Communication Across the Curriculum

The phrase "communication across the curriculum" (CXC) is an umbrella for various efforts to include communication instruction and practice in non-communication courses at colleges and universities. This communication can occur in the technologies of speech, writing, or electronic media. The shape of CXC varies from institution to institution--Washington & Jefferson College has a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) effort which is formally evident in "W" skills courses, while Speaking Across the Curriculum (SAC) is formalized in our "C" skills courses. The main duty of the Faculty Associate for Oral Communication (that's me) and this web site is to support W&J's speaking across the curriculum program. "C" courses at W&J focus on speeches and presentations, where the locus of responsibility for creating meaning in an oral communication situation rests mostly with a single individual. Most approaches to CXC activate the dual purposes of "communicating to learn" and "learning to communicate." In speaking to learn, the assumption is that oral communication encourages "active learning"--it is activity that helps students to (better?) understand concepts and processes. In learning to speak, the assumption is that instruction in and practice of oral communication develops a skill that can be deployed in other contexts.

Institutional Context

Assumptions about the constituents of good oral presentations can vary considerably within an institution. This instructional diversity in speaking across the curriculum can be a good thing in preparing students to be versatile thinkers and actors, but without some coordination of our efforts we could end up creating a confusing situation for students. I suggest that grounding our assignments and assessment standards in identifiable traditions or disciplines can help us, as a faculty, be clear about what we are asking students to do as they practice oral presentations in various contexts. Because academic institutions are organized around departments, with each department generally representing a discipline or small set of related disciplines, I propose a theoretical framework that uses disciplinarity as an organizing principle.

Speaking Against the Disciplines

This approach is founded on basic speech styles. A student in an introductory public speaking course usually delivers different types of speeches: informative, persuasive, narrative, and/or ceremonial. We can consider these speeches as emblematic of divergent schools of thought on “communication,” with each school founded on particular aesthetic repertoires and epistemic assumptions. Exposition, argument, and narrative are styles of speaking that transcend disciplinary boundaries and are useful outside of the academy (which is why I call this speaking against the disciplines). This model is well suited to liberal, general, or interdisciplinary education, and the skills developed in basic speech styles can be considered foundational for speaking in the disciplines. Recent work in narrative medicine, for example, can be considered communication that goes against the grain of a disciplinary tradition. As there is a well-established tradition of teaching foundational communication styles in public speaking courses, portable modules of instruction are ready. Assignment sheets, evaluation forms, and other instructional materials are available on the Classroom page.

Speaking In the Disciplines

“ Speaking In the Disciplines” assumes that a discipline is a discrete discourse community with unique communication practices. For example, many disciplines differ on the preferred mode of delivering a professional talk, such as reading from a manuscript or speaking extemporaneously from brief notes. Some disciplines privilege the use of visual presentation software (e.g. PowerPoint or Keynote), while in others visual aids are frowned upon. Poster presentations are expected in some areas and nonexistent in others. In an “in the disciplines” approach, the criteria for a good presentation depend on conventional practices that have been developed in a particular academic discipline. An instructor could probably assemble exercises, assignments, and evaluation forms for a discipline-specific presentation by surfing through this web site, but for the sake of efficiency I recommend an individual consultation with the Faculty Associate for Oral Communication (that’s me) to develop projects that suit discipline-specific needs. If you are interested in this approach please contact me by email < afleury@washjeff.edu > or telephone (extension 3345).

Curricular Coherence

As more of us assign students to deliver oral presentations in our classes, it would probably be good to have common points of reference for the work we are asking them to do. Clear and specific assignments with criteria explicitly grounded in traditional public speaking styles, disciplinary presentation practices, or some specified hybrid can help our students see relationships between skills development and the various contexts in which they speak.

This page was first posted on 30 March 2004 and last updated on 16 April 2005.
Anthony Fleury, Washington & Jefferson College