Although of expression is vital a democratic society, American college students, including communication majors, seem have little interest in protecting their First Amendment rights (Brock, 1996; McAdams & Beasley, 1994). Moreover, today's college freshmen indicate that their interest in political affairs is at an all-time low, and their willingness discuss political matters -- presumably including of expression issues - is even lower (Political interest, 1998). Such apathy among future leaders and communication professionals suggests that education on of speech and of press is more important than ever before. This study seeks examine effects of teaching free expression journalism and mass communication students. A 1997 Freedom Forum survey concluded that majority of Americans do not believe in of speech (Blumner, 1997). According survey, censorial instinct cuts across political and religious spectrum. Americans from all demographic groups embrace a flaccid and utterly meaningless definition of ... expressive [as] support [for] of speech for only speech that I agree deserves freedom (Blumner, p. 1D). Some believe education is first and best response a citizenry uninterested and uninvolved in protecting democratic values and processes. In 1967, Supreme Court noted importance of free expression in American universities: one should underestimate vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth (Whitehill v. Elkins). Thirty years later, in an analysis of roles of media and education in developing popular citizenship, Buckingham (1997) wrote that educators must enable students build connections between personal and political, and hence prepare them for a participatory form of citizenship which can function across a whole range of social domains. If a primary responsibility of a university is encourage students exercise their of expression, then it would seem particularly vital for journalism and mass communication departments instill in their students an appreciation of First Amendment rights increase students' commitment such values. This study attempts assess outcomes of instruction in three classes on free Literature review Although scholarship examines theoretical and applied, individual and communal values of free expression (Baker, 1989; Dworkin, 1996; Levy, 1985), few scholars have scrutinized means and outcomes of teaching free expression values college students. Interestingly, a survey of communication faculty found that 39 percent of respondents thought that more class time should be devoted free-expression issues (Scott, 1995). Merrill (1991) asserted that teaching free expression is the highest calling of a communications or journalism professor. Merrill's article suggested a number of teaching strategies to get students think, analyze, challenge, and come up with fresh and 'personal' answers many of difficult questions surrounding free expression. No attempt was made measure effectiveness of teaching techniques. Herbeck (1991) focused on difficulty of teaching of expression undergraduates. The subject is made complex by inconsistent and evolving history of protection for free expression in America, Herbeck wrote, and consequently effective instruction in free expression should be future-oriented. Herbeck suggested that a class applying core principles of free expression rather than rigid legal rules contemporary issues best enables students understand fluidity of free speech. Through a simple post-test measure, Geske (1991) examined effectiveness of a talk show format teach free expression in a large lecture course. The study asked how students felt about different teaching techniques and found that students enjoyed roleplaying activity, which author believed prompted students move beyond rote memorization toward higher orders of analysis and synthesis. …
Read full abstract