For years, we at the Schwartz Communication Institute at Baruch have insisted that a definition of a communication-intensive course (CIC) ought not quantify communication-intensive activities. That is, x number of writing assignments or oral presentations do not necessarily make a course communication-intensive. According to a set of guidelines for the development of CICs, an “intensive experience in communication” is one where students are engaged “in the full range of intellectual and practical processes that go into producing effective communication.” Similarly, an old definition states that a CIC
will emphasize writing, oral and/or computer-mediated presentations, with assignments and/or presentations judged by the logic of their argument as well as their proficiency and grace of expression. (emphasis mine)
What followed was a bulleted list of what a syllabus with a “proper emphasis on writing and speaking” might include yet here was no indication of how much writing or speaking students should do in a CIC.
For a while now, a number of different committees have struggled to come up with a new working definition of a CIC and have had a difficult time of it. The question of quantifying writing and speaking assignments has come up again and again and is worth revisting if for no other reason.
Here’s the question, then, for those of you who teach or work with communication-intensive courses: should we define a particular number of draft pages, writing assignments (low- or high- stakes), presentations, minutes spent in front of an audience, etc. in nailing down what exactly makes a course communication-intensive? Is it worthwhile to start designating CICs according to how much rather simply what kind of writing, speaking, etc. they have students do? The jury is out so let’s bring it in.
Well, since your posting Mikhail, I have done a little research on what other universities do about quantifying CICs. I Googled the term “communication intensive” and looked for schools who did quantify their criteria. Considering that I was able to find only four online explanations that I thought were satisfactorily detailed, I think maybe most other Communication programs, centers and institutes such as ours run into the same question. My brief and informal poll included MIT, Utah State, East Tennessee State, and Louisiana State. Interestingly, Iowa State University’s Agriculture school also emphasises communication, and has links to several known CI programs (UNC, UM-C), none of which popped up as I searched.
The two quantifiable aspects were either in Page Numbers, or Percentage of Final Grade. MIT requires 20 pages of formal writing in CI classes, LSU requires 10 pages of edited and revised formal writing. East Tennesse State requires that 25% of the grade come from Oral Communication-based assignments and that at least 5 pages of formal writing include time for revision.
Most of these schools asked that a specific percentage of the course grade be based on writing and oral communication, some included technology as well. Most also included in their specifications that communication be addressed throughout the semester, as opposed to just at the end. They also made a point of saying that communication skills needed to be taught in the courses. As for class enrollment, the recommendations ranged from 18 to 35, with most suggesting that over 20 or 25, a fellow or tutor should be assigned to the course. Another common theme I noted was two CI courses required at the General Education level, and two CI courses from the students major.
In my opinion, quantification of CI requirements is a good idea. It is certainly something that might bring on resistance as faculty work to incorporate new goals into their course. I think that if specific boundaries for what counts as a CIC are to be delineated, faculty development and broader faculty support are key. I also think there ought to be space for flexibility. Intended guidelines, yet recognition of structural, disciplinary, and workload constraints.
My two cents.
I don’t think I’m comfortable with page counts and percentage of the total grade as measures of intensity.
A bright light at high noon on a clear summer’s day would not seem as intense as that same light in the deep of a moonless, starless night.
Intensity of communications for an ESL student is far different from that of a native English speaker. Maybe intensity has little meaning in context of CIC.
How about a word like “regular?” Aren’t we striving to provide regular, or scheduled, activities to develop communications skills? Some of the measures described by Deborah in her comment suggest this notion of “regular.”
Intensive may sound good in a markting brochure, but perhaps, as intimated by Mikhail’s original post, it has little value in directing our actions.
In any event, to Deborah’s two cents I have added the mutterings of a middle-aged man strolling by the sea.