Conference on College Composition and Communication Logo

Contribute to CCC Online

Contact the Editor

EMAIL: Bump Halbritter, Editor, CCC Online, ccconlineeditor@gmail.com

MAIL: Bump Halbritter, Editor, CCC Online,

Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures,

298 Ernst Bessey Hall, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, MI 48824-1033

 

CCC Online Submission Guidelines


The editorial staff of College Composition and Communication Online (CCC Online) invites the submission of stand-alone webtexts comprised of digitally-mediated research and scholarship in composition studies that supports college teachers in reflecting on and improving their practices in teaching writing. The field of composition studies draws on research and theories from a broad range of humanistic disciplines— English studies, linguistics, literacy studies, rhetoric, cultural studies, gay studies, gender studies, critical theory, education, technology studies, race studies, communication, philosophy of language, anthropology, sociology, and others—and within composition studies, a number of subfields have also developed, such as technical communication, computers and composition, writing across the curriculum, research practices, history of composition, assessment, and writing center work.

Webtexts for CCC Online may come out of the discussions within and among any of these fields, as long as the argument presented is clearly relevant to the work of college writing teachers and responsive to recent scholarship in composition studies. The usefulness of articles to writing teachers should be apparent in the discussion, but webtexts need not contain explicit sections detailing applications to teaching practices.

In writing for CCC Online, you should consider a diverse readership for your article, a readership that includes at least all teachers of college-level writing at diverse institutions and literacy centers, and may include administrators, undergraduate and graduate students, legislators, corporate employers, parents, and alumni. To address such an audience, you need not avoid difficult theories or complex discussions of research and issues or detailed discussions of pedagogy; rather you should consider the interests and perspectives of the variety of readers who are affected by your theories, pedagogies, and policies.

Genre, Format, Length, Documentation. You are encouraged to submit finished, stand-alone webtexts in whatever genre and format best fits your purposes, and to use alternate genres and formats if they best express your meanings; similarly, the use of endnotes and subheadings should align with your purposes and meanings. CCC Online’s audio-visual webtexts do not have typical word counts or page lengths. Your webtexts should be guided by your purposes; however, we recommend that you aim for the depth and rigor of CCC articles (generally around 7,000 words). All webtexts should be documented according to the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing (2nd ed.). NCTE’s Guidelines for Gender-Fair Use of Language can be found here. Finally, please allow padding of no fewer than 25 pixels at the top of each page of your webtext to accommodate the CCC Online watermark that will be used to link your text to the issue in which it will appear. 

Copyright and Fair Use. Our ability to publish your webtexts in a timely manner will be determined, in part, by the speed with which we can make fair use determinations and/or obtain copyright clearances for the various media assets in your work.  Please consult the U.S. Copyright Office’s site on Fair Use and/or the site for Copyright and Fair Use available from Stanford University Libraries to make fair use determinations for your work prior to submitting it to CCC Online. Please, do not rely on fair use as a rule for your work.  We highly recommend that your seek and obtain express permission to use all media assets that appear in your webtext prior to submitting your work to CCC Online.  

Research Practices and Citing Unpublished Work. If your webtext reports the results of empirical or observational research, you need to be attentive to the ethics as well as the validity of your research methods. In any webtext, if you quote or otherwise reproduce unpublished writing by students or teachers or others, you need to get permission from the writers to do so, even if you use their writing anonymously. Permission forms for citing unpublished work are available from the CCC Online editor.

Submission and Review of Webtexts. Please contact the editor to set up a dropbox for submitting your complete webtext and all associated files. We understand that many audio-visual texts have assets that identify the author, the author’s institution, the author’s collaborators, and/or the subjects of the author’s study.  Webtexts will not be read blind by outside reviewers.  However, when possible, please make every effort to not identify yourself, your institution, or your collaborators in the text or in the list of works cited. Please include your address, phone number, and email address with all submissions.

CCC. Articles that are composed in a format that could be mediated on paper should be submitted for publication in CCC. Please contact the CCC editor for submission requirements.

About half of the submissions to CCC Online are sent to outside readers after the first stage of review by the editorial staff. You should receive prompt acknowledgment of receipt of your piece by either postcard or email, followed by a report on its status from the editor within 16 weeks. The time between acceptance and publication is usually less than a year. Please feel free to write or call the editor if you have any questions about submitting work to CCC.

CCC Online Home

CCC Online Issue 1.1: Editors’ Introductions

Bump Halbritter is Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Writing at Michigan State University, where he specializes in audio-visual writing and rhetoric.  His book. Mics, Cameras, Symbolic Action: Audio-Visual Rhetoric for Writing Teachers will be released by Parlor Press in early 2012.

Special Issue Editor’s Introduction

Jenn Fishman is Assistant Professor of English at Marquette University.  Her academic work explores intersections of pedagogy, performance, and mediation throughout the history of rhetoric and composition. She is Co-Principal Investigator of Kenyon Writes, a member of the Stanford Study of Writing research team, and an editor of the Research Exchange Index.

Return to Table of Contents

Chair, Personnel Committee #1

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Research II, State University

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English Studies
M.A. granted in English
M.A. granted in Writing
B.A. granted in English

How would Jared Johns’ case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

It would be a very close decision, but I think Johns would not be tenured in my department.  If the department did recommend tenure, I’m fairly certain that the college committee would deny tenure and the provost would support that committee.

What are the Department Chair’s responsibilities toward Johns?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The chair’s main responsibilities are to provide a very clear sense of standards for tenure, promotion, and merit evaluation and to give Johns input on how well he was proceeding.  The chair also has responsibilities for the overall quality of the department’s programs, making sure that courses are being taught and faculty are performing professionally in accordance with the department’s mission and curriculum, policies, and procedures.

The chair seemed appropriately to intervene with the earlier warning signs about undergraduate teaching, though he could have set up a more formal mentorship during the second or third year; it’s unclear if the department has a WPA, but that would be an obvious colleague to serve as mentor.

The chair did not seem to give very clear guidance regarding Johns’s publishing record.  The end of four years is too late to be telling someone they’re publishing in the wrong places.  If Johns even reported annually where he was sending things for consideration, the chair could provide some guidance.

The chair and DGS appropriately conveyed to Johns that he was doing too much thesis and dissertation work.  Given this amount of teaching (and such work is a form of teaching) and given the pressing demands of the department computer facility, the chair might have explored a further reduction of course load.  This would be further warranted if Johns is spending a great deal of time consulting with his colleagues.  Coordinating 30 volunteers in the computer facility with what appears to be a very limited budget is a demanding position.  The chair has responsibilities to pursue additional funding for that facility.

Finally, and minorly, the chair handled the parent complain to the President inappropriately, I believe.  The chair should have written to the president to explain pedagogies in the course, and he should have invited Johns to write as well.  The president could choose or not choose to share that correspondence with the parent.  I note that—since Johns’ teaching has been described as outside the local conventions for the course (even if the course does not include “teaching grammar”)—he is in a weaker position than he might be.

One other responsibility of the chair.  Upon hiring or during the first year, the chair should determine whether the nature of Johns’ duties qualify him for the same criteria as other faculty members or whether the MLA Guidelines in “Making Faculty Work Visible” or the WPA guidelines on “The Intellectual Work of Writing Administration” ought to be invoked to modify the general guidelines.

What are the Personnel  Committee’s responsibilities toward Johns?  Which did they fulfill?  Fail?

The PC’s responsibilities are much the same as the chair’s, though the chair has more agency to act.  The committee did not seem especially qualified to judge Johns’ work, though I would tend to agree with their assessment.  To their credit, they got outside reviewers.  Their advice to Johns’ seemed appropriate even if arrived at sort of bumblingly.

As with the chair, I’d say that the end of four years is fairly late in the game for this kind of feedback.  Three years would be better.

Given the questions about teaching, the PC might recommend a teaching portfolio so that Johns’ can make the best possible case for his teaching and the committee can make a more informed judgment. From the sketchy things provided, I think the committee is right to be concerned about teaching.

What are the responsibilities of the Dean?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

The Dean is not very obvious in this scenario nor necessarily does she need to be.  She ought to help departments and faculty acquire the resources needed for their work (and the computer facility seems to be lacking), and she ought to make certain that department and university guidelines for P and T are being followed.  She ought, finally, to advise the chair whether any special profiles for a tenure and promotion case are available for someone like Johns.

What are Johns’ responsibilities?  Which did she/he fulfill?  Fail?

Johns needs to understand the department’s mission and curriculum and its policies and procedures for tenure and promotion.  He needs to be able to represent his work in teaching, research, and service to his colleagues in ways that they can understand and value.  He also has responsibilities to his own students and to the profession at large.

Clearly Johns has worked hard and in ways that suggest someone vitally involved with the profession and committed to advancing technology and writing issues.  He has not always been astute in how he deploys his time, and he needs to listen to those who advise him to back away from certain projects at least until he has built the kind of scholarly profile that stands him in good stead.

What went wrong?  What went right?

There have been review processes that provided Johns feedback on his performance, and these have come before the tenure decision.  Good.  Perhaps they could have come even earlier.

Also, the chair needs carefully to analyze Johns’ service load; if circumstances just do not allow additional modifications of load or evaluative criteria, the chair needs to convey forcefully the consequences, for example, of “I just can’t say no to graduate students” for Johns’ future.

CCC Poster Pages

Each issue of CCC (February 2010 through December 2014) included a “Poster Page” intended for our various publics–students, colleagues, administrators, and the public at large–explaining a particular concept from rhetoric and composition. The page is suitable for posting and for duplication, and we offer it in hopes that it will faciliatate your discussions with students and others.

Please use the Comments section below to let us know how you use the Poster Pages and what you think of them.

CCC Poster Page 1: Rhetorical Situation

CCC Poster Page 2: Rhetoric

CCC Poster Page 3: Composition

CCC Poster Page 4: Literacy/Literacies

CCC Poster Page 5: Genre 

CCC Poster Page 6: Audience

CCC Poster Page 7: Language

CCC Poster Page 8: Vocabulary

CCC Poster Page 9: Writing Assessment

CCC Poster Page 10: Invention

CCC Poster Page 11: Discourse Community

CCC Poster Page 12: Error

CCC Poster Page 13: Writing across the Curriculum/Writing in the Disciplines

CCC Poster Page 14: Digital Rhetoric

CCC Poster Page 15: Revision

CCC Poster Page 16: Research

CCC Poster Page 17: Multimodality

CCC Poster Page 18: Process

CCC Poster Page 19: Voice

CCC Poster Page 20: Writing Studies

CCC Editorial Staff

Editors

Contact Us

Email: ccceditorialteam@gmail.com

Permissions Requests:
permissions@ncte.org

Matthew Davis, University of Massachusetts Boston
Kara Taczak, University of Central Florida

Managing Editor

Megan J. Busch, Charleston Southern University

Editorial Assistants

PD Edgar, University of Central Florida
Anyssa Gonzalez, University of Central Florida
Itai Halevi, University of Massachusetts Boston
Natalia Scarpetti, University of Massachusetts Boston
Eryn Shorthill, University of Central Florida

Production Editor

Tom Tiller
NCTE

Copyeditor

Lisa McCoy

Editorial Board

Ira Allen, Northern Arizona University
Hadi Banat, University of Massachusetts Boston
Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Ellen Carillo, University of Connecticut Waterbury
Alejandro (Alex) Carrillo, Mesa Community College
Sheila Carter-Tod, University of Denver
John Gallagher, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
David Gold, University of Michigan
David Holmes, Lipscomb University
Jo Hsu, University of Texas at Austin
Lisa King, University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Dundee Lackey, Texas Woman’s University
Michelle LaFrance, George Mason University
Icy Lee, Nanyang Technological University
Christina McDonald, Virginia Military Institute
Lilian Mina, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Sharon Mitchler, Centralia College
Sherry Rankins-Robertson, University of Central Florida
Michelle Bachelor Robinson, Spelman College
Hannah Rule, University of South Carolina


CCC Podcasts–Hannah J. Rule

A conversation with Hannah J. Rule, author of “Writing’s Rooms” (17:21).

Hannah J. Rule is an assistant professor of English in rhetoric and composition at the University of South Carolina. Her research and teaching focus on writing pedagogies, writing process theories and history, and embodiment. Her scholarship, focused on pedagogical questions related to freewriting, multimodality, voice, writing environments, and rhetorical grammar, also appears in venues including Composition Forum, CEA Critic, and Composition Studies.

 

 

 

 

CCC Podcasts–Jim Webber

A conversation with Jim Webber, author of “Toward an Artful Critique of Reform: Responding to Standards, Assessment, and Machine Scoring” (12:34).

Jim Webber is assistant professor of English at the University of Nevada, Reno, where he teaches academic, professional, and public writing. He is the author of An Alternate Pragmatism for Going Public (forthcoming from Utah State UP).

 

 

 

 

CCC Podcasts–Deborah Mutnick

A conversation with Deborah Mutnick, author of “Pathways to Freedom: From the Archives to the Street” (17:58).

 

Deborah Mutnick is professor of English and codirector of LIU Brooklyn Learning Communities. She is author of Writing in an Alien World: Basic Writing and the Struggle for Equality in Higher Education (1996). Her work has appeared in College Composition and Communication, College English, Rhetoric Review, Journal of Basic Writing, Community Literacy Journal, and elsewhere. She is currently working on a project about the enduring relevance of Richard Wright’s life and work.

 

 

 

 

 

CCC Podcasts–Kelly Ritter

A conversation with Kelly Ritter, author of “With ‘Increased Dignity and Importance’: Re-Historicizing Charles Roberts and the Illinois Decision of 1955” (13:21).

 

Kelly Ritter is associate dean for curricula and academic policy, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, and professor of English and writing studies at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. From 2000 to 2017 she served as a writing program administrator across three university campuses, including UIUC. Her ongoing research on archival histories of writing programs began with her first book, Before Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale and Harvard, 1920–1960 (2009). Her latest book is Reframing the Subject: Postwar Instructional Film and Class-Conscious Literacies (2015). From 2012 to 2017 she was editor of College English.

 

 

 

 

CCC Podcasts–Chris Mays

A conversation with Chris Mays, author of “Writing Complexity, One Stability at a Time: Teaching Writing as a Complex System” (12:47).

Chris Mays is an assistant professor of English at the University of Nevada, Reno, where he teaches writing and rhetoric. His current research explores the overlaps and interconnections among posthumanisms, systems theory, rhetoric, and writing studies. Previously, his work has appeared in enculturation: A Journal of Rhetoric, Writing, and Culture; JAC: A Journal of Cultural Theory; and Rhetoric Review.

 

 

 

Renew Your Membership

Join CCCC today!
Learn more about the SWR book series.
Connect with CCCC
CCCC on Facebook
CCCC on LinkedIn
CCCC on Twitter
CCCC on Tumblr
OWI Principles Statement
Join the OWI discussion

Copyright

Copyright © 1998 - 2025 National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved in all media.

1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096 Phone: 217-328-3870 or 877-369-6283

Looking for information? Browse our FAQs, tour our sitemap and store sitemap, or contact NCTE

Read our Privacy Policy Statement and Links Policy. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use