Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
An Empirical Study Of Classroom Teaching Of Ethics In Beginning College Public Speaking Courses
(USC Thesis Other)
An Empirical Study Of Classroom Teaching Of Ethics In Beginning College Public Speaking Courses
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
EMPIRICAL STUDY OF CLASSROOM TEACHING OF ETHICS
IN BEGINNING COLLEGE PUBLIC SPEAKING COURSES
by
George Otto Enell
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Speech)
September 1966
UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L
U N IV E R SIT Y PARK
LO S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7
This thesis, •written by
......... _C e_Q rg.e. .Qtta. En&lL...........
under the direction of k.h§...Thesis Committee,
and approved by all its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the Dean of The
Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
........Doc tor_ _ of Philo.soghy.........
.......
Date S e . p . t . e . r a . b e . . . 1 . 9 . 6 6 . .........
Chairman
........
( i L i c c/C'-Z'
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Page
PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ............. 1
Origin of the Problem
Statement of the Problem
Significance of the Problem
Limitations of the Study
Definitions of Terms
Abbreviations Used
Preview of Remaining Chapters
REVIEW OF LITERATURE .......................... 7
Research Studies
Textbooks
Speech Education Textbooks
Scholarly Speech Journals
DESIGN OF THE STUDY 2 6
Subjects
Materials
Procedures
Rationale for the Research Design
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA .... 39
Introduction
Question Number One
Question Number Two
Question Number Three
Question Number Four
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . 6 8
Summary
Implications for Further Research
Chapter Page
APPENDIXES................................................. 73
A. Transcripts of Oral Stimuli.................... 74
B. Data S h e e t ........................................... 85
C. Selected Typescripts of Subjects' Responses . . . 87
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................ 118
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Age, Degree, Academic Rank of Subjects, and
Length of Teaching Experience . ........... 29
2. Number of Ss Responding in Various Category
Standards.......................................42
3. Comparison of the Number of Aspects of "Content"
and "Delivery" Stated by Any One of 26 Ss . 4 3
4. Reasons for G r a d e s ................................ 5 3
5. Responses of Ex and In Ss According to Criteria
and Categories.................................. 58
6. Subjects' Suggested Grade for B C ...................62
7. Distribution of Ss by References in R-2 to
Statements in R - l ..............................62
8. Distribution of Ss According to Their Awareness
of Relationship or Lack of Relationship
Between Their Statements in R-l and R-2 . . 64
9. Age, Degree, and Rank Distribution of Ss Defining
BC's Behavior as Procedural Error or
Ethical Error ............................... 65
10. Age, Degree, and Rank Distribution of Ss
Assigning BC a High or a Low Grade............66
iv
CHAPTER I
PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Origin of the Problem
One of the most familiar quotations in rhetorical
literature is Quintilian's dictum defining the orator as
"the good man speaking well." Some contemporary writers
adhere closely to Quintilian's emphasis upon the importance
of ethics in the teaching of speech; some neglect the sub
ject entirely; others subsume the speaker's ethics under
such topics as preparation of subject matter or adjustment
to the audience. Personal conversations with fellow speech
teachers revealed that some of them considered character-
building or the like as their most important teaching re
sponsibility; some felt that a speech teacher was no more
responsible for teaching ethics than was a mathematics
instructor; others seemed to define an orator as "a knowl
edgeable man speaking well." This diversity of viewpoints
motivated the writer to undertake the present study.
Statement of the Problem
In general this study explored empirically some of the
beliefs and practices regarding the teaching of ethics of a
group of teachers of beginning public speaking at the col
lege level. The general problem was divided into the
following constituent questions:
1. What major standards (ethical or otherwise) do
teachers profess to use in teaching a beginning public
speaking class?
2. How do teachers profess to apply their standards
to a specific case of a student who is suspected of exten
sive plagiarism in his final speech?
3. Is there a marked difference between experienced
and inexperienced teachers with regard to their professed
standards?
4. Is there a marked difference between experienced
and inexperienced teachers with regard to how they profess
to apply their standards to a specific case of a student
who is suspected of extensive plagiarism in his final
speech?
Significance of the Problem
The problem was thought to be significant for the
following reasons:
1. A substantial number of speech teachers have
written or said that one of their most important responsi
bilities was to foster ethical communicative behavior in
their students. Therefore, any new light that might be
shed upon the topic of ethics in the speech classroom
3j
seemed likely to be of value.
2. Speech teachers do not agree upon the meaning of
"ethical standards," the relationship of these with other j
teaching standards, or upon the application of ethical
standards to various individual students. However, the
literature does not provide any indication of the extent of:
the above disagreements. Therefore, it seemed worthwhile
to know more about the amount of diversity, as well as pos
sible areas of agreement, with regard to the attitude or
practices of teachers in the speech classroom.
3. Most of the research and writing on speech ethics
has dealt with the subject from the standpoint of the
speaker rather than the teacher of speech. A review of ap
propriate indices and bibliographies revealed no thesis or
dissertation title that appeared to focus on the teaching
of public speaking ethics.
Books and articles dealing directly or indirectly
with the teaching of speech ethics relied entirely upon
expressions of opinion, anecdotes, or casual observation.
The investigator believed that the systematic gathering of
empirical data under controlled conditions might provide a
significant addition to knowledge in one important area of
speech pedagogy.
5. It seemed possible that a teacher's standards and
practices in teaching ethics might be learned or changed by
experience. For example, it might be argued with equal
logic that the young teacher "mellows" over a period of
many years of teaching or that he becomes more "strict" as
the years progress. Other possible trends might also be a
function of years of experience. Therefore, it was thought
that a comparison of a group of inexperienced speech teach
ers with a group of experienced ones might help to settle
the questions relating to "learning to teach ethics by
teaching them."
Limitations of the Study
One limitation of the study was that there was no way
to insure that the subjects comprised a representative
sample of speech teachers in general.
A second limitation was imposed by time. The subjects
could not be expected to devote an amount of time beyond
their convenience. This restricted the "practical applica
tion" stimulus to one student case.
A third limitation was that the chosen case (and its
wording and delivery) may not have fulfilled the intended
purposes of the investigator.
A fourth limitation was that the tape-recording equip
ment and other controls imposed upon the subjects may have
biased their responses.
A fifth limitation was that the data were what the
subjects said about their classroom standards and what they
said they would do with the student case. Thus, the
5
investigator dealt with the professed beliefs and practices'
of the subjects which may or may not have coincided with
their actual classroom behaviors.
The measures that were taken to avoid or ameliorate
the above limitations are described in Chapters III and IV.
Definitions of Terms
Ethical standards (or criteria).— This term was opera
tionally defined as any statement made by a subject in
which he used the word "ethics," or any derivative of that
word, or any appropriate synonym (word, phrase, or sen
tence). Examples:
1. "character"
2. "responsibility as a citizen"
3. "The appearance of sincerity, of honesty, of
intelligence and morality should be taken
into consideration ..."
Experienced.--This term was used to apply to any sub
ject who had taught a beginning public speaking class at
the college level for eight or more years.
Inexperienced.— The term was used to apply to any sub
ject who had taught a beginning public speaking class at
the college level for three or fewer years.
Abbreviations Used
S subject
Ss subjects
R-l subject's response to the first stimulus
R-2 subject's response to the second
stimulus
BC Bill Collins, the name of the experi
mental student described in the second
stimulus
Ex experienced subject
In inexperienced subject
Preview of Remaining Chapters
Chapter II is concerned with a review of literature;
Chapter III, with the design of the study; Chapter IV, with
presentation and interpretation of the data; Chapter V,
with summary and implications. The appendices consist of a
sample form used in the study, the texts of the experiment
al stimuli, and typescripts of selected responses of the
subjects.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The following indices and bibliographies were con
sulted for the purpose of discovering appropriate refer
ences :
1. Indices:
Index to American Doctoral Dissertations, 1934-
54
Doctoral Dissertations Accepted by American Uni
versities , 1955-
Dissertation Abstracts
Education Index
Index and Table of Contents of Southern Speech
Journal, Western Speech, Central States Speech
Journal, and Today's Speech
Table of Contents of Quarterly Journal of
Speech, Speech Monographs, and Speech Teacher
2. Bibliographies:
Frederick W. Haberman, "A Bibliography of Rheto
ric and Public Address," Speech Monographs,
XVIII (June, 1951), et seq.
Lester Thonssen and Elizabeth Fatherson, Bibli
ography of Speech Education
Four types of sources were consulted: research stud
ies, selected beginning public speaking textbooks, selected
speech education textbooks, and periodical literature.
Research Studies
After consulting the appropriate indices and bibliog
raphies the investigator secured copies of unpublished
theses and dissertations which appeared to bear upon this
study. The majority of these studies related to students
and to curricula; no research was found relative to the
teaching of ethics in public speaking classes, nor relative
to experienced versus inexperienced speech teachers.
Textbooks
The concern of this study was the teaching of begin
ning public speaking. When a textbook is assigned in such
a course, the student is usually held responsible for the
contents of that text; thus, textual materials become an
important educational source. From informal discussions
with publishers' representatives, a list of widely adopted
beginning public speaking texts was developed. These texts
were investigated with regard to their discussions of the
place of ethics in public speaking. The texts investigated
were:
William Norwood Brigance, Speech: Its Techniques and
Disciplines in a Free Society, 1952;
Donald C. Bryant and Karl R. Wallace, Fundamentals of
Public Speaking, 1960;
Milton Dickens, Speech: Dynamic Communication, 196 3;
Giles W. Gray and Waldo W. Braden, Public Speaking:
Principles and Practice, 1951;
Alan H. Monroe, Principles and Types of Speech, 195 5;
Lew Sarett, William T. Foster, and Alma J. Sarett,
Basic Principles of Speech, 1958.
It was found that the authors of these texts agreed
with regard to the role of ethics in public speaking. All
advised the student that the personal integrity of the
speaker was essential to the process of communication; none
advised the student to consider ethics as essential to ef
fective communication without indicating that the social
implications of public speaking demand integrity apart from
considerations of success.
Brigance asserted that the "authentic signs" of per
sonal integrity are intellectual honesty and sound judg
ment, thorough familiarity with the subject, moderation in
attempts to influence the audience, and the speaker’s
identification with the interests of the audience.^-
Bryant and Wallace suggested that
^William Norwood Brigance, Speech: Its Techniques and
Disciplines in a Free Society (New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, Inc., 1952), p. 436.
10;
the persuasive speaker should prefer goals and motives j
which he believes are in the best interests of his audi
ence. No matter how specific his purpose and proposi
tion may be, the persuader ought to have the welfare of
others at heart.2
After warning the student that ethical judgments are
complex, and that simplistic responses are distorting,
Dickens indicated that all of the classroom's practical ac
tivities involved in developing principles and skills have
a "built-in ethical component."3
While indicating that the unique element of their text
was its emphasis on an ethical perspective, Gray and Braden
suggested a primary characteristic of ethical speaking as
"a type of honest thinking and speaking that is motivated
by a genuine and consistent concern for the well-being of
humanity."4
Monroe restated Quintilian's dictum in asserting that
a "good speaker must first of all be a good man; he must
be intelligent and observant, but above all he must have
integrity of character."5
2Donald C. Bryant, Karl R. Wallace, Fundamentals of
Public Speaking, 3rd ed. (New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, Inc., i9 60), p. 291.
3Milton Dickens, Speech; Dynamic Communication, 2nd
ed. (New York: Harcourr, Brace and World, Inc., 1963),
p. 359.
4Giles Wileson Gray and Walso W. Braden, Public Speak
ing: Principles and Practice (New York: Harper S Broth
ers, 1951), p. xi.
5Alan H. Monroe, Principles and Types of Speech, Hth
ed. (Chicago: Scott, Foresman and Co. , 1&55) , pp. IT-6.
11
Early in their text, Sarett, Foster, and Sarett in
cluded the speaker's good will as basic to developing the
ability to communicate; good will was defined as "regard
for the worth and integrity of others."® In addition they
urged the student to become a "responsible speaker," the
characteristics of which are (1) bearing responsibility for
assertions, (2) demonstrating candor in motivations,
(3) citing sources, and (4) being "governed by a conception
of human beings as values, ends in themselves, rather than
as 'things' to be manipulated and exploited."7
It was found that these texts implied that either or
both of the following characteristics should mark the in
tegrity of the speaker:
1. accuracy with regard to subject matter, in terms
of thorough knowledge, familiarity, and research;
2. evident concern for the integrity and welfare of
the audience.
While the sections in the above texts devoted to a
discussion of ethics were in most cases brief, a concern
for the integrity of the student as speaker was indicated
in every text.
Since these texts were directed toward the student, no
®Lew Sarett, Wm. Trufant Foster, Alma Johnson Sarett,
Basic Principles of Speech, 3rd ed. (Boston: Houghton
Hirflfn'Co., 155'^, pf 43.
7Ibid., p. U50.
12;
indications were given with regard to the teacher’s respon-;
sibility to develop or judge the student's integrity.
Speech Education Textbooks
Speech education textbooks were investigated with a
view to determining whether they discussed speech pedagogy
at the elementary, secondary, or college level. The three
speech education textbooks which were concerned, at least
in part, with college-level instruction are reviewed in
this section.
Robinson and Kerikas discussed speech-teaching proce
dures and methods, with little comment on rationale or un
derlying philosophy.8 The text contained no explicit ref
erence to the speech teacher's responsibility for his
students' ethical development, nor could such a specific
concern be inferred from chapters dealing with (1) the
place of speech in contemporary education; (2) important
factors in speech instruction; (3) diagnosis, evaluation,
testing, and criticism; or (4) grading.
Reid discussed the teacher's ethical responsibility in
the chapter dealing with the goals of speech pedagogy.8
One of four goals was stated as follows: "Courses in
8Karl F. Robinson and E. J. Kerikas, Teaching Speech:
Methods and Materials (New York: David McKay do.7 Inc.,
196 3).-----------------
8Loren Reid, Teaching Speech, 2nd ed. (Columbia, Mo. :
Artcraft Press, 1956).
speech should improve personality. "^ The constituents of
an improved personality included "intellectual integ
rity. 1,11 This quality is developed by repeated exposure to
situations demanding the making of decisions. No further
assertions about ethics were stated or implied.
Gray's chapter in Braden's speech education textbook
asserted that
a distinction should be made, and insisted upon, between
effective speaking and good speaking. Effective speak-
ing may produce results, but these results are not al
ways contributory to the social good or human welfare.
Speech is a powerful agent in influencing human behav
ior; it should always be used with due consideration for
social and ethical values.12
He urged the prospective speech teacher to
teach your students that of all the powers and forces
and influences that they can bring under their command,
no other has the capacity for good or ill that is pos
sessed by human speech. The ability to use that power
carries with it a grave responsibility for using it
wisely.13
Scholarly Speech Journals
It was the purpose of this part of the investigation
to undertake to discover what scholars in the field of
speech considered to be the role of the speech teacher in
the development of his students' ethics. To this end, all
10Ibid., p. 32. 11Ibid., p. 33,
12Giles W. Gray, "Attitudes and the Teaching of Atti
tudes," in Waldo W. Braden, ed., Speech Methods and Re-
sources (New York: Harper & Row, 1961), p. 52.
13Ibid., p. 68.
relevant articles, published in national and regional
speech journals, were consulted. The criteria of relevance
were: (1) the article assessed the relationship of speech
education to the general society; (2) the article discussed
the relationship of ethics to instruction in speech; and
(3) the article described or suggested methods for teaching
ethics in the beginning speech course.
Trend regarding an
emphasis on ethics
Two articles were found that dealt with trends; both
of them said that there was a trend toward an increased em
phasis on ethics in speech teaching. Kantner asserted that
available evidence indicated a new emphasis on moral stand
ards in speech instruction; that evidence, however, was not
designated in his article.
There are many signs indicating that we are now in
another transition period that is leading to a stronger
emphasis on the ethical responsibility of the speaker
and an active effort to encourage the development of
ethical standards that will stress the moral obligation
to use language as wisely, sanely, and accurately as
possible in order to facilitate cooperation and adapta
tion among individuals and groups for the mutual benefit
of all concerned.14
Rothman observed that there was a "strong re-emergence of
chapters on ethical construct in many of our texts in the
14Claude E. Kantner, "Social Responsibility in Speech
Education,” Southern Speech Journal, XIV (November, 1948),
73#
15
fifties, and to date."15
The opinions of only two authors would scarcely suf
fice as proof that this suggested trend toward increased
emphasis on ethics was an actual fact.
Salience of ethics
As was suggested in Chapter I of this study, scholars
who discussed ethics as an aspect of instruction in speech
could be categorized according to the degree of salience
that they attributed to ethics. Some scholars asserted
that the ethical standards of students constituted the
speech teacher’s primary responsibility. A few thought
that it was not feasible to affect a student's ethical po
sition. Many discussed the teacher’s responsibility with
regard to his students' ethics under the categories of
instruction in communication theory, in research, and in
critical thinking. Most of the articles consulted neither
discussed nor appeared to subsume the ethical responsibil
ity of the speech teacher. No articles suggested that non-
ethical standards or behavior be condoned. Some of the
above categories are discussed in the succeeding
paragraphs.
■^Richard M. Rothman, "The Substance of Rhetoric:
Good Reasons: Further Comment," Quarterly Journal of
Speech, L (February, 19 64), 74.
16
Feasibility of instruc
tion in etnics ~
Three scholars asserted that ethics could be success
fully included in speech instruction. Ellis suggested that
the teacher's responsibility for his students' ethical de
velopment was limited, and indicated that, although moral
excellence could not be developed exclusively in the class
room, "that does not mean, however, that a teacher cannot
aid in the development of certain moral and ethical quali
ties in connection with the preparation and delivery of a
speech."16 in response to the objection that ethics are
indefinable, he suggested that
it would be impossible to get complete agreement on the
definition of the word. Likewise, there is no exact
agreement on effective speech, but that does not hinder
the teacher from giving certain principles which he be
lieves will make for better speaking.1'
According to Schmidt, even the philosophical relativist who
would put his pedagogical emphasis on the development of
efficient patterns of behavior could be ethically con
cerned.
The experimentalists do believe in the good man and they
believe that his growth is a continuous process. The
distinguishing characteristic of their belief on this
tenet is that the good is not set and constant, but
ever-changing in terms of human life. Among the teach
ers of speech the firm believer in pragmatism can accept
this tenet of speech education and constantly strive to
move his students along the path toward good through
16Carroll Brooks Ellis, "A Good Man Speaking Well,"
Southern Speech Journal, XI (March, 19 4-6), 86.
17Ibid., pp. 86-87.
17
providing meaningful experiences.
According to Wichelns, the speech teacher can meet his
ethical responsibility by teaching the students that the
speaker is analogous to the conversationalist.
Interpretation of speech as communication among ordinary
citizens prevents us from exaggerating the personal
force or accomplishments of the speaker— keeps us, in
short, from training up young exhibitionists who will
impress their platform accomplishments on a passive
audience, and suggests instead that we show young people
how to communicate their ideas and attitudes to a par
ticipating audience.^-9
On the other hand, Irwin warned that teachers who were
exclusively concerned with their students1 character devel
opment might be neglecting more specifically communicative
responsibilities.
Our job is to teach speech, as much as we can to as many
as we can. If we devote a disproportionate amount of
time to those whom we conceive to need special help be
cause of personality problems, I strongly suspect that
we are neglecting our duty as teachers.20
Rothman was pessimistic with regard to the possibility
of the teacher1s developing a sense of ethical responsibil
ity in his students.
The ethics of the student speaker are, in the main, part
and parcel of him before we approach his training in
■ * - 9Ralph N. Schmidt, "A Philosophy to Guide Us in
Teaching Public Speaking,1 1 Speech Teacher, V (January,
1956), 3.
- * - 9H. A. Wichelns, "Tendencies in Speech Education To
day," Southern Speech Journal, II (March, 1937), 3.
20R. L. Irwin, "Mental Hygiene in the Teaching of
Fundamentals," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII (April,
19*+2), 214.
18
college. . . . We certainly must encourage high stand
ards and ideals, must vigorously point out that the
speaker should attempt to persuade only to that in which
he himself believes, and to that which he believes to be
to the long range benefit of the majority he attempts to
reach.21
Ethics as a primary responsibility
of speech instruction
Williamson suggested a reason for an ethical emphasis
in collegiate education:
Because of [the] lessened influence of religion in
motivating conduct, upon education falls an increased
responsibility of protecting society against mass de
cline in those standards which uphold our civilization.
Few would dispute that education, with the university in
the lead, should stand for the highest values of our
social order, their sponsor and def e n d e r . ^ 2
Indeed, according to Redfield, any teacher implicitly
accepts a general moral obligation by his choice of profes
sion.
By virtue of the role which he performs in society, as a
specialized seeker for truth and a trainer of developing
minds, his obligation to speak freely and disinterested
ly, and especially to speak out of a special knowledge,
is a heavier duty than most men bear. If the professor
fails in speaking, his failure is the greater.^
Clevenger was particularly concerned with the special
responsibilities of the speech teacher.
This motivation to speak out is not the responsibility
of the social studies teacher or the philosophy teacher
^Richard Rothman, "Know Your Enemy," Quarterly Journ
al of Speech, XLV (February, 1959), 65.
22Arleigh B. Williamson, "Social Standards in Public
Speaking Instruction," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXV
(October, 1939), 37M-.
^Robert Redfield, "The Difficult Duty of Speech,"
Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXXIX (February, 1953), 7.
19
or the ’whole curriculum'; it is the peculiar responsi- ;
bility of the teacher of speech, for it is only in the
speech classroom that the student can be expected to
gain repeated and directed experiences in exercising the!
right to free speech. It is here that he must learn
that freedom of speech is more than freedom to speak,
but represents a responsibility to speak as well.2* *
Some authors more specifically indicated that ethics
constituted their primary concern in speech instruction.
Schmidt categorically stated that
my basic tenet requires that in our teaching of public
speaking we are ever alert that our students do not 'win
friends and influence people' by the mere exercise of
stratagems and the use of falsehoods, but that they be
ethical in all their speech relationships.2^
Hance, who suggested that the ethical objective of
speech teaching was one reason for one's finding satisfac
tion in that type of employment, indicated that
I see our field as being . . . concerned with character.
While our purpose may not be directly related to the
study of ethics and morals, I see in the history of our
subject, and in its best practices today, some inherent
concerns with the development of human character.26
Fleischman condemned the tendency of speech teachers
to
disavow this responsibility for personality training,
either regarding it as of little importance, or relegat
ing it to some other educational department, or leaving
^Theodore Clevenger, Jr., "The Teacher of Speech and
Freedom of Speech," The Speech Teacher, V (March, 1956),
9 8.
25Schmidt, op. cit. , p. 2.
2®Kenneth Hance, "Some Durable Satisfactions in the
Teaching of Speech," Central States Speech Journal, IX
(Fall, 1957), 9. ----------------- -------------
20
it for the individual to work out for himself.27
Oliver explicitly indicated that ethics was a primary
responsibility.
This is what I consider to be our major challenge as
teachers of persuasive speech. If we can teach students
how to speak with real persuasiveness in an ethical
mode, we are doing a great deal to remove from them a
strong temptation to try dishonest methods.28
In answer to the question as to whether the teacher of
speech had a positive obligation to his students1 ethical
development, Schmidt indicated that
I do feel that it is our duty, and should be an integral
part of our philosophy, so to conduct our classes and so
to criticize the speeches of our students as to deter
mere opportunism, demagoguery, and charlatanism.29
According to Clevenger, a teacher's placing his empha
sis on effect as a goal of public speaking conflicted with
the development of the student's ethical sensitivity, which
is the more important goal.
No vocational agriculture teacher would think of train
ing young farmers in exploitive farming devoid of con
servation, any more than a good journalism teacher would
consider instructing future reporters and editors in the
techniques of gathering and writing up the most salable
news without inculcating social responsibility in them.
Yet it is perhaps not too uncommon an occurrence to find
speech teachers instructing their students in voice and
diction, bodily action, and the powerful techniques of
rhetorical composition with very little attention to the
27Earl Emery Fleischman, "Speech and Progressive Edu
cation," Quarterly Journal of Speech. XXXI (Fall, 1960),
14.
28Robert T. Oliver, "Ethics and Efficiency in Persua
sion," Southern Speech Journal, XXXI (Fall, 1960), 14.
28Schmidt, loc. cit.
21
matter of how the student should use these powerful new
tools when his brief sojourn in the classroom gives way j
to a lifetime of citizenship.^
The problem created by an emphasis on goals reappeared
in Kantner’s concern regarding any possible tendency to
subordinate ethical considerations to the achieving of a
desired effect. In his statement, he reflected an even
more comprehensive difficulty— that of the dichotomy be
tween the verbal commitment of the teacher in his moments
of philosophical reflection and the operational activity in
his hours of classroom teaching.
We enjoyed quoting Quintilian's dictum that the great
orator must be a good man, but we were not very specif
ic in helping our students decide just which techniques
a 'good' man would use and which he should reject. Even
in those relatively rare moments when we did speak of
the desirability of a 'strong moral character' in the
speaker, we managed to make it sound as if character, or
at least the semblance of character, was important
primarily because, like Ethyl lead in gasoline, it gave
that plus power to the speaker's ability to influence
common weal or the common woe we
Subordination of ethics in
relation to other teaching
responsibilities
Some scholars seemed to imply that the speech teacher
had an ethical responsibility but that it was subordinate
to their other responsibilities. Frequently, these authors
discussed ethics implicitly rather than directly. For
3°Clevenger, op. cit., 94-95.
^Kantner, op. cit. , p. 71.
22
example, Edney posited five goals for responsible speech
teaching: (1) the development of an inquiring mind,
(2) the development of the ability to observe, (3) helping
students learn to evaluate the reports of others, (4) the
development of skill in reflective and logical thinking,
and (5) the development of skill in the use of language and
in reaction to language.32 in his summary of articles
which discussed the speech teacher's ethical responsibil
ity, Jensen reported that
virtually all authors agree that persuasion which rests
upon the rigorous demands of rational procedure— a sys
tematic investigation and reflective thought— comes as
close to being considered intrinsically ethical as any
category of means can be.33
Ethics subsumed under "research”.— Sanford recognized
that the material used in research may affect the ethical
implications of even the carefully analyzed case.
If any sort of reasoning or emphasis is said to be good,
if only it carries out this or that principle of clear
ness or belief or impressiveness or action, can we
wonder that there is little or no effort made to find
material that is of itself good?3* *
With regard to research, O'Neill uncovered a practical
problem in his lament that the superficial preparation of
32ciarence Edney, "A Working System of Ideas," South-
ern Speech Journal, XVI (December, 1950), 148-49.
33J. Vernon Jensen, "An Analysis of Recent Literature
on Teaching Ethics in Public Address," Speech Teacher, VIII
(September, 1959), 226.
3*W. P. Sanford, "The Problem of Speech Content,"
Quarterly Journal of Speech, VIII (November, 1922), 365.
23
students required more positive reaction from instructors.
"At least we teachers may refrain from putting our profes
sional approval upon speeches which are the result of
necessarily superficial reading."35 Pelligrini stressed
responsibility of the teacher for accurate research:
an instructor under no circumstances should tolerate a
speech in which the materials have been in any way dis
torted for the purpose of achieving an end, no matter
how laudable. We must exact from our students the most
rigid sort of intellectual honesty. Nothing must be
said which is not thoroughly and honestly believed.36
In discussing research, W. Palmer Smith suggested that
there are many ethical values in the work included under
the mechanics of speech. Working carefully for preci
sion in the production of speech elements shows an atti
tude of mind likely to be painstaking in other things.
Improved speech leads to greater self-respect and con
fidence, and these in turn to joyful participation in
social, educational, commercial and civil activities.37
Ethics subsumed under "critical thinking."— Wallace
added critical thinking to accurate research as indices of
ethical behavior in speech instruction.
The teacher of speech makes his contribution . . . by
concentrating on the development of the student as a
communicator. If he is concerned over the morality as
well as the skill of his student, the teacher has two
specific aims: to inculcate the habit of search and to
35James M. O'Neill, "Speech Content and Course Content
in Public Speaking," Quarterly Journal of Speech, IX (Feb
ruary, 192 3), 37.
3 6 An gelo M. Pellegrini, "Public Speaking and Social
Obligations," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XX (June, 1934),
349.
37W. Palmer Smith, "Character Building Through Speech
Education in High School," Quarterly Journal of Speech, IX
(February, 192 3), 87.
24
form a habit of criticism or evaluation. . . . In a
field which bears a particularly heavy social and public
responsibility towards communication, we can do nothing
less.38
Ellis suggested that if a student speaker wishes to
consider himself to be one of Quintilian's 1 1 good" men, he
must develop the qualities of (1) objective thinking in
preparation, (2) creative thinking in reaching conclusions,
(3) a sense of judgment and discernment, and (4) a sense of
self-respect and a feeling of personal responsibility.99
Huntsman assumed that training students to think
clearly would, of itself, develop moral attitudes as well
as critical ability.1 *9
Ethics subsumed under "communication theory."—
Veilleux asserted that
a study of contemporary public address, a basic under
standing of public affairs, and an introduction to the
mass media and the rhetorical critics would form a basis
of a fundamental speech course which prepared the stu
dent to be a capable citizen and voter, a discriminating
listener, and an intelligent consumer of ideas. Admit
tedly this is a difficult program, since it would change
entirely the traditional approach to the teaching of
speech. While these . . . elements are present to some
degree in our courses and textbooks, yet what is needed
99Karl R. Wallace, "The Field of Speech, 195 3: An
Overview— ," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XL (April, 1954),
127.
99Ellis, op. cit., pp. 87-88,
49Sara Huntsman, "Public Speaking as a Means in Educa
tion," Quarterly Journal of Speech, X (February, 1924),
10.
25
is a strikingly different emphasis.1 1 ^
Smith thought that a neglect of theoretical concerns
might be tantamount to a disregard of ethical responsibil
ity.
I would not discount the central importance of skill in
language instruction. But the merely skillful man deal
ing with a behavior as complex as speech may stand as a
threat both to his own purposes, and the highest aspira
tions of his society. . . . Men who simply speak effec
tively, but who know little of the complexities of this
most significant of all behaviors represent an important
instance of power without wisdom.
He provided a further indication of the relation of speech
theory to ethics in speech instruction by saying that "we
speech teachers cannot reform human nature. But we can do
a better job of teaching genuine understanding of speech.^3
In his article analyzing recent literature on teaching
ethics in public speaking courses, Jensen summarized his
findings by indicating that
the authors emphasize that as a scholar and as a human
being the speech teacher ought to inculcate in his stu
dents the habits of scholarly research, rigorous evalu
ation of material, clarity of organization, and
effectiveness of presentation to the end that Truth
might be better served.^
^Ijere Veilleux, "Teach Ideas?" Western Speech, XXIII
(Fall, 1959), 206.
^Donald K. Smith, "Teaching Speech to Facilitate Un
derstanding," Speech Teacher, XI (March, 1962), 100.
4^Smith, loc. cit.
4l *Jensen, op. cit. , p. 219.
CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
A brief preview of the design of this study follows.
Each of 35 Ss, each of them a speech teacher, reported to
an office room at the University of Southern California.
After giving instructions to the S the experimenter left
the office. The S then played back to himself a tape
recorded instruction, the essence of which was "Give us a
brief statement of the teaching standards or criteria which
you use for such purposes as criticizing, counseling, or
grading your own undergraduate speech students." The S
responded to this instruction by dictating into a Steno-
rette; he was free to edit his response by manipulating the
dictation machine. Next, the S played back the second tape
recorded instruction, the essence of which was "Thank you
for giving us a summary of the criteria that you use in
evaluating your undergraduate speech students. Of course,
one test of any general criterion is its application to a
concrete case." Then some complex details of an actual
classroom occurrence were given via tape recorder by an
anonymous "speech teacher" who told the story of a student
26
27
in a beginning speech class in which the student was de
tected in quoting extensively from an unacknowledged
source. The S was asked to record on the Stenorette how he
would handle this case if it occurred in one of his own
classes. A continuous tape recording of each of these
experimental sessions was secured by means of a concealed
microphone.
The above general description of the subjects, materi
als, and procedures is expanded in the remaining sections
of this chapter.
Subjects
Data used in this research were obtained from 35 Ss.45
The size of the sample was partially determined by the
fact that the gathering of data was a team-research task.4®
The other member of the research team employed an experi
mental method and required a sample sufficiently large for
the use of several statistical formulas; he considered ap
proximately 30 Ss as entirely adequate for statistical
purposes.
The concern of the present writer was not the size of
45One additional subject participated but his re
sponses were discarded because he failed to follow the in
structions of the investigator.
4®The present writer and Norman K. Perrill comprised
the research team. The entire project was under the direc
tion of Milton Dickens, Department of Speech, University of
Southern California. Perrill's report was in preparation
at the time of this writing.
28
the sample, but its representativeness of the total popu
lation of college public speaking teachers. For purposes
of control all of the experiments were conducted in a room
located on the campus of the University of Southern Cali
fornia. This meant that all Ss had to be selected from the
Los Angeles metropolitan area. This limitation may have
biased the sampling; however, the researchers could find no
evidence to indicate that speech teachers in the Los
Angeles area were significantly different from those in
other parts of the country. The number of potential Ss in
Southern California was quite large, and the 35 Ss who par
ticipated in this study were selected from the Southern
California area in a random manner. The representativeness
of the sample appeared to be sustained by its variegated
characteristics:
1. The Ss were teaching at 14 different colleges and
universities.
2. They varied in teaching experience from less than
one year to more than 30 years.
3. They varied in age from under 21 to over 50.
4. Five academic ranks were represented.
5. The highest academic degrees earned by the Ss
ranged from A.B. through M.A. to Ph.D.
The above characteristics of the Ss are presented in great
er detail in Table 1.
Because the experimenter had developed his questions
TABLE 1
AGE, DEGREE, ACADEMIC RANK OF SUBJECTS,
AND LENGTH OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE
Category Number
of Ss
Age :
20-29 12
30-39 11
40-49 8
5 0 or more " 4
De gree:
B.A. 6
M. A. 20
Ph.D. 9
Rank:
Teaching Assistant 9
Instructor 10
Assistant Professor 9
Associate Professor 6
Professor 2
Years of Teaching Experience:
Less than 1 8, . . ,
_ 3 gj inexperienced
4 - 7 0
8-12 5-, .
13 or more l j experienced
partially on the basis of years of experience, no teacher
was used as an S who had taught between 4 and 7 years. It
was postulated that, for the purposes of this experiment, a
five-year period would adequately distinguish between inex
perienced and experienced teachers, whereas a continuum
composed of one-year segments would provide a less clean-
cut distinction.
Materials
The experimental room used in this study was a regular
faculty office at the University of Southern California.
It contained the usual office furnishings and every attempt
was made to preserve the impression that the experimental
room was simply an office that was being used by the inves
tigators for the purpose of providing the subjects with a
private room in which to participate in the study.
Two oral stimuli were used. These were recorded on
the same tape and separated by a segment of white leader
tape, the purpose of which was to assist the Ss in listen
ing and re-listening to the first stimulus without acci
dentally hearing any portion of the second stimulus.
Essentially, the first stimulus requested the Ss to
provide the experimenter with a brief statement of the
teaching standards or criteria that he used in evaluating
his own undergraduate speech students for such purposes as
criticizing, counseling, and grading. The experimenter's
voice was used for recording the first stimulus. (A com- j
plete transcript of Stimulus One is presented in Appendix
A.)
In preparing and recording the text of the first stim
ulus, the investigator attempted to achieve the following
goals:
1. The basic question should be open-ended so as to
permit maximum freedom of response.
2. Leading questions should be avoided, i.e., words
such as "ethics," "morals," "social responsibil
ity," etc., should not be used. The reason for
such avoidance was that the S might reveal the
salience of ethical standards as compared with
other types of standards. Not only were terms
such as "ethical standards," avoided, but also
terms such as "research requirements," "use of
gestures," "mastery of language," "adaptation to
audience," etc.
3. The stimulus should not be worded so as to exclude
any type of teaching standard; it should readily
permit the S (if he so desires) to discuss ethical
standards. Therefore, the words "evaluate," "cri
teria," as well as "standards" were used several
times.
4. The stimulus should not be so vague or general
that the Ss would wonder, "Standards regarding
32
what?" Therefore, three concrete teaching behav
iors were included as illustrative: criticizing,
counseling, and grading. The use of these terms
also seemed to avoid "unfairness" in the first
stimulus as compared with the second.
Reinforcing the above was the fact that the Ss were
asked a fair question, and were given ample opportunity to
discuss anything they wished. Furthermore, they were given
unrestricted time and opportunity to play back their state
ments, to edit, to pause for thought, to make notes, etc.
The Ss did take advantage of those opportunities to develop
a thoughtful statement. Approximately 8 3 per cent of the
Ss replayed their response to the first stimulus and most
used over 21 minutes to complete their response to the
first stimulus.
The second stimulus consisted of three sections:
1. a transition from the first stimulus, indicating
that the standards in the first response were to
be applied to a concrete case (this transition was
taped by the experimenter);
2. a narration of a concrete case of one speech
teacher's dilemma regarding a student who quoted
extensively from an unacknowledged source (this
narration was taped by a professional actor);
3. an instruction to the S to indicate and justify
how he would have handled that particular case had
33
it occurred in his own classroom (this instruction!
was taped by the experimenter).
In preparing and recording the text of the second
stimulus, the investigator attempted to achieve the follow
ing goals:
1. The stimulus should provide a true story told with
a minimum amount of poetic license.
2. It should involve a student suspected of a breach
of public speaking ethics.
3. It should be worded and presented in such fashion
as to arouse a feeling of involvement on the part
of the Ss.1+7
4. The narrative should be constructed so that a sub
ject could reach and defend any one of 8 possible
alternative evaluations of BC's behavior:
A. the behavior was intentional:
(1) therefore, he should be penalized, i.e.,
"taught a lesson”
(2) therefore, he should not be penalized be
cause the teacher had never explained the
necessity of acknowledging sources;
H7There was some evidence that the above goals were
achieved. One line of evidence was that the early Ss were
asked for their reactions to the BC story. Most indicated
that they found it realistic, challenging, and worthwhile.
A second line of evidence was that the average amount of
time spent by the Ss in responding to the second stimulus
was 2 3 minutes.
B. the behavior was unintentional (due, perhaps, j
to ignorance):
(1) therefore, he should not be penalized, but;
instructed,
(2) therefore, he should be penalized, for ig
norance does not excuse, and BC could have
been expected to have recognized plagiar
ism as improper;
C. the factors of the narrative were so well bal
anced as to preclude the possibility of know
ing whether the behavior was intentional or
unintentional:
(1) yet he should be penalized, for plagiarism
is a breach of general ethics,
(2) but he should not be penalized, for the
fault might have been the instructor’s,
(3) therefore, a compromise response, such as
a slightly lowered grade, would be appro
priate ,
(4) therefore, a supplementary or additional
and equivalent assignment should be re
quired.
The narrative should be constructed so that, by
asking for the Ss1 reasons for their responses,
the investigator could explore their underlying
philosophy.
35;
A complete transcript of the second stimulus is pre
sented in Appendix A.
Two Wollensak, model T-1500, tape recorders were used.
One tape recorder, used for playback purposes only, con
tained the stimulus tape. The remaining tape recorder was
used to provide a complete audio record of each individual
session. It was located outside the experimental room and
was connected to a concealed silent switch in that room; a
microphone was concealed under a bookcase in the experi
mental room and connected to the hidden recorder.
A Stenorette dictation machine was provided for the Ss
to use in recording their responses to the two stimuli. It
was selected because it provided a maximum opportunity for
re-listening and editing with a minimum of mechanical man
ipulations .
The Ss were provided with paper and pencil for taking
notes. In addition they were asked to complete a personal-
data form with regard to their age, length of teaching ex
perience, academic rank, and academic degree.
Procedures
Preparatory procedures
In preparation for the experiment, the following
chronology was followed. The tapes for the two stimuli
were prepared. The experimental room, the tape recorders,
and the Stenorette were made ready. Potential subjects
36
were then contacted and a schedule was developed.
Experimental procedures
All experimental materials were arranged and checked
before the Ss were brought into the experimental room. The
experimenter familiarized the Ss with the operation of the
Wollensak and the Stenorette. During this practice period
the experimenter activated the hidden recorder, without be
ing observed by the S. The S was informed that the experi
menter would be available in the event that mechanical dif
ficulties arose.
The experimenter left the room. The S listened to the
first stimulus and made his first response on the Steno
rette. He then listened to the second stimulus and re
sponded.
After completing his recording, each S was asked to
complete the personal-data sheet. If the S had no objec
tions , any notes that he had made during the experiment
were filed with his data-sheet. The subject was thanked
and told that his participation in the experiment was
finished.1+8
^Tapes and transcripts will be available for a period
of 5 years for loan to bona fide teachers and graduate stu
dents in speech. Address inquiries to present writer at
Department of Speech, University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, California 90007.
37
Rationale for the Research Design
Several alternative research methods and designs were
considered before the final one was adopted. Of these the
following were rejected:
1. Direct observation of the classroom behavior of
college speech teachers was rejected because such direct
observations by a stranger to the class would have been
likely to influence the data.
2. Critical reading and evaluation of college public
speaking textbooks was rejected because such a method would
not have provided data relative to the application of ethi
cal standards to the classroom behavior of students.
3. A questionnaire and/or interview design was re
jected because the teachers questioned or interviewed would
have been likely to anticipate the investigator's expecta
tions.
4. A design requesting the Ss to state their ethical
standards was rejected because such a design would have
been likely to structure the Ss' responses.
5. A design requesting the Ss to indicate their eval
uation of the behavior presented in the second stimulus by
selecting positions on a continuum was rejected because
such a design would have been likely to structure the Ss'
responses.
6. A design requesting the Ss to apply the criteria
they presented in R-l to the behavior presented in the
38
second stimulus was rejected because it would not have
permitted the experimenter to observe the extent to which
the Ss were consistent in their statement of general stand
ards and their specific application of those standards.
Having eliminated these alternative research methods
and designs, the investigator selected the above described
design.
CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
Introduction
Verbatim typescripts were made from the tapes of the
hidden recorder and the Stenorette. The data for this
study were derived from the Stenorette and its typescript;
the typescript from the hidden recorder was used to verify
that the S had followed the experimenter's instructions.
The typescript from the Stenorette was inspected for pur
poses of analyzing the S's general statements in R-l and
his response to the narrative in R-2.
The remainder of this chapter presents the investi
gator's findings under headings suggested by the four ques
tions constituting the statement of the problem.
Question Number One
The first question asked: What major standards (ethi
cal or otherwise) do teachers profess to use in teaching a
beginning public speaking class?
The professed standards of the Ss in this study were
39
derived from the typescripts by means of content analy
sis.49 The investigator used the following procedure:
1. He listened to all of the tape-recorded responses
several times and in various sequences— familiarity with
the aural stimuli, including the suprasegmentals, was
thought to be important to the fullest possible understand
ing of the typescripts.
2. After the typescripts had been prepared they were
independently checked for accuracy against the recordings
by both members of the research team.
3. All typescripts were then read by the investigat
or, and a tentative list of professed standards was made.
Some of the standards were stated by the Ss as criteria for
criticizing, counseling, and grading; others were stated as
instructional goals for the Ss' courses. For the purposes
of this study it was assumed that those goals could be
legitimately translated as standards, for the Ss, as
teachers, could be expected to base their evaluation of
their students upon their decision as to whether or to what
degree their students had achieved those goals.
This tentative list was then analyzed and organ-
49Although the analysis of the typescripts was limited
to the specific purposes of the present study, the tech
niques used seemed to fall within Berelson's definition of
content analysis as "any analysis in which the conclusions
refer to differences of magnitude in the appearance of
selected symbols." See Bernard Berelson, Content Analysis
in Communication Research (Glencoe, 111.: The Free t>ress,
195' 2), 128. ------------
41:
ized in terms of what appeared to be appropriate major
categories.
5. After an interval of more than one week, the above
step (3) was replicated. The two lists were then compared,
discrepancies analyzed, and a final listing was determined.
6. The above step (4) was replicated, and a final
choice of categories was made.
7. A final re-count was made to check the accuracy of
the number of times any given teaching standard was men
tioned by the Ss.
One way of presenting the results of the above proce
dure is shown in Table 2. The data in Table 2 showed that
the Ss collectively mentioned a total of 30 different
standards, and that they made 12 3 references to those
standards. Thus, on the average, each S discussed approxi
mately 4 standards. The most frequently mentioned stand
ards fell within the general category of speech prepara
tion, and within this category the most frequently men
tioned specific standard was the development of ability in
speech organization. The second most frequently mentioned
standards fell within the general category of speech pre
sentation, and within this category the most frequently
mentioned specific standard was the development of ability
in delivery.
A further investigation of R-l revealed that 26 of the
35 Ss included some aspect of content or delivery among
*+2
NUMBER OF
Category
Theory
Personal
Preparation
Presentation
TABLE 2
Ss RESPONDING IN VARIOUS CATEGORY STANDARDS
Standard Ss
Responding
Understand process of communi
cation ^ • *
Understand that public speaking is
a social or an historical phe
nomenon 3
Understand the criteria for
critical listening 5
Total: 12
Develop self-awareness 2
Develop expectation of success 2
Become academically oriented 2
Develop appropriate attitude 3
Develop character 2
Become aware of ethical implica
tions of public speaking ^ 6
Overcome symptoms of stage-fright 1
Total: ITT
Select topic that is substantive 6
Select topic that is appropriate 4
Control development by purpose:
which is achieved 4
which is evident 2
Select appropriate sources 2
Consult a specific quantity of
sources 1
Cite sources accurately 1
Analyze material effectively 9
Develop effective organization:
in general 12
by means of written outline 6
including forms of support 8
Follow instructions precisely 1
Total: 77
Deliver content effectively 17
Develop effective style 7
Demonstrate audience orientation:
in materials 2
in analysis 2
in organization 2
in purpose 2
in manner of delivery 2
Demonstrate improvement in per
formance 3
Total:--77
Total number of responses in standards: 12 3
43
i
their professed standards for evaluation. The specific j
aspects of "content" were (1) use of proof or supporting
evidence, (2) use of analysis, and (3) use of structure; 10
Ss indicated one of those specific aspects, 11 indicated
any two, and 3 included all three aspects. The specific
aspects of "delivery" were (1) style (including the use of
language) and (2) delivery (either vocal or physical); of
the 20 Ss who indicated delivery as an aspect, 9 also indi
cated style, and no S who indicated style omitted delivery.
Table 3 presents the relative occurrence of these choices
among the Ss.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF ASPECTS OF "CONTENT"
AND "DELIVERY" STATED BY ANY ONE OF 26 Ss
Number of "Content" Aspects Number of "Delivery" Aspects
Chosen by an S Chosen by an S
0 0 0 0
1 4 5 3
2 1 6 4
3 1 0 2
A high degree of individual variation among the Ss
might have been expected, for (1) their personal back
grounds were varied, and (2) the subject matter in a public
speaking course also is subject to wide variation. Homoge
neity among the professed standards of the Ss would have
been unexpected. Similarly, the total number of standards
professed by the Ss, and the average of H major standards
per S was expected, and this finding suggested that the
majority of Ss evaluated their students from several points
of view. It would be unexpected to find that the S based
his evaluation on only one standard; conversely, an average
of 12 standards, for example, would indicate an unexpected
fragmentation. Thus, 4 standards seemed to represent a
reasonable average.
From the investigation of the number of aspects of
"content" and "delivery" indicated by the Ss, five infer
ences seemed reasonable:
1. All of the 20 Ss who stated that they based their
judgments of their students partially on aspects of deliv
ery also said that they based their judgments partially on
aspects of content. Not one of the 35 Ss said that his
only responsibility or even his chief responsibility was
the teaching of delivery skills. The inference was that
few, if any, college speech teachers conceive of the be
ginning course as a training ground for tricks or gimmicks
involving the use of voice, language, and bodily action.
2. Of the 26 Ss who stated that they based their
judgment of their students partially on aspects of content,
6 Ss did not indicate an additional standard of delivery.
The inference was that a majority of college speech
45;
j
teachers believed that their major responsibility is to j
teach various aspects of speech content. Furthermore, a
smaller majority believed that training in delivery should
accompany the emphasis upon speech content. Perhaps this
inference could be restated as follows: speech teachers
emphasize "what you say;" most of them also include train
ing in "how to say it;" a minority does not even mention
the second of the preceding teaching responsibilities.
Thus, there is a double trend: (a) most speech teachers
profess to train their students in both content and deliv
ery, and (b) most of them, however, profess that content is
relatively more important than delivery.
3. Of the 26 Ss who indicated content as a category,
12 Ss, or approximately 46%, specified two or more aspects.
Of the 20 Ss who indicated delivery, 9 Ss, or approximately
45%, specified two or more aspects. The inference was that
a majority of speech teachers think that the teaching of
both content and delivery requires the application of two
or more evaluative standards.
4. Nine of the Ss did not directly specify either
content or delivery as major teaching standards or goals.
The inference was that a minority of speech teachers regard
the beginning course as primarily an opportunity for stu
dents to broaden their liberal arts education, get ac
quainted with the role of communication in the curriculum
or in our culture, develop desirable personal character-
istics, etc. By comparison with the foregoing standards, j
this minority apparently considers the straightforward
teaching of speech principles and skills to be of lesser
importance.
5. Six of the 35 Ss discussed ethics, or some approx
imately synonymous word or phrase, as one of their teaching
standards or goals. The interpretation was that speech
teachers attach relatively more importance to the teaching
of various other standards in comparison with the teaching
of ethical or moral speechmaking. In other words, the be
lief that contemporary speech teachers place a heavy empha
sis on Quintilian's "good man" ideal received no verifica
tion from this study.
The investigator realized that, in drawing the infer
ences presented in the preceding five paragraphs, he was
assuming that what the Ss professed would represent approx
imately their actual beliefs and practices. However,
knowledge of what speech teachers profess is of value even
though the teachers either deliberately or unconsciously
distorted the truth in their tape-recorded responses. For
example, the study of "public versus private" attitudes has
been the focus of several important researches in the field
of social psychology.
There was no way of knowing the extent to which the
Ss' responses constituted a full and complete statement of
their standards. For example, it is possible that the Ss
47
who failed to mention any standard of an ethical, moral, or
social nature failed to do so simply because they assumed
it to be so obvious that everyone would take it for
granted, or because they thought that it should be implic
itly subsumed under some other more general statement of
standards. If the above assumption is made, however, in
interpreting the data of this study, then other similar as
sumptions must also be made. For example, if the S stated
that his two major standards were "analysis” and "research
on the speech topic," one might argue that he failed to
mention "delivery," not because he did not think it of
equal importance in comparison with the other two criteria,
but rather because he felt that the importance of delivery
was self-evident. To take another example, one might argue
that those Ss who specifically discussed ethics as a class
room standard did so only because they felt it prudent to
pay lip-service despite the fact that they were actually
indifferent to ethical implications in the teaching of pub
lic speaking. The above analysis led the investigator to
the decision that his inferences would be confined to what
the Ss actually said, and for the purposes of this study he
would assume that the Ss' recorded statements provided the
best available data by which to estimate the relative im
portance that the Ss attached to the various possible
standards. An additional reason for the investigator’s
position was the fact that the Ss were given maximum
» 4 8 j
possible freedom and unrestricted time-limits in both R-l j
and R-s.
The policy described in the two preceding paragraphs
was followed by the investigator in interpreting all the
data in the study including those discussed in subsequent
sections of this chapter.
Question Number Two
The second question asked: How do teachers profess to
apply their standards to a specific case of a student who
is suspected of extensive plagiarism in his final speech?
The second experimental stimulus was designed in part
to answer the second question. In that stimulus the atten
tion of the Ss was directed to the behavior of two hypo
thetical persons: an undergraduate speech student and his
instructor. The stimulus indicated the instructor's gener
al evaluation of the student's participation and progress
in his class, described the instructor's discovery of the
student’s use of plagiarism in a speaking assignment, sug
gested several patterns of response that the instructor
considered in relation to the plagiarism, and asked the S,
"Suppose that you have been Bill Collins' instructor. What
would you have done? And why would you have done it?"
Classification of
BG*s behavior
Thirty-two Ss concluded that BC's behavior was either
an ethical violation or a procedural error. Of these, 15
concluded that his behavior was an ethical violation while
17 concluded that it was a procedural error. Three addi
tional Ss included BC's behavior in both of the above cate
gories. The first of these 3 Ss concluded that BC's behav
ior would have been noticed by the class because the lan
guage of his quotation was so obviously unoriginal; there
fore, BC's error was procedural. On the other hand, he
categorized the quoting as plagiarism which he considered
to be an ethical violation; such a violation was inconsist
ent with the social-justice theme of the speech and was,
therefore, destructive to the educational goals of the
class and to the personal development goals which the in
structor had set for the student. The second S did con
sider the quoting to be a violation of general ethics, but
condemned BC's behavior primarily because his language was
anachronistic and, therefore, ineffective. The third S
categorized the extensive quoting as a flagrant violation
of ethics but indicated that his major rationale for a
negative evaluation of BC was that the student had used a
cumbersome and ineffective communicative procedure. No S
refused to offer a solution to the BC case on the grounds
of insufficient or ambiguous evidence.
The above finding suggested several possible infer
ences :
1. In a complicated classroom case, such as that of
50
I
BC, almost all speech teachers are likely to consider care-j
|
fully the possibility of unintentional procedural error as j
well as the possibility of ethical error.
2. In a complicated classroom case, such as that of
BC, the probabilities are about equal that speech teachers
will base their judgments primarily upon ethical as com
pared with procedural considerations.
3. In a complicated classroom case, such as that of
BC, a minority of speech teachers base their judgment on a
combination of procedural and ethical considerations.
4. In a complicated classroom case, such as that of
BC, few, if any, speech teachers will refuse to return a
verdict. This finding was unexpected because, as was ex
plained earlier on page 33, the BC case was deliberately
edited so as to achieve a nearly equal balance of evidence
pro and con. Therefore, the investigator had anticipated
that some Ss would say, in effect, "No verdict on Bill
Collins can be given on the basis of the facts you have
presented." The finding may have been an artifact, i.e.,
the Ss may have thought that the instructions of the in
vestigator required a definite decision. On the other
hand, the finding may indicate that speech teachers believe
in the necessity of making definite decisions in cases of
suspected ethical violations. The latter interpretation
was supported to some unknown extent by the fact that 12 Ss
criticized the anonymous "speech teacher" for suspending
his judgment as opposed to taking immediate action. j
I
Investigation of
B Cv s mot i va 11 on
Thirty-four Ss discussed BC's motivation for his ex
tensive quoting. Of these, 5 made no attempt to speculate
regarding BC's motivation but rather assumed his motives asi
given in the narrative and continued to the making of a
judgment. On the other hand, 22 Ss investigated his
motives, and for varying reasons:
1. Two Ss reported that they would have used a coun
seling opportunity for the purpose of verifying BC's hon
esty in regard to the phenomenon of quoting. The means by
which honesty would have been determined was a form of
entrapment; they would have observed whether BC admitted to
having plagiarized.
2. Two other Ss asserted that moral judgments are
inherently difficult; therefore, investigation of BC's
motivation was imperative as a means of providing objective
data to qualify the subjectivity of the instructor's judg
ment .
3. Fourteen Ss indicated that they would have re
sponded punitively (in terms of a lowered grade) if their
investigation revealed that BC's quoting had been deliber
ately selected as a means of persuasion with full knowledge
of the ethical implications of that selection.
4. Eleven Ss reported that they would have
investigated BC's motivation as a basis for determining thej
l
severity of their response to his quoting in the grade to
be assigned for his final speech or for the course.
|
The inference from the above findings was that a large
majority of speech teachers judge the classroom ethics of
their students in terms of the motivation of individual
students in the context of specific classroom occurrences.
The Ss' ways and means of doing this vary. However, there
was no evidence from this study to indicate that a substan
tial number of speech teachers apply rigid standards with
out regard for possible mitigating circumstances.
Assignment of
a grade to BC
Twenty-six Ss indicated the grade that they would have
assigned to BC; 9 Ss did not suggest a grade. The sug
gested grades were divided into two polar groups for analy
sis; high grades and low grades. The Ss who were included
in the high-grade category were those who indicated that
they would have assigned BC a grade of "A" or "B" or that
they would not have penalized him for his extensive quot
ing. The Ss who were included in the low-grade category
were those who indicated that they would have assigned BC a
grade of "D" or "F" or that they would have lowered his
grade for the final speech or for the course to some de
gree. All but one of the 26 Ss who assigned a grade to BC
also indicated their reasons for assigning that particular
grade. These data are presented in Table * »
TABLE 4
REASONS FOR GRADES
Number
of Ss
High Grade
Student was sincere • *
Fault was instructor’s 2
Behavior was instructive 1
No reason provided 1
Low Grade
Behavior was plagiaristic 6
If behavior was plagiaristic 3
To prevent recurrence 2
To coerce admission of error 2
For non-ethical reasons 5
Four Ss who assigned a high grade indicated that they
would have done so because they thought that BC was sincere
in the motivation of his behavior. Of these Ss, 2 would
not have penalized him because they thought that the behav
ior was the result of the instructor's failure to specif
ically prescribe extensive and uncredited quotation. One S
based his high grade on the hope that BC would have devel
oped an operational insight into the communicative situa
tion from his experience with the audience's rejection of
his extensive quoting. One S did not provide a reason for
his assigning a high grade.
The reasons supplied by the Ss who assigned low grades!
54
were more diverse and less exclusive, and some Ss suggested
two reasons for their evaluation:
1. Six Ss credited BC's plagiarism with causing them
to give him a low grade. Of these, 3 also suggested sup
plementary reasons: (a) one, that BC was penalized for not
complying with all the elements of the assignment; (b) two
others, that the low grade would provide educational stimu
lation to prevent recurrence of that kind of behavior.
2. Three Ss qualified their assignment of a low grade
to BC by indicating that such a grade would be justified
only if plagiarism were clearly demonstrated.
3. Two Ss gave, as their sole reason, that the low
grade would help to prevent the behavior's recurrence; it
would teach BC a lesson, as it were.
4. Two Ss apparently would have used the grade as a
kind of threat to coerce BC into admitting that he had in
deed plagiarized, for they indicated that they would have
assigned a low grade unless he admitted that his behavior
was ethically erroneous.
5. Five Ss would have assigned a low grade to BC for
reasons not directly related to an assumption of a breach
of ethics: (a) two Ss justified a low grade on the grounds
that the speech did not represent original thinking and
style and, therefore, did not meet the general expectations
of the course; (b) three Ss justified a low grade on the
grounds that the speech did not fulfill the assignment and,
55
therefore, did not meet the specific expectations of the
instructor in that one task.
The above data suggested the following interpretation.
The majority of speech teachers feel that grades should be
used as a teaching instruments in cases, such as that of
BC, where ethical implications are involved. A minority of
speech teachers substitute or supplement grades by other
ways and means of teaching ethical standards. For example,
one possible response might have been that BC's father was
much better equipped to deal with his son's ethical stand
ards than was the speech teacher. Thus, it might be argued
that if the purpose was to achieve Quintilian's goal of
making BC a "good man," then the teacher should have worked
through the available channel provided by BC's father.
However, this possibility was ignored by 19 Ss, was re
jected as irrelevant by 6 Ss, and approved by only 9 Ss.
Several additional possible techniques (other than grades)
for affecting BC's ethical standards were suggested or im
plied by the narrative. These possibilities were complete
ly ignored by the majority of Ss and original ideas for
handling the case were few, brief, and tentative (with one
major exception, discussed below).
Thus, grades, more than any other technique, were dis
cussed as teaching or learning devices; however, no S dis
cussed what was taught or learned, e.g., perhaps the lesson
was "be more ethical" but the lesson might also be "don't
56
get caught.”
Assignment of an addi
tional speech to BC
Thirteen Ss indicated that they would have resolved
the problem of BC's behavior by having him repeat the
speech to his class, to another class, to the instructor,
or on recording tape. However, none of the Ss apparently
considered it necessary to justify the suggestion of a re
peated final speech, although one S indicated that he would
have lowered the grade for that repeated speech as a means
of insuring equity for the rest of the students who did not
have the opportunity to present their final speeches more
than once.
The above finding was unexpected in two respects.
First, the experimental narrative contained no suggestion
of permitting BC to repeat his speech, either as an alter
native to be considered by the Ss or as an alternative con
sidered by BC's instructor; therefore, the proposal of an
additional speech might be considered as an "original" idea
which was unusual because of the controls imposed upon the
Ss. Second, this same idea was independently proposed by
more than one-third of the Ss.
One interpretation of this finding was that the Ss
were temporizing, i.e., they were attempting to avoid the
main issue. Another interpretation, however, was that the
Ss were uncertain of their judgment in the case. And a
third interpretation was that they intuitively felt that
the proposal of an additional speech was the best way to
express the general attitude that the facts presented in
the narrative were too well balanced to permit a final
judgment (see previous discussion of "fourth alternative,"
page 33). The typescripts did not provide data that would
permit the dividing of the 13 Ss into the above 3 cate
gories .
Question Number Three
The third question asked: Is there a marked differ
ence between experienced and inexperienced teachers with
regard to their professed standards?
The R-l of the Ss were inspected, standards isolated,
and categories established, as discussed under "Question
One" above. In addition, the responses of the Ss were
classified according to the factor of experience. The re
sults of the above procedure are presented in Table S.
While the ostensible purpose of the first experimental
stimulus was to elicit from the Ss a statement of the
standards they employed in their evaluating undergraduate
students, the covert purpose was to discover whether the Ss
would include ethical factors in their statements of stand
ards. When the stated standards were inspected individual
ly, and when they were subsequently grouped into the
categories they seemed inherently to suggest, it was found
58
TABLE 5
RESPONSES OF EX AND IN Ss ACCORDING
TO CRITERIA AND CATEGORIES
Categories Criteria Number of Responses
Personal Attitude
Ex
2
In
1
Self-awareness 2 0
Success 2 0
Character 1 1
Sincerity 1 1
Academic orientation 2 0
Ethics 1 2
Instructions followed 0 1
Totals: TT ~T
Theory Process of communication 3 1
Public speaking as:
social phenomenon 2 0
historical phenomenon 1 0
Critical listening 4 1
Totals: nr “7
Preparation
General Content i 0
Research Quantity of sources 0 1
Appropriateness of sources 1 1
Sources, cited 0 1
Analysis Analysis 4 5
Organiza General 8 4
tion Required outline 3 3
Support 5 3
Topic Substantive 4 2
Appropriate 2 2
Purpose Evident 2 0
Achieved 1 3
Totals: 3o 22
Audience Ori In materials 0 2
entation In analysis 0 2
In organization 0 2
In purpose 2 0
In presentation 0 2
Totals: ~7 T
Presentation Delivery 10 7
Style 5 2
Lose fear
1 0
Totals: IF “7
Improvement Shows improvement 2 1
Totals: T T
59
that no statements with ethical implications were suffi
ciently frequent to warrant a category limited to ethical
factors. Furthermore, none of the Ss who categorized their
own statements of standards included a category of ethics.
Even the one frequently stated category of "content," which
might have been expected to include ethical concerns, was
clearly a technical and rhetorical category in the way in
which it was developed from the Ss ' individual criteria.
Finally, of the 1H Ss who provided one or more state
ments of standards that were later categorized by the in
vestigator as "personal development," only 6 Ss (precluding
statistical analysis) included a statement that had any
implicit reference to ethics. Of these 6 Ss, 4 were Ex; 2,
In. Those 6 statements are presented below:
1. Statements from Ex Ss:
(a) "I am primarily concerned with the student's
ability to determine truth before he attempts
to communicate it to others."
(b) "In evaluating the individual, in general I
look for behavior that manifests critical
thinking, responsibility, autonomy, individual
ity, creativity, respect for others, and
awareness of significant problems, both public
and personal, appropriate to the student's
development and personality in the field of
speech. . . . Is he on his way to self-govern
ment ; is he prepared to take his part as a
free citizen in a free society?"
(c) "There is the . . . aspect that I consider
even more important, and that is, what kind of
person is the student? . . . I am concerned
with the student as a person and his recogni
tion of the place of speech in the society in
which he lives or will live."
60
(d) "In the area of counseling, I use the highest
ethic of Western civilization.”
2. Statements from In Ss:
(a) "If I feel they are responding intelligently
. . . and responsibly intellectually, then I
feel that they have fulfilled their basic
obligation.”
(b) "The appearance of sincerity, of honesty, of
intelligence and morality should be taken into
consideration in developing the speeches."
It was found that in regard to the individual stand
ards professed by the Ss the number of Ex versus In was so
close that the difference could not be considered a func
tion of experience. It was also found that neither group
produced a markedly higher average number of criteria than
the other (3.8 for the Ex Ss; 3.2 for the In Ss).
It was found that, when the number of criteria indi
cated in each category was stated as a percentage of the
total number of responses of each experimental group, a
similar percentage of each group emphasized preparation,
presentation, and personal development; on the other hand,
a higher percentage of the Ex Ss indicated theory than did
the In Ss, and a higher percentage of the In Ss indicated
audience orientation than did the Ex Ss. However, neither
of these two categories (audience orientation and theory)
contained criteria that were explicitly ethical in their
connotations.
The inference from the above data, contrary to what
had been expected, is that inexperienced speech teachers do
61
not differ markedly from experienced ones with regard to
professed emphasis in the classroom teaching of general
standards. Table 5 shows that both the Ex and In groups
mentioned a large number of specific standards; there was
no tendency in either group toward fewer or broader stand
ards as compared with the other group. The specific stand
ards mentioned by members of both groups were characterized
by variety; as a result the frequencies were so scattered
as to preclude statistical treatment. When the specific
standards were grouped by the investigator into a few broad
categories, one possible tendency emerged--the Ex Ss placed
more emphasis upon "theory” than did the In.
Question Number Four
The fourth question asked: Is there a marked differ
ence between experienced and inexperienced teachers with
regard to how they profess to apply their standards to a
specific case of a student who is suspected of extensive
plagiarism in his final speech?
The grades that the Ss suggested for BC were observed
for purposes of noting the factor of experience. The re
sults of that observation are reported in Table 6.
The investigator undertook to analyze the relationship
between the responses of each S to the two experimental
stimuli in an attempt to discover whether any significant
difference could be observed between the Ex and In Ss with
62
regard to the consistency of the individual Ss. Since both
stimuli were concerned with instructional standards, in
general or in application, the individual S's awareness of
the degree of consistency between his R-l and R-2 was in
vestigated. Table 7 presents the results of that investi
gation.
TABLE 6
SUBJECTS’ SUGGESTED GRADE FOR BC
No grade suggested
High grade suggested
Low grade suggested
Ex
7
5
7
In
2
3
11
TABLE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF Ss BY REFERENCES
IN R-2 TO STATEMENTS IN R-l
Position
A—
B—
C —
D—
Reference Relation Ex In
no observable relation
between R-2 and R-l 7 11
S discusses phenomenon of
no R-2 to R-l relation 1 1
observable relation be
tween R-2 and R-l 8 2
S discusses phenomenon
of R-2 relation to R-l 3 2
By inspection only, it was determined that no marked
63
difference between Ex and In Ss could be observed in regard
to the Ss' consistency in their responses to the two exper
imental stimuli (with the possible exception of "Position
C").
In order to discover whether the data would yield a
higher level of significance if the categories were
grouped, the investigator divided the above positions into
two categories, viz.,
Category 1: Position A
Category 2: Positions B, C, D.
It was reasoned that, while Position A represented no rela
tionship between R-l and R-2, Positions B, C, and D did,
but in varying manners. The relationship between R-l and
R-2 was observable in Position C. That relationship was
not only observable, but discussed by the S, in Position D.
While no relationship was observable in Position B, that
the S himself discussed that lack of relationship was con
sidered sufficient warrant for including Position B in a
category composed of Ss who stated an awareness of the pos
sibility of a relationship between R-l and R-2. When the
two categories were developed, and the Ss placed according
to their position in Table 7 into one or the other of those
categories, the quantification presented in Table 8
resulted.
In an attempt to discover other distributive factors
than experience, the data sheets provided by the Ss were
64
consulted. Table 9 reports the age (by decade), highest
degree, and teaching rank of each of the Ss who classified
BC's behavior as either an ethical violation or a procedur
al mistake. Table 10 reports the same data for subjects
who assigned either a high or low grade to BC. The data in
these tables were descriptive only; most of the differences
were negligible. None of the categories included a suffi
cient number of cases to justify statistical treatment.
TABLE 8
DISTRIBUTION OF Ss ACCORDING TO THEIR AWARENESS
OF RELATIONSHIP OR LACK OF RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN THEIR STATEMENTS IN R-l AND R-2
Category Ex In
Aware 12 5
Unaware 7 11
The inference from the above data was that experienced
teachers appeared to be more aware of a relationship, or
lack of a relationship, between their professed general
standards and their professed application of those stand
ards to a particular case of student behavior. It may have
been that the Ex Ss were more accustomed to experimental
tests than were the In Ss. However, it may have been that
the Ex Ss were more accustomed to attempting to be, or to
appear, consistent in their pedagogical philosophy and
practice. A further inference from the above findings was
65
TABLE 9
AGE, DEGREE, AND RANK DISTRIBUTION OF Ss
DEFINING BC’s BEHAVIOR AS PROCEDURAL
ERROR OR ETHICAL ERROR
(A)
Procedural
Error
(B)
Ethical
Error
Difference
Between
(A) £ (B)
Age:
20-29
30-39
40-49
50 and over
7
5
0
1
1
4
4
1
6
1
4
0
Degree:
B.A.
M.A.
Ph.D.
4
10
3
3
9
4
1
1
1
Rank:
Teaching Assistant
Instructor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
5
4
4
3
0
4
4
5
2
1
1
0
1
1
1
TABLE 10
AGE, DEGREE, AND RANK DISTRIBUTION OF Ss
ASSIGNING BC A HIGH OR A LOW GRADE
(A)
High
Grade
(B)
Low
Grade
Difference
Between
(A) S (B)
Age :
20-29
30-39
40-49
50 and over
2
4
1
1
9
4
5
1
7
0
4
0
Degree:
B.A.
M.A.
Ph.D.
1
5
2
3
10
5
2
5
3
Rank:
Teaching Assistant
Instructor
Assistant Professor
Associate Professor
Professor
1
3
3
1
0
8
3
3
3
1
7
0
0
2
1
that speech teachers' judgments in a complicated classroom
case, such as that of BC, are not primarily a function of
factors such as age, rank, and academic degree.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
Summary
The general problem in this study was to investigate
empirically the ethical criteria used by college classroom
teachers of beginning public speaking. Four specific re
search questions were formulated:
1. What major standards (ethical or otherwise) do
teachers profess to use in teaching a beginning public
speaking class?
2. How do teachers profess to apply their standards
to a specific case of a student who is suspected of exten
sive plagiarism in his final speech?
3. Is there a marked difference between experienced
and inexperienced teachers with regard to their professed
standards?
4. Is there a marked difference between experienced
and inexperienced teachers with regard to how they profess
to apply their standards to a specific case of a student
who is suspected of extensive plagiarism in his final
speech?
68
In Chapter II, 33 pertinent research reports and other
publications were reviewed. This literature seemed to indi-v
cate that although many writers considered ethics to be an
important factor in college speech education, no data were
available to reveal the extent of agreement on the degree
of significance of ethics among the writers. Some scholars
asserted that the ethical standards of students constituted
a primary responsibility for the speech teacher; others,
that the development of ethical standards among students
was feasible to different degrees; others, that ethics were
implicitly subsumed under other more general categories of
pedagogical standards.
In Chapter III, 35 speech teachers (19 experienced, 16
inexperienced) were asked to state the standards by which
they evaluated their own undergraduate students. These
same subjects were subsequently asked to evaluate a partic
ular instance of a student suspected of deliberate plagiar
ism and to indicate the reasons for their evaluations.
In Chapter IV the data were presented in both tabular
and textual form. The findings may be briefly stated as
follows:
1. With regard to professed general standards:
(a) 30 standards received 12 3 references among
them;
(b) speech preparation and speech delivery were
the largest categories into which the
standards were grouped;
(c) a large majority of the Ss included some
aspectCs) of content and/or delivery among
their general standards.
With regard to the application of general stand
ards to a particular classroom case:
(a) all of the Ss expressed a judgment with regard
to the behavior of the student in the case;
(b) approximately half of the Ss judged the behav
ior to be a procedural error, while the other
half judged the same behavior to be an ethical
error;
(c) almost all of the Ss investigated the motiva
tion behind the student's behavior, but for
widely varied reasons;
(d) approximately one-third of the Ss did not
assign a lowered grade to the student as a re
sult of his behavior; approximately two-thirds
did lower his grade.
No marked differences between Ex and In Ss were
found with regard to the general teaching stand
ards they professed.
No marked differences between Ex and In Ss were
found with regard to how they professed to apply
their standards to a particular case of student
behavior.
71
Chapter IV also included a discussion of possible interpre
tations of the above findings.
Implications for Further Research
This study raised more questions than it answered.
Some of the questions for further research were as follows:
1. This study was restricted to an exploration of the
professed standards of teachers of beginning college speech
courses. These professed standards may or may not corre
late highly with the actual beliefs and practices of these
teachers. If possible, the professed attitudes and stand
ards of speech teachers should be compared with their
observable behaviors while teaching a class or classes.
2. To what extent do teachers subsume ethics under
another heading?
3. If they subsume, is there any agreement among them
with regard to the main heading? Is there likely to be
greater emphasis on ethics from teachers who stress content
in comparison with teachers who stress delivery?
The present study might be replicated by students
in other parts of the country if they doubted the repre
sentativeness of the southern California sample of Ss in
this study.
5. Different—versions of the same case, or different
versions of different cases, might be compared to determine
more precisely how speech teachers equate or differentiate
72
procedural as compared with ethical standards.
6. Should any criticism (ethical or otherwise) be
given immediately or should judgment be suspended, espe
cially in complex cases, such as BC? Several possible
attacks upon this question seemed feasible.
7. What actions are speech teachers willing to take
to assure that long-lasting results will occur from their
efforts at instruction in ethics? Is a lecture on the
importance of ethics effective, if other results than
superficial coverage is the goal of the teacher?
8. The findings of the present study, based upon data
gathered from speech teachers, should be compared with
similar data gathered from students in beginning speech
classes.
A P P E N D I X E S
73
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPTS OF ORAL STIMULI
74
APPENDIX A
TRANSCRIPTS OF ORAL STIMULI
Stimulus One
The general concern of this experiment is with how you
evaluate students. More specifically, in this experiment
we are exploring the standards or criteria that different
speech teachers use in evaluating undergraduate students
for such purposes as criticizing, counseling, or grading.
Therefore, our first request is that you give a brief
statement of the teaching standards or criteria which you
use for such purposes as criticizing, counseling, or grad
ing your own undergraduate students. For your convenience
we have provided a Stenorette dictating machine on which
you may record a summary of your statements. While using
the Stenorette, please feel free to edit or modify your
statement in any way, if you so desire. Make some notes if
you desire. Replay these opening instructions if you wish.
Now, let me repeat our specific request. Using the Steno
rette dictating machine, give us a brief statement of the
teaching standards or criteria which you use for such pur
poses as criticizing, counseling, or grading your own
75
76
undergraduate speech students. After dictating your state
ment of teaching standards, then turn on this recorder
again, because we have a second request to make which will
be explained on this tape after you have completed the
first task which has just been described. Please stop this
recorder at this point.
Stimulus Two
Thank you for giving us a summary of the criteria that
you use in evaluating your undergraduate speech students.
Of course, one test of any general criterion is its appli
cation to a concrete case. Therefore, we have asked sever
al speech teachers to give us actual cases from their
classroom experience. We have chosen one such case, and
the teacher has consented to describe it for you. In mak
ing this tape, he realized that it was a situation in which
one speech teacher talks to another; so please listen to
his problem as though it were yours. You will then be
asked to respond to it on the Stenorette. Here is his de
scription of the case.
Now, as I understand it, the experimenters want me to
tell you my particular experience with an undergraduate
speaker. This is a true story. I've changed the names, of
course, but it really happened. You, as a teacher of
speech, may have had a similar experience; but, for the
purposes of this experiment, this is what happened to me.
As a final speech in an undergraduate class, I usually
assign a persuasive, extemporaneous speech of about eight
minutes in length; and I also require my students to read
at least one full book, or its equivalent, as background
for this final speech. You may have a similar assignment
that you use. The case I want to tell you about happened
a few years ago in connection with this final assignment.
Far and away my best speaker in this particular class was a
boy named William Collins. From the first week of the
semester, Bill was obviously the most effective speaker I
had. His appearance, his voice, his articulation--particu-
larly his poise— were far superior to the average beginning
speaker in an undergraduate public speaking class. His
final speech, however, provided me with a problem. Bill
had chosen to speak in favor of social justice for Negroes.
Ah, during the first two or three minutes this was just
another good Bill Collins speech. Then he turned to the
story of one particular Negro to illustrate his central
point that many Negroes had been, ah, well, able to achieve
success even under adverse conditions. The individual he
chose was Toussaint L'Ouverture. I thought the choice was
dated perhaps, but certainly legitimate. As he began to
relate the story of L'Ouverture, I began to feel somehow
disturbed. Perhaps it was the language, I thought. But,
can you imagine sitting and listening to a nineteen-year-
old junior now using words like these? ’ 'If I were to tell
78
you the story of Napoleon, I should take it from the lips
of Frenchmen, who could find no language rich enough to
paint the great captain of the nineteenth century. Were I
to tell you the story of Washington, I should take it from
your hearts— you, who think no marble white enough on which
to carve the name of the Father of his Country. But I am
to tell you the story of a Negro, Toussaint L'Ouverture,
who has left hardly one written line." Suddenly I realized
that these were not the words of Bill Collins but the elo
quence, verbatim, of Wendell Phillips from his famous ora
tion which I myself remembered studying when I was a stu
dent. I was stunned. Here was my best speaker in this
class apparently indulging in crude and flagrant plagiar
ism. What should I do? What would you do? During the
final moments of the speech, I was only half listening. I
could stop him now; I could reprimand him at the end of his
speech in front of the whole class ; or I could ask him to
stop by my office because I had something to discuss. I
rejected these alternatives, and for the time being I did
nothing. I pretended that nothing unusual had occurred. I
let him take the final written exam the following week. He
got a B plus. Then I turned in his final semester grade—
an incomplete. Now, I thought that this grade would mis
lead Bill because I— well, because he would suppose that he
had failed to fulfill some assignment. I wanted him to
come in and ask about it off-guard. If he thought he was
79
getting away with something, I wanted him to think he had
succeeded. While he was worrying about the incomplete, I
wanted a chance to explore some other questions. Was he
trying to get out of the assignment of reading a book or
its equivalent? Was he really trying to pass off Phillips'
eloquence as his own? What could he possibly feel he had
to gain? Why would he risk a probable "A" or a certain "B"
by a stunt that could easily earn him an "F" in the course
or worse? These were some of the questions I wanted to
ask. Ah, it seemed to me that there had to be more to the
story. That's why I gave him the incomplete. Well, sure
enough, as soon as grades were distributed, Bill made an
appointment. He was very agitated when he came into my
office. He said, "I just got my grades yesterday." And
then he blurted out, "Boy, my father just about hit the
ceiling. So I got here as soon as I could get an appoint
ment." I said, "Well, I can understand why you might not
expect or like an incomplete, but why your father? Why was
he so upset?" He said, "Well, maybe with some parents that
kind of grade wouldn't matter much, but my father's a teach
er like yourself, and teachers, well, they don't take these
things lightly." I said, "Your father's a teacher? Where
does he teach?" He said, "Right here." I said, "Is your
father Merle Collins?" I thought, why, I've known Merle
Collins for ten or fifteen years. Although he was in a
different department, we'd served together on many univer-
80
sity committees, so that, well, I could describe him not
only as a colleague of long standing but as a personal
friend. I asked Bill why he hadn't brought that up before
— earlier in the semester. He said, "Well, I didn't think
it had anything to do with the class." Besides, he had
decided not to try to ride through this university on his
father's coattails. He would make it on his own, or not at
all. That was his policy. Well, after a moment's thought,
I realized that he had blurted out about his father, and
had given me his name only when I had asked for it direct
ly. So, it was clear to me that Bill had a standard of
ethics in this regard and that he was living according to
that standard. This, of course, made me all the more con
fused as to why he had plagiarized. Bill was still anxious
about the incomplete. He said that he had thought and
thought, and couldn't remember any assignment that he had
missed. He said, "What have I failed to do? What does
this grade mean?" I told him that it had to do with the
research I had assigned for the final speech. I reminded
him that I had required that at least one full book be
read, and then told him that I didn't think his speech re
flected that. He said, "But I did, I did." I asked him
what he'd read. He named a recently published book on
civil rights, a book that had been widely and favorably re
viewed and one which, by lucky accident, I happened to have
read myself! So I questioned him. I wanted to find out
81
whether he had actually read it. It became immediately
clear that he indeed had read the book, and thoroughly. As
we talked about the book, I asked him why he had chosen to
speak on civil rights. He told me that he had been active
in several civil rights organizations and had given some
speeches on the subject before campus groups, so that I was
convinced that his interest was genuine, for he had read
about civil rights and he had been actively involved in
furthering that cause. Now, these facts seemed to me to
indicate, again, that he was behaving according to a
standard of ethics: he had met the assignment of reading a
full book; he had not tried to get out of that effort by
memorizing someone else's speech; and, even more impres
sive, I thought, his interest in the topic was very sincere
--he was idealistic enough even to work for social justice
for Negroes. That made his plagiarism even more puzzling.
I then asked him if he had ever heard of Wendell Phillips.
He said, "Oh yes, I certainly have. I ran across him in an
interesting way. Yeah, when my dad found out about my
interest in the subject of Negro rights, he said he had a
book in his library that I might like to read. He pulled
out an old book called something like American Eloquence,
or something, and pointed out a selection called "Toussaint
L’Ouverture." I read that essay or speech or whatever it
was, and I thought it was one of the best things I had ever
read on the subject--realistic and kind of inspiring, you
82
know.” He then went on to say that he was so impressed and
moved by it that he thought that the best way to make his
speech live for the other students was to let them have the
same experience he had had when reading about this actual
case. He reminded me that I had stressed that the speech
was supposed to be persuasive and that it should influence
the attitudes or actions of the audience. It seemed to him
that that story would make his audience believe in social
justice, and it might even get them to feel an urge to go
out and do something about it. He said that he couldn't
think of anything more moving than that story. "Why," I
said, "why didn't you quote from the research book in the
speech?" He said, "Well, that is a good book on the sub
ject, but it's not the kind of thing that would make an
audience go out and do something, like this story would
have." I said, "Well, well, then, why didn't you tell
Phillips' story in your own words?" He said, "You know, I
tried that. I even tried to write down the story in my own
way, but it didn't have it. I just couldn't seem to im
prove on it." I then asked him the sixty-four dollar ques
tion: why hadn't he acknowledged that the story had come
from Phillips. He said that he thought it would have
interfered with the excitement and realism of it. Well,
that's what he told me; and, as far as I could tell, he was
sincere. I said to him, "Well, the fact remains that
three-quarters of your speech was the words and thoughts of
Wendell Phillips, and that adds up to plagiarism, which is
just as bad in a speech class as unacknowledged quoting in
a term paper or cribbing on a written examination. That's
why I gave you the incomplete, Bill. I wanted to find out
why you had done that.” He said, "Well, I can see it from
your point of view, now. I guess it's clear that I did
wrong, although I want you to know that I didn't intend to.
All I can say is that I'm sorry and ask you what you intend
to do." Well, I replied that I wanted a couple of days to
think about it. I told him that there was quite a list of
alternatives for me to think about. I could justify almost
any grade, from "A" to "F" for the speech or for the
course. I could go even further, I said, and give him an
official reprimand, or I could turn the entire matter over
to the Dean of Men. I said to him, "However, during that
couple of days, Bill, there is one thing that I'm going to
require you to do. I want you to go to your father tonight
or tomorrow and I want you to tell him, in so far as you
can remember, exactly what you and I have talked about here
in this conference today. "Now," I said, "if you have been
telling me the truth you should welcome this opportunity.
But, if you think that you can avoid discussing it with
your father, please remember that I have various ways and
means by which I can check up on you. "So," I said,
"either way I want you to talk it over and I want you to
tell him the whole story— exactly as we have discussed the
84
matter here today. "And then," I said, "in a couple of
days I will have made up my mind and you can find out what
I have decided to do about this." Well, that's the story
of Bill Collins. I cannot tell you what my final action
was, since I have been instructed by the experimenters to
suspend the case at this point.
We now come to your final instruction for the purposes
of this experiment. You have heard a fellow speech teacher
describe an actual case. Suppose that you had been Bill
Collins' instructor. What would you have done? And why
would you have done it? Using the Stenorette, please give
us your verdict on Bill Collins and your reasons. In other
words, in the best traditions of our discipline, support
your decision. You may, of course, use the Stenorette to
edit or modify your statement in any way you wish. You may
make notes or replay any part of these instructions or of
the Bill Collins case. These are your final instructions.
Thanks a million for your cooperation. Please stop this
tape recorder now.
APPENDIX B
DATA SHEET
85
86
APPENDIX B
DATA SHEET
Name:_________________________________________ Date
College or university where you teach:___________
Age: 20-30___; 30-40____; 40-50___; over 50___.
Degrees now held: Bachelors ; Masters ; Doctors .
Rank: Instr. ; Asst. Prof. ___; Assoc. Prof.___
Prof. ; Teaching Asst. ; Lectr. ; Other .
Years of teaching experience: Less than 1 year___;
1-3 yrs .___ ; 4-7 yrs.__; 8-12 yrs.____;
13 or more yrs. .
For how many years have you taught undergraduate classes in
public speaking?_______________________________________
In what year did you last teach an undergraduate course in
public speaking?_______________________________________
May we use your statements in preparing an "audio-aid" for
teacher education in speech? Yes:___. No:___.
Comments: (anything regarding this form that you want to
explain or anything regarding the experiment on
which you care to comment.)
APPENDIX C
SELECTED TYPESCRIPTS OF SUBJECTS' RESPONSES
87
APPENDIX C
SELECTED TYPESCRIPTS OF SUBJECTS' RESPONSES
Experienced Subjects
Subject Number 6
R-l
"My evaluation of public speaking is naturally influ
enced by my preoccupation with argumentation and debate.
It would probably follow from this that I am primarily con
cerned with the student's ability to determine truth before
he attempts to communicate it to others. Perhaps that's
worded a little bit strongly. What I mean is the student's
willingness to attempt to find truth before he attempts to
influence others with his opinion. As this manifests it
self in a speech, we can look for two things: number one,
the clearly stated, thoughtful opinion and adequate factual
support for his point of view. Similarly, I'm rather dis
interested in a technically good job of putting together a
speech if there's no substance to that speech. To itemize
my criteria let me first group criticism and grading be
cause as I operate, the two are quite the same. When I
88
criticize a speech, or when I grade a speech, I'm inter
ested first in the student's ability to properly locate the
issues, or at least the major features, if it's a speech to
inform and to represent these issues in the main points
which should readily emerge from their presentation. I'm
secondly interested in the amount and kind (especially the
kind) of supporting materials that they use to establish
these ideas. Beyond that of course I have certain inter
ests in the student's presentation of the material. Number
one, the presentation should be direct and apparently spon
taneous. Number two, the presentation should be easy to
follow, easy and pleasant to follow--should I say. I have
often used the analogy that delivery is to speech as hand
writing is to composition. What I mean by this: so long
as it’s not an unpleasant task to listen to the speaker, so
long as the listener is able to follow what the speaker
means, it really doesn't matter how artful the speaker is
in the presentation of his material. In terms of style,
which can never be left out, there are perhaps three major
concerns: First is clarity. Second is appropriateness.
By appropriateness I mean to the topic as well as to the
audience and speaker. Third, I am concerned with the
speaker's ability to state his ideas in a sufficiently
vivid fashion that they are apt to be retained by an audi
ence or at least, they are apt to make an immediate impres
sion on the audience so that the ideas will take a tangible
90
shape. Let me now turn my attention to counseling stu
dents. I find that two factors come out time and time
again. One, telling students that they have to have some
thing to say before they can talk, which is nothing more
than saying that you’ve got to go out and find a basis for
an opinion before you can express it. The second factor is
that they should get their mind off of themselves and focus
their attention on their materials. Most of the difficul
ties in delivery are caused by nervousness and most of the
nervousness is a preoccupation with how I’m doing rather
than what it is I want to say to this group. I think that
is all that is necessary referring to my grading criteria
or standards."
R-2
"There's one thing about this story that does bother
me a little bit. And that is the fact that just as the
instructor was aware that these were not the words of the
student, I can’t help but feel that a good number of the
members of the class would similarly be aware of that fact.
Perhaps they couldn't trace it to the specific speech that
he had stolen but nevertheless they would be aware that
these were not the words of Bill Collins. It seems to me
therefore that the instructor might well have jumped on the
case right away by indicating to the class in the oral
critique that he recognized certain portions of the speech
91
as having been lifted from Wendell Phillips and discussed
the virtue or lack of virtue in doing such a thing, both
from an ethical standpoint and from a practical standpoint.
Now, however moving Wendell Phillips might have been to his
audience and however moving it is to read Wendell Phillips,
quite frankly I doubt that it would be similarly moving
coming from a nineteen-year-old boy under these circum
stances. And because the language that was used, etc., was
not appropriate to the speaker, perhaps not even appropri
ate to this immediate audience, it is unlikely that it was
a wise choice in terms of picking material for its persua
sive quality. This I think should have been stressed to
the class: number one, it's a violation of ordinary ethi
cal concepts, and number two, on a pragmatic plain, it just
isn't worthwhile to do it. I think the class should have
learned a lesson from this as well as the individual. But
now let me turn my attention to the specific thing that was
asked: what would be the verdict assuming that all of
these things had happened with the incomplete grade, the
discussion, and so forth? My verdict would be simply this:
that incomplete grade would stand until the assignment had
been legitimately fulfilled. That would mean coming back
and giving a speech that met that assignment to another
class. The reasons for taking this approach: I'll have to
accept as an assumption in this case that the boy was well-
intentioned and didn't realize that what he was doing was
92
wrong. If you grant the idea that he used this material
only because he felt that it would more effectively get
across the idea to the audience and you grant that he was
not aware that this constituted plagiarism, then I don't
think that justice would demand that he be given an "F" in
the class, or a reprimand, or anything else of the sort.
Second point: there is little question according to the
evidence to which I must react in this case that he had
fully researched the area, that he had attempted to find
all of the available means of persuasion, that this materi
al did represent his feelings, his thoughts on the matter,
and he was only using this material as a motive device,
feeling that he could best convey his conviction to his
audience by using this material. From a strictly rheto
rical point of view I really can't say that this consti
tutes a breach of ethics, as such. However, in the real
world in which we live, the code of conduct that is
expected— this does represent plagiarism which is, in and
of itself, bad, at least according to our laws and our
concepts. Whatever ethical violation may exist in this
way, I'm not so sure that it's a rhetorical breach or that
it would necessarily violate any of the criteria that I
previously established. I would object to it primarily on
the grounds that I indicated earlier, that it's not a good
practice, not an effective practice in most instances. And
secondly, it sets a very bad precedent because, although
93
one person may do it with the best of intentions, many
others will do it with the mere hope of avoiding the work
involved in the assignment, and it would be the typical
case of cheating. Third point: again on the basis of the
evidence before me, this seems to be a worthwhile individ
ual, it seems to be a person who approaches his job in the
class with diligence and a certain conscientiousness. It
seems probable, therefore, that he is quite capable of
learning a lesson from the experience. This doesn't mean
that the lesson has to be an overly painful one. Now real
izing that to lift material in this way won't even accom
plish the legitimate end that he supposedly had, he's
better prepared to approach his task as a speaker in such a
way as to compensate for what he apparently felt was his
shortcoming in the matter. And I think this is something
that we should face squarely. From what was said here, the
boy apparently felt that he was relatively inadequate to
present these ideas in such a way so as to persuade the
audience. He was, I say, relatively inadequate because he
was less adequate than, say, Wendell Phillips had been. So
not being able to do the job as well himself, he hoped to
have Wendell Phillips' stylistic genius accomplish the end
for him. This is something that every speaker must learn:
that he has certain abilities and that he has certain
shortcomings, and that he must work with the materials that
are available to him. Next time he's faced with a speaking
chore of this variety, I dare say he won't try to find the
perfect job or let somebody else or someone else's ability
to do it for him; he'll try to do it with his own ability,
which appeared to be rather considerable. And I think that
this alone would justify giving the boy another chance on
the matter. No doubt, with the kind of parental pressures
that he obviously was exposed to, an "F" grade would have
condemned him in the eyes of his family, aside from any of
the reasons behind it, and I'm not altogether certain that
this friend that was his father would react positively to
this circumstance, either as far as his boy was concerned
or as far as the instructor was concerned. On the other
hand, not allowing him to do something that was wrong, but
yet not casting such a black mark on his college record,
would probably be deemed as fair both by the boy and by the
boy's father. Fourth point: the instructor in this cir
cumstance must, I think, take an action that will allow him
to live with it later on. And somehow I'm inclined to
doubt that the instructor would be content with himself
were he to take an action that would jeopardize the boy's
future when obviously he is convinced that the boy acted
honestly and with good intention, and the boy has real
ability and may well contribute a great deal to our soci
ety. I don't see how a person of this conviction could
say, "Oh, well, what the heck— I'll have him thrown out of
school" or something of this variety. I don't think that
95
would be in the interests of society and, therefore, I
don't think that the instructor would be very happy with
such a decision. After all, we may be idealistic and we
may have higher principles, and so forth, but we still must
live within a certain construct, and one part of that con
struct is: whatever decision we make must be sufficiently
satisfying to us that we don't have misgivings about it
from that time on. So I think that the internal motivation
of the instructor would require that he give the boy anoth
er chance."
Subject Number 2 2
R-l
"The assignment to detail my methods of teaching
standards or criteria used in criticizing, counseling, and
grading students is sufficiently vague to give needed op
portunity to discuss these. I would be concerned, however,
primarily since neither of these two terms are defined,
with detailing of the criteria as I would use the term here
to mean those measurements that, or those touchstones upon
which I would base judgments of a student performance,
which judgments would be used in criticizing grading and
perhaps in counseling with the student. Basically, the
criteria I use are twofold. The first is that of the
preparation the student undergoes for the assignment. This
is evidenced by, often by the preparation of an outline
which details the bibliography he has consulted. It shows
the arrangement of the materials that he has used. It
really, in all facets, covers the two major areas of the
old canonical breakdown of invention and disposition. The
second major area that I am concerned with in criteria
would be that of the evaluation of the student insofar as
his presentation is concerned. This is the other half of
the coin. Presentation would largely be concerned with
those physical-vocal aspects of the presentation before the
class. This would involve all of those elements of that
particular performance— the audible-vocal performance, the
bodily action. All of these factors, which are normally,
again, under the canonical breakdown would come under per
haps elocutio, would be involved here certainly the pronun-
ciatio or delivery.1 ’
R-2
"In order to begin any comment on the Bill Collins
case, I must of course look back over my shoulder at the
first portion of this particular exercise which called for
setting forth standards or criteria, which being undefined,
I, with a brief definition, set forth criteria which are
not totally applicable to this case; however, since this
does deal with one of those criteria I designated, that is,
the preparation of the speech particularly, I think we can
let it go at that. Now, to address myself to the Bill
97
Collins case as though I were the speech teacher involved.
There are several things, in order to capture the Gestalt
of the situation, that I would comment on before drawing
forth the solution as I would see it. Number one is, of
course, the assumption here that the speech teacher, either
in an explicit method or an implied method, had made it
rather clear that one does not plagiarize in creating a
speech any more than he does plagiarize in writing an Eng
lish theme. I did not, in many instances I do not, ex
plicitly state this in my own classes. I assume, I sup
pose, that the student knows this. I do not cover it in a
perhaps left-handed manner by pointing out that when he
gathers material from various sources that he must acknowl
edge those sources, and in this manner, I give some warning
that the creation, synthesizing, of a speech as our stu
dents do, from a number of sources of material, putting
their own stamp of thinking and reasoning together with the
factual material involved, are the essential processes that
go into student speechmaking. The requirement, secondly,
the requirement that the professor had requiring the stu
dent to read one book, presumably to use this as the jump-
ing-off point, the basis for which the student could make
his final persuasive address to the class, presumes that
the student would draw heavily on at least one source. The
student in this case actually apparently drew heavily on
two sources, Wendell Phillips' famous utterance together
98
with the assigned, or with the book he had indicated and
which the instructor, through probing, discovered the stu
dent in fact had read quite thoroughly and was very im
pressed by it. Now, moving from these two points of view,
or two comments, I would move to a third, and then come to
grips with a possible solution. The third one is, that as
a practicing speech teacher, I find it rather difficult to
believe that a speech instructor in this day and age could
have had a student in class and not really know a little
more about his biographical background, i.e., the fact that
the student's father was on the very faculty of the univer
sity. Normally, such information is brought forth in be
ginning speeches in a class. I can see, it seems to me, I
consider this quite an important factor. The student's
background, his home relationships, the occupation of his
father, I consider to be quite valuable in providing me
with certain, rather valuable insights into the student's
behavior and I am quite shocked that the professor was
shocked to discover this. It seems to me he was a little
bit dilatory in this matter. Now, then, having made these
comments somewhat peripherally, let's look at what kind of
action would he have done. Obviously he had a number of
possibilities with the incomplete having already been giv
en. He could require the students to— One of the possibil
ities would be to have the student give, create, a new
speech and give it in another situation the following
99
quarter before a new class, which would make it probably a
pretty difficult thing. He could excuse it and be con
cerned only with the factor of presentation, of preparation
too, in the sense that the student had actually been con
cerned with being persuasive, being highly persuasive. And
in fact the reason he gave for using Wendell Phillips'
words was that they were powerful and, as we who have
studied anything about Phillips know, he was probably right
— that these were very inspiring. If one doubts this, he
can try to rephrase the Gettysburg Address and make it make
sense. It's impossible to rephrase it. I think here the
crucial key would be intent. If the student had intended—
if Bill Collins had indeed intended to defraud, that is, to
pull the wool over his instructor's eyes, then I would see
no reason for not simply giving him a failing mark. How
ever, I, from the information elicited from the tape, I
wouldn't find that this would be a fair, a just, an equit
able, decision. I think with the explanation he had given
to me, together--had he given this kind of information--
one, that he was concerned about persuading the audience;
two, he was very concerned about this particular topic. He
had gone into it in some depth. He was concerned about it
from a personal viewpoint. He had done some actual work on
it outside of class. By this I mean he had actually par
ticipated in civil rights movements, so he was concerned
about it, truly concerned about it, and was very deeply
concerned about it. And three, the intent here was not,
was perhaps a careless disregard for the audience in that
he gave them, he fed them something that was not his own.
His whole intent here was one I think of some honor and I
would not, as a solution, assess a penalty. My solution
probably would be in this wise. To— having had the student
talk with his father, making sure that he clearly under
stood the problem of plagiarism insofar as speaking is
concerned. I think this probably— I would suspect that
since, that not all of the speech was his own, I would not
give him an "A1 1 or a "B" speech on it. It would probably
be dropped down; his total grade for the course would
probably be depressed somewhat as a result. But nonethe
less, I would not penalize him farther than this. To do so
I think would be to create an injustice to him if we can
believe the facts as detailed to us by the speech instruct
or. Certainly, he was a well-meaning student and I think
nothing beyond this would be indicated. Again, perhaps my
justification here would be as I have inductively pointed
it out, twofold. The intent— there is apparently no intent
here to defraud if there was damage done to the listeners.
That is, if they indeed felt that this was a marvelous ut
terance that they had heard, which was all of this young
student's creation, then, perhaps, some damage was done.
But I doubt this, having taught beginning courses for a
number of years, I don't think most final speeches carry
this much weight with the contemporaries, with the peer
group. Secondly, since intent was, I believe, not to de
fraud, the second thing would be then, how can this be
handled in an equitable manner so as to not create a fur
ther wrong. A further wrong, I would personally feel,
would be created by assessing a penalty in this regard.
The only thing that could approximate a penalty, I would
think, would be that that final speech would be reassessed
in light of the fact that it was not totally of the stu
dent’s creation. I would probably assess him--assess the
speech in terms of how much of it was of his own inventive
ness, and in part the finding of the material. His father,
he indicated, gave it to him indicates in his adaptation to
this particular problem, creates, shows some creativity.
But I would not be anxious to cause the student to have an
additional problem here by creating something that would be
unjust to him. I say this with the final realization that
--that perhaps with— the third thing that it would have to
be impressed upon the student, of course, the gravity of
what he had done to insure that it would not be repeated.
Because it is out of experiences such as this that dema
gogues can be made of people finding, of students finding
that they can mouth platitudes and glib things as well as
utterings and utterances of others in a fashion that would
win a desired response without any regard to the goal.
This, then, would be the way that I would solve the
102
problem."
Subject Number 26
R-l
"To begin with, there are four areas in which I gener
ally evaluate students. The first is a complete sentence
outline which is handed in at least two class periods in
advance of the time the speech is given. As far as stand
ards are concerned, these are ones which I have arrived at
as an individual. The speech itself is evaluated in three
particular areas. One being the structure or composition
of the speech. With each of the six speeches which I ask
my students to give during the semester, I have ^particular
structures that I want them to follow. For example, that
of the deductively organized, informative speech. My con
cern is whether or not they can follow the written stand
ards which I have given to them prior to the time they
develop their speeches. The second area is that of lan
guage. Generally I am concerned there with whether lan
guage is correct, but more particularly with whether
language is expressive. In the third area that I consider
during the speech, that of delivery, I should like to point
out that I am concerned of course with all the visual and
auditory delivery or signals which the student gives during
the presentation of his speech. The standards here are
rather hard to define because I have the feeling that any
103
type of delivery which the student can give that will make
his ideas more expressive, that will make the communication
to the audience more complete are legitimate. Therefore,
again, as can be easily seen, all of my standards for
grading the speech experience itself are ones which are
based on my own personal view in light of the information
that I have studied and have gained through other experi
ences. One final comment that I should like to make is
that I have shifted entirely to a numerical grading system
to try to avoid any more subjectivity than is absolutely
necessary in grading. By simply assigning a number of
points to each exercise, the outline, and the speech expe
rience itself and breaking the speech experience down into
two areas that I can assign a numerical grade to, that of
delivery and that of composition, I feel that I can erase
some of the errors that I would make in giving just one
total grade, and especially if I were to just give one
letter grade for the entire lesson. Finally, there are a
couple of more comments that I would like to make on the
matter of evaluating or grading students. Necessarily, the
entire process, it seems to me, must be subjective. There
are no absolutes, no right or wrong answers in this proc
ess. The instructor must rely on his knowledge, and to a
degree, his feelings about what the student has produced.
Another important point, I believe, in my evaluating stu
dents, is that I do actually have different standards for
different students. I believe that the student who has an
excellent intellect and fine natural capability as a public
speaker, but who does not produce up to his capabilities,
should be downgraded. While the student who has lesser
abilities and perhaps lesser intelligence, should be up
graded if he is working to the maximum of his ability or
somewhere near the maximum of his ability. Finally, though
I find it impossible, I think one should not grade one stu
dent against another in a particular class. I think it is
* more important that, as a teacher grows in his job and
listens to more students speak and understands better what
he is trying to teach, that he should set up his own
particular standards and grade every student according to
them rather than trying to grade on any system of a curve
or to grade one student in a particular class against an
other student in that same class.”
R-2
"First of all, my decision in this particular case
would be to have the student develop and deliver another
speech. This would be to safeguard the student, as well as
myself, if the circumstance were ever known by anyone else.
Although I would not entirely dismiss the feelings I had
about the first speech that Bill gave, I feel that this is
absolutely necessary in this particular case since the stu
dent had not been prewarned apparently on the matter of
105
plagiarism. Though this seems to be a very apparent prob
lem, and it seems to the instructor, as it did to myself,
that every student should just naturally know about it, I
have run into not one, but three different instances of
plagiarism during the years that I've taught speech.
Finally, to alleviate this, I included in my course out
line, a very specific definition of plagiarism and warned
the students that if they violated this definition, or
rather if they do plagiarize, that they will receive at
least an "F" in that particular exercise, perhaps an "F"
for the course and perhaps a recommendation to the dean of
students for other disciplinary action. However, with
Bill, there was no such warning apparently, and since his
other standards of ethics were apparently very high, I
think the instructor should have given him a second
chance."
Inexperienced Subjects
Subject Number 12
R-l
"The most important factor, in my opinion, which must
be considered when establishing standards or criteria for
undergraduate students of speech, is the necessary relative
nature of these standards. The standards upon which I
criticize, counsel, or grade students, can only be set in
106
relationship to any one specific class or any one specific
student in that class. The first step I must take in any
course I am teaching is an evaluation of each student and
the subsequent determination of his or her potential. If,
for example, there's a student who is extremely shy and
unable to be at ease in front of a group, it may be that
the potential of this student within the limits of the
course or semester will be simply an overcoming of this
uneasiness, an overcoming of this shyness--presenting him
self before a group. On the other hand, if a student is
not plagued with this particular problem, if a student is
entirely at ease in front of a group, and in speaking to a
group, there may be many, many other factors which he is
potentially capable of dealing with within the course or
the semester. He may be able to work on specific tech
niques, he may be able to improve his ability at the
preparation of speeches, his persuasiveness, and delivery
of speeches, and a variety of other technical aspects.
Thus, the potential achievement of each student in class
may be quite different. Nevertheless, irrespective of what
particular level any one student will hopefully attain by
the end of the course, my criticism, my counseling, and my
grading will be determined by the level of attainment with
in the potential which I have determined at the beginning
of the semester. This is not an infallible system by any
means. The student may surpass the potential which I felt
he or she had. On the other hand, as the semester goes on,
I may find other problems, other difficulties, other re
strictions under which the student is working which may
tell me that I have set his^ potential too high. Neverthe
less, because of the wide divergence in the background of
the students in an average class, I think this particular
relative set of standards or criteria of achievement and
performance becomes a much fairer, and to the student, a
much more useful set of standards than any absolute set of
achievement which I might determine. On the other hand, I
believe it is equally necessary for the student to be aware
of the fact that his particular attainment within the
limits of the course may be far from a perfection in the
art of speaking, whereas my grading of the student may be
based upon his attainment within the limits of his poten
tial; my criticizing and counseling of the student attempts
to clarify to him, attempts to point out to him, his
particular point of development in relationship to an
absolute standard of perfection. I could therefore say
that I criticize and counsel the student on one basis and I
grade the student on another basis. Although I try to
criticize him primarily in the limits of his potential in
the criticism, I also attempt to enlarge his horizons; I
attempt to point out the degree of perfection which he has
attained in relationship to an absolute standard. In coun
seling the students, the same would be true. But it is in
10 8
grading the student that I feel in all fairness to him that
I must apply a definitely relative standard. I must be
concerned primarily with his attainment, the degree of
attainment which he has achieved within the potential which
I feel that he has.”
R-2
"Granting the sincerity of the student, which I be
lieve is a crucial factor in this particular case, I would
give the student an "A" for the course. Now, true, he has
plagiarized, but not in the sense of plagiarism for the
purpose of evading his own particular responsibilities. I
think the student has fulfilled the final assignment in a
way which he felt was most consistent with the demands of
the instructor. It was to be a persuasive speech. It was
to be on something which was of concern to him. Had the
student been concerned with not doing a portion of the
work, with not fulfilling the assignment fully, I think
this would have become apparent in his not having read the
assigned book, in his denial of the source of the plagia
rized speech. I think the student in this case was working
in ignorance rather than simply trying to make less work
for himself or to make the assignment easier for himself.
Certainly, it could be argued that by the time a student is
a junior, he should be aware of the factor of plagiarism,
the factor of citing sources. Yet, it would appear to me
that he was perfectly sincere, perfectly honest in what he
was doing. Although it may seem not necessary, but perhaps
the instructor was at fault in not pointing out to the
class at the beginning of the semester that plagiarism ex
tends to oral presentation of material as well as the
written presentation of material. It would be of interest
to know whether this student had been made aware of the
problems of plagiarism in courses in English or in previous
courses he had had. I think that we could assume he was.
Accepting the character description which the instructor
has given us of his student, I think we can also assume
that the student, once he knows the implications of plagi
arism in the oral presentation of material, will never
again repeat this particular action. It is for these
reasons, again, I say I would give the student an "A" or
whatever grade he deserves without the implications of pla
giarism in his final speech. In addition, I would point
out to the student very clearly, perhaps in conference with
his father, that he was at fault in the particular in
stance, but that in my opinion, he was at fault through
ignorance rather than through any intent to dishonestly
present other material."
Subject Number 16
R-l
"The methods of evaluating students which I use in
110
teaching speech depends to a large extent upon the objec
tives of the course. For the purposes of this study, I'm
assuming a fundamentals of speech course on a freshman
level. The objectives in this course might include getting
the student to communicate effectively with others in
speeches to inform, to convince, to stimulate, and in group
discussion. Now the criteria or standards employed would,
to some extent, be dependent upon which of these several
types of speaking situations or communicating situations
were being evaluated at that time. In general, however, I
would consider the following items in evaluating the con
tent of the speech. First of all, did the student seem to
achieve his purpose in the speech? The criterion here
would not only be my own judgment, that is, did he achieve
the purpose in me, but also that of the others students in
the class? Did he seem to persuade or stimulate or inform
them? Secondly, I consider whether the speech was clearly
organized or not, whether it followed clear lines of organ
ization. My judgment here would be the primary criterion.
Next, I would consider whether the speech employed appro
priate supporting material or illustrative material, de
pending upon the type of speech here, of course. If it
were an argumentative speech, the source materials would be
carefully considered for documentation; were each of the
generalizations in the speech, or.each of the main points,
appropriately supported? In a speech to stimulate, were
each of the main points of the speech appropriately illus
trated, and so on for the various types of speeches. Addi
tional items considered might be the introduction and the
conclusions of the speech. Were they appropriate? That
is, did the introduction get the attention of the group,
did it create interest in the subject, and in some cases,
did it establish need? And in the conclusion, was it
really conclusive and did it reinforce the purpose of the
speech? Next, it would be areas of delivery that I would
consider. I would consider the voice, was it loud enough,
was it of a good quality? Next, I would consider rate.
That would include syllable length, the number of pauses,
and frequency of the pauses. I would consider the expres
sion. Was it appropriate to the speech and was there
flexibility indicated in the expressiveness of the speaker?
And fourthly, I would consider articulation and pronuncia
tion. Were there any consonantal sounds that were misar-
ticulated or vowels that were inappropriate? Were there
any words that were mispronounced? Then, fifthly, I would
consider bodily action. This would include stance and pos
ture and would include facial animation and gesture. Next,
I would consider the vocabulary that was used. Is it ap
propriate to the speech and to the audience? And, finally,
I would consider the personality of the speaker. Was it
appropriate? Did it indicate a breadth and an appropriate
degree of intimacy with the audience? The criterion for
112
this, all of these items under delivery, would be my own
judgment of their appropriateness. This concludes my re
sponse to the first stimulus.”
R-2
"In response to the second stimulus, I can't say that
I would have had the wisdom to do what that teacher had
done up to that point, but I would like to think that I
would've. I agree with his handling of the case up to that
point. Then I think I would talk to the father and deter
mine if, in fact, he had discussed it with his father, and
was telling the truth. I think that my decision regarding
his final grade would be to drop it by one grade. The
reason I would give for this is that it would serve as a
valuable reminder to him that he had made a bad mistake.
He still had his integrity. I didn't give him an "F" as I
would if I had found out that he had been lying to me, but
he must realize that he had made a mistake. During the
course of the semester I would have talked about the im
portance of identifying sources and about plagiarism. And
so I would feel justified in doing this. I would then have
another discussion with Bill and explain to him what I had
decided and my reasons for deciding it. I would explain to
him that since three-quarters of his final speech was not
his that I could not give him a good grade on that speech.
So that in itself could account for the drop in the letter
113
grade. But the real reason for the drop would be that he
had made the mistake of not identifying his source."
Subject Number 2H
R-l
"The primary emphasis of my teaching of beginning pub
lic speaking concentrates on three factors: the research,
analysis, and organization of public speeches. I concen
trate on these rather than on delivery and style because I
believe that the fundamental difficulty with public speak
ing is allied more in these areas. The primary object of
the course that I teach is to develop the ability in stu
dents to be able to research, analyze, and organize public
speeches. This does not mean that I do not criticize style
and delivery. It means that the major emphasis is on re
search, analysis, and organization. It does not mean that
delivery and style do not enter into my evaluation. It
means only that the emphasis is in other areas. In terms
of research, I want my students to be able to know the
available research materials which will be important in the
specific proposition which they happen to be elucidating
upon. I want them to use those available resources in
terms of constructing of their speech. In terms of analy
sis, I'm concerned not only with the analysis of the propo
sition, but the analysis of the audience. I want my stu
dents to be able to relate their ideas to the ideas of the
K
11^
audience, to establish an identification between the ideas
that they're establishing and the customs, traditions,
needs, values, mores, etc., of the audience. In terms of
organization, I concentrate to a great extent on their
ability not only to organize coherently and with unity, but
on the forecasting internal and external summarization of
the materials in their speech. I don't think that all
speeches should have internal and external summaries. I
don't think that all speeches should have forecast. I do
think, however, that speakers should be able to forecast
their ideas, should be able to provide internal and extern
al summaries, and I think especially in a beginning public
speaking course that the speeches should have these things,
although we know that in advanced speeches this may or may
not be desirable, depending on the particular circumstance.
Further, I ask my students to use what I would call the
deductive rather than an inductive organization of didac
tic, rather than an implicative organization simply because
I think it helps them to concentrate on the use of support
ing material to make ideas clear, interesting, and accept
able. So, in summary, I look for speeches which are well-
supported, well-analyzed in terms of the logic, the propo
sition, and in terms of the relationship to the values,
traditions, customs, mores, of the audience. I look for a
speech which can state the thesis in a well-organized
fashion. Now, in terms of delivery, I look for speeches
115
and advise my students to advise, to use, utilize as much
as possible a conversational approach. I'm not trying to
develop any soap box orators, but I'm looking for a speech,
speakers that can really communicate to an audience and
demonstrate a sense of communication to that particular
audience. In order to achieve that end, I believe that
students should not be dependent upon notes. In terms of
their delivery, I ask that speeches not be memorized, but
rather be extemporaneous in nature. As a final note I
should mention that some of the ground rules which I use
for the speeches. I require at least seven sources which
should be consulted in the preparation of the speech. I
also require that the subjects be of political, economic,
or social significance. This requirement being a require
ment which I think helps them to talk about a subject which
is of significance in a society and which is, will require
enough depth of analysis. I feel if they speak on their
trip to the Grand Canyon, that this doesn't require the
kind of research and analysis that I am interested in."
R-2
"First, what would I do with Bill Collins; secondly,
why? I would require that Bill Collins give another
speech. I would forget the first speech had ever occurred
and grade him on that speech and then grade him on the
overall semester, as if that had been the final speech.
Now, why would I do this as opposed to other alternatives?
It seems to me that Bill understands the mistake that he
has made. He understands the speech he gave is not his,
that he certainly can't be evaluated on it, and that it was
an exercise in plagiarism which certainly is not a laudable
matter. I might point out that if this had occurred in my
class, Bill would have given, been given an automatic "F"
on the assignment at the time it was happening, simply be
cause early in the semester I talk about plagiarism, talk
about the fact that the speaker is responsible for his
ideas in a speech, that giving a speech based on what some
body else has said simply is as bad as plagiarizing in a
paper because when you speak, you are speaking, not Wendell
Phillips or someone else. But given the circumstances of
this situation, it seems to me that Bill was simply naive,
he simply didn't understand his responsibilities as a
speaker and apparently this was not brought out in that
particular course. I charge that the teacher in this
particular situation is just as responsible as is Bill
Collins, for he didn't emphasize throughout the course the
importance and the responsibility of the speaker for his
ideas. But given the situation, the other alternatives, it
seems to me, are entirely unacceptable. Giving Bill an "F"
on that speech would not be desirable in that he made, he
made an honest mistake. I think that, further, that Bill
understands the nature of his mistake and that giving him
117
disciplinary action would serve no useful purpose. It
seems to me that the purpose of disciplinary action is to
help the student, and I think Bill's already been helped.
I think he now understands the problem. Consequently, I
argue that Bill should give a speech, that that speech
should be graded as any other speech and that the grade
should then be totaled, and he should be given his grade in
the course. I think that probably this experience was
helpful to Bill and certainly should be helpful for the
teacher, who in the future, will emphasize the responsibil
ities of the speaker vis-a-vis an audience and vis-a-vis
himself. Obviously, in a course which emphasizes research,
analysis, and organization, I've got to evaluate Bill's
analysis, Bill's research and organization. I can't do
that in a speech which utilizes someone else's. Conse
quently, by giving him another chance to give another
speech, I'll be able to evaluate his research, his analy
sis, and his organization."
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
118
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Baier, Kurt. The Moral Point of View. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 195 8.
Barclay, William. Educational Ideals in the Ancient World.
London: Collins, Ltd., 1959.
Childs, J. L. Education and Morals. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crorts, 1950.
Edwards, Paul. The Logic of Moral Discourse. Glencoe,
111.: The Free Press, 1955.
Hare, R. M. Language of Morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1952. _
Mackinnon, D. M. A Study in Ethical Theory. New York:
Collier Books, 1962.
Murphy, Richard. "The Forensic Mind," in Studies in Speech
and Drama in Honor of Alexander M. Drummond. Ithaca,
New iorx: Cornell University Press, laHH.
Niebuhr, Reinhold. Moral Man and Immoral Society. New
York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1932.
Nilsen, Thomas R. Ethics of Speech Communication. Indian
apolis : Bobbs-Merrill, 1966.
Schramm, Wilbur. Responsibility in Mass Communication.
New York: Harper, 1957.
Toulmin, Stephen E. An Examination of the Place of Reason
in Ethics. Cambridge: University Press, i960.
Weaver, Richard M. Ethics of Rhetoric. Chicago: Henry
Regnery, 195 3.
119
120
Textbooks
Brigance, William Norwood. Speech: Its Techniques and
Disciplines in a Free Society. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, 19 52.
Bryant, Donald C., and Wallace, Karl R. Fundamentals of
P u b l i c S p e a k i n g . 3 d e d . N e w Y o r k : Appl e t o n - C e n t u r y -
C r o f t s , i 8 6 0 .
Dickens, Milton. Speech: Dynamic Communication. 2d ed.
Harcourt, Brace, and World, 196 3.
Gray, Giles Wilkinson, and Braden, Waldo W. Public Speak-
ing: Principles and Practice. New York: Harper S
BrothersY"I35l .--------------
Monroe, Alan H. Principles and Types of Speech. 4 th ed.
Chicago: Scott, !Foresman , 195 5 .
Sarett, Lew, Foster, William T., and Sarett, Alma J. Basic
Principles of Speech. Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1 9 5 8 .
Speech Education Textbooks
Braden, Waldo W. Speech Methods and Resources. New York:
Harper & Row, 1961.
Reid, Loren. Teaching Speech. 2d ed. Columbia, Mo.:
Artcraft f ’ress, 195b.
Robinson, Karl F., and Kerikas, E. J. Teaching Speech:
Methods and Materials. New York: David ncKay, IT63.
Articles and Periodicals
Clevenger, Theodore, Jr. "The Teacher of Speech and Free
dom of Speech," Speech Teacher, V (March, 1956), 91-
101.
Edney, Clarence. "A Working System of Ideas," Southern
Speech Journal, XVI (December, 1950), 145-51.
Ellis, Carroll Brooks. "A Good Man Speaking Well," South-
e m Speech Journal, XI (March, 1946), 85-89.
Fleischman, Earl Emery. "Speech and Progressive Educa
tion," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVII (December,
121
Hance, Kenneth. "Some Durable Satisfactions in the Teach
ing of Speech," Central States Speech Journal, IX
(Fall, 1957), 4-TF:
Huntsman, Sara. "Public Speaking as a Means in Education,"
Quarterly Journal of Speech, X (February, 1924), 7-16.
Irwin, R. L. "Mental Hygiene in the Teaching of Fundament
als," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXVIII (April,
1942) , 212-15.
Jensen, J. Vernon. "An Analysis of Recent Literature on
Teaching Ethics in Public Address," Speech Teacher,
VIII (September, 1959), 219-28.
Kantner, Claude E. "Social Responsibility in Speech Educa
tion," Southern Speech Journal, XIV (November, 1948),
67-74.
Oliver, Robert T. "Ethics and Efficiency in Persuasion,"
Southern Speech Journal, XXXI (Fall, 1960), 10-15.
O'Neill, James M. "Speech Content and Course Content in
Public Speaking," Quarterly Journal of Speech, IX
(February, 192 3), 26-52:
Pellegrini, Angelo M. "Public Speaking and Social Obliga
tions," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XX (June, 19 34),
345-5i.
Redfield, Robert. "The Difficult Duty of Speech," Quarter
ly Journal of Speech, XXXIX (February, 195 3), 6-14.
Rothman, Richard. "Know Your Enemy," Quarterly Journal of
Speech, XLV (February, 1959), 65-66.
________ . "The Substance of Rhetoric:--Good Reasons: Fur
ther Comment," Quarterly Journal of Speech, L (Febru
ary, 1964), 74-7F:----- ---- ----
Sanford, W. P. "The Problem of Speech Content," Quarterly
Journal of Speech, VIII (November, 1922), 364-79.
Schmidt, Ralph N. "A Philosophy to Guide Us in Teaching
Public Speaking," Speech Teacher, V (January, 1956),
Smith, Donald K. "Teaching Speech to Facilitate Under
standing," Speech Teacher, XI (March, 1962), 92-100.
122
Smith, W. Palmer. "Character Building Through Speech Edu
cation," Quarterly Journal of Speech, IX (February,
1923), 85-911
Veilleux, Jere. "Teach Ideas?" Western Speech, XXIII
(Fall, 1959), 202-207.
Wallace, Karl R. "The Field of Speech, 1953: An Overview
Quarterly Journal of Speech, XL (April, 1954),
117-29^
Wichelns, H. A. "Tendencies in Speech Education Today,"
Southern Speech Journal, II (March, 1937), 1-3.
Williamson, Arleigh B. "Social Standards in Public Speak
ing Instruction," Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXV
(October, 1939), 3 71-77.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
John Parker Hale, Constitutional Constructionist And Radical Republican: A Study In Intra-Communicative Conversion And Inter-Communicative Persuasion
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Ability Of Lay Judges To Distinguish Betweentypescripts Of Individual Idea Development And Group Idea Development
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Influence Of Subliminal Cue Words On Audience Responses To A Filmed Speaker'S Sincerity, Effectiveness, And Subject Matter
PDF
A Historical And Critical Study Of The Public Address Of James Harvey 'Cyclone' Davis (1853-1940) Of Texas
PDF
An Experimental Test Of Fishbein'S Behavioral Intentions Model In The Prediction Of Interpersonal Communication Acts
PDF
An Experimental Study Of Factors Influencing The Perception Of Auditory Flutter
PDF
A Descriptive Analysis Of Oral Argument Before The United States Supreme Court In The School Segregation Cases, 1952-1953
PDF
A Critical Study Of Contemporary Aesthetic Theories And Precepts Contributing To An Aesthetic Of Oral Interpretation
PDF
Teaching Operative Dental Technics Via Television: An Experimental Inquiry
PDF
Anomy And Verbal Behavior In Task-Oriented Small Groups: An Exploratory Study
PDF
An Experimental Comparison Of Spoken Communication Developed Individually and Interindividually
PDF
Political Speechwriting ("Ghostwriting") In The Nixon Administration, 1968-1972: Implications For Rhetorical Criticism
PDF
A Historical Study Of The Speechmaking At The Abilene Christian College Lectureship, 1918-1961
PDF
An Experimental Study Of The Effect Of Listener Feedback On Speaker Attitude
PDF
Rhetoricians On Language And Meaning: An Ordinary Language Philosophy Critique
PDF
An Experimental Study Of An Application Of Game Theory To The Selection Of Arguments By College Debaters
PDF
A Historical Study Of Speech Education At The University Of Southern California (1880 Through 1950)
PDF
An Empirical Study Of Self-Feedback During Speech Communication
PDF
An Empirical Study Of The Behavioral Characteristics Of Sincere And Insincere Speakers
PDF
A Historical Study Of Oral Interpretation In London, 1951-1962 As A Form Of Professional Theatre
Asset Metadata
Creator
Enell, George Otto
(author)
Core Title
An Empirical Study Of Classroom Teaching Of Ethics In Beginning College Public Speaking Courses
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Speech
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Speech Communication
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Dickens, Milton (
committee chair
), Fisher, Walter R. (
committee member
), Meyers, Charles Edward (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-124785
Unique identifier
UC11360242
Identifier
6705295.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-124785 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
6705295.pdf
Dmrecord
124785
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Enell, George Otto
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA