Teaching Communication Theory: Key Tips and Best Practices

Jeff Child:

Welcome to the next episode of the Communication Corner Podcast. I am your co-moderator for this session along with Kory Floyd. I am Jeff Child, a professor of communication from University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Excited to join our two guests today, who will introduce themselves, and our topic for discussion is on teaching communication theory, key tips and best practices. I have to say with this distinguished audience of guests that we have, I'm probably the newest to this, as all three, including my co-moderator, are authors of comm theory textbooks. So looking forward to a lively discussion. Kory, if you want to introduce yourself, and then we'll have our two guests introduce and talk a little bit about themselves.

Kory Floyd:

Thanks, Jeff. I'm Kory Floyd, a professor of communication at the University of Arizona, and I've been teaching communication theory for at least a decade. And as you mentioned, Paul and I are co-authors on one theory textbook, and Andrew is a co-author on another, so we should be able to have a pretty good discussion today. Let me turn it over to Paul to introduce himself.

Paul Schrodt:

Thank you, Kory. I'm Paul Schrodt. I'm a professor at Texas Christian University where I am in my 19th year of teaching here at TCU, and I have been teaching communication theory for almost 20 years, and I'm looking forward to our discussion today.

Andrew Ledbetter:

I'm also honored to be here. My name is Andrew Ledbetter. I am also a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University. I have taught communication theory here since I joined the faculty almost every semester since fall of 2010, and I am the co-author of the book, A First Look at Communication Theory, now in its 11th edition.

Jeff Child:

Fantastic. So welcome, everyone, and I'm looking forward to our discussion. So our first question is really as we think about different professors and ways and styles of teaching this course is what is the basic structure of your communication theory course? And I'll just quickly jump in and talk a little bit about how I have taught it. Like I said, I'm new to this. I've only been teaching communication theory for about the last five years. My approach is entirely case study-based, so I have 11 different theories that we cover over the semester, and with each theory, I've paired a case for students to dissect and think about and apply.

And then the main assignment that I have students doing, other than reflective responses to the cases and quizzes for comprehension checks, things like that, is near the end of the semester, they write their own case, and they apply three to five different theories that we've talked about to understanding and unpacking the complexities there. So that's a little bit about the approach that I take. How do others of you approach? Given how much time you've been teaching it, gosh, you probably have tried different things, but what's some of the different ways that you all approach this course?

Kory Floyd:

I can talk about what we do here at the University of Arizona, which is to structure the course around focus areas in the discipline. And we don't try to teach every single theory. It sounds like, Jeff, you don't try to do that either, but instead to pick two or three theories that are indicative of different subject areas like persuasion, like conflict, like relationship maintenance, media effects, things of that sort. And I incorporate case studies and applications of the theory as assignments in the class, but the basic structure of the course follows the structure that you might expect, say, from an Intro to Communication class or an Intro to Interpersonal class where we go from one topic to another topic and then examine exemplary theories within each topic area.

Jeff Child:

Yeah, that's a great point, and that's after we kind of hear a little bit more on how Andrew and Paul approach this, that's kind of our second question, how do we make those decisions, because there's so many different theories that could be covered? But you're right, I think that's a great approach.

Andrew Ledbetter:

I think some of this does depend on where that course appears in the curriculum for your department. For us at TCU, it is an introductory course for our majors, so they have to reach a certain grade level in both interpersonal communication and in communication theory to progress onto organizational communication. So we structured the course to try to provide that foundation for them. In my course, I tend to move, the theories are arranged so that we move from smaller contexts of interactions. So interpersonal communication, then to persuasion, then to theories of groups and organizations, and then thinking ... Actually, no, I have persuasion at the end. I'm sorry, I move things around a bit, so I'm messing myself up in my memory, move interpersonal, then small group and organizational, and then I end with persuasion, thinking about, "Okay, persuasion can often occur in larger contexts across an entire society." So that's the general structure that I have. I cover one theory each day. I find that that helps students grab on. If we can say, "Okay, we're going to focus on this theory today," I think that helps them make sense of what we're doing.

Jeff Child:

That's a great approach. Paul, how do you structure it?

Paul Schrodt:

Oh, I'm sorry, Jeff. I didn't mean to talk over you there. I might say that I structure my class perhaps just a little bit differently. I actually devote almost the first third of the semester to taking students through the history of the discipline, talking a little bit about meta theory, how do we evaluate theories, the different paradigms that shape the way scholars think about theory and theorizing. And then the next two-thirds of the semester, I then turn to different kinds of theories across the different contexts or subfields within the discipline. And so as many of you have already mentioned, we'll spend a day or two on organizational communication theories, persuasion, mass media, interpersonal communication and so forth. And I would say that my class is kind of a combination of some lecture with a lot of activities that are designed to help students apply the concepts and the principles of the theories to their lives.

Jeff Child:

That's wonderful. Yeah. So we've kind of blended into our second question a little bit, and I'll just preface this question with saying one of the most interesting things that has stood out to me over my career as I was interacting with a faculty member, who early on in my career who noted there's no way I could teach a comm theory course, because I don't have enough understanding of the range of scholarship and theorizing in the discipline. So it can be a daunting task to think a little bit about from just the range of theory, different contexts, what we include in a syllabus, right? There's no way to address everything. And so if you can give people, who may be asked to teach a theory course for the first time, any tips or suggestions for how to think about that, I think that might be one kind of helpful output of this dialogue and conversation.

And I'll just lead with some thoughts that I use to organize this thinking. I took sort of some of the major skill development areas that we have, that we restructured our undergraduate curriculum around, and selected theories that help in the reinforcement of those macro kinds of goals and perspectives. We also have at my institution, a department of journalism and mass communication. So in the area of mass and mediated communication, while those theories are really interesting to me, I probably limited some of those, because we collaborate, and a lot of students have a minor, or they go back and forth between our two units. So yeah, other thoughts about that, beyond what we've shared? Do any of you have any recommendations for how people might take just the whole panoply of comm theory and narrow that down?

Andrew Ledbetter:

That's interesting. I think just a few thoughts I have. One is I think this is an area where less can be more. I think that's true in a lot of areas of instruction. We get so excited, we want to convey everything, when you can't convey everything in the context of one course. So being selective about which theories to include, I believe the average calm theory instructor includes about 20 theories on their syllabus. So I'd say, "Hey, maybe that's kind of an upper limit, and maybe even shooting for less than that might be reasonable to give students an accessible introduction and also make it accessible for you the first time teaching the class to prepare that."

I'd also say, kind of going back to the first question, I think that because Paul, you mentioned meta theory, and I do cover that at the start of my course as well, but I also try to get to theory pretty quickly. And what I mean is on the syllabus, I try to get to it quickly, because starting on the second day, talking about objective and interpretive approaches to communication theory, I do that, but that's kind like, "Okay, you're diving into the deep end of the pool. This is some significant philosophy here. This is quite a bit to get a handle on." So I try to get students back out of the deep end the next day after that and say, "Okay, let's talk about social penetration theory. This is an example of an objective theory." Then we talk about an example of an interpretive theory to try to say, "Okay, this is what theories look like in these traditions." So if you can get to theory quickly, kind of embed that within talking about meta theory, I found that helpful.

And then Jeff, to echo what you said, situating the course within your curriculum, so I also don't have media theories on my syllabus, because we're in a college of communication that has other departments that focus on those areas, while we have a bit of a different niche. If I were in a different department that focused on media, I would include those theories. So less is more, getting to theory quickly, and also situating it within the light of your curriculum is what I'd recommend.

Jeff Child:

I love it. Kory or Paul, any reactions or additions to this discussion, this question?

Paul Schrodt:

Sure. I think one reaction that I have, Jeff, what you shared, thinking about where your department is situated, the curriculum that your department currently offers always sort of guides my initial overview and selection of the theories that I'd like to teach in a semester. I agree with Andrew that less is more. In a typical semester, I will usually cover 15 or 16 theories just to save enough time and space for the application of those theories, either to case studies or to real world contexts.

I'm finding that there's always kind of a tension, I think, in when you select the theories, I also feel a little bit of a tension of some theories are just easier to understand, they're more accessible in some ways to students. And so I will sometimes, if I'm trying to choose a couple of different theories of interpersonal communication, I might lean in a direction of theories that are generating a lot of research, but that are also really accessible to students, as opposed to perhaps some theories that are even more esoteric or difficult for students to apply.

But I'm also keeping in mind the fact that here at TCU, our department is primarily a social scientific department, and so I will include a couple of critical theories just so that students understand that we have this other side to the field, even if it may not be represented here at TCU, to make sure that I'm being truthful and honest with all of the different forms of theorizing and scholarship that comes from the field.

Jeff Child:

I think that's great. Kory, do you have any additions or thoughts?

Kory Floyd:

Well, I would just reiterate the point that it's useful to situate your class within the curriculum and also to think about what is the goal of that class within your major? So at Arizona, the Intro to Theory class is sort of a gatekeeping course to the major. Students have to take the class, and they have to pass it with at least a C to be eligible to declare the major. Here, it's also a writing-intensive course, so it has a number of goals and functions, I would say. Not just introducing theory, but also weeding out those who are not going to be strong enough writers to proceed and be successful in the major.

And as Paul said, to give an overview to what is typical in the department. We are also a heavily social science-oriented program, and so I spend less time with interpretive and critical theories. Not no time, but less time, because students are just not going to encounter theories of that nature very much in this major. At a previous institution where I taught theory, the mix was quite different. And so I think we want to think about what are you trying to represent with the way that you structure your class and what functions does that serve within your program?

Jeff Child:

I think that's great. Yeah, I'm having a reflection here now just having this discussion with you all that I probably am on the lower end with only covering 11 different theories, but I also do so in more depth. We spend a week on each theory so they can really get their arms around how to utilize and put into practice the kinds of concepts and principles related to them. One other thing that I think is interesting about UNLV is we are a minority majority serving institution. So we are first or second pretty consistently in terms of diversity on campus. And so I started this course having more culture and communication theories, and I was going to whittle those down a little bit. But in interacting with students, they love those theories. They help them understand their everyday experiences in Las Vegas and within this community. So I didn't, I actually cut back in other areas to get more diversity in. So sometimes even thinking about your institution and what kinds of things you might do to help students in their overall life after graduation and what they're doing can be helpful.

This leads nicely into our next question, and I think some of the things that have been said about this might vary is for those of you who are listening, thinking about the level of your comm theory course, and so maybe we can have some discussions about varied kinds of practices depending upon that. But our next question is what methods of student assessment are most effective in a communication theory course? And I think to that point, depending on if it's earlier in your curriculum, or Kory as you said, if it's a writing-intensive course or has some of these other kinds of markers associated with it, what you're looking to assess and how you're doing that may be different.

I'll just say given the heavy applied and practical focus, for me, one of the assessments that I look for in the writing, which is a primary method of assessment that I use, is their ability to make connections between theory and the real life applications, and then to go beyond that into their own life, and, to the extent that I can, to help them make connections in terms of problematic things going on in more than one theory, right? Because each theory may bring into focus different kinds of considerations so that they can problematize something and think about, "Well, here's some varied perspectives that may help my critical thinking about what I might suggest or directions that I might go." But others of you, as you think about that question of what to assess in a comm theory course, what kind of comes to mind? Let's start in reverse this time. Paul, do you want to kick this one off for us?

Paul Schrodt:

Absolutely. I love this question, and as we think through and talk about assessment, and as you already mentioned, our assessments always need to align with the objectives that we have set forth for our students in a particular course. One of the things that I have kind of done over the years with my communication theory classes, embed different kinds of assessments within the class. So for instance, a couple of the writing assignments that I use are purely creative writing assignments. One involves having them develop a silly theory of some form of communication that they've observed where they kind of use the different parts of theories to organize their ideas. So they'll write briefly an intellectual tradition, talk briefly about a couple of assumptions that they're making, define some key concepts, and they can make these things up and then tie those concepts together with claims. And the students always really enjoy the assignment, and it kind of helps them understand the process of theorizing.

With my exams, I will also, for instance, have a combination of some objective items, but also some required essays and some optional essays. And so for students who maybe are better essay writers than objective item testers, it gives them the opportunity to omit a certain number of items on the exam and answer optional essays. So I'm always thinking about different levels of Bloom's taxonomy and the objectives for the class as I sort of balance the types of exams and the types of writing assignments that I have for the class.

Jeff Child:

Wonderful. Andrew, what do you think about this in terms of the kinds of assessments that you embed and think about as you teach the course?

Andrew Ledbetter:

Well, I'm enjoying hearing everyone's thoughts, and yeah, this is Bloom's taxonomy, your case studies approach, I feel like this is helpful to think through. For me, this critical piece of what we do, which is how we assess student learning, certainly our students care a lot about that. One of the key questions they have when they come to a course, "What do I need to do? How can I get the grade that I want to get?" I have relied heavily on objective exams in my class. And the reason for that, again, I think this is a theme what we're talking about, where it's situated in our department. As an intro to the major, we have a GPA requirement between two courses that governs progress into later courses within the major.

So in those objective exams, though, I have tried to have a mix of questions that are both kind of propositional statements about the theory, so what's the definition of terms and the key claims of the theory, alongside questions that get an application. So just a brief scenario, this person's talking to this person, they say this and that. How would this theory make sense of that situation? And I find that that's important, because I tell my students, "This is a course that I don't want you just to memorize terms, I don't want you just to memorize the propositional claims of the theory. I think that'd be very sad if you take this course and you know a lot of facts about these theories, but then if an interaction in front of you, you can't see, 'Oh, wow. That's some uncertainty reduction going on there,' or 'Oh, wow. Here's a power difference that may be influencing what's going on in the communication," if you can't apply the theory, apply that to a situation, I think we have not met the learning objectives for that course.

So even though objective exams are maybe not the ideal way to assess some of that, I do have an application paper that they do as well to get at that idea of application, I still do build that into my exams because I think that application is so important when we think about assessing students' knowledge of communication theory.

And then to talk briefly about the paper, I have had both. I modified the assignments over the years. Sometimes, I've asked students to apply the theory to their own lives. Sometimes, I've asked them to apply it to a piece of media that's out there in the culture. The advantage of the media is they can then share with me the YouTube clip or the song, and I can go and look at that artifact and see if they're on target. If they're applying it to their own lives, I like that because they're thinking about their own lives and how they can connect theory to it, and there's benefit there, I think. But then I also don't know if they're telling me the truth, right? Is this really something that happened, or are they just jump through the hoops to write the paper? But I do try to get application through that assignment as well.

Jeff Child:

Wonderful. That all sounds great. Kory, you probably have a little bit slightly unique perspective, given what you've already addressed, in terms of the function that the course serves in your curriculum. What kind of contributions do you have in terms of thinking about assessment?

Kory Floyd:

Yeah. Well, I'm kind of bound in my class because it's a writing-intensive course, which means that the majority of their grade has to come from writing rather than from objective assessment. And this does not endear the students to the class, because comm theory is not everybody's cup of tea anyway. It's not a class that they look forward necessarily to taking. Add to the fact that it's required, and then add to the fact that it's a writing-intensive class, and it sort of has all the ingredients of one of those courses that students dread. And I get that and I understand that, but I try to address that a little bit and make up for it in the way that I craft the writing assignments.

I do some things that both Paul and Andrew have mentioned already, but I really try to underscore the idea that theories are tools. They're not, as Andrew said, something just to memorize and understand, but something to use. And so the first writing assignment that they do in my class is one in which I ask them simply to derive a hypothesis from a theory. And it doesn't have to be a theory that we've addressed in the class, although it often is, but I want to get them used to the idea that we don't simply study theories. We use them to derive hypotheses that we can test. And the reason I do that is because I know that's what they're going to be called upon to do in the major if they continue on and major in communication, which most of them do.

I also do application assignments applying the theory to. I do a media or art type assignment and an assignment where they apply it to a situation in their own lives. But it gets them used to that idea that the reason that theories are valuable to understand is because we can do something with them, and that's what they're going to be called upon to do as students in the major. So I have to sort of stick with that and address that in terms of a writing assignment, but I try to bring some diversity into that and maybe make the class a little bit more interesting, a little bit more applied than it might feel otherwise.

Jeff Child:

I think that's all great. Lots of wonderful suggestions. The only other nuance I would add beyond what people have said is that I have moved more and more in this class and other classes to more of a micro continual assessment kind of model. I find that, for better or worse, my students are less likely to read and be prepared to engage if their only experience is a midterm and a final exam. So I do quizzes over every case they read before they come to class to discuss it, they do writing over it in smaller batches, and I do quizzes over every theory that they cover before they come to class.

And some students are like, "Why do you make us do this quizzing and this understanding of things before we come and even talk about it?" I'm like, "Because you won't read it, otherwise." I've done assessment that we just have a richer dialogue and ability to unpack things. So that's one assessment approach that I try to do. So I don't have a midterm or final exam, but literally every week they are doing some kind of objective and written assessment that enhances their ability to apply and understand and utilize the material.

Kory, you said a great thing in terms of what frames our next question, so maybe we can start with you with this next one, that oftentimes students are less excited about taking a comm theory course, right? It's not on their high list of, "Ooh, I can't wait to take this course." So if we can have some discussion of ways that we make this course exciting and meaningful and accessible to students that might help instructors who are listening in to have some different tactics and strategies that they might utilize as they think about the course. So Kory, what do you think about that area?

Kory Floyd:

In my students' minds, I think that comm theory is right up there with statistics among the list of the classes they wish they could get out of taking, and that's okay. I understand that. Not every class can be exciting and immediately applicable to their lives. That said, one of the things I try to do from the very beginning of the class is help students to understand that they are natural theory makers, that as we go through our day, interpersonally, professionally, et cetera, we're constantly coming up with theories about why things happen and the way things go in our lives.

And I try to help them understand that a communication theory is nothing more than a more formal, more organized, more systematic expression of the kind of armchair theorizing that we all do every day. And I don't know that I'm successful in that, but that's what I try to do to frame the class so that it can demystify the idea of a theory a little bit and help it seem a little less elevated, a little less hyper-intellectual, and really bring it down to the level of their everyday experience.

And I love Paul's idea about coming up with a silly theory. I, from time to time, have tried the exercise of just coming up with a theory about something. And again, students might moan and groan about that activity, yet, once they get into it, they realize how familiar that theorizing process actually is, and I'm just asking them to take it a step or two further in terms of making it something that's more systematic. So that's what I try to do. You could ask my students if it's successful, but I try to approach it in such a way that it takes a lot of the mystery and a lot of the intimidation of theory out of the equation and just helps them see how they can plug into it on their own.

Jeff Child:

I love that. I think that's great. I think just to follow up on that, one of the things that I do in the first weeks is I'm going through the same kinds of assumptions about theorizing and metatheoretical kind of stuff. I have an exercise that's grounded in this everyday theorizing about things, and one of the scenarios I give them is to, there's four or five different scenarios that I put them in groups and have them talk about the what, the why, the how and systematic kinds of reflections in areas. And one of the contexts is theorizing about ghosting practices online. Oh, my goodness. They have so much fun, and they laugh. And so giving them things that are a part of their everyday life that they can kind of unpack in a critical theorizing way can be a great way for them to see the relevancy of the materials. So yeah, let's go to Paul. Paul, what do you think about these questions?

Paul Schrodt:

Well, I would just like to echo everything that Kory just said. In our major here at TCU, Communication Theory, as Andrew mentioned earlier, is one of the early required courses for the major, and it is oftentimes considered by our students to be perhaps the most challenging and the most difficult course to earn the grade that they would like to earn that in. And so in addition to kind of talking about how nothing is as practical as a good theory, I will also kind of just try to demystify theorizing. As Kory suggested, I'll talk about people watching and what our students are oftentimes doing when they're watching people at a restaurant.

I have another colleague in our department who also has a brief assignment on conspiracy theories, because students seem to really gravitate toward certain kinds of conspiracy theories, and she'll use that as a way of bringing theory down to their everyday lived experiences and trying to help demystify it and generate hopefully some excitement for the subject matter.

I think in our assignments, the more that we can come up with creative ways to help students put the theories into practice, but to also see that this isn't some grand mysterious activity that they're incapable of doing. Rather, it's something that they do every day as Kory suggested, but we're going to help them bring perhaps greater clarity and organization to the process and to the content of their personal theories of other people's behaviors. So yeah, I think everything that Kory shared I would agree with and has kind of been my experience here too.

Jeff Child:

Wonderful. Andrew, do you have anything to add in terms of things that you might approach or try to help bring more excitement, energy to students' experience in this class?

Andrew Ledbetter:

Yeah. I co-sign what Kory and Paul said, and just to briefly talk about how I do that, on the first day of my own class, I talk about an experience from my own life when I lived in rural southeast Ohio, when I was driving on the two-lane road that led to our house. On a few occasions, I saw an elderly man walking along the side of the road, and there wasn't much side of the road here, but he was walking along the side of the road carrying a baseball bat. Kind of strange, kind of noticeable. So that's one thing, right? We tend to notice behavior that deviates from our expectations, and then we try to find explanations for that. So I have them break into groups and say, "Hey, what do you think was going on there? What was this guy doing?" And they'll come up with ideas like, "Well, he's going to go play baseball with his grandson who lives down the road," or, "He's using it to defend himself from wild animals," or, "He's going to go commit a crime by breaking a window with baseball bat."

And they brainstorm all these ideas, and I point out them, "Hey, this is theorizing, at least a kind of proto-theorizing. We're trying to look at somebody's behavior, and we're trying to make sense of it, and how do we test that? Well, that introduces the idea of gathering data. We have to go to Ohio and find this person and ask him what he was doing and get some data to test our theoretical ideas and assumptions."

So I think it's interesting that we all try to do that. We try to point out, "Hey, this is something you're doing." And I think that also allows you to build into, "Okay, if you do pay attention to these very focused investigations, these developed theories that we're going to look at this semester, you're going to be a better communicator in your own life as well." So I do that too.

I also try to make it clear that the theories were developed by people that lived at a time and a place. So I show them a picture of the theorists for the day when we start class. Sometimes I'll talk a bit about the context in which they lived. It is not an accident that we have a number of persuasion theories that arise out of the mid-20th century, out of the shadow of World War II when we saw persuasion used in horrific ways by the Nazi regime, for example. So by talking about those things, I try to generate interest as well, that these are people, these are human beings that had an interest in the area. They looked at it and they came to some conclusions that if we understand them, that can benefit our own lives and help us become more effective communicators.

And of course, I try to share examples from my own life of times that I've seen communication theory apply. We also apply it to things like YouTube videos and examples in the popular culture. So trying to bring it down to show them, "Hey, this matters. This will help your life. It's something that'll help you be a better communicator," is something I try to do throughout my course.

Jeff Child:

Wonderful. Great suggestions and tips and points. To end our discussion today, our final question is that the Communication Theory course often pushes instructors outside of their academic comfort zone. An interpersonal scholar might need to teach about theories and organization, persuasion, media, rhetoric. So what advice do you have for instructors as they are facing this challenge? And I'll just kind of kick this off, and then maybe Kory, we can go to you for your thoughts. But I think one of the things that I've heard people do effectively in this area is to recognize, to play to your strengths, when there are so many theories, and we can think about the goals and the objectives of your department and things going on, and select things that you think are meaningful and that you can do well, in addition to recognizing because of social media, mediated communication practices, you literally have easy access to all kinds of people across the discipline.

So I've heard of people tapping their professional networks and bringing in, for instance, on the day that you may talk about a theory of organizational communication one of their org conference to kind of provide some interaction through Zoom or something like that with a class to get them thinking about some of the practical research applications and ways that they're using the theory to push kind of the boundaries. So it presents itself as a course, the great opportunities to bring in other people and varied perspectives to show them that we're not all experts in each area, but that we can expose them and help them network and see different people in the discipline who are at the forefront of our understanding in some of these varied areas. Right?

But then the challenge with that becomes how do you integrate that and provide some tips and suggestions to people that you may bring in that can help orient those dialogues into ways that are most useful for the goals and objectives of the course that you have. Kory, what advice do you have for people trying to cover theory across this wide range of context area, taking into account where their situation and their perspective may be?

Kory Floyd:

Yeah, I would reiterate what you say, Jeff. The challenge is not just that you're teaching theories outside of your area, but you're also teaching theories outside of your paradigm, so theories that are different from or may even contradict your own assumptions about the nature of reality. And what I like to do with students is have them hear from what I think of as a native speaker of that theory or that paradigm, whether it's they're hearing from that person speaking in class or Zooming in or just through the readings that they're doing, I like to have them learn about a theory from somebody who lives and works and thinks within that set of paradigmatic commitments.

The other thing I would say for people who are teaching communication theory for the first time is just to embrace the challenge. This is an opportunity for you to learn beyond what your expertise is, and it's not easy to that. This is one of the few classes in which you really are called upon to teach material that exceeds your own expertise, but to embrace that as a challenge rather than to shy away from it. It's an opportunity to expand your own understanding of the field and your own ability to contribute to interesting conversations with your students.

Jeff Child:

Wonderful. Andrew, what are your thoughts on this question?

Andrew Ledbetter:

I think it is one of the most interesting courses that communication instructors teach on a regular basis, because it does force us out of necessity to venture outside of our comfort zone into areas we may be less familiar with. I think personally, I'd say I found that very rewarding. I think it helps me understand our discipline more broadly. I think it helps me communicate effectively with and understand the work of other scholars in the discipline that approach things differently than I do. So I think that one thing, as you think about this as a communication instructor, is to try to be a little bit like an ethnographer that is being generous about differences across paradigmatic lines, lines of area of interest. It's really not the time, I think, when you're teaching theory to say, "Okay, aha. This is why this paradigm is wrong." Perhaps you have that view, and there's room for critique, certainly, as we talk about theory to say, "Okay, here's some strengths and weaknesses. All theoretical approaches, all paradigms have strengths and weaknesses."

But I think trying to portray each theory as positively as you can, trying to showcase its strengths, as if it is voiced by somebody that is committed to that theory, I think, is important. I think being confident in your ability to do that, you don't have to know everything about the theory. You just have to know enough to be able to lead your students forward in their knowledge. And then if students have a question and you don't know, just being able to candidly, honestly say, "I don't know. It's not my main area, but I'm happy to try to find an answer. We can go look at the literature. I can talk to somebody I know that might have an answer." I think that's a helpful strategy.

And then to echo what you said, Jeff, being willing to get help. So a few years back, just to give a shout-out to a colleague of Kory and Paul's on their book, Christina Sharpe at Rutgers University, I told her, "Hey, I'm struggling with relational dialectics theory. I know you're an expert in this. I just feel like I'm not doing this theory justice. Do you have ideas that can help me?" And she provided some thoughts, some ideas, I think helped build up my confidence in that, and now, it's one of my favorite theories to go in and teach. So using your network, using your connections to get that help, get that assistance, I think is a helpful approach if you're feeling less comfortable about a particular theory or paradigm.

Jeff Child:

Wonderful. And Paul, we'll let you have the final word to wrap up our thoughts on this discussion.

Paul Schrodt:

Sure. Everything that you and Kory and Andrew have said in response to this question, I wholeheartedly agree. I think the one small thing that I would add to this particular conversation is I also am very conversational with my students about my own paradigm, my own assumptions, the areas of expertise that I feel pretty confident in, the areas of the field that I know very little about. And so in addition to bringing in other colleagues and their work, I'm always giving the students an initial preview of my understanding of the topic, my understanding of the theory, any blind spots that I know that I have when it comes to particular theories or particular approaches within the field.

One of the joys that I get from teaching communication theory overall is just the richness of our discipline and the fact that each of these different paradigms and theories give us opportunities to study, sometimes, the exact same phenomena, but from a completely different perspective or a completely different lens, and just the joy that comes from growing as a scholar in this discipline and growing as a teacher, as hopefully we are doing today.

Jeff Child:

Wonderful. Well, thank you to all of you for joining in this podcast session and giving some great tips and suggestions for a course that is one of the fundamentally required courses across the US, right? A lot of programs have this kind of course, and so hopefully, as you're listening in today, you're taking away different tips and strategies and things that you may try out as you teach comm theory. Feel free to reach out to any of us if you have a need or want to continue the conversation, but tune in for the next episode of the Communication Corner Podcast. Thanks.