Communications programs in higher education: Objectives and curricula

Conclusion This report has shown that there are areas of commonality and areas of diversity in existing communications programs in higher education. The undergraduate and graduate curricular structure reflects, for the most part, the stated objectives of the program. Several questions remain to be answered: “What is being accomplished under the communications label that could not otherwise be accomplished?” “What are some of the emerging trends in this rapidly growing field?” These topics will be covered in subsequent articles. This is the second in a series of articles on communications programs in higher education by the author who is director of the audiovisual center at Syracuse University. The first article, “Communications Programs in Higher Education,” appeared inAV Communication Review, Winter 1960.     

How do general knowledge and reading strategies ability relate to reading comprehension of high school students at different educational levels?

The study examines the relationship between general knowledge, skills in applying reading strategies, and reading comprehension for ninth‐grade students at varying educational levels: academic, semi‐academic, vocational and learning disabilities. Two hundred and five students received a battery of tests evaluating their general knowledge, skills in applying four reading strategies (summary, self‐questioning, clarification and prediction), and two reading comprehension tests. The findings revealed differential contributions of general knowledge and strategy application to reading comprehension. Compared with the academic students, semi‐academics have deficient strategic skills. Vocational students, in addition to deficient strategic skills, have poor general knowledge, which further impedes their reading comprehension. The deficiency of students with learning disabilities goes beyond these two components. These results led us to recommend different foci of comprehension intervention for each group.     

On the benefits of bi-literacy: just a head start in reading or specific orthographic insights?

In a previous study [Schwartz et al. (2005). Written Language and Literacy, 8, 179–207] we showed that early literacy in Russian (L1) facilitated decoding acquisition in Hebrew (L2) among Russian-Hebrew first graders. The present study examined two alternative explanations for this finding. The first account concerns the general benefits of an early start in literacy. The second relates to the specific meta-linguistic insights engendered by early exposure to a fully fledged orthography—Russian. We therefore compared two groups who had acquired literacy prior to the onset of schooling: bi-literate bilinguals (Russian L1 literates and Hebrew L2 learners) (n = 26) and early-literacy monolinguals (Hebrew-speaking monolinguals) (n = 18). The research was conducted in two stages. First, linguistic, meta-linguistic and cognitive tasks in Hebrew were administered to all children and in Russian to the bilinguals at the beginning of the first grade. Next, reading and writing skills in Hebrew were assessed at the end of the first grade. Bi-literate bilinguals showed superior levels of phonological awareness on an initial phoneme isolation task in Hebrew compared to other three groups. In addition, the bi-literate bilinguals were found to be superior to the early-literacy monolinguals on measures of word and pseudoword accuracy, which are known to depend heavily on phonological processing efficiency, but not on fluency and spelling measures, which are more reliant on stored orthographic information. This pattern of outcomes was attributed to the facilitating effects of an orthography characterized by a fully fledged alphabet, in contrast to Hebrew’s primarily consonantal orthography, as well as the complex syllabic structure of Russian.