Blair Thompson and Joseph P. Mazer

25Teaching Communication to School Children and Adolescents

Abstract: Several communication-related issues have profound implications in contemporary primary and secondary education, both nationally and internationally. The use of communication technology for instruction and communication has impacted student learning and revolutionized parent-teacher communication. Crisis communication has also become an important issue for schools everywhere, and cutting-edge research is now being conducted to better understand communication practices before, during, and after crises. This chapter addresses communication in the curricula of primary and secondary schools and reviews recent research on parent-teacher and school crisis communication. These areas of research speak to the key role played by communication as educators, administrators, and parents deal with rapidly changing learning environments and complex global issues in education.

Keywords: communication technology, parent-teacher communication, parental academic support, social support, school crisis communication, P-12 education

Communication issues are prevalent in education both nationally and internationally at the P-12 level (primary to twelfth grade), ranging from communication being infused into the curriculum, the use of communication technology, parent-teacher communication, and school crisis communication. This chapter provides an overview of contemporary issues in communication at the forefront of P-12 level education, including an overview of an increased emphasis on communication in the curricula, as well as a review of recent research examining how new communication technologies affect the communication between parents and teachers and how schools communicatively respond to crises. Increased emphasis in the curricula and research focusing on the role of communication in children and adolescents’ educational experience highlight the importance of communication issues in P-12 education both nationally and internationally.

Communication in the Common Core

News and popular media regularly feature extensive discussions about how to strengthen primary and secondary education in the United States (Porter, 2015). Although these conversations often contain a range of opinions, the common thread is that these issues are normally situated in the domain of politicians and P-12 teachers. Primary and secondary education are rarely addressed by researchers who publish in national journals that feature scholarship at the intersection of communication and instruction.

In tandem with the rapid evolution of higher education, primary and secondary education are also undergoing a transformation through the adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) by many states. The development of these standards began in 2009 when two state organizations (National Governors Association and Council of Chief State School Officers) worked to develop common standards in response to students’ lack of preparedness for college, which resulted in significant increases in college remediation courses (Rothman, 2013). Forty-eight states assisted in the development of the CCSS, and since the release of the standards in 2010 a majority of states have adopted the standards which include elements of communication (Rothman, 2013). Unfortunately, few scholars are paying attention to this new set of standards. Recently, Weintraub (2014) reminded communication educators of the importance of communication being entrenched into the CCSS. Oral communication has historically had a relatively minuscule place in the P-12 curriculum despite its importance in both social and professional contexts. Rothman (2013) argued, “For years, college professors have said that oral communication is one of the most important skills needed for success in postsecondary education – and that too few entering freshmen display oral communication competency” (p. 18), and unfortunately, “Studies of classrooms consistently show that students tend to have few opportunities for speaking and listening” (p. 21). Thus, the inclusion of oral communication in the CCSS marks a monumental opportunity for Communication scholars in the U.S. to play a meaningful role in the curriculum students take prior to entering a college or university. Indeed, communication instruction will not automatically be inserted into the CCSS. Scholars must be proactive in their approach to create well designed and researched curricular strategies that position students for success in this environment.

Speaking and listening represent two communication elements that will be part of new standards associated with student readiness for both college and their career (Rothman, 2013). In the CCSS, speaking and listening encompass two standards (Comprehension and Collaboration; Presentation of Knowledge and Ideas), which each include elements of speaking and listening: “The standards expect students not only to listen to other speakers and assess their arguments, but also to participate actively in discussions and express their own points of view. Students should expect to speak, as well as listen” (Rothman, 2013, p. 20). For instance, for the Comprehension and Collaboration standards, students are expected to successfully “evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning, and use of evidence and rhetoric” as well as “integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats, including visually, quantitatively, and orally” (Rothman, 2014, p. 20). In terms of how the standards are addressed, they can be met in a variety of ways because the standards are broad. Thus, states address the requirements in different ways. In some school districts, teachers meet the speaking and listening requirements through book reports and peer evaluation, some implement impromptu speeches, while others combine research and speeches on the same topic (M. Beall, personal communication, June 17, 2014). Thus, the types of speaking and listening objectives and competencies differ across states as well as districts within each state. Work towards more standardization could help in terms of both training and assessment for how the CCSS are met.

While the primary focus on the speaking and listening standards is at the high school level, schools do address some elements at the primary level. Rothman (2013) summed up the inclusion of speaking and listening in the primary grades and beyond:

In [kindergarten], students are expected to participate in conversations with partners about “kindergarten topics and texts”; ask and answer questions; describe familiar people, places, things, and events … and express thoughts audibly and clearly. By grades 11 and 12, students should be able to integrate multiple sources of information; evaluate a speaker’s point of view; present information, findings, and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning. (p. 20)

In terms of listening, some learning objectives are addressed in kindergarten through third grade by introducing students to listening, and these elements are then reinforced at secondary level with new learning objectives and activities (M. Beall, personal communication, June 17, 2014).

Unfortunately, states face significant challenges in implementing the speaking and listening standards. Rothman (2013) suggested, “Many teachers are unprepared to instruct students in these abilities, and there are few assessments that measure students’ abilities to communicate effectively” (p. 18). While states have made efforts to train teachers and provide resources to assist teachers in addressing the standards, Rothman pointed out that “surveys of teachers suggest that they still feel unprepared to teach them” (2013, p. 21). Many states do not offer specific licensure for oral communication; thus, those certified as English teachers typically address the speaking and listening standards, often with minimal or no training for doing so. On a more positive note, some states are beginning to make progress in providing more training in the university setting, helping to prepare teachers to teach students how to speak and listen more effectively. Typically, the Department of Education in each state helps set the agenda for what is taught in teacher education programs at the university level. Focus on preparing future teachers for teaching speaking and listening elements in the CCSS as well as providing current teachers workshops on teaching speaking and listening at the P-12 level is imperative. Some communication scholars trained in pedagogy are drawing from speaking and listening objectives outlined by the National Communication Association (NCA) to assist P-12 teachers in helping students to meet the speaking and listening standards in the CCSS (M. Beall, personal communication, June 17, 2014). For example, Morreale, Rubin, and Jones (1998) developed a document for NCA entitled “Speaking and listening competencies for college students,” in which they outlined expected outcomes for college students completing the basic communication course in general education. Pedagogues can draw from this document to assist P-12 teachers in setting learning objectives to help meet the CCSS. The first overarching objective from this document addresses speaking: “In order to be a COMPETENT SPEAKER, a person must be able to compose a message and provide ideas and information suitable to the topic, purpose, and audience” (Morreale et al., 1998, p. 7). In order to be considered a competent speaker, the student should exhibit a number of competencies outlined within the document, ranging from determining and developing the purpose for a speech, establishing effective transitions, utilizing vocal variety, and supporting the message through nonverbal communication. Learning objectives such as these can help P-12 teachers develop more specific learning objectives to help teach and assess students’ speaking and listening abilities in connection with the CCSS.

While P-12 schools do not address elements of interpersonal communication as part of the CCSS, they do address elements of human interaction indirectly. According to Beall (personal communication, June 17, 2014), schools do try to help students interact more effectively through mentoring programs and by helping them to work well with others as well as through active listening components in the classroom. Additionally, some schools have speech teams and drama programs (often run by an English teacher) where students can advance their speaking skills.

In sum, children at the primary and secondary levels are being introduced to key communication elements (especially speaking and listening). However, many strides are yet to be made in terms of teacher training and a more focused and strategic ways to develop competent communicators as students advance to the post-secondary level.

Communication Technology and Learning

Over the past decade, scholars have devoted considerable attention to understanding how the rapid growth of communication technology fosters connections among technologies, classroom environments, and student learning. O’Sullivan, Hunt, and Lippert (2004) examined mediated immediacy – “the communicative cues in mediated channels that can shape perceptions of psychological closeness between interactants” (p. 471) – and found that factors such as font-use, language, and punctuation all affect student perceptions of teacher communication via computermediated channels. Furthermore, they found students who viewed a teacher’s website with high levels of mediated immediacy, including forms of self-disclosure, reported high levels of motivation and affective learning, indicating positive attitudes toward the course, recommended behaviors, and the teacher.

In subsequent years, communication scholars explored the rapid rise of social network use and how teachers and students can interact in these virtual spaces. Across a series of studies, Mazer, Murphy, and Simonds (2007, 2009) found that students exposed to a high self-disclosing teacher on Facebook reported greater motivation and affective learning, perceived the classroom climate more positively, and perceived the teacher as having more credibility than a low self-disclosing teacher. These studies set the stage for future examinations of social network research in the communication discipline.

Additionally, Timmerman and Kruepke (2006) applied media richness theory to computer-assisted instruction (CAI) and found that CAI provided students with the most natural language and cues produced the highest performance outcomes. Thus, computer-mediated communication offers benefits to instruction, which has direct implications at the P-12 level. Scholarly investigations at the P-12 level are often challenging to undertake due to Institutional Review Board guidelines that serve understandably to protect minors. As a result, research at the P-12 level is lacking in this area.

Parental Involvement, Support, and Communication

One area that has been heavily researched at the P-12 level both nationally and internationally is parental involvement. Although research associated with parental involvement dates back decades (and parental involvement existed in previous decades both nationally and internationally), advancements in communication technology required additional research to account for changes in parental involvement.

Research on parental involvement in the United States

In the United States, parental involvement in education has historically navigated from one pole to another, alternating between parents being too involved (e.g., helicopter parents) and fears about dependent students, to pleas from educational circles for parents to become more involved to enhance academic performance (Rury, 2002). At the beginning of the 20th century, parental involvement became more formalized with the development of Parent-Teacher Associations (PTAs) (Pulliam, 1991). However, a youth culture developed following World War II, and children experienced more freedom in the educational context (Rury, 2002). As the 1960s dawned, parental involvement moved to the forefront again and led to research that examined connections between parental involvement and academic success during the 1970s and 1990s (Epstein, 1996). This research fostered a sustained movement that has made parental involvement a linchpin in efforts to enhance student success (Epstein, 1996). In fact, this push created an expectation for parents to become more involved in their children’s schooling. The associations between parental involvement and academic performance led educational practitioners to call for increased parental involvement (Baumgartner, Byran, Donahue, & Nelson, 1993; Cutrona, Cole, Colangelo, Assouline, & Russell, 1994; de Carvalho, 2001; McKay, Atkins, Hawkins, Brown, & Lynn, 2003), educational policies (e.g., “Goals 2000” and “The No Child Left Behind Act”) aimed at forming partnerships between schools and families (de Carvalho, 2001; Lewis, 2002; Sheldon & Epstein, 2002), and parental initiatives to increase communication with teachers (Fatt, 1999; Ludwig, 1999; Nichols & Read, 2002). In essence, educational literature suggests that the push from researchers, policy makers, and parents resulted in increasing parental involvement (Brazenberg, 2001; Jennings & Wartella, 2004; Levin-Epstein, 2004).

The current parental involvement movement generated a demand for more convenient and efficient forms of parent-teacher communication. Traditionally, parents typically communicated with teachers during designated times (e.g., scheduled conferences) or when a problem arose at school (Baumgartner et al., 1993; Cameron & Lee, 1997; Epstein, 1995; Nichols & Read, 2002; Shinn, 2002). The emergence of parent-teacher e-mail assisted in making the goal of increased parental involvement a more achievable reality. In fact, educational literature embraced parent-teacher e-mail as an academic panacea, arguing that e-mail both increased and enhanced parent-teacher communication (Jennings & Wartella, 2004; Johnson, 2000; Levin-Epstein, 2004; Skipp & Campo-Flores, 2003). Some even suggested that computer-mediated communication (CMC) improved parent-teacher relationships (Christenson & Sheridan, 2001; Fatt, 1999; Johnson, 2000).

Cross-cultural research

Researchers have compared outcomes of parental involvement internationally. Cross-cultural psychologists have indicated that some constructs transfer differently across cultures (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001). Relevant to this line of research, Chirkov and Ryan compared elements of parental support in Russia and the U.S. Specifically, the researchers focused on how parental and teacher autonomy-support differed in authoritarian and democratic cultures. Parental support was operationalized as Parental Controllingness (e.g., “My parents try to tell me how to run my life”) and Parental Autonomy-Support, (e.g., “My parents help me to choose my own direction”) using Robbins’ (1994) Perceptions of Parental Autonomy-Support and Control Questionnaire (as cited in Chirkov & Ryan, 2001, p. 618). Chirkov and Ryan found that “autonomy-support of parents and teachers showed that these constructs were interpreted similarly by both Russian and U.S. students” (2001, p. 631). However, they found a “lower level of autonomy-support and well-being in Russian participants” (2001, p. 631). Interestingly, “in both samples, parental autonomysupport had a greater influence on adolescents’ general well-being than did such support from teachers, whereas parental autonomy-support was linked with identification, but not intrinsic motivation” (2001, p. 631). Accordingly, Chirkov and Ryan suggested teachers “appear to more greatly affect students’ experiences of interest and challenge in the academic domain” (2001, p. 631). Thus, this cross-cultural study has broad implications that can inform parental support research internationally.

In a study analyzing the impact of family involvement on math scores in 41 separate countries, Chiu and Xihua (2008) found that support in two-parent families correlated positively with student math achievement. Further, the researchers reported that “students in families with more resources and fewer competing family members scored higher in mathematics in most countries” (2008, p. 333). The researchers concluded that individualistic cultures or in countries with high wealth, family investment and involvement in their children’s education was higher and contributed to higher math scores. Thus, with respect to parental support, this research suggests that parental support is higher in wealthier or individualistic cultures.

Researchers have also investigated how living in single versus two-parent households influences student achievement. In the U.S., research has shown mixed results in terms of whether or not household structure negatively impacts student achievement (Hampden-Thompson & Pong, 2005). Because European countries are beginning to experience more single-parent families, Hampden-Thompson and Pong analyzed potential differences in these family structures across fourteen countries in Europe. The researchers found “the achievement gap between the two family structures is wider in social democratic countries than in the conservative regimes” (2005, p. 243), due in part to the time parents have to spend assisting children with academics. This finding suggests that “In social democratic countries, while achieving full employment is a social goal, more women in the workplace may result in less parental time inputs for children, resulting in lower achievement scores” (2005, p. 243).

Additionally, Buchmann and Dalton (2002) examined parents’ and peers’ roles in students’ academic goals across countries, trying to determine if the organization of the educational system influences the effect of parental involvement. In their analysis of twelve countries, the researchers found significant differences in parental support in countries based on whether or not the secondary schools were differentiated or undifferentiated. In undifferentiated countries (e.g., the United States) parents have much greater influence on students’ educational aspirations than in differentiated countries (e.g., Great Britain), where school type strongly affects students’ aspirations and parents have little influence. In differentiated systems, students’ “ability differences are detected early and used to sort students into either academic or vocational secondary school” (Buchmann & Dalton, 2002, p. 102), leaving little room for parental influence on their children’s educational aspirations. Buchmann and Dalton specifically examined parental expectations with respect to students’ aspirations by measuring a mother’s attitude through statements such as “My mother thinks it is important for me to do well in mathematics in school” (2002, p. 106). The results indicated “strong effects of parental attitudes in open, undifferentiated educational systems and weak effects in highly differentiated systems” (2002, p. 110). Interestingly, the results “reinforce the point that peers and parents are separate influences and indicate that they may function differently across institutional contexts” (2002, p. 113). The researchers suggested it is logical that institutional arrangements would have larger influence on student effects because this changes the peers students interact with in the education setting. Accordingly, Buchmann and Dalton posited “that parental expectations and attitudes are more influential for students’ ambitions than are peers” (2002, p. 113).

While results of parental support have some intriguing differences internationally, the effects of communication technology on parental support are significant, meriting scholarly attention. Since the advent of parent-teacher e-mail communication at the end of the 20th century, educational literature heralded the expansion of parent-teacher communication. Some reports suggested e-mail contact starts at the beginning of the school year, continuing throughout the year with weekly reminders making parents more aware of and involved in their child’s academic life (Gill & Schlossman, 2003; Johnson, 2000; Ludwig, 1999). However, no empirical research existed to document the reported growth in parental involvement via CMC to academic success, creating a need for research that examined the role changes in parent-teacher communication played in student achievement. As expectations for parent-teacher communication changed from semester conferences to weekly obligations in some cases, research became merited to assess this change. Therefore, instructional communication scholars set out to empirically explore and measure the effects of changes in parent-teacher communication.

Parental involvement and changes in communication technology

Over a period of two decades, research demonstrated positive associations between parental involvement and student success (Chen, Yu, & Chang, 2007; Cutrona et al., 1994; Dubow, Tisak, Causey, Hryshko, & Reid, 1991; Fatt, 1999; Hashima & Amato, 1994; McKay et al., 2003; Rodriguez, 2002). However, as the nature of parent-teacher communication changed, it became imperative to re-assess the role parental academic support played in enhancing student achievement. Beginning in 2008, Thompson initiated a program of research focusing on parent-teacher communication to explore how CMC might be changing the nature of parent-teacher communication. Through interviews with parents and teachers about their communication as well as analysis of parent-teacher e-mails, Thompson (2008b) identified primary topics parents and teachers communicated about via email, who initiated e-mail communication, the length of the messages, how parents and teachers combined e-mail communication with other modes, and some important outcomes stemming from parent-teacher e-mails. Parents voiced a preference for e-mail for most topics but cautioned about using CMC for more serious topics such as student behavior. Thus, parents advised using a combination of modes to communicate with teachers. Importantly, although Thompson’s (2008b) qualitative data illustrated a preference for e-mail in the parent-teacher context, analysis also showed parent-teacher e-mail did not occur as often as espoused in educational literature. In fact, teachers indicated they spent roughly 30 minutes to an hour per week e-mailing parents and teachers across levels, typically only communicating with a handful of parents (two to five) on a weekly basis. Interestingly, Thompson (2009) found that e-mail communication also brings with it a set of challenges, and that perhaps it was not the panacea as hailed in educational literature.

Thompson’s (2009) research revealed disadvantages associated with parent-teacher communication such as increased chances that a message will be misinterpreted, decreases in face-to-face communication, and potential effects on student responsibility. It is important to note that parents and teachers developed strategies for e-mail communication to minimize these negative elements, including ways to regulate the tone of the message, reduce misinterpretations, and foster student responsibility amidst increased contact between parents and teachers. Despite some of the negative elements of parent-teacher CMC, parents and teachers still had a positive perspective on communication via e-mail.

Development of the Parental Academic Support Scale

The next important step in the study of parent-teacher communication in the 21st century entailed developing a scale to determine the frequency and importance of parent-teacher e-mail communication. Due to changes in communication technology, a need developed for a scale that could measure parent-teacher communication at the P-12 level and assess changes in parental academic support. Thompson and Mazer (2012) developed the Parental Academic Support Scale (PASS) to measure the frequency and importance of parent-teacher communication. This represented an important step in parental support research because Thompson and Mazer argued the PASS was the first to exclusively address parental academic support and examine specific items related to academic support items across communication modes. Building on Thompson’s (2008b) exploratory research, Thompson and Mazer developed an initial item pool consisting of 35 topics to serve as a starting point for scale development. Exploratory factor analysis resulted in a five-factor scale, and confirmatory factor analysis validated this structure: academic performance, classroom behavior, preparation (academic and social), hostile peer interactions, and health (medical issues that might affect academic performance). Thompson and Mazer found parents communicated most frequently with teachers about academic performance. However, in accordance with Thompson’s (2008b) claim, Thompson and Mazer’s data suggested weekly communication between parents and teachers at the P-12 level is still not the norm even with access to electronic communication. They did, however, find that parents viewed the items in the PASS as important to their child’s academic success. Recent research in this area has revealed associations between parental academic support and similar measures (e.g., Teacher-Parent Contact Scale), providing concurrent validity evidence (Mazer & Thompson, 2016). More importantly, associations between parental academic support and a child’s success in school suggest that the PASS construct is related to other theoretically similar constructs, providing initial evidence for construct validity (Mazer & Thompson, 2016). Thompson and Mazer (2012) found that parents employed a combination of modes including traditional and computer-mediated forms of communication, and though parents preferred CMC, they found FTF and phone communication valuable due to the increased number of cues, especially when topics were more complex.

Smartphones and recent changes in parent-teacher communication

Although Thompson and Mazer’s (2012) research represented a crucial step in assessing the changes in parent-teacher communication and parental academic support since the adoption of e-mail, recent advances in communication technology (e.g., smartphones) warranted further research to explore the changes in parent-teacher communication. In fact, Ho, Hung, and Chen (2013) posited that these advances in communication technology were likely to result in increases in communication between parents and teachers.

Thompson, Mazer, and Flood-Grady (2015) explored the changes in parent-teacher communication since smartphones have saturated the market. Whereas scholars have investigated smartphone use in the school setting (“Living and learning,” 2014; Sykes, 2014), Thompson et al.’s (2015) work broke new ground in how parents incorporate smartphones into parent-teacher communication. Furthermore, they expanded the PASS to include Skype/Facetime and texting as modes of parent-teacher communication. Results indicated that smartphone use increased parents’ preference for e-mail to communicate with teachers and that text messages and social media are beginning to play a larger role in parent-teacher communication.

Theoretical analysis of parent-teacher communication

Two theories have been particularly relevant in the analysis of CMC in the parent-teacher context: social information processing theory (SIP) and media richness theory (MRT). First, due to anecdotal claims in educational literature that e-mail communication improved parent-teacher relationships, Thompson (2008a) applied Walther’s (1992) SIP to empirically analyze the development of parent-teacher relationships via CMC. Thompson’s study revealed how relational communication develops between parents and teachers via CMC, including the mechanisms or strategies parents and teachers use to accomplish this interaction. Walther (1992) argued that CMC can produce relational elements at similar or greater levels than face-to-face (FTF) communication; however, it takes more time to do so. Walther’s (1993, 1994, 1995) initial research found that communicators using CMC scored higher on relational constructs (i.e., immediacy, affection) and impression development than those who communicated face-to-face (FTF) when given the chance to communicate over time. This notable finding led Walther (1996) to claim that relationships can become hyperpersonal when certain features of CMC enable communicators to develop more favorable impressions than when meeting FTF. To summarize, SIP posits that CMC becomes interpersonal when people have the goal of developing a relationship, experience commonalities, form impressions through continued messages, and utilize strategies to facilitate relational communication (Walther, 1996). Walther’s research eventually shifted to analyzing how communicators adapt their messages in CMC to foster relational communication, identifying specific mechanisms (verbal, linguistic, and textual) used to adapt to constraining factors in CMC (Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Walther, Loh, & Graka, 2005).

Thompson (2008a) directly applied SIP’s propositions to parent and teacher interview data, as well as parent-teacher e-mails collected for analysis. Parent-teacher e-mail communication represented an important new context in which to test SIP, extending SIP research outside of the experimental setting with college students. Thompson found parents and teachers can develop relationships through e-mail, but relationships only emerged between a small number of parents and teachers who communicated frequently via CMC. Equally important, these interpersonal relationships could be better characterized as pedagogical partnerships rather than social in nature. Thompson’s research both supported and extended SIP’s propositions. Supporting Walther’s (1993, 1994, 1995) research in the experimental context, parents and teachers who communicate over an extended period developed relationships via CMC (Thompson, 2008a). In fact, in a few cases, parent-teacher relationships became hyperpersonal due to the time they had to frame e-mail contents and produce more effective messages and create better impressions. Further, e-mail generated more opportunities for parent-teacher communication due to better access. When communication occurred over an extended time period, parent-teacher e-mails became more relational due to sharing personal stories and addressing non-school related topics through e-mail. Further, the messages changed in terms of length, formality, and humor over time as relational communication developed. However, it is critical to note that hyperpersonal qualities were rare, as a majority of parents did not communicate with teachers enough via CMC to facilitate hyperpersonal communication. Thus, Thompson’s findings challenged anecdotal claims suggesting e-mail increased the quantity and quality of parent-teacher relationships (e.g., Jennings & Wartella, 2004; Johnson, 2000; Skipp & Campo-Flores, 2003) as on average, only two to five parents per teacher communicated frequently over time. Further, in some instances e-mail exchanges detracted from parent-teacher relationships due to the focus on student problems with assignments as well as their behavior (Thompson, 2008a). One of SIP’s key propositions focuses on the importance of the goal of the communication in developing relationships (Walther, 1992). Since the primary aim of parent-teacher communication is to enhance student success (Thompson, 2008a), developing a stronger relationship between parents and teachers is only a secondary outcome.

Thompson’s (2008a) research added to SIP’s micro-structure by identifying mechanisms parents and teachers used to develop relational communication. Similar to the mechanisms identified in experimental settings (Walther, 1992), Thompson (2008a) found parents and teachers adapted to CMC restrictions by utilizing a variety of linguistic cues ranging from parentheses and punctuation to alternative spellings. Textual cues consisted of bolding words, spacing, and using all capital letters to offer cues to interpret the message. Verbal cues included messages that contained positive statements or statements of affection. Disclaimers were also a prominent verbal feature, providing specific clues about the teacher’s intention and attitude toward a message to minimize the chance for misinterpretations. According to Walther et al. (2005), relational cues such as these help communicators better understand the message, helping parents and teachers create the message tone.

Second, application of MRT as a theoretical framework has enhanced understanding of parent-teacher communication, while simultaneously making important theoretical contributions through suggested additions to the theory. MRT has provided key explanations for why parents select specific modes to communicate with their children’s teachers. MRT addresses how medium richness influences selection of appropriate media to foster successful communication, drawing connections between the richness of the media and task complexity (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Selecting the medium with appropriate richness increases the likelihood for effective communication. Media richness stems from the level or capacity for four elements: (1) immediate feedback, (2) multiple cues (auditory, visual, and physical), (3) natural language, and (4) message personalization (Daft & Lengel, 1986). Based on how high the media ranks for these elements, media are deemed rich (e.g., FTF) or lean (e.g., e-mail). The theory posits that leaner media such as e-mail are not as effective for complex communication tasks because feedback is delayed, contains fewer nonverbal cues, and features less personal focus.

In 2012, Thompson and Mazer applied MRT in the parent-teacher context. Interestingly, the researchers discovered parents most frequently selected e-mail to communicate with teachers – regardless of the complexity of the message – due to the convenience of leaner modes. Later, Thompson et al. (2015) applied MRT to parent-teacher communication at the P-12 level to analyze changes in parent-teacher communication since the proliferation of smartphones, finding convenience played an even stronger role in media selection. In fact, the data showed parents’ preference for e-mail rose from 2:1 to 5:1 from 2012 to 2015. MRT posits that richer media provide more immediate feedback based on physical presence (Timmerman & Kruepke, 2006); however, Thompson et al.’s (2015) findings demonstrated parents’ perspectives that leaner modes such as e-mail offered more immediate feedback due to the timeliness of e-mail responses as opposed to communicators’ ability to react and adapt immediately. This led Thompson et al. (2015) to assert, “Convenience represents an overriding factor in the modes parents select, and even more so now with the availability of new communication technologies” (p. 203).

Based on their findings, Thompson et al. (2015) proposed the tenets of MRT should be extended to include convenience as a component to explain why individuals select specific media. Not only did convenience help to explain why parents select e-mail more frequently even for objective topics, but it also provided insight into why parents select new communication technologies such as text messaging, social media, and Skype to communicate with teachers. Though few parents currently use these modes on their smartphones, the data suggested these modes may increase in the future due to their convenience and, in the case of Skype, the ability to combine synchronous and asynchronous communication capabilities. Interestingly, although parents selected e-mail most frequently across all five factors (Thompson et al., 2015), parents chose FTF communication more frequently when compared to Thompson and Mazer’s (2012) research, leading the researchers to surmise that, in some cases, parents selected FTF communication because it sent a message to students how seriously they viewed the issue.

While the current tenets of MRT did not fully explain some elements of parent mode selection, the theory did help to explain the mode combinations parents employed to facilitate effective parent-teacher communication. The most popular combination involved both synchronous and asynchronous communication (e.g., e-mail and FTF). However, Thompson et al. (2015) identified four additional combinations used in the smartphone era (text, note, synchronous, and asynchronous). For instance, some parents combined text messaging and synchronous modes to facilitate effective parent-teacher communication. As communication technology continues to advance, it is imperative that scholars continue to investigate how parent-teacher communication changes to assess appropriate communication practices that can enhance students’ educational success.

Future research linking parent-teacher communication with learning outcomes

The next step in parent-teacher communication research is to make direct connections with student learning outcomes, assessing the connections between parental academic support and student learning. Two steps can move research in this direction. First, collecting student data represents a critical step in measuring learning outcomes. Research that examines relationships between items on the PASS and cognitive learning, affective learning, student motivation, and engagement is warranted. Second, longitudinal research can help to better determine learning outcomes. Extant research using PASS has focused on perceptions of parental academic support over a 30-day period; however, studies conducted over extended periods can offer a broader picture of how frequently parent-teacher communication occurs and the importance that frequency plays in the parental academic support process. Tracking student performance longitudinally is warranted to better understand the effects of parental academic support and how this might function differently at different stages of students’ educational experience. Longitudinal research could be particularly helpful in assessing effects on student motivation and persistence.

School Crisis Communication

Another communication issue at the forefront of P-12 education both nationally and internationally concerns crisis events. The onslaught of school crises, particularly school shootings, represents one of the most terrifying developments in P-12 schools internationally over the past two decades. In the U.S., well over 300 school shootings transpired (stoptheshootings.org, n.d), with notable increases in the past 10 years (Thomas, Cloherty, & Levine, 2014), making school shootings an urgent issue schools need to address in their emergency planning (Mazer et al., 2015). Although school shootings are more frequent in the U.S. (23 school shootings between 2000 and 2010 in which multiple student deaths occurred), 28 school shootings occurred across 36 other countries in that time span using the same measure (Foxman, 2012). Notably, in 2009, Germany experienced a school shooting at the secondary level in Winnenden where 15 students were killed (Dougherty, 2009).

Although the length of time a school shooting lasts is short (12 minutes on average) (Schweit, 2013), the impact of these events continues for years (Mazer et al., 2015; Regan, 2013; Thompson et al., unpublished manuscript). Despite the increased frequency of the events, schools are not well prepared for the accompanying communication challenges associated with school crises (Ashby, 2007; Barker & Yoder, 2012; Carr, 2009, Mazer et al., 2015; Thompson et al., unpublished manuscript). Though communication is a key element in the crises schools face (Barker & Yoder, 2012; Hale, Dulek, & Hale, 2005; Seeger, 2006), surprisingly, little research exists on communication in the school crisis context (Barker & Yoder, 2012; Thompson et al., unpublished manuscript). Thus, a clear need resulted for empirical research exploring the communication elements that can assist schools before, during, and after school crises (Mazer et al., 2015; Thompson et al., unpublished manuscript). Research investigating communication associated with school shootings is imperative in the educational context due to the emotional impact it has on students and the potential impact on student learning (Littleton, Axsom, & Grills-Taquechel, 2009; Mazer et al., 2015; Suomalainen, Haravuori, Berg, Kiviruusu, & Marttunen, 2011).

Communication challenges associated with school crises

The communication challenges associated with school crises are daunting. School crisis communication has become more complex due to social media (Carr, 2009; Mazer et al., 2015). First, the immediate need for information represents a challenge, as schools that experience a shooting make the difficult decision of prioritizing expediency or accuracy regarding the release of information (Barker & Yoder, 2012; Hale et al., 2005; Thompson et al., unpublished manuscript). The demand to release information almost immediately creates a situation that breeds ineffective communication, as school officials do not have adequate time to evaluate their decisions; this often leads to poorly constructed messages (Barker & Yoder, 2012; Hale et al., 2005).

Second, the immediate demand for information from parents, media, and the general public is made even more challenging due to social media (Mazer et al., 2015). Social media use during and after school crises poses a major problem for P-12 schools. The management of information reported over social and mainstream media has been an ongoing issue associated with school shootings (Barker & Yoder, 2012; Carr, 2009; Mazer et al., 2015).

Third, school crises represent a time when effective communication is essential, but unfortunately, this is made even more difficult due to the severing of normal communication channels (e.g., phone lines jamming, cell towers and Internet crashes) (Hale et al., 2005; “When catastrophe strikes …,” 2013).

Fourth, aftermath communication represents a major challenge for which schools are often the least prepared (Regan, 2013). In 21 interviews with school crisis teams, Thompson et al. (unpublished manuscript) identified aftermath communication as the area crisis teams were least prepared for in managing a school crisis. The researchers identified four key aftermath communication challenges: communicative management of emotions, legal communication, donation management, and commemoration. First, the emotional impact of school crises lasts for years and has a profound impact on the school and community (Stein, 2006; “When catastrophe strikes …,” 2013). Second, legal communication represents an element schools often do not consider fully in advance of a crisis. However, a variety of legal elements arise in the aftermath of a crisis, such as identifying which information released could affect court cases in the future, communicating to employees about what they can and cannot say, and preparing for impending lawsuits. Third, donations that come into the district are overwhelming and require management strategies both to log the high volume of donations and to make decisions about what to do with the donations, including how to disseminate financial contributions. Fourth, the commemoration of the school shooting across time markers (month, two months, six month, and year anniversary) requires a variety of critical communication elements and decisions within the school district and larger communication. Thompson et al. discovered that each marker has a corresponding set of communication challenges related to the media, students, teachers, parents, and community in addition to new threats. They identified important strategies to assist schools in addressing each of these elements, including what events to hold in commemoration, who should speak at the events, and the focus of the message(s).

Limitations of extant research on school crises at the P-12 level

While crisis communication represents a large body of research, the focus on communication related to school crises is minimal. This is unfortunate because as Barker and Yoder (2012) noted, the unique context of schools makes it difficult to cross-apply crisis communication from other arenas. Thompson et al. (unpublished manuscript) argued that one of the most important steps to take in understanding the school communication process is to develop a theoretical model to better understand the unique challenges associated with school crises at the P-12 level and develop communication strategies specific for the educational context.

Crisis scholars have developed stage models to identify the steps involved in a crisis. However, there are limitations to these models, primarily their linear nature. Existing stage models range from three to five stages, but typically cover three distinct areas: pre-crisis, crisis, and post-crisis (Barker & Yoder, 2012; Hale et al., 2005). The Department of Education (DOE) divides active shooter events across five phases: prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). The first two phases (prevention and protection) focus on pre-crisis communication elements, the third (mitigation) addresses the time during the crisis itself, and the final two phases (response and recovery) deal with the post-crisis phase. While the phases represent relevant markers, they fail to paint a comprehensive picture of the school crisis communication process. School crises have unique communication challenges due to contextual factors associated with young children, as well as the distinct and lasting impact a school shooting has on a community (Thompson et al., unpublished manuscript). Consequently, school shootings represent a unique type of crisis that existing crisis models simply cannot account for in their linear structure. Due to the unique nature of the school context, as well as the idea that shootings are a unique type of crisis, it is important to develop a broader process model depicting the school crisis communication process. Seeger (2006) argued for the importance of considering both contextual and situational factors in developing communication strategies for crises.

Development of a comprehensive, theoretical approach to school crisis communication

Due to the limitations of a linear crisis model, Thompson et al. (unpublished manuscript) sought to develop a more comprehensive school crisis communication model. The development of a process model represents what crisis scholars have identified as one of the most significant gaps in crisis communication research because linear models are not equipped to address the complex nature of the communication process associated with a crisis (Barker & Yoder, 2012; Hale et al., 2005). In order to develop a process model, Thompson et al. took a grounded theory approach. Grounded theory models consist of six elements that create a broad picture of how different aspects of a process are tied together: central phenomenon, challenges, contextual conditions, intervening conditions, strategies, and outcomes (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Taking a process approach enabled Thompson et al. to offer school districts a more detailed and broader picture of key aspects of communication that merit consideration to better prepare for crisis, the communication challenges present during a crises, and important communication strategies during and after a school crisis. Thus, the model can still help inform the three key stages identified in extant crisis research, as well as the DOE’s 5-step model in their guide for managing active shooter crises. The grounded theory model helps to discover specific examples of the communication challenges associated with school crisis communication, as well as specific communication strategies developed by school crisis communication teams to deal with the chaos and communication barriers experienced in the face of a crisis, including media, social media, and aftermath communication challenges. The theoretical model also identifies intervening factors (every crisis differs, and school level) and contextual factors (school context, school locale, community concerns, and language/ poverty) that influence and affect the strategies employed. These factors represent key contributions to school crisis communication literature because as Seeger (2006) argued, “Widespread adaptation of best practices should be undertaken cautiously with a firm understanding of contextual factors and situational variables” (p. 233). The theoretical model has the potential to assist school crisis teams both nationally and internationally.

Social media analysis

One element that has made school crisis communication an even greater challenge is social media (Carr, 2009; Mazer et al., 2015). To add to the level of knowledge regarding social media in the school crisis context, Mazer et al. (2015) analyzed two school shootings (Fern Creek and Albemarle High Schools) that occurred during the Fall 2014 semester. They used Salesforce Marketing Cloud’s Radian6 software, a platform that provides users with the ability to listen, measure, and engage in over 650 million sources of social media conversations across the Web by capturing publicly available data from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, online communities, and mainstream news outlets. The Radian6 summary dashboard shows a graphic display of social media content to convey sentiment, share of voice, trend information, geolocation data, and more. Analysis of over 5,000 posts across social media provided important information to schools about the volume of posts, misinformation that occurs, as well as strategies for managing social media during an active shooter event. Mazer et al. identified five overarching topic areas: details on the shooting, emotional reactions to the event, personal connections, prayers, and demands for action. Analysis revealed that social media spikes occurred when the names of the victim and shooter were released, leading researchers to advise school districts and media to delay the release of names due to the spikes. Further, the level of praise and level of criticism for how the district and media handled the event corresponded with the timing of the release of information; more positive trajectories occurred when the release of information was delayed. Analyses indicated that Twitter contained the highest percentage of posts, with Facebook as a close second. Parents posted more frequently than students.

Mazer et al. (2015) used media dependency theory to analyze the frequency and informational versus emotional nature of posts. Theoretical analysis revealed that a majority of posts during an active shooter crisis were information-based. Interestingly, prior crisis communication research related to weather had a higher percentage of emotion-based posts (Lachlan, Spence, Lin, & Del Greco, 2014), illustrating the unique nature of crisis communication in the school context. Other important findings centered on the public’s frustration with school shootings and the sentiment that not enough is being done about them, as well as the general disbelief that a school shooting had occurred in one’s own community (Mazer et al., 2015). Additionally, Mazer et al. identified trends related to misinformation disseminated via social media. Misinformation developed regarding the location of the shooting and reunification site, number of victims, age and sex of the shooter and/ or victim, as well as posts that suggested the shooting itself was a hoax. Knowing about the specific types of information that occur via social media can assist schools in the preparation for managing social media during a school crisis. Mazer et al. suggested districts acquire a means to monitor social media during potential crises, whether that be hiring an outside company in advance or obtaining their own social media analysis system. Finally, they recommended school districts incorporate social media policies for crisis situations in the acceptable use policies for technology, as well as in their emergency response guidelines.

Implications for student learning

Instructional communication research links negative emotional experiences with effects on learning (Mazer, McKenna-Buchanan, Quinlan, & Titsworth, 2014), so it is not surprising that Suomalainen et al. (2011) found that the trauma that follows school shooting hinders student learning. Instructional communication research links other negative emotional experiences with effects on learning (Mazer, McKen-na-Buchanan, Quinlan, & Titsworth, 2014). Further, Littleton et al. (2009) found that the loss of interpersonal and intrapersonal resources due to a school shooting affects students’ adjustment to a school crisis. Mazer et al. (2015) argued that these preliminary results illustrate that student learning is adversely effected by school shootings.

Development and dissemination of best practices in communication for school crises

The ultimate goal of this school crisis research is to develop best practices for communication to assist schools both nationally and internationally. The grounded theory model represents a comprehensive approach to school crises, with particular focus on school shootings. It is important to conduct future research with school districts both nationally and internationally to verify and expand the grounded theory model so it is transferable across school districts. Once the model has been verified, the next critical step is to make the findings accessible to districts in a user-friendly format. We are in the process of securing funding to develop and pilot test a School Crisis Communication Mobile App that contains comprehensive information and strategies stemming from the grounded theory model to make the research findings accessible to schools districts internationally in a user-friendly format organized into the categories relevant to school districts (prevention, response, and recovery). The app represents technology that will develop a comprehensive picture of the school crisis communication across all phases of a crisis, including communication strategies to increase school safety.

In each phase, the app will contain the most critical information and strategies stemming from the grounded theory model for use by school districts internationally in preparation for and during every stage of a crisis. The app will be web interactive so that it can be used on any device with Internet access and available in multiple languages. In addition, because school districts are unique, it is imperative that the app be customized to fit the needs of each district. For example, the communication challenges in a small district may be quite different from a district in a major metropolitan area. Further, there may be differences in the communication challenges nationally and internationally. The app will be developed so that it can be individually branded for each school district based on their needs, location, and size. Thus, schools will be able to click on information designated specifically for the unique characteristics of their district. For instance, in the pilot app, the challenge and strategy links would differ based on district size. Additionally, schools will be able to upload their own plans, messages, and documents into their version of the app so that they will have ready access when a crisis occurs. In addition to links regarding the communication challenges, considerations, and strategies across the three phases, the app will also give districts Radian6 analysis to assist them in analyzing social media during and after a school crisis. Finally, the app will contain a fourth stem containing crisis simulations that can be used for training. This stem will include scenarios developed by the researchers focusing on a variety of communication elements that are key factors during and following crises. These scenarios will include questions about assigning tasks in the given scenario, how they will do the task, and what people would do when/if certain things happened during the crisis. This training stem could be useful to districts in preparation for school crises. The proposed app will paint a more comprehensive view of the communication challenges present in school crises, a crucial step in school crisis research because school districts must consider key communication elements prior to crises in order for the communication to be effective during and after the crisis (Barker & Yoder, 2012; Seeger, 2006). The app and the content it contains can increase the effectiveness and efficiency of school crisis communication through the communication strategies available at the touch of a finger for school districts.

Summary and Conclusion

This chapter provided an overview of current communication issues at the forefront of P-12 education, with a specific focus on issues relevant to school children and adolescents. Over the past decade, major research streams in this area have explored the role of communication in curricula, the use of new communication technologies, communication between parents and teachers, and how schools function and communicate during crisis events. These bodies of work have underscored the fact that communication issues are nationally and internationally prevalent in P-12 education.

Collectively, the findings from the bodies of research reviewed in this chapter offer important insights into communication issues pertinent to the development of school children and adolescents. In addition to offering P-12 educators and administrators methods of improving their communication with students, parents, and teachers, the research reviewed here can facilitate a healthy dialogue that fosters growth in the scope and impact of communication at the elementary, junior high, and high school levels in the United States and across the globe. As Sprague (1992) argued, “Instructional communication research needs to broaden its agenda if it is to fulfill the organizational mission of providing insights about communication to educators” (p. 2). Given the attention granted in the popular and scholarly presses to the Common Core State Standards specifically and parental involvement in education generally, the research reviewed in this chapter can offer researchers and practitioners opportunities to better understand how communication functions in the educational context and, at the same time, increases the scope and visibility of communication scholarship at the P-12 level.

References

Ashby, C. M. (2007). Emergency management: Status of school districts’ planning and preparedness: GAO-07-821T. GAO Reports, 1–25.

Barker, G. G., & Yoder, M. E. (2012). The Virginia Tech shootings: Implications for crisis communication in the educational setting. The Journal of School Public Relations, 32, 78–101.

Baumgartner, D., Byran, T., Donahue, M., & Nelson, C. (1993). Thanks for asking: Parent comments about homework, tests, and grades. Exceptionality, 4, 177–185.

Brazenberg, J. (2001). Talking to parents online. Technology & Learning, 21, 54.

Buchmann, C., & Dalton, B. (2002). Interpersonal influences and educational aspirations in 12 countries: The importance of institutional context. Sociology of Education, 75, 99–122. doi:10.2307/3090287

Cameron, C. A., & Lee, K. (1997). Bridging the gap between home and school with voice-mail technology. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 182–190.

Carr, N. (2009). Times have changed. American School Board Journal, 196, 57–58

Chen, H., Yu, C., & Chang, C. (2007). E-homebook system: A web-based interactive education interface. Computers and Education, 49, 160–175. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.05.003

Chirkov, V., & Ryan, R. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: Common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 618–635.

Chiu, M. M., & Xihua, Z. (2008). Family and motivation effects on mathematics achievement: Analyses of students in 41 countries. Learning and Instruction, 18, 321–336. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.06.003

Christenson, S. L., & Sheridan, S. M. (2001). Schools and families: Creating essential connections for learning. New York: Guilford.

Cutrona, C. E., Cole, V., Colangelo, N., Assouline, S.G., & Russell, D. W. (1994). Perceived parental social support and academic achievement: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 369–378.

de Carvalho, M. E. (2001). Rethinking family-school relations: A critique of parental involvement in schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements: Media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571. doi:10.1287/mnsc.32.5.554

Dougherty, C. (2009, March 11). Teenage Gunman Kills 15 at School in Germany. The New York Times, p. A14. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/12/world/europe/12germany.html?_r=0

Dubow, E. F., Tisak, J., Causey, D., Hryshko, A., & Reid, G. (1991). A two-year longitudinal study of stressful life events, social support, and social problem-solving skills: Contributions to children’s behavioral and academic adjustment. Child Development, 62, 583–599. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01554.x

Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/family/community partnerships. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–713.

Epstein, J. L. (1996). Perspectives and previews on research and policy for school, family, and community partnerships. In A. Booth & J. F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect educational outcomes (pp. 209–246). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Fatt, J. P. (1999). Innovative curricula: Involving the community in novel ways. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 26, 1–10.

Foxman, S. (2012, December 15). How school killings in the US stack up against 36 other countries put together. Retrieved from http://qz.com/37015/how-school-killings-in-the-us-stack-up-against-36-other-countries-put-together/

Gill, B. P., & Schlossman, S. L. (2003). Parents and the politics of homework: Some historical perspectives. Teacher College Record, 105, 846–871.

Hale, J. E., Dulek, R. E., & Hale, D. P. (2005). Crisis response communication challenges. Journal of Business Communication, 42, 112–134. doi:10.1177_0021943605274751

Hampden-Thompson, G., & Pong, S. (2005). Does family policy environment moderate the effect of single parenthood of children’s academic achievement? A study of 14 European countries. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36, 227–248.

Hashima, P. Y., & Amato, P. R. (1994). Poverty, social support, and parental behavior. Child Development, 63, 394–403.

Ho, L., Hung, C., & Chen, H. (2013). Using theoretical models to examine the acceptance behavior of mobile phone messaging to enhance parent-teacher interactions. Computers & Education, 61, 105–114. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.009

Jennings, N., & Wartella, E. (2004). Technology and the family. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 593–608). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Johnson, D. (2000). Techno-parenting. Library Talk, 13, 64.

Lachlan, K. A., Spence, P. R., Lin, X., & Del Greco, M. (2014). Screaming into the wind: Examining the volume and content of tweets associated with Hurricane Sandy. Communication Studies, 65, 500–518. doi:10.1080/10510974.2014.956941

Levin-Epstein, M. (2004). Homework site lets parents know what’s up. [Electronic version]. Pro Principal, 16, 1–2.

Lewis, A. C. (2002). Building connections with parents. [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 1–3.

Littleton, H., Axsom, D., & Grills-Taquechel, A. E. (2009). Longitudinal evaluation of the relationship between maladaptive trauma coping and distress: Examination following the mass shooting at Virginia Tech. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 24, 273–290. doi:10.1080/10615806.2010.500722

Living and learning with mobile devices (2014, February). Education Digest, 51–4

Ludwig, S. F. (1999). Working with parents. Teaching PreK-8, 30, 60.

Mazer, J. P., McKenna-Buchanan, T. P., Quinlan, M. M., & Titsworth, S. (2014). The dark side of emotion in the classroom: Emotional processes as mediators of teacher communication behaviors and student negative emotions. Communication Education, 63, 149–168. doi:10.1080/03634523.2014.904047

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56, 1–17. doi:10.1080/ 03634520601009710

Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 175–183. doi:10.1080/17439880902923655

Mazer, J., & Thompson, B. (2016). Parental academic support: A validity test. Communication Education, 65, 213–221. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1081957

Mazer, J., Thompson, B., Cherry, J., Russell, M. Payne, H., Kirby, G., & Pfohl, W. (2015). Communication in the face of a school crisis: Examining the volume and content of social media mentions during active shooter incidents. Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 238– 248. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.040

McKay, M. M., Atkins, M. S., Hawkins, T., Brown, C., & Lynn, C. J. (2003). Inner-city African American parental involvement in children’s schooling: Racial socialization and social support from the parent community. American Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 107– 114. doi:10.1023/A:1025655109283

Morreale, S., Rubin, R. B., & Jones, E. (1998). Speaking and listening competencies for college students. Retrieved from http://www.natcom.org/uploadedFiles/Teaching_and_Learning/Assessment_Resources/PDF-Speaking_and_Listening_Competencies_for_College_Students.pdf

Nichols, S., & Read, P. (2002). ‘We never knew it was that bad’: Parent-school communication about children’s learning difficulties. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25, 49–63.

O’Sullivan, P. B., Hunt, S., & Lippert, L. (2004). Mediated immediacy: A language of affiliation in a technological age. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 23, 464–490. doi:10.1177/0261927X04269588

Porter, E. (2015, May 12). More in school, but not learning. The New York Times, p. B1. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/13/business/economy/as-global-number-of-pupils-soars-education-falls-behind.html?_r=0

Pulliam, J. D. (1991). History of education in America. New York: Macmillan.

Regan, M. F. (2013). A false sense of security: Managing the aftermath of a crisis in what the author calls a new normal for school communities. School Administrator, 70, 26–29.

Rodriguez, J. L. (2002). Family environment and achievement among three generations of Mexican American high school students. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 88–94. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0602_4

Rothman, R. (2013, September). Communication and the Common Core. Spectra, 49(3), 18–21.

Rury, J. L. (2002). Education and social change. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Schweit, K. W. (2013, May 7). Addressing the problem of the active shooter. FBI. Retrieved March 30, 2014 from http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2013/May/active-shooter

Seeger, M. W. (2006). Best practices in crisis communication: An expert panel process. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 34, 232–244. doi:10.1080/00909880600769944

Sheldon, S. B., & Epstein, J. L. (2002). Improving student behavior and school discipline with family and community involvement. Education and Urban Society, 35, 4–26.

Shinn, K. (2002). Luring high school parents onto our turf. Education Digest, 67, 34–36.

Skipp, C., & Campo-Flores, A. (2003, August 3). School: The web ate my homework. Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/school-web-ate-my-homework-135447

Sprague, J. (1992). Expanding the research agenda for instructional communication: Raising some unasked questions. Communication Education, 41, 1–25. doi:10.1080/03634529209378867

Stein, A. (2006). We thought it could never happen here: The crisis communications response to the Thurston High School shootings. Journal of Promotion Management, 12, 99–128. doi:10.1300/J057v12n03_07

Stoptheshootings.org (n. d.). Retrieved March 30, 2014 from http://www.stoptheshootings.org/

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Suomalainen, L., Haravuori, H., Berg, N., Kiviruusu, O., & Marttunen, M. (2011). A controlled follow-up study of adolescents exposed to a school shooting: Psychological consequences after four months. European Psychiatry, 26, 490–97. doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2010.07.007

Sykes, E. R. (2014, May/June). New methods of mobile computing: From smartphones to smart education. TechTrends, 58, 26–37. doi:10.1007/s11528-014-0749-2

Thomas, P., Cloherty, J., & Levine, M. (2014). US active-shooter cases spike at a ‘troubling’ rate. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/us-deadly-mass-shootings-spike-troubling-rate/story?id=25736640

Thompson, B. (2008a). Applying social information processing theory to parent-teacher relationships. RCA Vestnik, 6, 45–65.

Thompson, B. (2008b). Characteristics of parent-teacher e-mail communication. Communication Education, 57, 201–223. doi:10.1080/0363452070

Thompson, B. (2009). Parent-teacher e-mail strategies at the elementary and secondary levels. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 10, 17–25. doi:10.1080/17459430902756203

Thompson, B., Mazer, J., & Flood-Grady, E. (2015). The changing nature of parent-teacher communication: Mode selection in the smartphone era. Communication Education, 64, 187– 207. doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1014382

Thompson, B., & Mazer, J. P. (2012). Development of the parental academic support scale: Frequency, importance, and modes of communication. Communication Education, 61, 131– 160. doi:10.1080/03634523.2012.657207

Thompson, B., Payne, H. J., Jerome, A., Mazer, J. P., Kirby, G., & Pfohl, B. (2015). School crisis communication at the P-12 level: Development of a grounded theory model. (Unpublished manuscript).

Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-mediated communication: Effects on disclosure, impressions, and interpersonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348.

Timmerman, C. E., & Kruepke, K. A. (2006). Computer-assisted instruction, media richness, and college student performance. Communication Education, 55, 73–104. doi:10.1080/03634520500489666

U.S. Department of Education. (2013. Guide for developing high quality school emergency operation plans (Contract Number EDESE1200036). Retrieved from http://rems.ed.gov/docs/REMS_K-12_Guide_508.pdf

Walther, J. B. (1992). Interpersonal effects in computer-mediated interaction: A relational perspective. Communication Research, 19, 52–90. doi:10.1177/009365092019001003

Walther, J. B. (1993). Impression development in computer-mediated interaction. Western Journal of Communication, 57, 381–398. doi:10.1080/10570319309374463

Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473–501. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1994.tb00332.x

Walther, J. B. (1995). Relational aspects of computer-mediated communication: Experimental observations over time. Organization Science, 6, 186–203.

Walther, J. B. (1996) Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 23, 3–43. doi:10.1177/009365096023001001

Walther, J. B., Loh, T., & Graka, L. (2005). Let me count the ways: The interchange of verbal and nonverbal cues in computer-mediated and FTF affinity. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 24, 36–65. doi:10.1177/0261927X04273036

Weintraub, S. (November, 2014). Why communication teachers should care about the Common Core. Spectra, 50(4), 12–17.

When catastrophe strikes: A Q&A with Janet Robinson on the emotional impact, protocols to emulate and her lessons to colleagues. (2013, October). School Administrator, 22–25.