Talk About Teaching and Learning
Teaching
Communication
Michael
X. Delli Carpini
Let
me start with a confessionÑmy Ph.D. and M.A. are in political
science, and my B.A. is in political science and English
literature. I never took an undergraduate or graduate course
taught through a communication department or school. My
involvement in communication as a field developed out of
my research and teaching about citizen engagement in the
United States. It quickly became clear to me that it was
impossible to understand how and why citizens participated
in politics without also understanding the role of communicationÑbetween
public officials and citizens and among citizens themselvesÑas
well as the role of the media in these exchanges.
I
mention this personal history for four reasons of relevance
to
the issue of teaching communication. First, the study of
communication is importantÑeven integralÑto other disciplines,
not only in the social sciences, but also in the humanities
and even the Nadia sciences. Second, the field of communication
is interdisciplinary by its very nature and origins, regularly
drawing on the theories, methods and findings of other
areas of academic inquiry. Third, this interdisciplinary
heritage means that there is no single way to think about,
study or teach communication. And fourth, despite this
mixed pedigree and continued theoretical and methodological
diversity, the field has developed its own identity and
offers approaches to understanding interpersonal and mass-mediated
communication that are unique.
The
course offerings of the undergraduate communication major
at Penn reflect this mix of indebtedness to other fields
and the uniqueness of our own. Many are obviously distinct
to a communication program, dealing directly with issues
of journalism, new media and information technology, and
the like. In addition, given the nature of our field, we
make a special effort to integrate technology into our
teaching when appropriate, both as examples of the communication
processes being discussed (i.e., the use of illustrative
film and video clips, DVDs, audio tapes, photographs, web
sites, etc.) and as a means of facilitating classroom learning
and interaction (e.g., course list serves and web sites).
We also provide opportunities for students to integrate
classroom learning with NAND EMI experience through several
media production and design classes. And we are upgrading
our video conferencing capability to expand our ability
to "bring in" guest lecturers and, perhaps in the future,
to offer courses that bring together students and faculty
from different universities.
In
addition to these communication-specific courses and
approaches,
however, many of our courses address issues that will be
familiar to other schools and departments across the University:
campaigns and elections, public opinion, popular culture,
business marketing, public health, globalization, art and
film, privacy, children's development, the presidency,
human cognition, public architecture, war and peace, and
so on. What distinguishes these courses from those offered
elsewhere, however, is the central focus on communication.
How does the mass media shape (for good or ill) public
opinion? Can television serve an educational function for
children? How does the design of a park or building facilitate
or inhibit public discourse? Do public service ads reduce
harmful behavior among targeted members of "at risk" populations?
What is the role of images in news coverage of political
and social events? Can the internet replicate the individual
and collective benefits of face-to-face deliberation? Under
what circumstances does popular culture help to break down
racial, ethnic, national, and gender stereotypes? Under
what circumstances does it exacerbate these stereotypes?
It is
this focus on the institutions, processes, content, genres
and/or impact of communication, rather than more exclusively
on the substantive topic being explored, that binds our
field together. And it is this focus that is central to
our teaching. Of course our faculty must be knowledgeable
about their particular substantive area and impart that
knowledge to their students. Indeed, like me a number of
the Annenberg faculty were originally trained in other
fields within the humanities, social sciences or hard sciences.
Students in communication courses will learn a great deal
about attitude formation and change, the biology of addiction,
the policy-making process, the development of the brain,
the dynamics of political campaigns, architectural design,
the economics of advertising, and such.
The
challengeÑand the pleasureÑof teaching about these and
other individual and societal processes from a communication
perspective is demonstrating the ways in which the exchange
of information plays a fundamental role within each of
them. The form of communication may vary from the written
word, to images, to sound. The medium of communication
may vary from newspapers, to novels, to film, to television,
to CDs, to the internet. The genre may vary from news to
drama to comedy. The scope of communication may vary from
interpersonal conversations to impersonal mass mediated
messages. But this exchange of information influences the
ways in which human beings think, feel, act, and interact,
whether in the context of deciding who to vote for, what
to buy, or who is a friend and who is an enemy.
Within
this common ground that defines communication as a field
there remains a healthy diversity of methodological and
theoretical approaches, again reflecting our diverse roots
in the humanities, social sciences and hard sciences. For
example, communication methods include everything from
case studies, archival research and textual and image analysis;
to statistical analyses, controlled experiments and mathematical
models; to even physiological measures such as changes
in heart rate or magnetic resonance images of the brain.
Although
this methodological and substantive diversity is one of
our field's great strengths, it brings with it certain
centrifugal forces that can challenge our coherence. While
the temptation is to divide ourselves into methodological
and substantive camps, we have largely avoided this at
Annenberg by designing our undergraduate curriculum in
a way that keeps what is common to the field central. Our
introductory courses provide students with a foundational
understanding of the core theories, institutions, processes,
and methods of communication. Once grounded in these core
principles of our field, intermediate and advanced courses
allow students to apply them in the context of more specific
substantive topics (for example, health, politics, globalization,
advocacy, or popular culture), more specific mediums (for
example print, film, television, the internet, photographs,
or graphic arts), more specific genres (for example, news,
advertising or entertainment) and/or more specific components
of the communication process (for example, institutions
and policy, media content, or communication effects).
Within
this broad structure, undergraduates are able to concentrate
in particular areas, though we encourage our majors, in
true liberal arts fashion, to take courses that expose
them to a range of theoretical, methodological and substantive
topics. Throughout their undergraduate education, we also
try to assure that our students are given opportunities
to engage in primary research. One of the best examples
of this is David Eisenhower's course, Communication
and the Presidency, in which students travel to presidential
libraries to undertake original archival research on a
topic of their choosing. We also provide opportunities
for students to enhance their classroom learning through
a variety of media and communication related internship
opportunities.
The
latest addition to our major is a concentration entitled Communication
and Public Service, or COMPS. COMPS, which was
made possible by a generous endowment from the Annenberg
Foundation, combines classes and research opportunities
with hands-on experience in the public arena. Classes,
seminars, internships, field experiences, and individual
research projects provide students with opportunities to
meet and learn from current and former officeholders, journalists,
public servants and grassroots activists. The goal of COMPS
is to help build the next generation of leaders by providing
students with the fundamental knowledge and experience
necessary for careers in public service and public advocacy.
To learn
more about our undergraduate course offerings, curriculum
and major, as well as about our faculty and their research,
visit our website at www.asc.upenn.edu.
Dr. Michael X. Delli Carpini is the Walter H. Annenberg Dean of the Annenberg
School for Communication
This
essay continues the series that began in the fall of
1994 as the joint creation of the College
of Arts and Sciences and the Lindback Society for Distinguished
Teaching.
See www.upenn.edu/almanac/teach/teachall.html for the previous essays.