Month: June 2018

Name: Diane Martinez
Title: Assistant Professor
Institution: Western Carolina University
Location: Cullowhee, NC
Phone: 828-227-3923
Email: dlmartinez@email.wcu.edu
Skype: diane.martinez64

 

 

    

Committee Members

Megan Busch, Chair
Jessica Jorgenson Borchert
Alex Evans
Michael Harker
Travis Margoni
Ben McCorkle
Sean Morey
Eliot Parker
Ellen Payne
Michael Rifenburg
Matt Rome
Katie Silvester
Christine Tulley

Committee Charge

General Charge: To function as a point of first contact for new members and to develop convention-specific programing and outreach.

Responsibilities

• Provides a staffed Welcome Table where new attendees can ask questions, receive suggestions, and find materials helpful for navigating the Convention.
• Creates, in cooperation with the NCTE national office, a Tip Sheet, designed to help new attendees make the most of their experience at the Convention.
• Hosts an Orientation to review strategies for Convention attendance.
• Sponsors a Career Quest roundtable to help participants develop a plan to find opportunities at the Convention and within the organization that can play an important part in their career development.
• Hosts a Coffee Hour where new attendees can hear from various member groups of the Convention (e.g., Meet Leaders of SIGs, TYCA, C’s the Day, etc.).
• Sponsors the Think Tank where new attendees can work with experienced professionals to discuss and develop proposals for the next year’s Convention.
• Maintains relationships with other subcommittees and groups (e.g., Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives, C’s the Day, etc.).

Membership

• Members will serve three-year terms.
• Chair: Selects members in consultation with administrative committee chairs and is responsible for fulfilling or delegating its charges.
• Members: Assist Chair in fulfilling the responsibilities of its charges.

Suggestions for Drafting Effective CCCC Proposals

Maricela Guzman: Case #3

Characterization of Institution

Research Intensive, headed toward Research Extensive

It has been raising the bar on expectations for tenure for the past decade, although it seems to respect the conditions under which people were hired.

Characterization of Department

M.A. granted in English (concentrations in Children’s Literature Technical Communication)

(We are working on the ED.D with a department in the College of Education.  Approval of this degree is some years away.)

There are  20 tenured/tenure-track  faculty and 12 non-tenure track lecturers, mostly with MA degrees.  About a third of the tenured faculty have had some contact with writing centers in their past and most of the lecturers have worked in our writing center.  The department is down about 8-10 tenure-line positions since the early 90’s, through retirements and job transfers.

How would this case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

I think this case at my university would have proceeded pretty much as it did in the case study.  Our department has been open (perhaps too open) to faculty changing directions in scholarly interests even before tenure.  Guzman was hired to develop a program in technology and tenure, which she did.  She has developed a reputation in technology, which she was expected to do when she was hired.  I don’t think the science emphasis would be a problem here because the project was developed within the technology paradigm for which she was hired.

At the third year review, in our review committee we might have commented on her time spent in the writing center. As chair of the committee, I would have made sure that this would have been part of the committee discussion since that was what she was hired to do, and the department should have reasonable expectations that the appropriate amount of time/effort/energy would be spent in that area.   The committee third year recommendation would have been more directive, pointing her toward attention that must be paid to the writing center.

She would have gotten tenure based on her scholarship and presumed good teaching.  She would not have been denied even if her performance as director of the writing center remained below average, because if this is conceived as service, service doesn’t count very much.  It especially would have been a non-issue if the writing center was functioning, even if the quality could have been raised.

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

I think much of the problem began at hiring.  The hiring committee and the department overlooked a critical part of he job that they wanted Guzman to perform.  Because of this, she may have interpreted her hiring differently:  that directing the writing center was not central to her duties and that the department was much more flexible than it turned out to be.  At hiring, it is the Chair’s responsibility to make duties clear to potential hires.  It may also have been his/her responsibility to keep in close touch during non-review years with Guzman’s progress and to advise her of her writing center responsibilities.  I don’t know that she/he could have foreseen the response of the review committee at the third year, however.  

In general, I think it is a chair’s responsibility to walk that fine line between making sure that people do what they were hired to do (so you don’t have to make another hire in the same area) and encouraging creativity and versatility.  It also may be the chair’s responsibility to mentor and encourage new faculty and to keep them informed of their progress toward tenure.  It is not his/her responsibility to “support” them  after the fact or when another chair may have blown it at an earlier date.

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

Responsibilities of the Chair of Review.  In this case study, the review/personnel committee and its chair failed in its responsibility to give feedback to the chair and through him/her to Guzman about her performance in the writing center.  The chair of the committee also failed to elicit from committee members their “true” feelings about Guzman, that they were  unhappy about her scientific leanings.  The chair also failed to remind the committee of the conditions under which Guzman was hired and the department’s stated policy to accept on-line and technological research.  However, in my department’s review committee, it is often the case that committee members will not discuss negative issues for fear of losing a position or for fear of not being “collegial” (in our department’s case.)  It is often difficult to be critical and if you are, you might be seen as “negative” or “uncollegial” even where a negative judgment is warranted.

At the fifth year, the chair of the committee (or perhaps the chair of the department) should discuss with Guzman how she sees her future within this English department.  Without this discussion and follow-up work with the members of the department, Guzman may very well get tenure, but abandon the writing center and become alienated from the department.

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

Having never been a Dean, I am less certain of his/her responsibilities.  Since hiring is contractual, I would guess that the Dean must be certain of the match between the candidate’s qualifications and the needs advertised.  A mismatch might even raise legal questions, especially if other candidates may have been overlooked or bypassed in the search if the requirements change.  It would be the Dean’s responsibility to question the chair at every point in the tenure process, again for mostly legal reasons.

What are Guzman’s responsibilities?  Which did she fulfill?  Fail?

At the third year, Guzman needs to be reminded of her responsibilities by the chair of the department.  She needs to know from the chair the unofficial position of the department and the possible negative ( mostly interpersonal it seems) fallout if she continues to lean even more toward scientific enactments of her technology scholarship.  She needs to know that her performance in the writing center is not seen as fulfilling her contract–if this is the case.  It is not clear in the case study that she was told any of this stuff by the chair, dean or whomever, and she should have been.

Once she knows or is reminded of these responsibilities and if she were to continue in directions that are not within her original or third year contract, she might expect some repercussions.   In her tenure document, she has the responsibility to explain her past performance, especially as it fits into the goals of the department.  She must also explain her performance in the writing center, which seems to be the main reason she was hired.  She has the responsibility to find a balance between the needs (not the biases) of the English Department and her own scholarly needs and aspirations and to explain that balance to her department and the rest of the university

What went wrong?  What went right?

In many universities (and this is the case here also) the third year review seems to be pro forma.  It seems that few places have the stomach to be tough, to outline clearly what expectations  are and are not being met.  In this case, as I said, it is not clear if Guzman ever found out the “unofficial” version of the third-year decision.  If she never found out, that would have been a mistake.  Probably the pressure to raise the teaching load instead of working with Guzman to define the position is a mistake.  The department chair’s promise of support seems hollow if it is only support for tenure; the support should include ways to help Guzman identify herself within the social context of her department so she will not be ostrasized.

I think hiring people with many talents is a right thing to do.  The program in technology and curlture seems like innovative thinking.  However, the whole department has to be on board with decisions to hire folks outside the box, even when there is a stated departmental policy to support such scholarly efforts.

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English (Literature)
Ph.D. granted in English (Linguistics)
Ph.D. granted in Rhetoric/Composition
M.F.A. granted in Creative Writing
M.A. granted in English
M.A. granted in Professional Writing
B.A. granted in English
B.A. in Secondary English Education
B.A. in Creative Writing

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

Provided that Johns takes the advice and does publish some articles in refereed journals, the department primary committee would likely vote positively on his case when he came up for promotion with tenure in year 6.  Likely result of case at university level:  Expecially with the strong support from the outside evaluators, and provided that the department head and dean presented the case skillfully, explaining that Johns was hired for a very specifc purpose and that his profile was basically a new one for the department, he could–with a beefed-up publication record in recognized journals by his 6th year–get through the school and university committees.

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

At the most basic level, the department needs to question whether–in light of their refusal to provide the necessary resources for technology–they should even have hired to fill this position.  Certainly, Johns has, by virtue of his degree and previous publications, the appropriate qualifications for such a position;  and by hiring him the department is tacitly indicating its support for the kind of work he is doing.  But to bring him in without adequate resources to do the administrative part of his job, and even to appoint an untenured assistant professor (let alone a beginning one) to what is bound to be a touchy and potentially volatile administrative position, puts Johns in an almost untenable situation before he even begins.  So the department head may have failed in leadership and made an inappropriate decision right from the start–and that was only compounded if he was not very forthright about what would be expected of Johns and some of the difficulties he was likely to face.  Also, where is the director of composition in all of this?  Certainly the writing course using the new technologies that Johns is assigned to teach should have been planned out and developed much more carefully, so that the technology could be integrated in a way that would support rather than dilute the main focus.  Once Johns is on board (or ideally even before the position had been announced), the department head should have appointed a computer advisory committee;  should have strongly advised Johns not to becme overcommitted to work on student committees–and, in fact, should have sought out other faculty to help share this burden;  and should have taken it upon himself to answer the parent’s irate letter to the president, by explaining just what the philosophy behind error recognition/ correction of the writing program is, and how new pedagogies fit into this.

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

In my department, the Personnel Committee is comprised of all full professors.

The committee really should have provided Johns with more feedback about his teaching and, particularly, his research progress much earlier on. Apparently, a couple senior faculty who were enthusiastic about the new tchnologies did observe his teaching and make suggestions, but they probably should have taken it upon themselves also to educate their colleagues, so that they would be better able to evaluate Johns’ work.  Given the sparse knowledge about Johns’ specialization among the current faculty, this kind of “education” is an obligation if the contributon of new faculty is to be measured appropriately.  Furthermore, in light of their own limited knowledge of the field, the committee should probably have been considerably more open to the assessments of the outside experts.

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

The Dean seems not to have a very good overall sense of the place of computer technology in the teaching and research missions of the school/college.   The Dean should never have authorized filling the position without making certain that financial resources for both adequate  (paid) staff and hardware and software were in place within the department to suppoort their computer facilitiy.

From discussion with Johns before he was appointed, the Dean should have ascertained what research support he would need personally and been convinced that the type of research he was engaged in fit with the mission of the school and could lead to tenure and promotion.  At the very least, the dean’s office could make certain that computer sections of various courses were clearly designated, so that students would know when they enrolled;  and the Dean should have worked to encourage, even if necessary designate, another faculty member to chair the computer-fee committee.

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

Although prepared “academically,” Johns has not thought through clearly enough how to integrate computer technology into the introductory writing classroom so that it is non-threatening to the students and complementary to the major aims of the course.  But he’s clearly working hard and  shows signs of making the effort to do so by adjusting to course expectations–and, again, I would ask:  where is the director of freshman cmposition in all of this?

Johns needs to be reassured, over and again, that he can say “no” to excessive demands on his time.  And throughout it all, he needs to be made to feel comfortable being very up front and candid with his department head about the problems he is having and the things that he needs to help him succeed.

Given the nature of the department he entered and the mindset of most of his colleagues, he has to be receptive to their advice on finding more traditional refereed outlets for his research, at the same time that he helps educate them in the use of new media in teaching and unconventional research.  But the “faults” are not primarily his.

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went wrong?  The culture of the department was really not prepared for the kind of hire it made;  the infrastructure and suppoort system were not there–probably because the department got on the technology bandwagon without ever discussing  the ramifications for pedagogy and scholarly research.  Johns can’t be expected to take them “into the future” singlehandedly, which appears to be pretty much the case.

What went right?  The department appears to have some notion of the need to mentor beginning faculty, though not much is in place to accomplish it properly.  And they appear educable about new areas of specialization–at least they came around to supporting Johns, however marginally.  But the task ahead is to make certain that, if Johns achieves promotion and tenure, he isn’t burned out and demoralized in the process.

Since 1949, CCCC has provided a forum for all those responsible for teaching composition and communication skills at the college level, both in undergraduate and graduate programs. For over 50 years, CCCC members have charted new courses in the teaching and scholarship of composition and rhetoric, helping to shape our academic community and professional practices. As members, through the College Forum of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), of the American Council of Learned Societies, CCCC is the professional voice of composition and rhetoric studies.

When you join CCCC, you will be welcomed into a community of scholars and teachers who share your concerns about important issues influencing the teaching of composition and rhetoric. You will be connected to current trends in scholarship and research, developments in teaching, national trends in higher education, and much more.

CCCC Resources: Read these quick snapshots to learn more about various CCCC initiatives, including the CCCC Annual Convention, publications, grants, awards, position statements, the Policy Analysis Initiative, and the Connected Community.

Ashley J. Holmes is an assistant professor of English at Georgia State University, where she teaches first-year composition and undergraduate and graduate courses in composition theory and pedagogy, public and visual rhetoric, and digital writing and production. She has published peer-reviewed essays in English Journal, Community Literacy Journal, Reflections, Kairos, and Ubiquity, as well as in three edited collections. She is currently an assistant editor with Kairos. She is the author of the SWR book Public Pedagogy in Composition Studies (2016).

In this conversation with Charissa Che, Holmes talks about her use of pop culture in a student-centered classroom, the productive tension found in the public/private binary, the differences between service learning and public pedagogy, the uses of social media, and much more. (35:10)

 

This document first identifies multiple assets student veterans often bring to writing classrooms and then acknowledges some of the special considerations that writing instructors and WPAs should take into account when working with student veterans.  After presenting these generalizations, the document offers classroom instructors and WPAs some more detailed answers to the question, “What do I need to know about working with student veterans?”  A list of references and further reading, organized roughly by field of study—from composition and writing studies to disability studies and student services—is provided at the end of the document.  This organizational structure is meant to present a deliberate move away from deficit-model thinking about military veterans—that veterans are damaged or unprepared or otherwise problematic—to representing military servicemembers as considerable assets and sources of strength, vision, and leadership for our universities, colleges, and our society at large.

Read the full statement, Student Veterans in the College Composition Classroom: Realizing Their Strengths and Assessing Their Needs (March 2015)

Conference on College Composition and Communication
March 2015, references and further reading updated November 2022

In 1999, the NCTE resolved to “[a]ffirm, seek, and encourage all teachers to include a diversity of perspectives, cultures, aesthetic responses, and experiences in the teaching and learning of English language arts.” Yet, as Daniel Byman, Senior Fellow for Foreign Policy at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, observes, “many professors harbor stereotypes about the military, not recognizing the diversity of opinion within military circles on many issues and the remarkable minds of many young [military service members].” In order to reflect the spirit of the NCTE resolution, this document asserts that “learning about the military, war and combat, and service members’ experiences [can actually] complement a campus’s broader commitment to diversity and social understanding” (Rumann 31).

This document first identifies multiple assets student veterans often bring to writing classrooms and then acknowledges some of the special considerations that writing instructors and WPAs should take into account when working with student veterans.  After presenting these generalizations, the document offers classroom instructors and WPAs some more detailed answers to the question, “What do I need to know about working with student veterans?”  A list of references and further reading, organized roughly by field of study—from composition and writing studies to disability studies and student services—is provided at the end of the document.  This organizational structure is meant to present a deliberate move away from deficit-model thinking about military veterans—that veterans are damaged or unprepared or otherwise problematic—to representing military service members as considerable assets and sources of strength, vision, and leadership for our universities, colleges, and our society at large.

Student Veterans’ Assets

• Student veterans are experienced writers and communicators who are familiar with military genres of writing and questions of authorship sometimes different from but related to those encountered in higher education.  That expertise and familiarity should be acknowledged, explored, and built upon.¹
• Student veterans have served as part of a team and have often served in leadership roles for which problem-solving and thinking on one’s feet were daily requirements.  This experience should be valued, honored, and recognized.  For example, instructors might invite student veterans to take leadership roles in the classroom, as small group facilitators, or as mentors to other students.
• Many student veterans have spent considerable time overseas and/or working with diverse populations and therefore can contribute meaningful insights they have garnered from these experiences to classroom discussions.  As Corey B. Rumann and Florence A. Hamrick explain, “learning about the military, war and combat, and service members’ experiences [can actually] complement a campus’s broader commitment to diversity and social understanding” (31).
• While student veterans may not choose to write about their military experiences for classroom assignments (see Leonhardy), providing venues for student veteran publications and creative work (essays, narratives, creative writing, video making, art work) and sponsoring on-campus events related to military and veterans topics can create opportunities for student veterans to portray the complexities of veterans’ individual as well as collective experiences.  Veterans’ writing groups and programs are growing across the country (see Schell), and faculty members can help establish and/or facilitate such groups on their campuses, collaborate with local community groups, or encourage students to take part in already existing programs (e.g., Words After War, Military Experience and the Arts, The Veterans Writing Project).

Student Veterans: Special Considerations

• While student veterans have access to benefits that help them pay tuition and other expenses, difficulties processing or receiving benefits can result in retention risks and distraction from academic work.
• Veterans can sometimes feel alienated by campus and classroom cultures (in terms of age, politics, and experience) and thereby also be at risk in terms of retention.
• “Veterans who sense that academia regards them as broken, willfully nonconformist, or unworkable in the college environment will react with understandable frustration, which puts them at risk for attrition.” (Gann)
• Some student veterans may have service-related disabilities: “Surveys with student veterans and student service members on their experiences using the Post 9/11 GI Bill, found that most of these survey and focus group participants encountered substantial transition challenges while adapting to life on campus.  Among these students, one of the most frequently discussed challenges was coping with service-related disabilities and PTSD….Participants cited such difficulties as being unable to move quickly from one class to the next across campus, hyper-alertness and anxiety caused by PTSD, difficulty concentrating due to TBI, and difficulty relating to other students.” (http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/programs/policy-government-affairs/key-policy-priorities/objective-2-economic-empowerment/initiative-2.aspx)
• Student veterans may be reluctant to seek assistance—whether through disability services, counseling, or the Writing Center.
• Student veterans, like other adult students, are more likely to have family and work obligations in addition to their academic workload.
• Student veterans may have to miss classes for VA appointments or may be recalled to active duty, necessitating flexibility in attendance policies.
• Instructors should consider including a syllabus statement indicating their awareness of the complexities of being a student veteran, such as this example created by Katt Blackwell-Starnes:“I recognize the complexities of being a student veteran.  If you are a student veteran, please inform me if you need special accommodations.  Drill schedules, calls to active duty, complications with GI Bill disbursement, and other unforeseen military and veteran-related developments can complicate your academic life.  If you make me aware of a complication, I will do everything I can to assist you or put you in contact with university staff who are trained to assist you.” (Hart and Thompson, “An Ethical Obligation”)

FAQs

I’m a classroom composition instructor. What do I need to know about veterans?

• Veterans are a diverse population in terms of race, gender, sexuality, class, and ability.  Many student veterans, like other adult students, have job and family responsibilities.
• Veterans will often be older and somewhat more mature than conventional college students.  They are often disciplined students who exhibit a keen sense of purpose (mission accomplishment) and a strong work ethic.
• Veterans are accustomed to following orders, and therefore they will often value structure and clear, straightforward instructions for writing tasks.  They may be unfamiliar with process models of writing and academic documentation styles.  They will likely seek explicit standards of assessment.
• Because concerns about the chain of command are important to veterans, they tend to regard their professors as authority figures and may therefore be uncomfortable with informal classroom atmospheres or a perceived lack of structure within a classroom setting.
• Veterans often draw on a range of experiences broader than those associated with typical college-age students, and they often wish to have those experiences valued and respected.
• Veterans also value their privacy, so professors and classmates should not demand that veterans disclose the particulars of their experiences, nor should student veterans be expected to function as stand-in military spokespeople.  Veterans may also sometimes be uncomfortable with explicitly or overtly politicized course content.

I’m a writing program or writing center administrator. What do I need to know about veterans?

• WPAs should familiarize themselves with the veteran resources on campus; should make faculty, graduate students, and staff in the writing program aware of the resources available to student veterans; and should encourage instructors to inform student veterans of these resources.
• WPAs should offer training to writing instructors to facilitate a better understanding of military culture, the assets that student veterans bring to writing classrooms, and the challenges that veterans may face.  Such training could raise awareness of available resources for veterans on campus (see above) and in the local community.²
• Writing Center directors should consider offering writing consultations in the campus veteran center (if one is available) and should try to ensure that consultations are offered when student veterans are on campus, as many student veterans are likely to be commuter students who have job and family responsibilities off campus.  Writing Center directors may want to consider offering online consultations, as well.
• Writing programs should have plans in place to accommodate veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) concerns and with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI concerns), as both of these sometimes manifest in a need for additional time for reading and writing as well as difficulties concentrating and short-term memory loss.  In addition, syllabi should be made available to veterans in advance of registration, when possible, and instructors should consider offering alternative assignments and readings if triggering material is part of their existing course.

¹ “Student veterans who were able to identify and then translate previous learning and rhetorical experiences from the military into academic writing contexts reported positive perceptions about that writing.” (Hinton)

² It may be possible and even desirable to coordinate this training with the Veterans Services Office on campus (if there is one) and/or with the student veterans’ organization on campus (if there is one). See also Sander: “research shows that where support services for veterans exist, those students do well in the classroom.”??

References and Further Reading (Updated November 2022)

Bibliographies

Blackwell-Starnes, Katt. “2019 Veterans Studies Bibliography.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 7, no. 1, 2021. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v7i1.244.

———. “2018 Veterans Studies Bibliography.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 5, no. 1, 2019. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v5i1.157.

———. “2017 Veterans Studies Bibliography.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v3i1.51.

Asset-Based Approaches

Institute for Veterans and Military Families & Student Veterans of America. Student Veterans: A Valuable Asset to Higher Education, Nov. 2019, https://ivmf.syracuse.edu/student-veterans-a-valuable-asset-to-higher-education/.

Kinney, Adam R., and Aaron M. Eakman. “Measuring Self-Advocacy Skills Among Student Veterans with Disabilities: Implications for Success in Postsecondary Education.” Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, vol. 30, no. 4, 2017, pp. 343–358, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1172799.pdf.

Kranke, Derrick, et al. “A Qualitative Investigation That Applies an Ecological Strengths-Based Perspective to Veterans’ Experience of Reintegration into Civilian Life.” Military Behavioral Health, vol. 4, no. 1, 2016, pp. 75–81. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2015.1119771.

Rodriguez, Darlene Xiomara, and Eric Manley. “How We Fail US Foreign-Born Veterans: A Scoping Study of the Literature. Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 1–9, 2020, https://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v6i3.186.

Schell, Eileen. “Writing with Veterans in a Community Writing Group.” Composition Forum, vol. 28,  2013.

Sullivan, Nicole, et al. “Student Veterans and Adjustment to College: Making Meaning of Military Experiences.” Journal of American College Health, vol. 69, no. 5, 2019, pp. 503–512, Doi: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1683017.

Civilian Reintegration & Post-Service Transitions

​​Cancio, Robert. “Examining the Effect of Military Service on Education: The Unique Case of Hispanic Veterans.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 40, no. 2, 2018, pp. 150–175, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318761849.

Derefinko, Karen J., et al. “Perceived Needs of Veterans Transitioning from the Military to Civilian Life.” The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, vol. 46, no. 3, July 2019, pp. 384–398. Doi: 10.1007/s11414-018-9633-8.

Hunniecutt, Jeni Ruth. Rethinking Reintegration and Veteran Identity: A New Consciousness. Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Kranke, Derrick, et al. “A Qualitative Investigation That Applies an Ecological Strengths-Based Perspective to Veterans’ Experience of Reintegration into Civilian Life.” Military Behavioral Health, vol. 4, no. 1, 2016, pp. 75–81. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2015.1119771.

Martin, Travis L. War & Homecoming: Veteran Identity and the Post-9/11 Generation. University Press of Kentucky, 2022.

McCormick, Wesley H., et al. “Military Culture and Post-Military Transitioning Among Veterans: A Qualitative Analysis.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 288–298. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i2.121.

Schultz, Kelsey M., et al. “Seven Connotations of the Word ‘Transition’ in Student Veteran Literature.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 8, no. 1, 2022, pp. 15–28, http://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v8i1.273.

Composition/Writing Studies

Blaauw-Hara, Mark. From Military to Academy: The Writing and Learning Transitions of Student-Veterans. Utah State University Press, 2021.

Buckley, Meghan. “Empowering Female [Student] Veterans through Community Writing and Experiential Learning in the Classroom.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2021, pp. 44–59. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v7i2.268.

Doe, Sue, and Lisa Langstraat, editors. Generation Vet: Composition, Student-Veterans, and the Post-9/11 University. Utah State University Press, 2014.

Hart, D. Alexis, and Roger Thompson. “Veterans in the Writing Classroom: Three Programmatic Approaches to Facilitate the Transition from Military to Higher Education.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 68, no. 2, Dec. 2016, pp. 345–371.

———. Writing Programs, Veterans Studies, and the Post-9/11 University: A Field Guide. National Council of Teachers of English, 2020.

Hembrough, Tara, and Kameron Dunn. “A Study of Rural and Native-American Students’ Military Identities, Military Family History, and Reading and Writing Interests in a Military-Friendly, Military-Themed Composition Course.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 203–228. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i2.112.

Disability Studies

Boccieri, Brian J., et al. “Severe Pain in Veteran Students.” Journal of Allied Health, vol. 48, no. 3, Fall 2019, pp. 172–180.

Kinney, Adam R., and Aaron M. Eakman. Measuring Self-Advocacy Skills among Student Veterans with Disabilities: Implications for Success in Postsecondary Education. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, vol. 30, no. 4, 2017, pp. 343–358, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1172799.pdf.

Lau, Stephanie J., et al. “Unique Needs and Challenges of Women Veteran Students with Disabilities: Conceptualizing Identity in Higher Education.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, pp. 101–109. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v6i3.212.

Rattray, Nicolas A., et al. “The Long and Winding Road to Postsecondary Education for U.S. Veterans with Invisible Injuries.” Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, vol. 42, no. 3, 2019, pp. 284–295. Doi: 10.1037/prj0000375.

Military Culture

Caforio, Giuseppe, editor. Handbook of the Sociology of the Military. Springer, 2006.

Mansoor, Peter R., and Williamson Murray, editors. The Culture of Military Organizations. Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Schading, Barbara. A Civilian’s Guide to the U.S. Military: A Comprehensive Reference to the Custom, Language, and Structure of the Armed Forces. Writer’s Digest Books, 2007.

Williams, Allison J., et al., editors. The Routledge Companion to Military Research Methods. 1st ed., Routledge, 2020.

Postsecondary Education: Experiences and Support

Bagby, Janet H., et al. “Is Anyone Listening? An Ecological Systems Perspective on Veterans Transitioning from the Military to Academia.” Military Behavioral Health, vol. 3, no. 4, 2015, pp. 219–229. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2015.1057306.

Barry, Adam E., et al. “Student Service Members/Veterans in Higher Education: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, vol. 51, no. 1, 2014, pp. 30–42. Doi: 10.1515/jsarp-2014-0003.

Blackwell-Starnes, Katt. “At Ease: Developing Veterans’ Sense of Belonging in the College Classroom,” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, Winter 2018, pp. 18–36. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v3i1.2.

​​Cancio, Robert. “Examining the Effect of Military Service on Education: The Unique Case of Hispanic Veterans.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 40, no. 2, 2018, pp. 150–175, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318761849.

DiRamio, David, and Kathryn Jarvis. Veterans in Higher Education: When Johnny and Jane Come Marching to Campus. ASHE Higher Education Report, vol. 37, no. 3, 2011, pp. 1–144.

Hinton, Corrine E., “‘I just don’t like to have my car marked’: Nuancing Identity Attachments and Belonging in Student Veterans.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, pp. 84–100. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v6i3.211.

Jenner, Brandy M. “Student Veterans and the Transition to Higher Education: Integrating Existing Literatures,” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 2, no. 2, July 2017, pp. 26–44. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.14.

Morris, Phillip, et al. “Student-Veterans’ Perceptions of Barriers, Support, and Environment at a High-Density Veteran Enrollment Campus.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 180–202. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i2.102.

Theoretical Models & Approaches

Bagby, Janet H., et al. “Is Anyone Listening? An Ecological Systems Perspective on Veterans Transitioning from the Military to Academia.” Military Behavioral Health, vol. 3, no. 4, 2015, pp. 219–229. Doi: 10.1080/21635781.2015.1057306.

Elnitsky, Christine A., et al. “Military Service Member and Veteran Reintegration: A Critical Review and Adapted Ecological Model.” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, vol. 87, no. 2, 2017, pp. 114–128. Doi: 10.1037/ort0000244.

Harris, G. L., et al. Women Veterans: Lifting the Veil of Invisibility. Routledge, 2018.

Hodges, Eric. “Teaching Veterans Studies.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, 2018, pp. 89–105, http://doi.org/10.21061/jvs.v3i1.7.

Hunniecutt, Jeni Ruth. Rethinking Reintegration and Veteran Identity: A New Consciousness. Palgrave Macmillan, 2022.

Phillips, Glenn A., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. “Introducing Veteran Critical Theory.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, vol. 30, no. 7, 2017, pp. 656–668. Doi: 10.1080/09518398.2017.1309586.

Veterans from Historically Marginalized Communities

Albright, David Luther, et al. “When Women Veterans Return: The Role of Postsecondary Education in Transition in Their Civilian Lives.” Journal of American College Health, vol. 67, no. 5, 2019, pp. 479–485. Doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1494599.

Bradford, Anita Casavantes. “Latinx Veterans, Outsider Patriotism and the Motives behind Minoritized Military Service.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 7, no. 3, 2021, pp. 4–22. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v7i3.272.

Buckley, Meghan. “Empowering Female [Student] Veterans through Community Writing and Experiential Learning in the Classroom.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 7, no. 2, 2021, pp. 44–59. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v7i2.268.

Burkhart, Lisa, and Nancy Hogan. “Being a Female Veteran: A Grounded Theory of Coping with Transitions.” Social Work in Mental Health, vol. 13, no. 2, 2015, pp. 108–127. Doi: 10.1080/15332985.2013.870102.

​​Cancio, Robert. “Examining the Effect of Military Service on Education: The Unique Case of Hispanic Veterans.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, vol. 40, no. 2, 2018, pp. 150–175, https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986318761849.

Carter, Susan P., et al. “Discrimination and Suicidal Ideation among Transgender Veterans: The Role of Social Support and Connection.” LGBT Health, vol. 6, no. 2, 2019, pp. 43–50. Doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2018.0239.

Estes, Steve. Ask & Tell: Gay & Lesbian Veterans Speak Out. University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Fox, Nancy Ann. “Aretē: ‘We As Black Women’.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 2019, pp. 58–77. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i1.75.

Hall, Deon M., et al. “Military Life Narratives and Identity Development among Black Post-9/11 Veterans.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, pp. 36–46. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v6i3.216.

Harris, G. L., et al. Women Veterans: Lifting the Veil of Invisibility. Routledge, 2018.

Hembrough, Tara, and Kameron Dunn. “A Study of Rural and Native-American Students’ Military Identities, Military Family History, and Reading and Writing Interests in a Military-Friendly, Military-Themed Composition Course.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, 2019, pp. 203–228. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v4i2.112.

Kinder, John M., and Jason A. Higgins, editors. Service Denied: Marginalized Veterans in Modern American History. University of Massachusetts Press, 2022.

Lau, Stephanie J., et al. “Unique Needs and Challenges of Women Veteran Students with Disabilities: Conceptualizing Identity in Higher Education.” Journal of Veterans Studies, vol. 6, no. 3, 2020, pp. 101–109. Doi: 10.21061/jvs.v6i3.212.

Lehavot, Keren., et al. “Race/Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation Disparities in Mental Health, Sexism, and Social Support Among Women Veterans.” Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, vol. 6, no. 3, 2019, pp. 347–358. Doi: 10.1037/sgd0000333.

Strong, Jessica D., et al. “Female Veterans: Navigating Two Identities.” Clinical Social Work Journal, vol. 46, 2018, pp. 92–99. Doi: 10.1007/s10615-017-0636-3.

 

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.

Conference on College Composition and Communication
November 2006 (revised March 2009, reaffirmed November 2014, revised April 2022)

Introduction

Writing assessment can be used for a variety of purposes, both inside the classroom and outside: supporting student learning, assigning a grade, placing students in appropriate courses, allowing them to exit a course or sequence of courses, certifying proficiency, and evaluating programs. Given the high-stakes nature of many of these assessment purposes, it is crucial that assessment practices be guided by sound principles that are fair and just and specific to the people for whom and the context and purposes for which they are designed. This position statement aims to provide that guidance for writing teachers and administrators across institutional types and missions. 

We encourage faculty, administrators, students, community members, and other stakeholders to reflect on the ways the principles, considerations, and practices articulated in this document are present in their current assessment methods and to consider revising and rethinking their practices to ensure that inclusion and language diversity, teaching and learning, and ethical labor practices inform every level of writing assessment.

Foundational Principles of Writing Assessment

This position statement identifies six principles that form the ethical foundation of writing assessment.

1. Writing assessments are important means for guiding teaching and learning. Writing assessments—and assignments to which they correlate—should be designed and implemented in pursuit of clearly articulated learning goals.
2. The methods and criteria used to assess writing shape student perceptions of writing and of themselves as writers.
3. Assessment practices should be solidly grounded in the latest research on learning, literacies, language, writing, equitable pedagogy, and ethical assessment. 
4. Writing is by definition social. In turn, assessing writing is social. Teaching writing and learning to write entail exploring a range of purposes, audiences, social and cultural contexts and positions, and mediums. 
5. Writers approach their writing with different attitudes, experiences, and language practices. Writers deserve the opportunity to think through and respond to numerous rhetorical situations that allow them to incorporate their knowledges, to explore the perspectives of others, and to set goals for their writing and their ongoing development as writers. 
6. Writing and writing assessment are labor-intensive practices. Labor conditions and outcomes must be designed and implemented in pursuit of both the short-term and long-term health and welfare of all participants.

Considerations for Designing Writing Assessments

Based on the six foundational principles detailed in the previous section, this section enumerates key considerations that follow from these principles for the design, interpretation, and implementation of writing assessments, whether formative or summative or at the classroom or programmatic level. 

Considerations for Inclusion and Language Diversity

• Best assessment practice is contextual. It is designed and implemented to address the learning needs of a full range of students in the local context, and involves methods and criteria that are locally developed, deriving from the particular context and purposes for the writing being assessed. (1, 2)
  

• Best assessment practice requires that learning goals, assessment methods, and criteria for success be equitable, accessible, and appropriate for each student in the local context. To meet this requirement, assessments are informed by research focused on the ways assignments and varied forms of assessment affect diverse student groups. (3)
  

• Best assessment practice recognizes that mastery is not necessarily an indicator of excellence. It provides opportunities for students to demonstrate their strengths in writing, displaying the strategies or skills taught in the relevant environment. Successful summative and formative assessment empowers students to make informed decisions about how to meet their goals as writers. (4, 5)
  

• Best assessment practice respects language as complicated and diverse and acknowledges that as purposes vary, criteria will as well. Best assessment practices provide multiple paths to success, accounting for a range of diverse language users, and do not arbitrarily or systematically punish linguistic differences. (3, 4, 5) 

Considerations for Learning and Teaching

• Best assessment practice engages students in contextualized, meaningful writing. Strong assessments strive to set up writing tasks and situations that identify purposes that are appropriate to, and that appeal to, the particular students being assessed. (4, 5)
  

• Best assessment practice clearly communicates what is valued and expected of writing practices. It focuses on measuring specific outcomes defined within the program or course. Values, purposes, and learning goals should drive assessment, not the reverse. (1, 6)
  

• Best assessment practice relies on new developments to shape assessment methods that prioritize student learning. Best assessment practice evolves. Revisiting and revising assessment practices should be considered periodically, as research in the field develops and evolves, and/or as the assessment needs or circumstances change. (3)
  

• Best assessment practice engages students in the assessment process, contextualizing the method and purpose of the assessment for students and all other stakeholders. Where possible, these practices invite students to help develop assessment strategies, both formative and summative. Best assessment practice understands that students need multiple opportunities to provide feedback to and receive feedback from other learners. (2, 4, 5)
  

• Best assessment practice helps students learn to examine and evaluate their own writing and how it functions and moves outside of specifically defined writing courses. These practices help students set individualized goals and encourage critical reflection by student writers on their own writing processes and performances. (4, 5)
  

• Best assessment practice generates data which is shared with faculty and administrators in the program so that assessment results may be used to make changes in practice. These practices make use of assessment data to provide opportunities for reflection, professional development, and for the exchange of information about student performance and institutional or programmatic expectations. (1, 6) 

Considerations for Labor

• Best assessment practice is undertaken in response to local goals and the local community of educators who guide the design and implementation of the assessment process. These practices actively seek feedback on assessment design and from the full range of faculty who will be impacted by or involved with the assessment process. Best assessment practice values individual writing programs, institutions, or consortiums as communities of interpreters whose knowledge of context and purpose is integral to assessment. (1, 6)
  

• Best assessment practice acknowledges how labor practices determine assessment implementation. It acknowledges the ways teachers’ institutional labor practices vary widely and responds to local labor demands that set realistic and humane expectations for equitable summative and formative feedback. (4, 6)
  

• Best assessment practice acknowledges the labor of research and the ways local conditions affect opportunities for staying abreast of the field. In these practices, opportunities for professional development based on assessment data are made accessible and meaningful to the full range of faculty teaching in the local context. (3) 
  

• Best assessment practice uses multiple measures to ensure successful formative and summative assessment appropriate to program expectation and considers competing tensions such as teaching load, class size, and programmatic learning outcomes when determining those measures. (2, 6)
  

• Best assessment practice provides faculty with financial, technical, and practical support in implementing comprehensive assessment measures and acknowledges the ways local contexts influence assessment decisions. (5, 6) 

Contexts for Writing Assessment

Ethical assessment at all levels and in all settings is context specific and labor intensive. Participants working toward an ethical culture of assessment must critically consider the conditions of labor, as well as expectations for class size, participation in programmatic assessment (especially for contingent faculty members), and professional development related to assessment. In addition, these activities and expectations should inform all discussions of workload for assessment participants to ensure that the labor of assessment is appropriately recognized and, where appropriate, compensated. 

Ethical assessment does not only consider the immediate practice of faculty engaging in classroom, programmatic, or institutional assessment, but it also builds on the assessment practices students have experienced in the past. Ethical assessment considers how it will coincide with other assessment practices students encounter at our institutions and keeps in sight the assessment experiences students are likely to experience in the future. A deliberately designed culture of assessment aligns classroom learning goals with larger programmatic and institutional learning goals and aligns assessment practices accordingly. It involves teachers, administrators, students, and community stakeholders designing assessments grounded in classroom and program contexts, and it includes feeding assessment data back to those involved so that assessment results may be used to make changes in practice. Ethical assessment also protects the data and identities of participants. Finally, ethical assessment practices involve asking difficult questions about the values and missions of an assignment, a course, or a program and whether or not assessments promote or possibly inhibit equity among participants.

Admissions, Placement, and Proficiency

Admissions, placement, and proficiency-based assessment practices are high-stakes processes with a history of exclusion and academic gatekeeping. Educational institutions and programs should recognize the history of these types of measures in privileging some students and penalizing others as it relates to their distinctive institutional and programmatic missions. They should then use that historical knowledge to inform the development of assessment measures that serve local needs and contexts. Assessments should be designed and implemented to support student progress and success. With placement in particular, institutions should be mindful of the financial burden and persistence issues that increase in proportion to the number of developmental credit hours students are asked to complete based on assessments.

Whether for admissions, placement, or proficiency, recommended practices for any assessment that seeks to directly measure students’ writing abilities involve, but are not limited to, the following concerns:

• Writing tasks and assessment criteria should be informed and motivated by the goals of the institution, the program, the curriculum, and the student communities that the program serves. (1, 2) 
• Writing products should be measured against a clearly defined set of criteria developed in conversation with instructors of record to ensure the criteria align with the goals of the program and/or the differences between the courses into which students might be placed. (1, 2) 
• Instructors of record should serve as scorers or should be regularly invited to provide feedback on whether existing assessment models are accurate, appropriate, and ethical. (4, 6) 
• Assessments should consist of multiple writing tasks that allow students to engage in various stages of their writing processes. (4, 5) 
• Assessment processes should include student input, whether in the form of a reflective component of the assessment or through guided self-placement measures. (5) 
• Students should have the opportunity to question and appeal assessment decisions. (5, 6) 
• Writing tasks and assessment criteria should be revisited regularly and updated to reflect the evolving goals of the program or curriculum. (1, 3) 

Classroom Assessment

Classroom assessment processes typically involve summative and formative assessment of individually and collaboratively authored projects in both text-based and multimedia formats. Assessments in the classroom usually involve evaluations and judgments of student work. Those judgments have too often been tied to how well students perform standard edited American English (SEAE) to the exclusion of other concerns. Instead, classroom assessments should focus on acknowledging that students enter the classroom with varied language practices, abilities, and knowledges, and these enrich the classroom and create more democratic classroom spaces. Classroom assessments should reinforce and reflect the goals of individual and collaborative projects. Additionally, classroom assessment might work toward centering labor-based efforts students put forth when composing for multiple scenarios and purposes. Each of the six foundational principles of assessment is key to ensuring ethical assessment of student writing in a classroom context.  

Recommended practices in classroom assessment involve, but are not limited to, the following:

• Clear communications related to the purposes of assessment for each project (1, 2) 
• Assessment/feedback that promote and do not inhibit opportunities for revision, risk-taking, and play (4, 5) 
• Assessment methodologies grounded in the latest research (3) 
• Practices designed to benefit the health and welfare of all participants by respecting the labor of instructors and students (6) 
• Occasions to illustrate a range of rhetorical skills and literacies (3, 4) 
• Attention to the value of language diversity and rejection of evaluations of language based on a single standard (5) 
• Efforts to demystify writing, composing, and languaging processes (3, 4) 
• Opportunities for self-assessment, informed goal setting, and growth (5, 6) 
• Input from the classroom community on classroom assessment processes (5, 6)

Program Assessment

Assessment of writing programs, from first-year composition programs to Writing Across the Curriculum programs, is a critical component of an institution’s culture of assessment. Assessment can focus on the operation of the program, its effectiveness to improve student writing, and how it best supports university goals.

While programmatic assessment might be driven by state or institutional policies, members of writing programs are in the best position to guide decisions about what assessments will best serve that community. Programs and departments should see themselves as communities of professionals whose assessment activities communicate measures of effectiveness to those inside and outside the program.

Writing program assessments and designs are encouraged to adhere to the following recommended practices:

• Reflect the goals and mission of the institution and its writing programs. (1) 
• Draw on multiple methods, quantitative and qualitative, to assess programmatic effectiveness and incorporate blind assessment processes of anonymized writing when possible. (1, 3, 6) 
• Establish shared assessment criteria for evaluating student performance that are directly linked to course outcomes and student performance indicators. (1, 2) 
• Occur regularly with attention to institutional context and programmatic need. (3, 6) 
• Share assessment protocols with faculty teaching in the program and invite faculty to contribute to design and implementation. (4, 5, 6) 
• Share assessment results with faculty to ensure assessment informs curriculum design and revisions. (1, 2) 
• Recognize that assessment results influence and reflect accreditation of and financial resources available to programs. (6) 
• Provide opportunities for assessors to discuss and come to an understanding of outcomes and scoring options. (4, 5) 
• Consider faculty labor: 
  • Faculty assessors should be compensated in ways that advantage them in their local contexts whether this involves financial compensation, reassigned time, or recognized service considered for annual review, promotion, and/or merit raises. (6) 
  • Contingent instructors are vital to programs and, ideally, their expertise should be considered in assessment processes. If, however, participation exceeds what is written into their contracts/labor expectations, appropriate compensation should be awarded. (6) 

Conclusion

There is no perfect assessment measure, and best practices in all assessment contexts involve reflections by stakeholders on the effectiveness and ethics of all assessment practices. Assessments that involve timed tests, rely solely on machine scoring, or primarily judge writing based on prescriptive grammar and mechanics offer a very limited view of student writing ability and have a history of disproportionately penalizing students from marginalized populations. Ethical assessment practices provide opportunities to identify equity gaps in writing programs and classrooms and to use disaggregated data to make informed decisions about increasing educational opportunities for students. 

Individual faculty and larger programs should carefully review their use of these assessment methods and critically weigh the benefits and ethics of these approaches. Additionally, when designing these assessment processes, programs should carefully consider the labor that will be required at all stages of the process to ensure an adequate base of faculty labor to maintain the program and to ensure that all faculty involved are appropriately compensated for that labor. Ethical assessment is always an ongoing process of negotiating the historical impacts of writing assessment, the need for a clear portrait of what is happening in classrooms and programs, and the concern for the best interests of all assessment participants. 

Recommended Readings

Adler-Kassner, Linda, and Peggy O’Neill. Reframing Writing Assessment to Improve Teaching and Learning. Utah State UP, 2010.  

Ball, Arnetha F. “Expanding the Dialogue on Culture as a Critical Component When Assessing Writing.” Assessing Writing, vol. 4, no. 2, 1997, pp. 169–202. 

Broad, Bob. What We Really Value: Beyond Rubrics in Teaching and Assessing Writing. Utah State UP, 2003. 

Cushman, Ellen. “Decolonizing Validity.” The Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 9, no. 1, 2016, escholarship.org/uc/item/0xh7v6fb. 

Elliot, Norbert. “A Theory of Ethics for Writing Assessment.” The Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 9, no. 1, 2016, escholarship.org/uc/item/36t565mm. 

Gomes, Mathew, et al. “Enabling Meaningful Labor: Narratives of Participation in a Grading Contract.” The Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 13, no. 2, 2020, escholarship.org/uc/item/1p60j218. 

Gomes, Mathew, and Wenjuan Ma. “Engaging expectations: Measuring helpfulness as an alternative to student evaluations of teaching.” Assessing Writing, vol. 45, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100464. 

Green, David F., Jr. “Expanding the Dialogue on Writing Assessment at HBCUs: Foundational Assessment Concepts and Legacies of Historically Black Colleges and Universities.” College English, vol. 79, no. 2, 2016, pp. 152–173. 

Grouling, Jennifer. “The Path to Competency-Based Certification: A Look at the LEAP Challenge and the VALUE Rubric for Written Communication.” The Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 10, no. 1, 2017, escholarship.org/uc/item/5575w31k. 

Hassel, Holly, and Joanne Giordano. “The Blurry Borders of College Writing: Remediation and the Assessment of Student Readiness.” College English, vol. 78, no. 1, 2015, pp. 56–80. 

Helms, Janet E. “Fairness Is Not Validity or Cultural Bias in Racial-Group Assessment: A Quantitative Perspective.” American Psychologist, vol. 61, 2006, pp. 845–859, https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.61.8.845.  

Huot, Brian, and Peggy O’Neill. Assessing Writing: A Critical Sourcebook. Macmillan, 2009.  

Inoue, Asao B. Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future. Parlor Press, 2015.  

Inoue, Asao B., and Mya Poe, editors. Race and Writing Assessment. Peter Lang, 2012. 

Johnson, David, and Lewis VanBrackle. “Linguistic Discrimination in Writing Assessment: How Raters React to African American ‘Errors’, ESL Errors, and Standard English Errors on a State-Mandated Writing Exam.” Assessing Writing, vol. 17, no. 1, 2012, pp. 35–54. 

Johnson, Gavin P. “Considering the Possibilities of a Cultural Rhetorics Assessment Framework.” Pedagogy Blog, constellations: a cultural rhetorics publishing space, 26 August 2020, constell8cr.com/pedagogy-blog/considering-the-possibilities-of-a-cultural-rhetorics-assessment-framework/.  

Lindsey, Peggy, and Deborah Crusan. “How Faculty Attitudes and Expectations toward Student Nationality Affect Writing Assessment.” Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learning, and Academic Writing, vol. 8, 2011, https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2011.8.4.23. 

McNair, Tia Brown, et al. From Equity Talk to Equity Walk: Expanding Practitioner Knowledge for Racial Justice in Higher Education. Jossey-Bass, 2020. 

Mislevy, Robert J. Sociocognitive Foundations of Educational Measurement. Routledge, 2018. 

Newton, Paul E. “There Is More to Educational Measurement than Measuring: The Importance of Embracing Purpose Pluralism.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, vol. 36, no. 2, 2017, pp. 5–15.  

Perryman-Clark, Staci M. “Who We Are(n’t) Assessing: Racializing Language and Writing Assessment in Writing Program Administration.” College English, vol. 79, no. 2, 2016, pp. 206–211. 

Poe, Mya, et al. “The Legal and the Local: Using Disparate Impact Analysis to Understand the Consequences of Writing Assessment.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 65, no. 4, 2014, pp. 588–611. 

Poe, Mya, et al. Writing Assessment, Social Justice, and the Advancement of Opportunity. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado, 2018.  

Poe, Mya, and John Aloysius Cogan Jr. “Civil Rights and Writing Assessment: Using the Disparate Impact Approach as a Fairness Methodology to Determine Social Impact.” Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 9, no. 1, 2016, escholarship.org/uc/item/08f1c307. 

Randall, Jennifer. “Color-Neutral Is Not a Thing: Redefining Construct Definition and Representation through a Justice-Oriented Critical Antiracist Lens.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12429. 

Rhodes, Terrel L., and Ashley Finley. Using the VALUE Rubrics for Improvement of Learning and Authentic Assessment. AAC&U, 2013. 

Slomp, David. “Complexity, Consequence, and Frames: A Quarter Century of Research in Assessing Writing.” Assessing Writing, vol. 42, no. 4, 2019, pp. 1–17. 

———. “Ethical Considerations and Writing Assessment.” Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 9, no. 1, 2016, escholarship.org/uc/item/2k14r1zg. 

———. “An Integrated Design and Appraisal Framework for Ethical Writing Assessment.” The Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 9, no. 1, 2016, escholarship.org/uc/item/4bg9003k. 

Solano-Flores, Guillermo. “Assessing the Cultural Validity of Assessment Practices: An Introduction.” Cultural Validity in Assessment: Addressing Linguistic and Cultural Diversity, edited by María del Rosario Basterra et al., Routledge, 2002, pp. 3–21. 

Tan, Tony Xing, et al. “Linguistic, Cultural and Substantive Patterns in L2 Writing: A Qualitative Illustration of Mislevy’s Sociocognitive Perspective on Assessment.” Assessing Writing, vol. 51,  2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100574. 

Toth, Christie, and Laura Aull. “Directed Self-Placement Questionnaire Design: Practices, Problems, Possibilities.” Assessing Writing, vol. 20, 2014, pp. 1–18. 

Toth, Christie, et al. “Introduction: Writing Assessment, Placement, and the Two-Year College.” Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 12, no. 1, 2019. (Special Issue on Two-Year Colleges and Placement) 

Acknowledgments

This statement was generously revised by the Task Force to Create CCCC Guidelines for College Writing Assessment: Inclusive, Sustainable, and Evidence-Based Practices. The members of this task force include: 

Anna Hensley, Co-chair
Joyce Inman, Co-chair
Melvin Beavers
Raquel Corona
Bump Halbritter
Leigh Jonaitis
Liz Tinoco
Rachel Wineinger 

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.

Conference on College Composition and Communication
[March 2018 (replaces the 1987 CCCC “The Range of Scholarship in Composition: A Description for Department Chairs and Deans”)]

The purpose of this statement is to describe the range of scholarly activities in rhetoric, writing, and composition. The audiences for this statement include faculty and administrators who have the responsibility for evaluating this scholarship as part of the recruitment, promotion, and other evaluative activities that occur in colleges and universities; scholars in the field who are explaining their work to nonspecialists; and any others who want to understand the work of scholars in this broadly interdisciplinary field. 

What the Field of Rhetoric, Writing, and Composition Includes

As the title of this statement indicates, the work of scholars in the field is described by various interrelated terms, rhetoric, writing, and composition among the most prominent. The interdisciplinary nature of this scholarship may also include or draw from scholarship in institutional and administrative practices; literacy studies; the scholarship of teaching and learning; communication; print and digital media; technical communication; second language studies/English as a Second Language; linguistics; and critical and cultural studies, among many others. Scholars working in rhetoric, writing, and composition treat the activity of writing, broadly conceived, as their subject. Rhetoric, writing, and composition scholarship addresses how texts are composed, conveyed, and received in a variety of media and for a variety of purposes and audiences, both inside and outside the academy. Scholars investigate writing processes and products in schools and universities, in academic disciplines, in the workplace, in the public arena, in the home, and in digital/virtual environments (see CCCC Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Work with Technology).

Scholars of rhetoric, writing, and composition understand the power of language and are frequently influenced by their understanding to ask questions about how theories and practices function to support inclusivity or to work against it. The power of language can give people voice, but it can also silence people. Language can be inclusive, but it can also exclude. It can break or sustain traditional stereotypes, biases, hostilities. Scholarship in rhetoric, writing, and composition often examines the power of language through rhetorical, theoretical, and empirical investigations.

Scholarship in rhetoric, writing, and composition may not foreground diversity and inclusion, but it is typically informed by the recognition of the power of language. The scholarship that led to the adoption of the CCCC Position Statement titled Students’ Right to Their Own Language, that led Mina Shaughnessy to bring the diversity of her open enrollment students to our attention in Errors and Expectations, and that explains why David Bartholomae’s “Inventing the University” remains powerful today is indicative of our field’s long commitment to understanding the power of language and the language of power. Some scholarship in rhetoric, writing, and composition takes diversity and inclusion as its primary focus, as is the case in the works just named. Other scholarship may use issues of race, gender and gender identification, class, multilinguality, and/or national origin as lenses to consider topics such as assessment, as do the contributors to Asao Inoue and Mya Poe’s book Race and Writing Assessment (Studies in Composition and Rhetoric No. 7, Peter Lang, 2012).

How Rhetoric, Writing, and Composition Scholars Conduct Research

Scholarship in the field includes a wide variety of areas of inquiry, methods, and publication genres/media, including but not limited to historical or theoretical research, pedagogical studies, assessment of writing pedagogies and programs, rhetorical analysis of traditional and new media texts, linguistic analyses, studies of community and civic literacies, multimodal and digital research, and other creative and narrative genres. Scholarship may be text- or media-focused, using methods common to the humanities. It may also be focused on teaching and learning in educational settings, or on professional composing practices, using observational and experimental methods common to the social and behavioral sciences. Such studies require approval from Institutional Review Boards to ensure safe and ethical interactions with human participants, the students or members of specific organizations being studied (see CCCC Guidelines for the Ethical Conduct of Research in Composition Studies). Published scholarship often combines the development or application of theory with empirical research. While some scholarship in rhetoric, writing, and composition takes as its primary focus texts written by other scholars, or literary texts created by novelists, poets, and playwrights, a substantial amount of scholarship in the field examines texts (and images and rhetorical acts of all kinds) composed by students and/or writers in “ordinary” settings.

The omnipresence of writing both within and beyond educational settings opens multiple sites of inquiry for scholars in rhetoric, writing, and composition, and makes the boundaries between those areas of inquiry somewhat porous. One subset of scholarship involves itself primarily in the ways writing instruction is delivered in varied settings, from traditional classrooms to workplaces and sites of social need (prisons, workforce development, community literacy centers, etc.). It acknowledges that such sites vary by the circumstances and backgrounds of learners, attending, for example, to specific needs that arise in four-year, two-year, and online institutions, as well as institutions that focus on traditionally underserved populations. It also attends to the differences in the delivery of writing instruction in subject-specific writing (as with WAC/WID programs), in tutoring/consulting sessions, for L2 learners, and in online environments—all of which also include a wide range of instructor preparation and professional development as well as the work of writing program administration in developing curricula and preparing teachers. And while research on these sites of pedagogy attends to issues of instructional processes, other areas of research focus on the writing products that emerge from those sites, providing occasions for rhetorical analysis, studies of discursive differences, and studies of impact on both the work done at those sites and the producers of those texts. Moreover, scholarship in the field often turns its attention to issues of application, posing such questions as “What are the implications of this research for the classroom and/or community?” and to issues of outreach, asking, “What does this research suggest for developing literacies beyond institutional walls?”

Scholars in rhetoric, writing, and composition often conduct and publish work collaboratively, and often eschew traditional notions of “first author,” both because the field typically regards collaborative work as equal partnerships and because the order of names may not indicate contribution levels.

Where Rhetoric, Writing, and Composition Scholars Are Located in Institutions

Because of the wide range of scholarly, teaching, and administrative situations in which scholars in rhetoric, writing, and composition act, they may hold positions in a variety of institutional departments and programs. Traditionally, rhetoric, writing, and composition faculty have held tenured faculty positions in Departments of English, but at many institutions, rhetoric, writing, and composition resides in a department of its own. At other universities, rhetoric, writing, and composition scholars may hold positions in institution-wide writing centers or Writing Across the Curriculum programs, frequently with a tenure home in an academic department. Rhetoric, writing, and composition scholars may hold tenure in Departments of Technical Communication, and because of the close relationship between writing and second language studies, some rhetoric, writing, and composition scholars are members of Departments of Applied Linguistics or Second Language Studies or Communication. Some may hold appointments outside of traditional departments, as may be the case of a faculty member directing a professional writing program located in a college of business. Rhetoric, writing, and composition scholars often hold joint appointments in more than one administrative unit.

How Writing Program Administration and Scholarship in Rhetoric, Writing, and Composition Are Linked

The boundaries between scholarship, teaching, and service are quite porous for faculty members working in rhetoric, writing, and composition. This is because much of what we study is about pedagogy and practice: how writing is taught and learned in courses, programs, and extracurricular sites. This is also because many rhetoric, writing, and composition scholars administer (and study) writing programs of various kinds, including but not limited to first-year writing programs, writing centers, professional writing programs, writing majors, and Writing Across the Curriculum/Writing in the Disciplines initiatives. There are doctoral-level courses in writing program administration now offered across the country and increasing attention paid to the ways that programmatic work can be considered scholarship.

This linkage between our administrative work and our scholarship and teaching is so common and, for many, so central that the Council of Writing Program Administrators issued a statement in 1998 titled “Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Administration”. This statement recognizes that much administrative work conducted by writing scholars can and should be considered scholarship, not just service. However, for that to be the case, it can “neither derive from nor produce simplistic products or services” and must instead “draw upon historical and contemporary knowledge, and . . . contribute to the formation of new knowledge and improved decision making.” This statement contends that “writing program administration may be considered intellectual work when it meets two tests. First, it needs to advance knowledge—its production, clarification, connection, reinterpretation, or application. Second, it results in products or activities that can be evaluated by others.” The statement notes five areas of administrative work that might meet these two tests: program creation, curricular design, faculty development, program assessment and evaluation, and program-related textual production. Any of these “products” or activities might be considered scholarship if they generate, clarify, connect, reinterpret, or apply knowledge based on research, theory, and sound pedagogical practice; require disciplinary knowledge available only to an expert trained in or conversant with a particular field; require highly developed analytical or problem-solving skills derived from specific expertise, training, or research; and result in products or activities that can be evaluated by peers. The statement further suggests criteria for evaluating this work: is it innovative, does it improve/refine, can it be/is it disseminated, and does it produce empirical results?

How Scholarship in Rhetoric, Writing, and Composition Is Made Public

The work of rhetoric and composition teachers and researchers appears in professional and popular print and online publications, single- or coauthored monographs, edited collections, and textbooks. We are often called on to respond to language-related issues (e.g., the English-only movement, gendered and racialized expression, the teaching of grammar, the use of inclusive language) by way of editorials, radio and news interviews, and panels. Perhaps more than any of our colleagues, we are the public face of English studies (see CCCC Statement on Community-Engaged Projects in Rhetoric and Composition). Outlets for the publication of scholarship in rhetoric, writing, and composition include traditional university presses, private academic presses, traditional print journals, “born digital” online journals, and open access, peer-reviewed publications. Because, as mentioned above, innovative textbooks are a common product of scholarship in rhetoric, writing, and composition, the writing of textbooks should be considered evidence of the scholarship of teaching and learning. As is the case in all disciplines, peer review is standard practice in the scholarly publishing of books, essay collections, journal articles, and textbooks in rhetoric, writing, and composition.

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.