Author: ksuchor

The following resolutions were passed at the CCCC Annual Business Meeting held on Saturday, April 15, 2000, in Minneapolis, MN:

Resolution 1: Honoring Wendy Bishop

WHEREAS Wendy Bishop has distinguished herself as a poet, ethnographer, compositionist, and teacher,

WHEREAS she has provided us with the space and energy to explore provocative, radical, and exciting options so that we can reinvent ourselves for the new millennium,

WHEREAS she has succeeded in inventing a conference that moved us beyond the mainstream and helped us educate the imagination and reimagine education,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the fifty-first meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication celebrate and commend Wendy Bishop for an exciting and thought-provoking program.

Resolution 2: Honoring Lisa Albrecht and the Local Arrangements Committee

WHEREAS Lisa Albrecht and the entire Local Arrangements Committee have kept their promise to the attendees of the fifty-first CCCC Convention of providing us with an invigorating, intellectual event,

WHEREAS she has shared with us diverse communities of local writers, artists, and musicians,

WHEREAS her work in the areas of social justice and civil rights, with special emphasis on racism and homophobia, inspires us all,

WHEREAS her infectious humor in the face of her daunting organizational responsibilities has made us feel welcome and at home in the Twin Cities in ways that would make her mother proud,

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2000 Conference on College Composition and Communication acknowledge and applaud Lisa Albrecht and the entire Local Arrangements Committee for their wonderful efforts.

CCCC is inviting applicants for the position of CCCC Policy Fellow for the 2014-15 academic year. This position will work with the CCCC/NCTE staff to help coordinate follow-through actions in support of reports filed by the CCCC state-based network of higher education policy analysts, and will provide research summaries and expert testimony/insights drawn from research and professional practice to public policy decision-makers about high priority higher education issues for CCCC and NCTE (these will be identified in consultation with the CCCC/NCTE Washington DC office and CCCC Chair).

The Policy Fellow will do the majority of their work on behalf of CCCC from their home institution, but will have funding (up to $5,000) to travel to Washington, D.C. a few times a year to make presentations, provide testimony, and work on specific initiatives. When appropriate, the Fellow will work with DC office staff to compose “calls to action” that might be issued to members in specific states where a strategic grassroots response from our community is needed. The Fellow will maintain ongoing contact with CCCC/NCTE executive staff leadership and will create reports about progress to-date for the CCCC Executive Committee to consider during their governance meetings in November and March.

CCCC will provide the Policy Fellow with a small honorarium ($3,000) and travel funds (up to $5,000) to help support the activities outlined above. The position is a one-year appointment (with the possibility of a second year renewal) beginning in July 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, and will be appointed by the CCCC Chair and Executive Secretary-Treasurer.

Applicants should submit a letter of interest, a CV, and any relevant published work to cccc@ncte.org by Friday, May 30, 2014. Interviews will take place in early June and applicants will be notified of their status by early July.

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) Executive Committee follows the principles of knowledge-based governance, a decision-making model that encourages careful study of relevant information and full dialogue and deliberation about the consequences of action before policy is established. When contemplating an issue, we ask:

• What do we know about how this issue may effect our members and stakeholders?
• What do we know about how trends–educational, demographic, economic, or cultural–are changing this issue?
• What do we know about NCTE’s capacity to act, alone or in alliance with others, on this issue?
• What are the ethical dimensions of our choices?

The following are motions passed by the CCCC EC around their yearly strategic issues:

2012 Vision Statement

12.E.06 MOTION (Anson/Pough) CARRIED: That we approve the vision statement in principle with the understanding that further revision will take place, attentive to the further discussion at the March EC meeting, leading to a final draft to be put to an Executive Committee vote by the end of our November meeting.

By 2022, CCCC will be a clear, trusted public voice for the teaching and learning of writing, rhetoric, and literacy in all higher education contexts. We will have fostered, in academic and in informal learning settings, the conditions in which students, the general public, and teachers engage in civil deliberative discourse about what it means to be literate. We will support the delivery of quality literacy instruction through sustainable, relevant, and ethical models of teaching and learning.

In order to support this, CCCC will be an organization that values members who represent a diversity of races, cultures, languages, identities, institutions, and institutional roles, and will create multiple access points for participation among our various constituents. We will work at the leading edge of shifting notions and new definitions of writing, rhetoric, and literacy through valuing and creating space for a wide and vibrant range of scholarship.

In all circumstances, we will advocate for language use as a fundamental human activity that empowers individuals and communities.

2012: Leadership Group

12E.09 MOTION (Selfe/Rodrigo) CARRIED:  That CCCC create more opportunities for SIGs and caucuses to meet at times throughout the Annual Conference.

12E.10 MOTION (Selfe/Journet) CARRIED: That CCCC create opportunities for more interactive sessions available throughout the Conference.

12E.11 MOTION (Selfe/Moore) CARRIED: That the EC leadership group, in collaboration with Committee on the Status of Graduate Students and the Graduate Student SIG, develop a nomination and election process that will add (a) graduate student(s) to the EC.

12E.12 MOTION (Selfe/ Rodrigo): CARRIED: To advise the Chair to form EC form an Engagement Committee to work in conjunction with the Newcomers committee to engage and retain experienced CCCC attendees and emerging leaders.

2010: Dual-Credit/Concurrent-Enrollment Focus Group

10E.24 MOTION (from the committee) CARRIED: To establish a task force to develop a position statement outlining best practices, policies, and procedures for instituting dual-credit/concurrent-enrollment programs.

2009: Research

09E.20 MOTION (Fleckenstein/Glenn) CARRIED without dissent: That CCCC develop a multi-year research program/agenda that addresses key concerns voiced by the membership.

09E.21 MOTION (Strasma/Young) CARRIED: That CCCC should develop a research advocacy committee to coordinate CCCC research interests with other national policy-making organizations and articulate research opportunities to membership.

2008: Building a More Diverse CCCC

08E.16 MOTION (Fitzgerald) CARRIED: That CCCC design a means of assessing the 2009 piloted diverse presentation formats and continue to pilot and assess other formats in 2010.

2008: Technology, Globalization/Interconnections, and Changes in Student Populations

08E.17 MOTION #1 on Technology was withdrawn and will be referred to the Committee on Research.

08E.18 MOTION #2 (Fleckenstein) CARRIED: To prepare the membership for the growing challenges and opportunities posed by globalization, we move that the CCCC Chair establish a task force to explore issues related to the nature, scope, and implementation of globalization/internationalization for the writing classroom and postsecondary education. This process may culminate in a policy statement that articulates potential local and organizational responses to globalization. If created, the policy statement may be published on the NCTE Web site and disseminated throughout the membership by November 2009.

08E.19 MOTION #3 (Fleckenstein) CARRIED: Because the majority of postsecondary composition teachers lack formal preparation in addressing the challenges posed by the increasing diversity of students, particularly multilingual writers, we move that CCCC advocate for changes in writing teacher preparation, culminating in a set of guidelines for teacher preparation. Furthermore, by March 2010, CCCC will widely distribute those guidelines to school administrators’ organizations, accrediting agencies, national media, and K-postsecondary teacher organizations. Finally, CCCC will collect annual data from the membership through NCTE survey initiatives to ascertain the formal preparation of writing teachers to address the diverse needs of their multilingual students, beginning in 2011 and continuing through 2017.

2008: Connecting with Literacy, Composition, and/or Rhetoric Educators in Nontraditional Settings

08E.21 MOTION (Anokye/Day) CARRIED: That the Chair of CCCC appoint a committee to create a position statement that validates literacy work by academics in non-academic settings and to present the statement at the Executive Committee meeting in March 2009.

08E.22 MOTION (Calhoon-Dillahunt/Devitt) CARRIED: That CCCC support the work of non-traditional literacy educators by publishing the Position Statement in its journals and on the NCTE website and plan a session on this topic for CCCC Convention March 2010.
The motion above was originally tabled and revisited later in the meeting.

08E.23 MOTION (Anokye/Day): CARRIED: Because the intellectual and professional contributions of college writing teachers who are publicly engaged in nontraditional writing settings are not always considered in the evaluation process for tenure, promotion, or merit, we move that the chair of CCCC appoint a committee to create a position statement that validates as intellectual contributions to literacy by college writing teachers in nonacademic settings, and to present the statement at the EC meeting in November 2009.

2007: Membership Study

07E.30 MOTION (Moneyhun for Membership Focus Committee) CARRIED. By March 2009, CCCCs will know the reasons that cohorts (for example, by age, gender, minority status, job status, institutional type, career stage) give for not joining or renewing and for not attending the convention.

07E.31 MOTION (Powell/Young) CARRIED (divided vote):  To amend the motion to insert “and institutional and individual participation in community outreach and/or service learning” after paren following “administrative.”

07E.32 MOTION (Moneyhun for Membership Focus Committee) CARRIED AS AMENDED.  By November 2010, CCCC will have easily upgradeable databases about the profession in general and about our membership.  The faculty/administrative databases should include at least age, gender, race, institutional type, career stage, salary, degrees, classes taught, graduate school specialization (comp/rhet or lit), job status (full-time tenure track or tenured, full-time non-tenure track, adjunct or part-time, full-time administrative, part-time administrative) and institutional and individual participation in community outreach and/or service learning.  Institutional information should include class size in writing courses for undergraduate and graduate programs.

2007: Allies and Public Policy

07E.33 MOTION (Roen for Focus Committee) CARRIED on a divided vote:  We move that CCCC develop mechanisms for communicating with allies (such as TYCA, WPA, NWP, IWCA, NCTE, NCA, AAAL, AERA, NABE, TESOL, AAC&U, MLA, RSA, IRA) who share common concerns.  This should be done as soon as possible.

07E.34 MOTION (Roen for Focus Allies and Alliances Committee) CARRIED: To position CCCC as an authoritative source for public policy, we move that CCCC review and, where necessary, revise policy statements, guidelines, best practices, and position statements to maximize their clarity, consistency, continuity, currency, and completeness.  This review should begin as soon as possible.

2007: Leadership

07E.35 MOTION (Fleckenstein for Leadership Focus Committee) CARRIED: We move that CCCC will develop within the next year a policy statement concerning leadership opportunities and experiences.  Such a statement should address the importance of 1) personal and professional networks, 2) consistent and ongoing mentoring, and 3) intellectual, practical, and emotional support during leadership positions.

Submitted by Jason Snart, Professor of English, College of DuPage

The example provided here addresses OWI Principle 11: “Online writing teachers and their institutions should develop personalized and interpersonal online communities to foster student success.” I use this technique in online and in hybrid freshman composition courses. We use Blackboard Version 9.1.

Sample Video of Welcome Announcement

Explanation of effective practice

Using the free Logitech software included with my webcam, I record a short video of myself talking to students. I include these kinds of informal videos throughout a term, but the initial (one time) “Welcome” video I find particularly important. In the “Welcome” video, I discuss things like course content, I welcome students to a new semester, and I remind students about due dates—in short, I use video as a medium for being “present” for online students.

Once the video is recorded, I upload it to my YouTube account and then embed the HTML code that YouTube provides into an announcement in the “Announcements” area in the Blackboard LMS. Since “Announcements” is the landing page for all of my courses, the videos are the first thing students see when they log in.

Challenge this practice addresses

This practice allows me to be more present for my online students so they can see and hear me. Because many teachers and students affectively feel a distance in asynchronous courses particularly, seeing my face and hearing my voice can remind them that I am human, aware of them as people, and generally there for them. In short, this video increases presence awareness in an asynchronous setting. In addition to the course information I provide and the constant reminders to stay on task, I think some students are more engaged when they experience themselves as part of a class community with an instructor they can see. Being visible for online students has helped me to make teaching online a less isolating experience than it otherwise can seem to be for students. Ideally, they feel more connected to me and, thus, responsible to the course. I know that I certainly feel more connected to them, just by virtue of being more obviously present in the class.

How to implement this practice

• Instruction guide in Word format (docx)
• Instruction guide in PDF format (pdf)

 

 

 

Submitted by Jodi Whitehurst, Instructor at Arkansas State University-Beebe

The example provided here addresses OWI Principle 3: “Appropriate composition teaching/learning strategies should be developed for the unique features of the online instructional environment.” The setting in which I implemented Screencast feedback was in an all online first-year freshman composition course that utilized Blackboard 9.1 as its course management system.

Introduction

A screencast is a digital video recording that captures actions taking place on a computer screen. It also can include audio and video of the presenter. Developing writers, especially English language learners, benefit from clear and specific feedback on assignments. By creating screencast videos for feedback, online writing faculty are able to indicate specific needs for revision within student assignments, discuss possible approaches for revising, display assignment rubrics to specify criteria that are and are not being met, direct writers to online resources, and give “voiced” affirmations to developing writers.

I have received an overwhelming amount of unsolicited positive feedback from my students since I started using screencast videos for feedback on process papers. For example, one nontraditional student commented that this was the first time an online instructor had shown her how specific errors in her paper impacted her writing features scores on the rubric. She further explained that she was usually unable to understand what parts of her writing led to lower scores or how to improve those in the future. 

Before describing the use of screencasts for assignments, it is important to note that I only use this for high-stakes process assignments, like essays. I do this for two specific reasons. First, creating a screencast video for every student does take more time than providing general feedback on assignments. My goal is to provide valuable feedback to students while keeping my workload manageable. Next, high-stakes process assignments (as opposed to say short reader responses) are typically worth more points in an overall class grade. By focusing on these assignments and allowing them to revise, students are given specific tools to be successful in the class.

Explanation of effective practice

Example Student Feedback Video: Jodi Whitehurst

First, I open and read the student paper, making mental notes of aspects to highlight during the video. Then, I open and minimize the assignment rubric, my assignment example paper, and any other webpages or files that I think may be useful during the video. Next, I open the screencast software.

During the video, I follow these steps:

1. Give a short general greeting, which usually includes thanking the student for sharing his or her paper with the learning community. I do this because my students post their rough drafts to a discussion board and discuss revision possibilities with their peers before I offer feedback. I give clear guidelines for respectfully discussing student work, and I try to model respect for student ownership of writing in my screencast feedback as well. 
2. Indicate 2-3 specific skills in the paper that were executed well and briefly refer to examples.
3. Indicate 2-3 specific skills in the paper that could be improved, referring to some specific examples. I select those skills that most need improvement and avoid pointing out all errors. My main goal is to specifically point out an error pattern and demonstrate how to correct those errors.
4. Maximize the example paper given with the assignment to show a specific example of the skill.
5. Briefly maximize the assignment rubric to show how these improvements would better meet the criteria.
6. Indicate any other websites or resources that might help the student improve on those 2-3 specific skills.
7. Give general closing remarks that again usually include gratitude for sharing his or her writing.

After completing the video, I save it to an external drive as an MP4 file. The file sizes vary based on the length of the video. I have sent videos as long as 15 minutes (the limit for a video created using the free version of Screencast-O-Matic), but usually the video feedback ranges from 6-8 minutes, which creates an MP4 file size of around 18,000 KB. Finally, I send the student an e-mail through our course management system with the screencast video attached. In any given semester, I usually have between one and three students unable to open the files. In these cases, I make other arrangements, usually phone conferences, to provide assignment feedback.
It takes about one minute for a video to send in Blackboard 9.1, so I usually open two tabs—one to send the e-mails and one to continue to the next student paper. In this way, I can move quickly through student papers. If delivering screencast videos due to file size becomes difficult, there are options for storing and sharing through internet cloud services like Dropbox, which allows you to share files with certain people. Another option is to upload the video to youtube and select “private,” which will allow you to type in users allowed to view the video.

Challenge this practice addresses

Offering specific text-based feedback within student papers can prove very labor intensive. Often online faculty members cope with this challenge by offering less feedback or vague feedback, like “Needs improvement in conventions.” Using screencast feedback allows faculty member to give specific feedback without a great amount of typing. Providing detailed text-based feedback for all student papers can be quite labor intensive. For example, I started using screencast feedback when I developed carpal tunnel syndrome in my hands, primarily due to endless hours of typing for my online classes.  

Most importantly, using screencasts for feedback allows students to view actions on a screen. As opposed to a lengthy and often confusing text-based explanation of how to improve a paper, students are able to view a screen where their instructor discusses and models ways to improve assignments.

How to implement this practice

Screencast software can be downloaded free online.

Video Tutorial: How to Download, Record, and Save a Video Using Screencast-o-Matic

I use Screencast-O-Matic, but there are other options as well. I have provided a list of free screencast software below along with a place where each can be downloaded.

Screencast-O-Matic
http://www.screencast-o-matic.com/

Open Broadcaster Software   (for advanced users)
http://obsproject.com/

CamStudio
http://camstudio.org/

The National Language Policy is a response to efforts to make English the “official” language of the United States. This policy recognizes the historical reality that, even though English has become the language of wider communication, we are a multilingual society. All people in a democratic society have the right to education, to employment, to social services, and to equal protection under the law. No one should be denied these or any civil rights because of linguistic differences. This policy enables everyone to participate in the life of this multicultural nation by ensuring continued respect both for English, our common language, and for the many other languages that contribute to our rich cultural heritage.

Read the full statement, CCCC Guideline on the National Language Policy (March 1988, updated 1992, revised March 2015)

In the context of two contradictory movements, one that emphasizes a liberal education and a second that works to compress curricula and learning into narrow indicators of teacher accountability and student achievement, and in response to a call for writing instruction to move outward from its traditional emphasis on academic contexts, this statement calls into action all those who share CCCC vision of a future in which an expansive writing curriculum, backed by ample resources, attends unyieldingly to the difficult work of helping students use good words, images, and other appropriate means, well composed, to build a better world.

Read the full statement, CCCC Statement on the Multiple Uses of Writing (November 2007)

Conference on College Composition and Communication
April 2016

Since the 1980s, as composition has grown as a scholarly field, the composition job market has grown correspondingly in both size and complexity. Specifically, over the fourteen years since AY2000–01, ads seeking expertise in composition and rhetoric have consistently made up 30 percent or more of all job ads placed in the English edition of the MLA Job Information List—the most of the ten scholarly specializations offered in the English JIL. In addition to searches that departments announce in the JIL, numerous part-time and non-tenure-track hires are made throughout the academic year and over the summer. The practices described here apply to both tenure-track and non-tenure-track positions. The purpose of this statement is to provide guidance on best practices in hiring processes for positions in composition and rhetoric, and its intended audience is faculty members serving on hiring committees.

This statement is divided into the following sections:

• Best Practices for Forming the Search Committee
• Best Practices for Writing the Position Advertisement
• Best Practices for Ensuring a Diverse Candidate Pool
• Best Practices for Submission of Application Materials
• Best Practices for Managing the Search Timetable
• Best Practices for First-Round Interviews
• Best Practices for Final-Round Interviews
• Best Practices for Hiring Writing Program Administrators
• Best Practices for Hiring International Candidates

Best Practices for Forming the Search Committee

• Search committees include at least one faculty member with expertise in composition and rhetoric.
• Search committees charged with hiring non-tenure-track candidates include at least one non-tenure-track faculty member on the committee. Department chairs request remuneration for NTT faculty for such work, if it falls outside their contractual duties.
• Graduate students participate in the search process and, when possible, on the search committee.
• Members of the search committee are expected to know and abide by their institutions’ procedural, ethical, and legal guidelines for searches before reviewing applications or interviewing candidates.
• Hiring committees communicate often with candidates about the timetable of the search and any questions candidates may have about the position.
• When possible, all members of the search committee are available for all stages of the interviewing process.

Best Practices for Writing the Position Advertisement

The position advertisement contains the following:

• An accurate description of the title and department(s) of appointment.
• A description of areas of research interest that uses current descriptors from the field of composition and rhetoric.
• A clear description of duties involved in the position, including mentoring, advising, and writing program administration, if applicable. For non-tenure-track employees, the job ad makes explicit if duties such as service and advising are expected, and if so, whether those duties are accounted for through course reductions, employment distribution calculations (e.g., 80/20), or are expected in addition to a full teaching load.
• For tenure-eligible positions, the list of duties in the job ad clearly corresponds to the criteria for tenure and promotion.
• A statement of qualifications that accounts for considerations such as completion of the PhD and consideration of terminal degrees other than the PhD.
• A deadline for submission of materials that is at least one month after job posting. If circumstances require a shorter timeline, it specifies whether applicants may submit materials after the deadline and still be considered for the position.
• Contact information for the chair of the search committee.
• A clear timeline for the search—e.g., will candidates be interviewed on particular dates (at a conference) with decision thereafter or is the search ongoing until the position is filled?

Best Practices for Ensuring a Diverse Candidate Pool

Lack of diversity among faculty ranks often stems from problems in the search and hiring process. As explained in “Effectively Recruiting Faculty of Color at Highly Selective Institutions: A School of Education Case Study,” “Without formal and pronounced action in support of recruiting faculty of color, hiring processes for this population may be considered tenuous at best” (Gasman, Kim, & Nguyen, 2011, p. 213). Because many composition and rhetoric hires, however, are managed at the department level, there are ways that the search committee can help to ensure a diverse candidate pool.

• The search committee is composed of members representing diverse perspectives who share a commitment to diversity, including a discussion about what diversity means to committee members.
• At the time that the search committee is formed and the job ad crafted, the committee seeks out the Human Resources office on campus and, if applicable, the campus’s diversity officer to form strategies for recruiting diverse candidates that are in compliance with state and local policies. The committee investigates university policies related to “target of opportunity” and other incentives that allow for flexibility in hiring diverse candidates (e.g., hiring off official dates or allowance for additional lines when qualified diverse candidates are identified).
• The job ad identifies the institution’s commitment to diversity, student demographics, and job duties that relate to institutional goals on fostering diversity. The valuation of diversity is reflected in the job ad, both in the kinds of candidates sought as well as the kinds of expertise valued.
• In addition to usual places where job ads are posted, the committee considers targeted advertising and reliance on professional networks to cultivate a diverse candidate pool.
• At the time of the interview, the committee members are able to answer candidates’ questions regarding campus climate, student demographics, resources available for diverse faculty, questions about retention of diverse hires, and community profile.
• Search committees review the candidate pool at multiple times in the search process to ensure diversity.
• After the committee has made a preliminary list of finalists for first-round interviews, the committee goes back through the list of candidates to determine if potential diverse candidates have been overlooked because the selection criteria do not account for the kinds of expertise they offer.
• At the time of the campus visit, candidates meet other tenured diverse faculty. This ensures a link between recruitment and retention. It is also advisable that they meet a range of graduate students, non-tenure-track faculty, and administrators who share and support their pedagogical and research interests. Candidates are asked if there are faculty members from departments or programs outside the hiring department whom they would like to meet.

Best Practices for the Submission of Application Materials

• Search committees minimize job-seekers’ time and financial expense with regard to submitting application materials. With the initial application, searches request the least volume of materials possible. In most cases, a letter and CV will suffice.
• Following this first-round request, committees request institution-specific, though still not overly idiosyncratic, documentation. Insofar as they can, hiring committees seek to reduce the costs candidates incur to transfer files and materials connected with their applications.

Best Practices for Managing the Search Timetable

• Departments update candidates each time the committee reaches a new stage of the hiring process that makes a cut in the candidate pool, except when Human Resources offices or other administrative entities explicitly dictate otherwise.
• Whenever search committees wish to solicit additional materials, candidates have at least two weeks to submit them.
• During the first-round interview, search committees provide an honest account of the timeframe for subsequent decisions (e.g., for campus visits).
• When an offer is made to a candidate, the candidates are given at least two weeks to respond to the offer.

Best Practices for First-Round Interviews

The expense and stress of traveling to a conference for in-person first-round interviews are well documented. Given this, search committees carefully consider whether the benefit of meeting candidates in person outweighs the potential drawbacks, not only for committee members but for candidates themselves. For both in-person and phone/video interviews, candidates are informed ahead of time who will be present, as well as what general format the questions will follow.

Best practices for in-person interviews include:

• Committees plan ahead carefully to ensure that access needs for all candidates are met, using the principles of Universal Design.
• If the interview room is not well labeled, committees might consider posting a sign with the room number on the outer door, and/or stationing a person near the room to help candidates reach the location.
• Committees are familiar with barrier-free ways to reach the interview space (for example, they know where the nearest elevator is located, as well as the nearest escalator or stairwell).
• The space in which interviews take place is as roomy as possible, with space for a scooter, wheelchair, person on crutches, or person with a service animal to move around.

Best practices for phone or video interviews include:

• Candidates know who will be interviewing them, and in a virtual medium, committee members provide more frequent reminders of who they are. For example, during a phone interview, a committee member might say, “This is [name] speaking now. I’d like to ask . . . .”
• Committees plan ahead of time to select a venue and equipment that enable everyone to appear on camera at the same time; the practices of having only one person visible or passing a laptop from hand to hand have been reported by candidates to be disorienting and unhelpful.
• In virtual media, committee members attend carefully to sending visual cues that they are listening while candidates speak; for example, they may wish to make a point of looking into the camera and nodding as often as seems appropriate.
• Most campuses have a dedicated space for video conferencing; search committees contact their campus IT department well ahead of time to learn about the best options for well-designed video interviewing or phone interviewing.

Best Practices for Final-Round Interviews

The following practices pertain to both tenure-track and non-tenure-track searches, as the practice of bringing NTT candidates to campuses has become more common. Just as first-round interviews require attention to accessibility, so do final-round interviews.

• Regarding travel expenses, the obligation for explaining how these are incurred and resolved belongs to the institution and is addressed at the time the invitation is extended. Expenses are paid for up front by the hiring institution, but when this is not possible, procedures for reimbursement are articulated clearly and early in the process, as well as facilitated in order to ensure timely return of funds. Candidates do not pay their own expenses for on-campus interviews.
• Time for rest is built into a candidate’s schedule every few hours.
• Prior to research presentations or teaching demonstrations, a faculty member from the hiring committee gives a speech introducing the candidate that clearly explains the candidate’s areas of teaching and research and their value for a wide audience.
• Finally, hiring committees speak openly and positively about negotiation. During final-round interviews, members of the committee and institution make suggestions about kinds of support to ask for, or recommendations for language to use in negotiation if the candidate is offered the position.

Best Practices for Hiring Writing Program Administrators

• WPAs are hired with tenure at the rank of Associate or Full Professor.
• The committee provides candidates with a comprehensive written list of the responsibilities of the administrative post, including the minimum length of time the faculty member is expected to serve as WPA, and offers candidates the opportunity to negotiate these duties at the time of offer.
• The committee gives thorough information about how administrative work will be evaluated by the university for reappointment, tenure, promotion, and annual performance reviews, using the Council of Writing Program Administrators’ statement “Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Administration” as a guide.

Best Practices for Hiring International Candidates

International faculty members have contributed immeasurably to the field of rhetoric and composition. International candidates are given full consideration for positions for this reason and as a matter of commitment to diversity. Before interviewing international candidates, the search committee consults with the International Student Services Office (ISSO) on campus or similar, or the appropriate responsible persons in HR in order to determine visa requirements and payroll procedures for international travel reimbursement. It is generally a good idea to consult with ISSO or HR in order to learn about the legal and financial complexities of hiring a foreign national, which involve a work visa sponsorship and may in some cases lead to sponsoring a permanent residency. For example, the typical work visa (H1B) for qualified international workers is active for up to six years, which is also the typical amount of time required to achieve tenure, meaning that the successfully tenured international faculty must secure permanent residency status in order to continue employment in the United States. Each of these steps involves financial commitments that the departments as well as the candidates must be prepared for; the residency-related processes may also involve an external law firm.

• Search committee members do not ask applicants if they are US citizens but may ask if applicants are authorized to work in the United States.
• Either the search committee or an ISSO or HR member clarifies during the search that the position comes with automatic visa sponsorship of a work visa (which is the responsibility of the university) and what the candidates’ responsibilities, financial and otherwise, would be in securing their residency status if desired (for example, if the position is NTT, the university may not sponsor them beyond a work visa).
• Once the decision has been made to hire an international candidate, departments work along with ISSO and HR in order to clarify responsibilities and expectations regarding the documentation, visa sponsorship, and appropriate authorities handling the faculty’s legal status, preferably in writing.
• When the hiring committee reaches a clear understanding of the deadlines, paperwork, offices, and financial responsibilities to be incurred during the faculty’s employment by the university, they take measures to protect the faculty from possible administrative failures such as missed deadlines due to no fault of the faculty, as there have been cases in which faculty have lost or nearly lost their positions due to HR mishaps.

References

Association of Departments of English and Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. (1994). MLA Statement on the Use of Part-Time and Full-Time Adjunct Faculty Members.

Association of Departments of English and Association of Departments of Foreign Languages. (2012). Suggestions for Interviews Using Videoconferencing and the Telephone.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2016). CCCC Statement on Working Conditions for Non Tenure-Track Writing Faculty.

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2015). Principles for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing.

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (1998). Evaluating the Intellectual Work of Writing Administration.

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (1992). “The Portland Resolution”: Guidelines for Writing Program Administrator Positions.

Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T-H. (2011). Effectively recruiting faculty of color at highly selective institutions: A school of education case study. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 212-222.

MLA Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Rights and Responsibilities. (2013). Guidelines for Search Committees and Job Seekers on Entry-Level Faculty Recruitment and Hiring.

MLA Committee on Contingent Labor in the Profession. (2011). Professional Employment Practices for Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Members: Recommendations and Evaluative Questions.

MLA Committee on Disability Issues in the Profession. (2006). Disability and Hiring: Guidelines for Departmental Search Committees.

National Council of Teachers of English. (2010). Position Statement on the Status and Working Conditions of Contingent Faculty.

Schuman, R. (2015, January 8). The $1,000 job interview that will not die. The Chronicle of Higher Education.

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

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) Executive Committee votes on the future site for each annual convention five or six years before the convention takes place. This is necessary to secure convention meeting space and sufficient hotel rooms to accommodate several thousand attendees. Before the Executive Committee votes on a future site, CCCC members are polled about possible sites. NCTE staff investigate (through research and site visits) several feasible cities, based on the results of this poll, location of recent conventions, geographic parity, opportunities for attractive costs, and other factors. Several options are then presented in a report to the Executive Committee that includes information about hotel costs, Internet access, travel options, meeting space, and tourism. Additionally, consideration is made for the number of session rooms available at each convention facility, favoring those sites that may provide more favorable conditions for higher attendance.

In discussing siting options, the Executive Committee takes into consideration not only these detailed reports but also factors that could be objectionable to participants, including legislation that is hostile to various groups or in opposition to the values of the organization. After thorough discussion and consideration, the Executive Committee votes on a future site. Following this vote, CCCC enters into contractual agreements with the convention center, hotels, and other entities. These agreements carry heavy penalties for withdrawal, usually amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars of lost financial resources. The closer the proposal of withdrawal is to the convention date, the more complicated and expensive it becomes to move the convention to another city.

Because siting is done far in advance of each convention, it is not possible to predict future state or local legislation that could be objectionable to attendees. As a result, calls may be made to break the contractual arrangements and move the convention. Withdrawing from a location is advocated as a form of protest that harms the state’s economy and expresses the collective voice of thousands of CCCC members through the decision of their elected Executive Committee members.

At the same time, withdrawing from a future site (1) can negatively affect hundreds of service workers who rely on conventions for their livelihood; (2) may have little impact on the state if another organization takes the space vacated by the CCCC; and (3) results, through the organization’s absence, in silence on the issues of concern. This silence is particularly problematic for an organization devoted in part to the study and pedagogy of communication as a form of civic engagement and deliberation about issues involving fairness and the humane treatment of all groups of people.

For these reasons, the CCCC Executive Committee has approved the following guiding principles for future convention siting with respect to hostile legislation:

In principle, CCCC will work to change state or local policies in host convention cities that diverge from established CCCC positions or otherwise threaten the safety or well-being of our membership. We will do so by consulting closely with local groups who share our principles and arranging activities and opportunities for members to support those who are disadvantaged by offensive policies or otherwise to use their presence in the offending state as a vehicle for nonviolent protest. We will vigorously communicate the methods of support and/or protest to the media, convention and tourist bureaus, and local and state government officials, with the avowed purpose of provoking policy change or supporting current policies threatened by hostile change. In general, we will follow this strategy of engagement rather than abrogating or cancelling contracts for future conventions as a method of protesting existing or future legislation.

November 2013, revised March 2019

CCCC 2016 will be a great opportunity for attendees to think together about how to work systematically and strategically on issues related to writing and writers. Identify issues you want to act on or would like for CCCC to act on. Write these on white boards around the convention venue, post to Twitter with the #4C16 hashtag, or submit on postcards. We’ll aggregate all responses for the closing plenary on Saturday from 12:30 p.m. to 1:45 p.m.

The questions:

GOALS:

• What are your most important goals for writing and writers in one or more of these locations?

    course(s)
    institutions
    states or regions
    our professional organization, CCCC
    our discipline

VALUES AND PRINCIPLES:

• What values or principles are most important for you as you think about writers and writing?

STRATEGIES FOR ACTION:

• What have you learned at CCCC 2016 to achieve your goals?
• What does CCCC need to learn to do or to do better to reach or help you reach your goals?
• Who can you/we learn from and with for these goals, and with whom can we build alliances?