serves as a foundational preparation for students who want to quickly become involved in these types of activities. Whether students are participating in a pitch competition, working as a team responding to an innovation challenge, or trying to launch an entrepreneurial project, skills in communication and presentations will be essential.

Marian L. Houser and Michael Burns of Texas State University propose that Communication programs can advocate for the Basic Course by promoting its centrality, relevance, visibility, and service to other courses, programs, departments, schools, and colleges at its university. At Texas State University, for example, they have worked to create partnerships with several academic and student affairs units to demonstrate how the skills taught in the Basic Course are valuable to students’ academic, professional, personal, and public lives. Listed below are four examples of how they have advocated for the Basic Course through partnerships with other departments:

• Residence Life: Each semester, their Basic Course instructors and GTAs visit the residence halls and hold a “Speak Easy” event where students can receive help on their outlines and delivery. They have also partnered with Residence Life and their Living Learning Communities by being one of the co-enrolled course options for students in the Living Learning Communities.
• Honors College: An Honors section of the Basic Course was created to dive deeper into communication concepts with a strong research focus. This course enrolls fewer students and meets the criteria for honors curriculum so students can receive both general education and honors credit.
• Retention Management & Records: Because their Basic Course enrolls over 90 percent of first-year students, they have partnered with their retention office to conduct research based on the retention messages now integrated into the course. This partnership also allows them to track students over four years and measure how the communication skills students learned in the Basic Course are used throughout college.
• University College: They have partnered with the University College 1100 class to co-enroll the same students in both courses to form Freshmen Interest Groups. University College has recognized the importance communication skills serve in the college socialization process, and having complementary communication messages in both classes helps students develop specific communication skills that can assist them during their college transition.

Lynn Disbrow of Huntingdon College argues that the need for communication expertise resonates with various stakeholder groups on a practical level. Students, parents, and potential employers understand the need for basic communication skills across professional fields. Professional organizations in Accounting and Medicine call for students to complete communication courses before attempting board certification. Some universities have created degree programs combining communication and engineering, and communication of science and technology, to ensure their graduates are prepared to enter the workforce with the requisite knowledge for success. Communication skills allow professionals to demonstrate their technical expertise effectively, as without effective communication, that expertise becomes useless.

• Communication Education
  This journal publishes high-quality international scholarship that is committed to the advancement of communication and learning broadly defined as instructional communication and communication education.
• Communication Teacher
  This journal publishes original instructional activities that can be conducted in either the K-12 or college classroom as well as manuscripts focused on communication education assessment of student learning, classroom practices (K-12 or college), or program development.
• Basic Communication Course Annual
  This journal publishes the best scholarship available on topics related to the Basic Course, and is distributed nationally to scholars and educators interested in the Basic Communication Course.
• The Journal of the Association for Communication Administration
  This journal is committed to publishing invited and refereed manuscripts related to scholarship and research in the administration of Communication units at all levels of the academic institution.

• Alexander & Natalle (2014)/Teaching interpersonal communication: A guidebook (2nd ed.)
  This book provides many tools instructors need to develop, teach, and manage a successful interpersonal communication course.
• Backlund & Wakefield (Eds.)/A communication assessment primer
  This book is an excellent resource for any department that wants to improve student learning by developing effective assessment programs. This publication is designed to help Communication departments create the right assessment program and ensure that their students are learning everything they need to know.
• Christ (Ed.) (1994)/Assessing communication education
  This book provides media, speech (public speaking, interpersonal, small group, and organizational communication), and theatre educators with both the theoretical and practical ammunition to fight the assessment battles on their campuses.
• Dannels (2015)/Eight essential questions teachers ask: A guidebook for communicating with students
  This book identifies eight areas of concern any Basic Course instructor may encounter when teaching for the first time. The areas of concern focus on establishing credibility, negotiating power, managing communication anxieties, engaging students, navigating relational dynamics, acknowledging difference, providing effective feedback, and making a difference.
• Fassett & Warren (2012)/Coordinating the communication course: A guidebook
  This book provides thoughtful guidance, tips, and best practices on crucial topics such as creating continuity across multiple sections, orchestrating meaningful assessment, hiring and training instructors, and advocating for promotion, and for the course and program itself.
• Hendrix (2000)/The teaching assistant’s guide to the basic course
  This book covers general teaching and course management topics as well as specific strategies for communication instruction.
• Nyquist & Wulff (1995)/Working effectively with graduate assistants
  This book provides faculty members with a better understanding of how to think and plan as a supervisor and prepare and nurture the next generation of university teachers, scholars, and researchers.

• The Basic Course Listserv
  This list provides a research tool and sounding board for Basic Course Directors, instructors, designers, publishers, and graduate students. To be added, send a request to the listserv administrator, John Hooker, at jfhooke@ilstu.edu.
• Basic Course Directors Facebook Page
  This page is dedicated to the growth and development of the Basic Course in higher education.
• Directory of Basic Course Directors
  This directory includes a list of Basic Course Directors from U.S. Communication programs.

The Distinguished Article Award recognizes one outstanding published scholarly article that contributes significantly to the administrative, delivery or curricular aspects of the basic course. To be eligible for the award, an article must have been published in a peer-reviewed scholarly outlet at least three years prior to consideration. The primary focus of the article must be on theory, practices, and/or research related to the Basic Course.

• 2014 Recipient: Morreale, Worley, & Hugenberg (2010)/The Basic Communication Course at two- and four-year U.S. colleges and universities: Study VIII—The 40th anniversary
  The eighth in a series of surveys of the Basic Communication Course, begun in 1968, gathers longitudinal and descriptive data on the nature of the course. In addition to discussing results of the present study, the article provides several observations about the longitudinal results since 1968 and reflections about the basic course in light of broader socio-educational trends and instructional communication research and theory.