Author: ksuchor

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v41-4

Halloran, S. Michael and John Hollow. Rev. of The English Coalition Conference: Democracy through Language by Richard Lloyd-Jones and Andrea A. Lunsford. CCC 41.4 (1990): 472-475.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. Rev. of Developing Successful College Writing Programs by Edward M. White. CCC 41.4 (1990): 475-477.

Chapman, David W. Rev. of Advanced Placement English: Theory, Politics, and Pedagogy by Gary A. Olson, Elizabeth Metzger, and Evelyn Ashton-Jones. CCC 41.4 (1990): 477-478.

Greenberg, Karen L. Rev. of Creating Writers: Linking Assessment and Writing Instruction by Vicki Spandel and Richard J. Stiggins. CCC 41.4 (1990): 478-480.

White, Edward M. Rev. of A Program Development Handbook for the Holistic Assessment of Writing by Norbert Elliot, Maximino Plata, and Paul Zelhart. CCC 41.4 (1990): 480-481.

Trimmer, Joseph F. Rev. of Programs That Work: Models and Methods for Writing across the Curriculum by Toby Fulwiler and Art Young; Disciplinary Perspectives on Thinking and Writing by Barbara S. Morris. CCC 41.4 (1990): 481-483.

Harris, Joseph. Rev. of Discourse and the Construction of Society: Comparative Studies of Myth, Ritual, and Classification by Bruce Lincoln. CCC 41.4 (1990): 483-484.

Guilford, Chuck. “Creating a Learning Flow for Exploratory Writing.” CCC 41.4 (1990): 460-465.

Cleary, Linda Miller and Earl Seidman. “In-Depth Interviewing in the Preparation of Writing Teachers.” CCC 41.4 (1990): 465-471.

Laib, Nevin. “Conciseness and Amplification.” CCC 41.4 (1990): 443-459.

Abstract:

In this article, the author argues for a more balanced approach to style, one that recognizes both the value of conciseness as well as the art of amplification through elaboration, emphasis, and copiousness of style. The author points out that the difference between the two – a style that values brevity and disclosure and one that values superfluity and repetition – is not cut and dry; a plain style can be just as deceptive as an elaborate one and a redundant paragraph can be more understandable than a concise one. He surveys how amplification is taught in classical, medieval, and contemporary rhetoric and offers fifteen amplification strategies that teachers can have students practice and use to enrich their own writing.

Keywords:

ccc41.4 Amplification Style Elaboration Children Conciseness Texts Development Emphasis Paragraph Repetition Substance Rhetoric Teaching

Works Cited

Aristotle. The Rhetoric and the Poetics of Aristotle. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts and Ingram Bywater. New York: Modern Library, 1984.

Basevorn, Robert of. The Form of Preaching. Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts. Ed. James J. Murphy. Berkeley: U of California P, 1971. 107-215.

Bernstein, Basil. “Linguistic Codes, Hesitation Phenomena, and Intelligence.” Language and Speech 5 (Jan.-Mar. 1962): 31-46.

Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

—. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

Byron, George Gordon, Lord. Don Juan. Selected Poetry and Letters. Ed. Edward E. Bostetter. New York: Holt, 1966.

Christensen, Francis, and Bonniejean Christensen. Notes Toward a New Rhetoric: Nine Essays for Teachers. New York: Harper, 1978.

Erasmus, Desiderius. De duplici copia verborum ac rerum commentarii duo. Collected Works of Erasmus: Literary and Educational Writings. Vol. 2. Ed. Craig R. Thompson. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 1978.

Group Mu (J. Dubois, et al.). A General Rhetoric. Trans. Paul B. Burrell and Edgar M. Slotkin. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1981.

Guth, Hans. In conversation. 1987.

Hayakawa, S. I. Language in Thought and Action. New York: Harcourt, 1949.

Kinneavy, James L. A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse. New York: Norton, 1980.

Lanham, Richard. A Handlist of Rhetorical Terms. Berkeley: U of California P, 1969.

—. The Motives of Eloquence: Literary Rhetoric in the Renaissance. New Haven: Yale UP, 1976.

—. Style: An Anti-Textbook. New Haven: Yale UP, 1974.

Macrorie, Ken. Writing to Be Read. New York: Hayden, 1968.

Markels, Robin Bell. A New Perspective on Cohesion in Expository Paragraphs. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1984.

O’Hare, Frank. Sentence Combining: Improving Student Writing without Formal Grammar Instruction. Urbana: NCTE, 1973.

Ong, Walter. Fighting for Life: Contest, Sexuality, and Consciousness. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1981.

—. Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1977.

Orwell, George. “Politics and the English Language.” The Bedford Reader. Ed. X. J. Kennedy and Dorothy M. Kennedy. New York: St. Martin’s, 1985. 537-51.

Perelman, Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1982.

Perelman, Chaim, and Louise Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: U of Notre Dame P, 1969.

Polanyi, Michael. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1958.

Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria. Trans. H. E. Butler. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.

Rhetorica ad Herennium. Trans. Harry Caplan. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1954.

Valesio, Paolo. Novantiqua: Rhetorics as a Contemporary Theory. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1980.

Williams, Joseph. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Glenview: Scott Foresman, 1981.

Williamson, George. The Senecan Amble: A Study in Prose Form from Bacon to Collier. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1951.

Witte, Stephen. “Topical Structure and Revision: An Exploratory Study.” CCC 34 (Oct. 1983): 313-41.

Zukowski-Faust, Jean. In conversation. 1986.

Podis, JoAnne M. and Leonard A. Podis. “Identifying and Teaching Rhetorical Plans for Arrangement.” CCC 41.4 (1990): 430-442.

Abstract:

The authors in this article offer a new taxonomy of rhetorical heuristics for arrangement of academic prose, an area of study they claim has been largely ignored in the past decade of composition research. They base their rhetorical patterns, such as “obvious before remarkable” and “presentation before refutation,” on current cognitive processing theories, which place importance on text readability and retention, ease of processing, and a sense of orientation in the text. The authors warn composition teachers against using the heuristics as rigid prescriptions, pointing out that good, persuasive writing reflects the audience’s expectations and contains creative rhetorical choices. Arrangement is never foolproof, for it is also affected, as literary theory shows, by the social and historical parameters of the writer, which may compromise the author’s control over his or her language choices.

Keywords:

ccc41.4 Arrangement Plans Students Order Reader Texts Audience Readability Patterns Schemes Organization Control Writing

Works Cited

Brooke, Robert. “Control in Writing; Flower, Derrida, and Images of the Writer.” College English 51 (April 1989); 405-17.

Champagne, Roland. Literary History in the Wake of Roland Barthes. Birmingham, AL: Summa Publications, 1984.

Coe, Richard M. “An Apology for Form; Or, Who Took Form Out of the Process?” College English 49 (Jan. 1987): 13-28.

Comley, Nancy R., and Robert Scholes. “Literature, Composition, and the Structure of English.” Composition and Literature: Bridging the Gap. Ed. Winifred Bryan Horner. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983.96-109.

Corbett, Edward P. J. The Little Rhetoric and Handbook. New York: Wiley, 1977.

D’Angelo, Frank. A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric. Cambridge: Winthrop, 1975.

—. “The Topic Sentence Revisited.” CCC 37 (Dec. 1986): 431-39.

Dillon, George 1. Constructing Texts: Elements of a Theory of Composition and Style. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1981.

Eagleton, Terry. Marxism and Literary Criticism. London: Methuen, 1976.

Enos, Richard Leo. “Ciceronian Dispositio as an Architecture for Creativity in Composition: A Note for the Affirmative.” Rhetoric Review 4 (Sept. 1985): 108-10.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in this Class? Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.

Flores, Ralph. The Rhetoric of Doubtful Authority. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1984.

Hartwell, Patrick. “Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar.” College English 47 (Feb. 1985): 105-27.

—. “Teaching Arrangement: A Pedagogy.” College English 40 (Jan. 1979): 548-54.

Haswell, Richard H. “The Organization of Impromptu Essays.” CCC 37 (Dec. 1986): 402-15.

Kintsch, Walter. “Comprehension and Memory of Text.” Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes. Vol. 6. Ed. W. K. Estes. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1978. 57-86.

Kintsch, Walter, and Teun A. van Dijk. “Toward a Model of Text Comprehension and Production.” Psychological Review 85 (Sept. 1978): 363-94.

Knoblauch, C. H., and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Upper Montclair: Boynton, 1984.

Kroll, Barry M. “Writing for Readers: Three Perspectives on Audiences.” CCC 35 (May 1984): 172-85.

Larson, Richard. “Structure and Form in Non-Narrative Prose.” Teaching Composition: Twelve Bibliographical Essays. Ed. Gary Tate. Rev. ed. Fort Worth: Texas Christian UP, 1987. 39-82.

Meyer, Bonnie J. F. The Organization of Prose and Its Effects on Memory. Amsterdam: North Holland, 1975.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. “Cross-sections in an Emerging Psychology of Composition.” Research in Composition and Rhetoric. Ed. Michael G. Moran and Ronald F. Lunsford. Westport; Greenwood, 1984. 27-69.

Podis, Leonard A. “Teaching Arrangement: Defining a More Practical Approach.” CCC 31 (May 1980): 197-204.

Selzer, Jack. “Teaching Arrangement: A Rhetorical Approach.” Conference on College Composition and Communication Convention. Atlanta, Mar. 1987.

White, Edward M. “Post-Structural Literary Criticism and the Response to Student Writing.” CCC 35 (May 1984): 186-95.

Fulkerson, Richard. “Composition Theory in the Eighties: Axiological Consensus and Paradigmatic Diversity.” CCC 41.4 (1990): 409-429.

Abstract:

This article argues that in the 1980s, the field of composition moved toward a general axiological agreement of what makes good writing – rhetorical understanding that takes into account the needs of the audience – but disagreed on the methods for teaching toward this end. The author points out that the many trends in writing instruction piloted in the 1980s, such as discourse analysis and writing across the curriculum, are differing pedagogical models for the same purpose: audience and context awareness. He also points out that although there are many ways for achieving the same goal in teaching composition, some textbooks and handbooks advocate exercises and assignments that do not support the rhetorical axiology that the field seems ready to endorse.

Keywords:

ccc41.4 Writing Audience Composition Axiology Process Pedagogy Theory Students JBerlin Epistemology Philosophy Teaching Discourse

Works Cited

Abrams, M. H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. New York: Norton, 1953.

Axelrod, Rise B., and Charles R. Cooper. The St. Martin’s Guide to Writing. Short ed. New York: St. Martin’s, 1986.

Baker, Sheridan. The Practical Stylist. 7th ed. New York: Harper, 1990.

Beale, Walter. A Pragmatic Theory of Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

Berlin, James. “Contemporary Composition: The Major Pedagogical Theories.” College English 44 (Dec. 1982): 765-77.

—. “Rhetoric and Ideology in the Writing Class.” College English 50 (Sept. 1988): 477-94.

—. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

—. Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1984.

Berthoff, Ann E. Forming Thinking Writing: The Composing Imagination. Rochelle Park: Hayden, 1978.

Bizzell, Patricia. “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing.” Pre/Text 3 (Fall 1982): 213-43.

—. “Composing Processes: An Overview.” The Teaching of Writing: Eighty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Ed. Anthony Petrosky and David Bartholomae. Part 2. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, 1986.49-70.

Bogel, Fredric V., and Katherine K. Gottschalk. Teaching Prose: A Guide for Writing Instructors. New York: Norton, 1988.

Booth, Wayne, and Marshall W. Gregory. The Harper and Row Rhetoric. New York: Harper, 1987.

Brannon, Lil. “The Teacher as Philosopher: The Madness Behind Our Method.” Journal of Advanced Composition 4 (983): 25-32.

—. “Toward a Theory of Composition.” Perspectives on Research and Scholarship in Composition. Ed. Ben McClelland and Timothy Donovan. New York: MLA, 1985.6-25.

Brinton, Alan. “Situation in the Theory of Rhetoric.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 14 (Fall 1981): 234-48.

Brooke, Robert, and John Hendricks. Audience Expectations and Teacher Demands. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1989.

Btuffee, Kenneth. “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.”’ College English 46 (Nov. 1984): 635-52.

Christensen, Francis, and Bonniejean Christensen. Notes Toward a New Rhetoric. 2nd ed. New York: Harper, 1978.

Coe, Richard M. Process, Form, and Substance. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1990.

Coles, William. The Plural I: The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, 1978.

Coles, William, and James Vopat. What Makes Writing Good. Lexington: Heath, 1985.

Coney, Mary B. “Contemporary Views of Audience: A Rhetorical Perspective.” Technical Writing Teacher 19 (Fall 1987): 319-26.

Connors, Robert J. “Current-Traditional Rhetoric: Thirty Years of Writing with a Purpose.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 11 (Fall 1981): 208-21.

Connors, Robert J., and Cheryl Glenn. The St. Martin’s Guide to Teaching Writing. New York: St. Martin’s, 1989.

Cooper, Marilyn. “The Ecology of Writing.” Writing as Social Action. Ed. Marilyn Cooper and Michael Holzman. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1989. 1-13.

Cooper, Marilyn, and- Michael Holzman. Writing as Social Action. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1989.

Crowley, Sharon. Rev. of Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985, by James Berlin. CCC 39 (May 1988): 245-47.

Donovan, Timothy, and Ben McClelland, eds. Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition. Urbana: NCTE, 1980.

Dowst, Kenneth. “The Epistemic Approach: Writing, Knowing, and Learning.” Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition. Ed. Timothy Donovan and Ben McClelland. Urbana: NCTE, 1980. 65-86.

Ede, Lisa. “On Audience and Composition.” CCC 30 (Oct. 1979): 291-95.

Ede, Lisa, and Andrea Lunsford. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy.” CCC 35 (May 1984): 155-71.

Elbow, Peter. “Closing My Eyes as I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience.” College English 49 (1987): 50-69.

—. “A Method for Teaching Writing.” College English 30 (November 1968): 115-25.

—. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford UP, 1973.

—. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. New York: Oxford, 1981.

Elbow, Peter, and Pat Belanoff. A Community of Writers: A Workshop Course in Writing. New York: Random, 1989.

Faigley, Lester. “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal” College English 48 (Oct. 1986): 527-42.

Faigley, Lester. “Judging Writing, Judging Selves.” CCC 40 (Dec. 1989): 395-412.

Flower, Linda. Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt, 1985.

—. “Writer-Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing.” College English 41 (Sept. 1979): 19-37. A Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook. Ed. Gary Tate and E. P. J. Corbett. New York: Oxford UP, 1981. 268-92.

Friedrich, Dick, and David Kuester. It’s Mine and I’ll Write It That Way. New York: Random, 1972.

Fulkerson, Richard. “Four Philosophies of Composition.” CCC 30 (Dec. 1979): 343-48.

Gage, John. “An Adequate Epistemology for Composition: Classical and Modem Perspectives.” Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Ed. Robert Connors, Lisa Ede, and Andrea Lunsford. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1984. 152-69.

—. “Philosophies of Style and Their Implications for Composition.” College English 41 (Feb. 1980): 615-22.

—. The Shape of Reason. New York: Macmillan, 1987.

Graser, Elsa R. Teaching Writing-A Process Approach: A Survey of Research. Dubuque: Kendall, 1983.

Hairston, Maxine. Successful Writing. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 1986.

—. “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in The Teaching of Writing.” CCC 33 (1982): 76-88.

Hamilton-Wieler, Sharon. “Empty Echoes of Dartmouth: Dissonance between the Rhetoric and the Reality.” The Writing Instructor 8 (Fall 1988): 29-4l.

Hempel, Carl. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1966.

Hillocks, George, Jr. Research on Written Composition. Urbana: NCTE, 1986.

Hirsch, E. D. The Philosophy of Composition. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1977.

—. “Reading, Writing, and Cultural Literacy.” Composition and Literature: Bridging the Gap. Ed. Winifred Bryan Homer. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1983. 141-47.

Huff, Roland, and Charles R. Kline, Jr. The Contemporary Writing Curriculum: Rehearsing, Composing, and Valuing. New York: Teachers College P, 1987.

Irmscher, William. Teaching Expository Writing. New York: Holt, 1979.

Kameen, Paul. “Coming of Age in College Composition.” The Teaching of Writing: Eighty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Ed. Anthony Petrosky and David Bartholomae. Part 2. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, 1986. 170-87.

Kelly, Lou. From Dialogue to Discourse: An Open Approach to Competence and Creativity. Glenview: Scott, 1972.

—. “Toward Competence and Creativity in an Open Class.” College English 34 (Feb. 1973): 644-60. Rpt. in Ideas for English 101: Teaching Writing in College. Ed. Richard Ohmann and W. B. Coley. Urbana: NCTE, 1975. 2-18.

Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse. New York: Norton, 1980.

Knoblauch, C. H., and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Upper Montclair: Boynton, 1984.

Kroll, Barry. “Writing for Readers: Three Perspectives on Audience.” CCC 35 (May 1984): 172-85.

Larson, Richard. “Why It Is Unimportant How I Write.” Writers on Writing. Ed. Tom Waldrep. Vol 2. New York: Random, 1988. 111-20.

LeFevre, Karen Burke. Invention as a Social Act. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

Lindemann, Erika. A Rhetoric for Writing Teachers. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1987.

Lunsford, Andrea, and Lisa Ede. “On Distinctions between Classical and Modem Rhetoric.” Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Ed. Robert Connors, Lisa Ede, and Andrea Lunsford. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1984. 37-49.

Lynn, Steven. “Reading the Writing Process: Toward a Theory of Current Pedagogies.” College English 49 (Dec. 1987): 902-10.

Macrorie, Ken. Uptaught. Rochelle Park: Hayden, 1970.

Marius, Richard. “How I Write.” Writers on Writing. Ed. Tom Waldrep. Vol. 2. New York: Random, 1988. 147-55.

Martin, Lee J. The Five-Hundred-Word Theme. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1974.

McCracken, Timothy, and W. Allen Ashby. “The Widow’s Walk: An Alternative for English 101Creative Communications.” College English 36 (Jan. 1975): 555-70. Rpt. in Ideas for English 101: Teaching Writing in College. Ed. Richard Ohmann and W. B. Coley. Urbana: NCTE, 1975. 58-73.

McPherson, Elizabeth. “Composition.” The Teaching of English: The Seventy-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Ed. James R. Squire. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education, 1977. 178-88.

Mendelson, Michael. “Teaching Writing Inductively.” Journal of Business Communication 25 (Spring 1988): 67-83.

Moffett, James. Teaching the Universe of Discourse. Boston: Houghton, 1968.

Murray, Donald. A Writer Teaches Writing: A Practical Method of Teaching Composition. Boston: Houghton, 1968.

Neeld, Elizabeth Cowan. Writing. 3rd ed. Glenview: Scott, 1990.

Neman, Beth. Teaching Students to Write. Columbus: Charles Merrill, 1980.

North, Stephen. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair: Boynton, 1987.

Nystrand, Martin. The Structure of Written Communication: Studies in Reciprocity between Writers and Readers. Orlando: Academic, 1986.

Ohmann, Richard. English in America. New York: Oxford UP, 1976.

Rafoth, Bennett. “Discourse Community: Where Writers, Readers, and Texts Come Together.” The Social Construction of Written Communication. Ed. Bennett Rafoth and Donald Rubin. Norwood: Ablex, 1988. 131-46.

Rafoth, Bennett A., and Donald 1. Rubin, eds. The Social Construction of Written Communication. Norwood: Ablex, 1988.

Ramage, John, and John Bean. Writing Arguments. New York: Macmillan, 1989.

Reese, William 1. Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities, 1980.

Reither, James A., and Douglas Vipond. “Writing as Collaboration.” College English 51 (Dec. 1989): 855-67.

Rotenberg, Annette. Elements of Argument: A Text and Reader. 2nd ed. New York: St. Martin’s, 1988.

Rubin, Donald C. “Introduction: Four Dimensions of Social Construction in Written Communication.” The Social Construction of Written Communication. Ed. Bennett Rafoth and Donald Rubin. Norwood: Ablex, 1988. 1-33.

Shot, Ira. Critical Teaching and Everyday Life. 1980. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1987.

Stewart, Donald C. The Authentic Voice: A Pre-Writing Approach to Student Writing. Dubuque: William C. Brown, 1972.

—. “Collaborative Learning and Composition: Boon or Bane?” Rhetoric Review 7 (Fall 1988): 58-85.

Thomas, Gordon P. “Mutual Knowledge: A Theoretical Basis for Analyzing Audience.” College English 48 (Oct. 1986): 580-94.

Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1958.

Trimmer, Joseph, and James McCrimmon. Writing with a Purpose. Short ed. Boston: Houghton, 1988.

White, Edward. Developing Successful College Writing Programs. San Francisco: Jossey, 1989.

Willey, R. J. “Audience Awareness: Methods and Madness.” Freshman English News 18 (Spring 1990): 20-25.

Williams, James. Preparing to Teach Writing. Belmont: Wadswotth, 1989.

Woods, William. “Composition Textbooks and Pedagogical Theory 1960-80.” College English 43 (April 1981): 393-409.

Youga, Jan. The Elements of Audience Analysis. New York: Macmillan, 1989.

Durst, Russel K. “The Mongoose and the Rat in Composition Research: Insights from the RTE Annotated Bibliography.” CCC 41.4 (1990): 393-408.

Abstract:

This article analyzes five years (1984-1989) of empirical studies of composition from the Research in the Teaching of English Annotated Bibliography, examining the major patterns and trends in composition research. The author points out that composition is being called on to solve the literacy crisis in American education, and in order to contribute to the solution, more research focused on minority, middle school, and high school writers needs to be conducted by composition scholars. The author also warns against creating divisions over theoretical frameworks or methodologies because these debates can stall the production of research and knowledge.

Keywords:

ccc41.4 Research Studies Writing Students Composition College Instruction Texts Assessment Process Bibliography Contexts Holistic

Works Cited

Anson, Chris, and Hildy Miller. ”Journals in Composition: An Update.” CCC 39 (May 1988): 198-216.

Applebee, Arthur. Contexts for Learning to Write: Studies of Secondary School Instruction. Norwood: Ablex, 1984.

Armstrong, Cheryl. The Poetic Dimensions of Revision. ERIC, 1986. ED 278 024.

Berkenkotter, Carol, Thomas Huckin, and John Ackerman. “Conventions, Conversations, and the Writer: Case Study of a Student in a Rhetoric Ph.D. Program.” Research in the Teaching of English 22 (Feb. 1988): 9-44.

Berlin, James. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985. Carbon dale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

Black, Kathleen. “Audience Analysis and Persuasive Writing at the College Level.” Research in the Teaching of English 23 (Oct. 1989): 231-53.

Breland, Hunter. Assessing Writing Skill. ERIC, 1987. ED 286 920.

Breland, Hunter, and Roberta Jones. “Perceptions of Writing Skills.” Written Communication 1 (Jan. 1984): 101-19.

Bridwell, Lillian. “Revising Strategies in Twelfth Grade Students’ Transactional Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 14 (Oct. 1980): 197-222.

Brooke, Robert. ” Underlife and Writing Instruction .” CCC 38 (May 1987): 141-53.

Brossell, Gordon, and Barbara Hoetker Ash. “An Experiment with the Wording of Essay Topics.” CCC 35 (Dec. 1984): 423-25.

Charney, Davida. “The Validity of Using Holistic Scoring to Evaluate Writing: A Critical Overview.” Research in the Teaching of English 18 (Feb. 1984): 65-81.

Connor, Ulla, and Janice Lauer. “Understanding Persuasive Essay Writing: A Linguistic/Rhetorical Approach.” Text 5 (Winter 1985): 309-26.

Connors, Robert, and Andrea Lunsford. “Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research.” CCC 39 (Dec. 1988): 395-409.

Cox, Beverly, and Elizabeth Sulzby. “Children’s Use of Reference in Told, Dictated, and Handwritten Stories.” Research in the Teaching of English 18 (Dec. 1984): 345-66.

Crowhurst, Marion. “Cohesion in Argument and Narration at Three Grade Levels.” Research in the Teaching of English 21 (May 1987): 185-201.

Doheny-Farina, Stephen. “Writing in an Emerging Organization: An Ethnographic Study.” Written Communication 2 (April 1986): 158-85.

Dyson, Ann. “Negotiating among Multiple Worlds: The Space/Time Dimensions of Young Children’s Composing.” Research in the Teaching of English 22 (Dec. 1988): 355-90.

—. “Transitions and Tensions: Interrelationships between the Drawing, Talking, and Dictating of Young Children.” Research in the Teaching of English 20 (Dec. 1986): 379-409.

Ede, Lisa, and Andrea Lunsford. “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked: The Role of Audience in Composition Theory and Pedagogy.” CCC 35 (May 1984): 155-71.

Elbow, Peter, and Patricia Belanoff. “State University of New York, Stony Brook: Portfolio Based Evaluation Program.” New Directions in College Writing Programs. Ed. Paul Connolly and Theresa Vilardi. New York: MLA, 1986. 95-105.

Elliott, Audrey. “Throwing the Well-Wrought Urn: The Relationship between Concepts and Evaluation Moves in Revision Processes of Three Writers of Fictional Narratives.” DAI 49 (1988): 1393A.

Emig, Janet. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana: NCTE, 1971.

Faigley, Lester, and Stephen Witte. “Analyzing Revision.” CCC32 (Dee. 1981): 400-14.

Fitzgerald, Jill. “Research on Revision in Writing.” Review of Educational Research 57 (Winter 1987): 481-506.

Florio, Susan, and Christopher Clark. “The Functions of Writing in an Elementary Classroom.” Research in the Teaching of English 16 (Feb. 1982): 115-30.

Flower, Linda. “Writer-Based Prose: A Cognitive Basis for Problems in Writing.” College English 41 (Jan. 1979): 19-37.

Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” CCC 32 (Dec. 1981): 365-87.

Goodlad, John. A Place Called School. New York: McGraw, 1984.

Graves, Donald. Balance the Basics: Let Them Write. New York: Ford Foundation, 1978.

—. “An Examination of the Writing Processes of Seven-Year-Old Children.” Research in the Teaching of English 9 (Oct. 1975): 227-41.

Halliday, M. A. K., and Ruquiya Hasan. Cohesion in English. London: Longman, 1976.

Haswell, Richard. Change in Undergraduate and Post-Graduate Writing Performance. ERIC, 1986. ED 269 780.

—. “Critique: Length of Text and the Measurement of Cohesion.” Research in the Teaching of English 22 (Dee. 1988): 428-33.

Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Henning, Grant, and Fred Davidson. Scalar Analysis of Composition Ratings. ERIC, 1987. ED 287 285.

Herrington, Anne. “The First Twenty Years of Research in the Teaching of English and the Growth of a Research Community in Composition Studies.” Research in the Teaching of English 23 (May 1989): 117-37.

—. “Writing in Academic Settings: A Study of the Contexts for Writing in Two College Chemical Engineering Courses.” Research in the Teaching of English 19 (Dee. 1985): 331-61.

Hillocks, George. Research on Written Composition. Urbana: National Conference of Research on English, 1986.

Hoskins, Suzanne. “The Use of Top-Level Structure by Entering Freshmen.” DAI 44 (1983): 3025A.

Humes, Ann. “Research on the Composing Process.” Review of Educational Research 53 (Summer 1983): 201-16.

Kantor, Kenneth, Dan Kirby, and Judith Goetz. “Research in Context: Ethnographic Studies in English.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (Oct. 1981): 293-310.

Knoblauch, CH., and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Montclair: Boynton, 1984.

Kroll, Barry. “Rewriting a Complex Story for a Young Reader: The Development of Audience Adapted Writing Skills.” Research in the Teaching of English 19 (May 1985): 120-39.

Labov, William. Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1972.

Levi, Laurie, and Anthony Grasha. Motivational Processes and Personal Attributes of Writers: An Exploratory Study. ERIC, 1983. ED 239 304.

Livingston, Samuel. The Effects of Time Limits on the Quality of Student-Written Essays. ERIC, 1980. ED 286 936.

Martin, Wanda. “A Study of Reader Processes in the Evaluation of English Placement Essays.” DAI 48 (987): 2009A.

Matsuhashi, Ann. “Pausing and Planning: The Tempo of Written Discourse Production.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (May 1981): 113-34.

McCarthy, Lucille. “A Stranger in Strange Lands: A College Student Writing Across the Curriculum.” Research in the Teaching of English 21 (Oct. 1987): 233-65.

McCully, George. “Writing Quality, Coherence, and Cohesion.” Research in the Teaching of English 19 (Oct. 1985): 268-82.

Meyer, Bonnie. The Organization of Prose and Its Effect upon Memory. Amsterdam: North Holland,1975.

Mishler, Elliott. “Meaning in Context: Is There any Other Kind?” Harvard Educational Review 49 (Feb. 1979): 1-19.

Mitchell, Karen, and Judith Anderson. Reliability of Holistic Scoring for the 1985 MCAT Essays. ERIC, 1986. ED 285 913.

Morgan, Jerry, and Manfred Sellner. “Discourse and Linguistic Theory.” Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Ed. Rand Spiro, Bertram Bruce, and William Brewer. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980. 165-200.

Murray, Donald. “Writing as Process: How Writing Finds Its Own Meaning.” Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition. Ed. Timothy Donovan and Ben McClelland. Urbana: NCTE, 1980. 3-20.

Neuner, Jerome. “Cohesive Ties and Chains in Good and Poor Freshman Essays.” Research in the Teaching of English 21 (Feb. 1987): 92-105.

Newkirk, Thomas. “How Students Read Student Papers: An Exploratory Study.” Written Communication I (Oct. 1984): 283-305.

—. “The Non-Narrative Writing of Young Children.” Research in the Teaching of English 21 (May 1987): 121-45.

North, Stephen. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Montclair: Boynton, 1986.

Ong, Walter. “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction.” PMLA 90 (Jan. 1975): 9-21.

Park, Douglas. “Analyzing Audiences.” CCC 37 (Dec. 1986): 478-88.

Perl, Sondra. “The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers.” Research in the Teaching of English 13 (Oct. 1979): 317-36.

Pollard-Gott, Lucy, and Lawrence Frase. “Flexibility in Writing Style: A New Discourse-Level Cloze Test.” Written Communication 2 (April 1985): 107-28.

Roth, Robert. “The Evolving Audience: Alternatives to Audience Accommodation.” CCC 38 (Feb. 1987): 47-55.

Ruth, Leo, and Sandra Murphy. Designing Writing Tasks for the Assessment of Writing. Norwood: Ablex, 1986.

Schultz, Lucille, and Chester Laine. “A Primary Trait Scoring Grid with Assessment and Instructional Uses.” Journal of Teaching Writing 5 (May 1986): 77-89.

Shaw, Robert. Stability of Analytic Essay Scores: Implications for Diagnosis and Placement. ERIC, 1983. ED 236 699.

Sizer, Theodore. Horace’s Compromise. New York: Pantheon, 1986.

Sloan, Gary. “The Frequency of Transitional Markers in Discursive Prose.” College English 46 (Feb. 1984): 158-75.

Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” CCC 31 (Dec. 1980): 378-88.

Sperling, Melanie, and Sarah Freedman. “A Good Girl Writes Like a Good Girl: Written Responses to Student Writing.” Written Communication 4 (Oct. 1987): 343-69.

Stotsky, Sandra. “Types of Lexical Cohesion in Expository Writing: Implications for Developing the Vocabulary of Academic Discourse.” CCC 34 (May 1983): 430-46.

Swanson, Owens, Deborah. “Identifying Natural Sources of Resistance: A Case Study of Implementing Writing Across the Curriculum.” Research in the Teaching of English 20 (Feb. 1986): 69-97.

Tierney, Robert, and James Mosenthal. “Cohesion and Textual Coherence.” Research in the Teaching of English 17 (May 1983): 215-29.

Williamson, Michael. “The Functions of Writing in Three College Undergraduate Curricula.” DAI 45 (1984): 775A.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v39-3

Berthoff, Ann E. Rev. of Freire for the Classroom: A Sourcebook for Liberatory Teaching by Ira Shor. CCC 39.3 (1988): 359-360.

Bloom, Lynn Z. Rev. of Teaching Composition: Twelve Bibliographical Essays by Gary Tate. CCC 39.3 (1988): 361-362.

Schwartz, Helen J. Rev. of The Wordworthy Computer: Classroom and Research Applications in Language and Literature by Paula R. Feldman and Buford Norman. CCC 39.3 (1988): 362-363.

Johnstone, Anne. Rev. of The Journal Book by Toby Fulwiler. CCC 39.3 (1988): 363-365.

Fulkerson, Richard. Rev. of The Shape of Reason by John Gage. CCC 39.3 (1988): 365-366.

Olive, Barbara. Rev. of The Harper & Row Rhetoric: Writing as Thinking, Thinking as Writing by Wayne C. Booth and Marshall W. Gregory. CCC 39.3 (1988): 366-367.

Curtis, Marcia S. “Windows on Composing: Teaching Revision on Word Processors.” CCC 39.3 (1988): 337-344.

Sullivan, Patricia. “Desktop Publishing: A Powerful Tool for Advanced Composition Courses.” CCC 39.3 (1988): 344-347.

Clark, Irene Lurkis. “Preparing Future Composition Teachers in the Writing Center.” CCC 39.3 (1988): 347-350.

Walker,Nancy L. “Mr. V and ‘A Saturday Morning in the Republic of One.'” CCC 39.3 (1988): 350-353.

Hall, Chris. “Interacting with a Reader: Using the Strip Story to Develop Reciprocity.” CCC 39.3 (1988): 353-356.

Danis,M. Francine. “Catching the Drift: Keeping Peer-Response Groups on Track.” CCC 39.3 (1988): 356-358.

Larson, Richard L. “Selected Bibliography of Scholarship on Composition and Rhetoric, 1987.” CCC 39.3 (1988): 316-336.

Abstract:

This article is an annotated bibliography of recently published work in composition and rhetoric. When selecting essays and books for this list, the author tried to choose works that offered new approaches, theories, and ways of conceiving issues over items dealing with topics already well explored. The bibliography is organized under the following categories: rhetorical and epistemic theory, literary theory and composing, psychological and developmental studies, research processes, composing processes, “basic” writing, younger children’s writing, language studies, structures of texts, instructional advice/assignments, response to writing/tutoring/group work, assessment/evaluation, instructional trends: historical/recent, writing across the curriculum and in non-academic settings, and computers and writing.

No works cited.

Haswell, Richard H. “Dark Shadows: The Fate of Writers at the Bottom.” CCC 39.3 (1988): 303-315.

Abstract:

>The author, noting that when using holistic grading scales, evaluators agreed more on what constituted “bad” writing than what was “good writing,” compares student essays given low holistic scores to those that achieved high scores and professional non-academic essays. He finds that although remedial writers do not closely follow expected academic writing conventions, their writing, as opposed to the work of their higher-scoring peers, does have logical organizational patterns, complex syntax, and a grasp of metaphor that is more like that of professional writers. Based on this finding, the author argues that instructors should seek out these strengths of remedial writers as a basis to further develop their writing to fit academic conventions. In addition, the author challenges teachers of writing to go beyond assessing student writing to diagnosing it – to understand the numerous choices the writer makes, which might transform what are seen now as deficiencies into proficiencies and strengths. </p

Keywords:

ccc39.3 Writing Writers Essays Students Teachers Organization Holistic Paragraph Remedial BottomWriters Wit

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. “The Study of Error.” CCC 31 (Oct. 1980): 253-69.

Basseches, Michael A. “Dialectical Thinking as a Metasystematic Form of Cognitive Organization.” Beyond Formal Operations: Late Adolescent and Adult Cognitive Development. Ed. Michael L. Commons, Francis A. Richards, and Cheryl Armon. New York: Praeger, 1983. 216-38.

Bizzell, Patricia. “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing.” Pre/Text 3 (Fall 1982): 213-44.

Bradford, Annette N. “Cognitive Immaturity and Remedial College Writers.” The Writer’s Mind: Writing as a Mode of Thinking. Ed. Janice N. Hays et al. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1983. 15-24.

Haswell, Richard H. Change in Undergraduate and Post-Graduate Writing Performance: Quantified Findings. ERIC, 1986. ED 269 780.

—. “The Organization of Impromptu Essays.” College Composition and Communication 37 (Dec. 1986): 402-15.

Hays, Janice N. “Teaching the Grammar of Discourse.” Reinventing the Rhetorical Tradition. Ed. Aviva Freedman and Ian Pringle. Conway, AK: L & S Books, 1980. 145-55.

Hoagland, Edward. Red Wolves and Black Bears. New York: Random House, 1976.

Hull, Glynda. “The Editing Process in Writing: A Performance Study of More Skilled and Less Skilled College Writers.” Research in the Teaching of English 21 (Feb. 1987): 8-29.

Inhelder, Barbel, and Jean Piaget. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures. Trans. Anne Parsons and Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books, 1958.

Labouvie-Vief, Gisela. “Discontinuities in Development from Childhood to Adulthood: A Cognitive-Developmental View.” Review of Human Development. Ed. Tiffany M. Field et al. New York: Wiley, 1982. 447-55.

Lunsford, Andrea. “The Content of Basic Writers’ Essays.” CCC 31 (Oct. 1980): 278-90.

Murphy, J .M., and Carol Gilligan. “Moral Development in Late Adolescence and Adulthood: A Critique and Reconstruction of Kohlberg’s Theory.” Human Development 23 (1980): 77 -104.

Ohmann, Richard. “Use Definite, Specific, Concrete Language.” College English 41 (Dec. 1979): 390-97.

Rose, Mike. “Remedial Writing Courses: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English 45 (Feb. 1983): 109-28.

Shaughnessy, Mina P. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford UP, 1977.

Stotsky, Sandra. “On Learning to Write about Ideas.” CCC 37 (Oct. 1986): 276-93.

Rose, Mike. “Narrowing the Mind and Page: Remedial Writers and Cognitive Reductionism.” CCC 39.3 (1988): 267-302.

Abstract:

This article attacks what the author terms cognitive reductionism by looking at the theories, claims, and terms surrounding the discourse of remediation and pointing out problems in applying over-generalized cognitive and literacy theories to poor college writers. The author shows how uncritical acceptance of cognitive theories such as Witkin’s field independence-dependence theory, hemispheticity, Jean Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, and the orality-literacy divide leads to dangerous, ungrounded political and educational conclusions of remedial writers.

Keywords:

ccc39.3 Cognitive Literacy Theory Problems Field Studies Differences Language Cognition Tests Writing Style JPiaget Research Brains Remediation Students

Works Cited

Adkins, Arthur W.H. “Orality and Philosophy.” Robb 207-27.

Adler, Jonathan. “Abstraction is Uncooperative.” Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 14 (1984): 165-81.

Arndt, Stephen, and Dale E. Berger. “Cognitive Mode and Asymmetry in Cerebral Functioning.” Cortex 14 (1978): 78-86.

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” Rose, When a Writer Can’t Write 134-65.

Battig, William F. “Within-Individual Differences in ‘Cognitive’ Processes.” Information Processing and Cognition. Ed. Robert L. Solso. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1975. 195-228.

Beamon, Karen. “Coordination and Subordination Revisited: Syntactic Complexity in Spoken and Written Narrative Discourse.” Tannen, Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse 45-80.

Beaumont, J. Graham. “Methods for Studying Cerebral Hemispheric Function.” Functions of the Right Cerebral Hemisphere. Ed. A.W. Young. London: Academic Press, 1983. 113-46.

Beaumont, J. Graham, A.W. Young, and I.C. McManus. “Hemisphericity: A Critical Review.” Cognitive Neuropsychology 2 (1984): 191-212.

Benson, D. Frank, and Eran Zaidel, eds. The Dual Brain: Hemispheric Specialization in Humans. New York: Guilford, 1985.

Berthoff, Ann E. “Is Teaching Still Possible?” College English 46 (1984): 743-55.

Bizzell, Patricia. “Cognition, Convention, and Certainty: What We Need to Know about Writing.” Pre/Text 3 (1982): 213-44.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Bedford Bibliography for Teachers of Writing. Boston: Bedford Books, 1987.

Bogen, Joseph. “The Dual Brain: Some Historical and Methodological Aspects.” Benson and Zaidel 27-43.

Bogen, Joseph, et al. “The Other Side of the Brain: The A/P Ratio.” Bulletin of Los Angeles Neurological Society 37 (1972): 49~6l.

Bradshaw, J.L., and N.C. Nettleton. “The Nature of Hemispheric Specialization in Man.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4 (1981): 51-9l.

Brainerd, Charles J. “The Stage Question in Cognitive-Developmental Theory.” The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2 (1978): 173-8l.

Brown, Warren S., James T. Marsh, and Ronald E. Ponsford. “Hemispheric Differences in Event-Related Brain Potentials.” Benson and Zaidel 163-79.

Caplan, David. “On the Cerebral Localization of Linguistic Functions: Logical and Empirical Issues Surrounding Deficit Analysis and Functional Localization.” Brain and Language 14 (1981): 120-37.

Carey, Susan. Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge: MIT P, 1985.

Chafe, Wallace L. “Linguistic Differences Produced by Differences in Speaking and Writing.” Olson, Torrance, and Hildyard 105-23.

Clanchy, M.T. From Memory to Written Record: England 1066-1307. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1979.

Cole, Michael, and Barbara Means. Comparative Studies of How People Think. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1981.

Cressy, David. “The Environment for Literacy: Accomplishment and Context in Seventeenth Century England and New England.” Literacy in Historical Perspective. Ed. Daniel P. Resnick. Washington: Library of Congress, 1983.23-42.

Cronbach, Lee J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. New York: Harper and Row, 1960.

DeRenzi, Ennio. Disorders of Space Exploration and Cognition. London: Wiley, 1982.

Donaldson, Margaret. Children’s Minds. New York: Norton, 1979.

Donchin, Emanuel, Gregory McCarthy, and Marta Kutas. “Electroencephalographic Investigations of Hemispheric Specialization.” Language and Hemispheric Specialization in Man: Cerebral Event-Related Potentials. Ed. John E. Desmedt. Basel, NY: Karger, 1977. 212-42.

Dumas, Roland, and Arlene Morgan. “EEG Asymmetry as a Function of Occupation, Task and Task Difficulty.” Neuropsychologia 13 (1975): 214-28.

Efron, Robert. “The Central Auditory System and Issues Related to Hemispheric Specialization.” Assessment of Central Auditory Dysfunction: Foundations and Clinical Correlates. Ed. Marilyn L. Pinheiro and Frank E. Musiek. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1985. 143-54.

Ehrlichman, Howard, and Arthur Weinberger. “Lateral Eye Movements and Hemispheric Asymmetry: A Critical Review.” Psychological Bulletin 85 (1978): 1080-110l.

Elbow, Peter. “The Shifting Relationships Between Speech and Writing.” CCC 34 (1985): 283-303.

Enos, Richard Leo, and John Ackerman. “Letteraturizzazione and Hellenic Rhetoric: An Analysis for Research with Extensions.” Proceedings of 1984 Rhetoric Society of America Conference. Ed. Charles Kneupper, forthcoming.

Fillmore, Charles J. “On Fluency.” Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior. Ed. Charles). Fillmore, Daniel Kempler, and William S.Y. Wang. New York: Academic Press, 1979. 85-101.

Flavell, John H. Cognitive Development. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1977.

Fodor, Jerry A. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT P, 1983.

Freedman, Sarah, et al. Research in Writing: Past, Present, and Future. Berkeley: Center for the Study of Writing, 1987.

Gardner, Howard. Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books, 1983.

—. The Mind’s New Science. New York: Basic Books, 1985.

—. “What We Know (and Don’t Know) About the Two Halves of the Brain.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 12 (1978): 113-19.

Gardner, Howard, and Ellen Winner. “Artistry and Aphasia.” Acquired Aphasia. Ed. Martha Taylor Sarno. New York: Academic Press, 1981. 361-84.

Gelman, Rochelle. “Cognitive Development.” Ann. Rev. Psychol (1978); 297-332.

Gevins, A.S., et al. “EEG Patterns During ‘Cognitive’ Tasks.” Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology 47 (1979); 704-10.

Gilman, Sandor. Difference and Pathology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1985. Ginsburg, Herbert. “Poor Children, African Mathematics, and the Problem of Schooling.” Educational Research Quarterly 2 (1978); 26-44.

Glaser, Robert. “Education and Thinking: The Role of Knowledge.” American Psychologist 39 (1984); 93-104.

Goodenow, Jacqueline. “The Nature of Intelligent Behavior: Questions Raised by Cross Cultural Studies.” The Nature of Intelligence. Ed. Lauren B. Resnick. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1976. 168-88.

Goody, Jack. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. London: Cambridge UP, 1977.

Gould, Stephen Jay. The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton, 1981.

Graff, Harvey. The Literacy Myth. New York: Academic Press, 1979.

—. “Reflections on the History of Literacy: Overview, Critique, and Proposals.” Humanities and Society 4 (1981): 303-33.

Gruber, Howard E., and). Jacques Voneche, eds. The Essential Piaget. New York: Basic Books, 1977.

Halliday, M.A.K. “Differences Between Spoken and Written Language.” Communication through Reading. Vol. 2. Ed. Glenda Page, John Elkins, and Barrie O’Connor. Adelaide, SA: Australian Reading Association, 1979. 37-52.

Havelock, Eric. The Muse Learns to Write. Cambridge; Harvard UP, 1986.

—. Preface to Plato. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1963.

Harre, Rom, and Roger Lamb. The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology. Cambridge: MIT P, 1983.

Heath, Shirley Brice. “Protean Shapes in Literacy Events: Ever-Shifting Oral and Literate Traditions.” Spoken and Written Language. Ed. Deborah Tannen. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1982. 91-117.

—. Ways With Words. London: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Hillyard, Steve A., and David L. Woods. “Electrophysiological Analysis of Human Brain Function.” Handbook of Behavioral Neurobiology. Vol. 2. Ed. Michael S. Gazzaniga. New York: Plenum, 1979. 343-78.

Hudson, R.A. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1986.

Hull, Glynda. “The Editing Process in Writing; A Performance Study of Experts and Novices.” Diss. U of Pittsburgh, 1983.

Hunt, Earl. “On the Nature of Intelligence.” Science 219 (1983): 141-46. Hunter, Carman Sc. John, and David Harmon. Adult Illiteracy in the United States. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985.

Inhelder, Barbel, and Jean Piaget. The Growth of Logical Thinking from Childhood to Adolescence. Trans. Anne Parsons and Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books, 1958.

Jensen, George H. “The Reification of the Basic Writer.” Journal of Basic Writing 5 (1986): 52-64.

Kamin, Leon J. The Science and Politics of I.Q. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1974.

Kuhn, Deanna, Victoria Ho, and Catherine Adams. “Formal Reasoning Among Pre- and Late Adolescents.” Child Development 50 (1979): 1128-35.

Kurtz, Richard M. “A Conceptual Investigation of Witkin’s Notion of Perceptual Style.” Mind 78 (1969): 522-33.

Latour, Bruno, and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory Life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979.

Lave, Jean. “Cognitive Consequences of Traditional Apprenticeship Training in West Africa.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 8 (1977): 177-80.

LeDoux, Joseph E. “Cerebral Asymmetry and the Integrated Function of the Brain.” Functions of the Right Cerebral Hemisphere. Ed. Andrew W. Young. London: Academic Press, 1983. 203-16.

Linn, Marcia C., and Patrick Kyllonen. “The Field Dependence-Independence Construct: Some, One, or None.” Journal of Educational Psychology 73 (1981): 261-73.

Lockridge, Kenneth. Literacy in Colonial New England. New York: Norton, 1974.

Margolis, Joseph. “The Emergence of Philosophy.” Robb 229-43.

Marrou, H.I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Madison, WI: U of Wisconsin P, 1982.

McCormick, Kathleen. The Cultural Imperatives Underlying Cognitive Acts. Berkeley: Center for The Study of Writing, 1986.

McKenna, Frank P. “Field Dependence and Personality: A Re-examination.” Social Behavior and Personality 11 (983): 51-55.

Messick, Samuel. “Personality Consistencies in Cognition and Creativity.” Individuality in Learning. Ed. Samuel Messick and Associates. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1976. 4-22.

Ogbu, John U. Minority Education and Caste. New York: Academic Press, 1978.

Olson, David R., Nancy Torrance, and Angela Hildyard, eds. Literacy, Language, and Learning. New York: Cambridge UP, 1981.

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen, 1982.

Ornstein, Robert E., and David Galin. “Psychological Studies of Consciousness.” Symposium on Consciousness. Ed. Philip R. Lee et al. New York: Viking, 1976. 53-66.

Oxenham, John. Literacy: Writing, Reading, and Social Organisation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980.

Perkins, D.N. “General Cognitive Skills: Why Not?” Thinking and Learning Skills. Ed. Susan F. Chipman, Judith W. Segal, and Robert Glaser. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. 339-63.

Piaget, Jean. “Intellectual Evolution from Adolescence to Adulthood.” Human Development 15 (1972): 1-12.

Polanyi, Livia. Telling the American Story: A Structural and Cultural Analysis of Conversational Storytelling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985.

Robb, Kevin, ed. Language and Thought in Early Greek Philosophy. LaSalle, IL: Monist Library of Philosophy, 1983.

Rogoff, Barbara. Everyday Cognition. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1984.

Rose, Mike. “Complexity, Rigor, Evolving Method, and the Puzzle of Writer’s Block: Thoughts on Composing Process Research.” Rose, When a Writer Can’t Write 227-60.

—, ed. When a Writer Can’t Write: Studies in Writer’s Block and Other Composing Process Problems. New York: Guilford, 1985.

Rugg, Michael D. “Electrophysiological Studies.” Divided Visual Field Studies of Cerebral Organisation. Ed. J. Graham Beaumont. New York: Academic Press, 1982. 129-46.

Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne B.K. Scollon. “Cooking It Up and Boiling It Down: Abstracts in Athabascan Children’s Story Retellings.” Tannen, Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse 173-97.

Shaughnessy, Mina. Errors and Expectations. New York: Oxford UP, 1977. Siegler, Roberr S. “Children’s Thinking: The Search For Limits.” The Function of Language and Cognition. Ed. G.J. Whitehurst and Barry J. Zimmerman. New York: Academic Press, 1979. 83-113.

Sperry, Roger W. “Consciousness, Personal Identity, and the Divided Brain.” Benson and Zaidel 11-26.

Tannen, Deborah, ed. Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1984.

—. “A Comparative Analysis of Oral Narrative Strategies: Athenian Greek and American English.” The Pear Stories. Ed. Wallace Chafe. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1980. 51-87.

—. “Relative Focus on Involvement in Oral and Written Discourse.” Olson, Torrance, and Hildyard 124-47.

TenHouten, Warren D. “Social Dominance and Cerebral Hemisphericity: Discriminating Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Sex Groups by Performance on Two Lateralized Tests.” Intern J. Neuroscience 10 (1980): 223-32.

Toulmin, Stephen. “Epistemology and Developmental Psychology.” Developmental Plasticity. Ed. Eugene S. Gollin. New York: Academic Press, 1981. 253-67.

Tulkin, S.R., and M.J. Konner. “Alternative Conceptions of Intellectual Functioning.” Human Development 16 (1973): 33-52.

Valenstein, Elliot S. Great and Desperate Cures. New York: Basic Books, 1986.

Vernon, Philip. “The Distinctiveness of Field Independence'” journal of Personality 40 (1972): 366-91.

Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978.

Wachtel, Paul L. “Field Dependence and Psychological Differentiation: Reexamination'” Perceptual and Motor Skills 35 (1972): 174-89.

Whitaker, Harry A., and George A. Ojemann. “Lateralization of Higher Cortical Functions: A Critique.” Evolution and Lateralization of the Brain. Ed. Stuart Dimond and David Blizard. New York: New York Academy of Science, 1977. 459-73.

Williams, James Dale. “Coherence and Cognitive Style.” Diss. U of Southern California, 1983.

Witkin, Herman A., “Psychological Differentiation and Forms of Pathology.” journal of Abnormal Psychology 70 (1965): 317-36.

Witkin, Herman A., et al. “Field-Dependent and Field-Independent Cognitive Styles and Their Educational Implications.” Review of Educational Research 47 (1977): 1-64.

Wittrock, Merlin. “Education and the Cognitive Processes of the Brain.” Education and The Brain. Ed. Jeanne S. Chall and Allen S. Mirsky. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1978.61-102.

Young, Andrew W. “Methodological and Theoretical Bases of Visual Hemifield Studies.” Divided Visual Field Studies of Cerebral Organisation. Ed. J. Graham Beaumont. New York: Academic Press, 1982. 11-27.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v41-2

Pickett, Nell Ann. Rev. of The American Community College by Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer. CCC 41.2 (1990): 226-227.

Harris, Joseph. Rev. of Rescuing the Subject: A Critical Introduction to Rhetoric and the Writer by Susan Miller; The Written World: Reading and Writing in Social Contexts by Susan Miller. CCC 41.2 (1990): 227-229.

Brandt, Deborah. Rev. of Writing as Social Action by Marilyn M. Cooper and Michael Holzman. CCC 41.2 (1990): 229-231.

Middleton, Joyce Irene. Rev. of The Double Perspective: Language, Literacy, and Social Relations by David Bleich. CCC 41.2 (1990): 231-233.

Gere, Anne Ruggles. Rev. of Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research by Chris M. Anson. CCC 41.2 (1990): 233-234.

Philbin, Alice. Rev. of Technical and Business Communication: Bibliographic Essays for Teachers and Corporate Trainers by Charles H. Sides. CCC 41.2 (1990): 234-235.

Holdstein, Deborah H. Rev. of Writing and Technique by David Dobrin. CCC 41.2 (1990): 235-237.

Bernhardt, Stephen A. Rev. of Worlds of Writing: Teaching and Learning in Discourse Communities at Work by Carolyn B. Matelene. CCC 41.2 (1990): 237-239.

Fenza, D. W. Rev. of Creative Writing in America: Theory and Pedagogy by Joseph M. Moxley. CCC 41.2 (1990): 239-240.

Cook, Albert B. “Response to Donald C. Stewart, ‘What Is an English Major, and What Should It Be?'” CCC 41.2 (1990): 223-224.

Stewart, Donald C. “Reply by Donald C. Stewart.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 224-225.

Fulwiler, Toby. “Looking and Listening for My Voice.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 214-220.

Brueggemann, Brenda Jo. “Signs and Numbers of the Times: Harper’s ‘Index’ as an Essay Prompt.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 220-222.

Huot, Brian. “Reliability, Validity, and Holistic Scoring: What We Know and What We Need to Know.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 201-213.

Abstract:

The author’s purpose in this essay is “to outline the present state of holistic writing evaluation, the inflated position of reliability and the neglected status of validity, and to consider what we know and what we need to know in order to establish the theoretic soundness of holistic scoring procedures.” Holistic, rubric-based scoring emphasizes the reliability of scores, but the author warns that these holistic scoring procedures change the natural relationship between the reader and the text, forcing the scorer to look narrowly at a piece of writing instead of valuing a personal, subjective reaction to the text. The author argues that the field needs to further develop holistic scoring procedures that will be more accurate and valid in assessing the effectiveness of student writing.

Keywords:

ccc41.2 Holistic Writing Validity Reliability Raters Score Testing Students Evaluation Quality Research EWhite

Works Cited

Anastasi, Anne. Psychological Testing. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan, 1976.

Anderson, Richard c., and P. David Pearson. “A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading Comprehension.” Handbook of Reading Research. Ed. P. David Pearson. New York: Longman, 1984. 225-92.

Baurer, Barbara A. A Study of the Reliabilities and Cost Efficiencies of Three Methods of Assessment for Writing Ability. ERIC, 1981. ED 216 357.

Bleich, David. Readings and Feelings: An Introduction to Subjective Criticism. Urbana: NCTE, 1975.

—. Subjective Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.

Braddock, Richard, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer. Research in Written Composition. Champaign: NCTE, 1963.

Breland, Hunter M. “Can Multiple-Choice Tests Measure Writing Skills?” College Board Review 103 (Spring 1977): 11-13, 23-33.

Breland, Hunter M., and Robert J. Jones. “Perceptions of Writing Skills.” Written Communication 1 (Jan. 1984): 10 1-09.

Charney, Davida A. “The Validity of Using Holistic Scoring to Evaluate Writing: A Critical Overview.” Research in the Teaching of English 18 (Feb. 1984): 65-81.

Collins, James L., and Michael M. Williamson. “Spoken Language and Semantic Abbreviation in Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (February 1981): 23-35.

Cooper, Charles R. “Holistic Evaluation of Writing.” Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Ed. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1977. 3-32.

Crowhurst, Marion. “Syntactic Complexity and Teachers’ Ratings of Narratives and Arguments.” Research in the Teaching of English 14 (Oct. 1980): 223-32.

Davis, Barbara G., Michael Scriven, and Susan Thomas. The Evaluation of Composition Instruction. Inverness: Edgepress, 1981.

Diederich, Paul B. Measuring Growth in English. Urbana: NCTE, 1974.

Diederich, Paul B., John W. French, and Sydell T. Carlton. Factors in the judgment of Writing Quality. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1961. ETS RB NO 61-15.

Faigley, Lester, Roger D. Cherry, David A. Jolliffe, and Anna M. Skinner. Assessing Writers’ Knowledge and Processes of Composing. Norwood: Ablex, 1985.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.

Freedman, Sarah W. “How Characteristics of Students’ Essays Influence Teachers’ Evaluation.” Journal of Educational Psychology 71 (June 1979): 328-38.

—. “Influences of Evaluation of Expository Essays: Beyond the Text.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (Oct. 1981): 245-55.

—. “Influences on the Evaluators of Student Writing.” DAI 37 (1977): 5306A. Stanford U.

—. “Why Do Teachers Give the Grades They Do?” CCC30 (May 1979): 161-64.

Freedman, Sarah W., and Robert C. Calfee. “Holistic Assessment of Writing: Experimental Design and Cognitive Theory.” Research on Writing. Ed. Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Tamor, and Sean A. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. 75-98.

Gebhard, Anne O. “Writing Quality and Syntax: A Transformational Analysis of Three Prose Samples.” Research in the Teaching of English 12 (Oct. 1978): 211-31.

Gere, Anne R. “Written Composition: Toward a Theory of Evaluation.” College English 42 (Sept. 1980): 44-48.

Godshalk, Fred I., Frances Swineford, and William E. Coffman. The Measurement of Writing Ability. Research Monograph 6. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1966.

Goodman, Kenneth S. Language and Literacy: The Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. London: Rouc1edge and Kegan Paul, 1982.

Greenberg, Karen. The Effects of Variations in Essay Questions on the Writing Performance of CUNY Freshmen. New York: CUNY Instructional Resource Center, 1981.

Grobe, Cary. “Syntactic Maturity., Mechanics and Vocabulary as Predictors of Quality Ratings.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (Feb. 1981): 75-88.

Harris, Winfred H. “Teacher Response to Student Writing: A Study of the Response Patterns of High School English Teachers to Determine the Basis for Teacher Judgment of Student Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 11 (May 1977): 175-85.

Hoetker, James. “Essay Examination Topics and Student Writing.” CCC 33 (Dec. 1982): 377-92.

Holland, Norman N. The Dynamics of Literary Response. New York: Oxford UP, 1968.

Huot, Brian. “The Validity of Holistic Scoring: A Comparison of the Talk-Aloud Protocols of Novice and Expert Holistic Raters.” Diss. Indiana U of Pennsylvania, 1988.

Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.

Jones, Bennie E. “Marking of Student Writing by High School Teachers in Virginia During 1976.” DAI 38 (1978): 3911A. U of Virginia.

Lyman, Howard B. Test Scores and What They Mean. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1978.

Markham, Lynda R. “Influences of Handwriting Quality on Teacher Evaluation of Student Work.” American Educational Research Journal 13 (Fall 1976): 277-83.

McColly, William. “What Does Educational Research Say About the Judging of Writing?” Journal of Educational Research 64 (December 1970): 148-56.

Myers, Miles. A Procedure for Writing Assessment and Holistic Scoring. Urbana: NCTE, 1980.

Neilsen, Lorraine, and Gene Piche. “The Influence of Headed Nominal Complexity and Lexical Choice on Teachers’ Evaluation of Writing.” Research. in the Teaching of English 15 (Feb. 1981): 65-74.

Nold, Ellen W. The Basics of Research: The Evaluation of Writing. ERIC, 1978. ED 166 713.

Nold, Ellen W., and Sarah W. Freedman. “An Analysis of Readers’ Responses to Essays.” Research in the Teaching of English 11 (May 1977): 164-74.

Odell, Lee, and Charles R. Cooper. “Procedures for Evaluating Writing: Assumptions and Research.” College English 42 (Sept. 1980): 35-43.

Popham, James W. Modern Educational Measurement. Englewood: Prentice, 1981.

Puma, Vincent D. “The Effects of the Degree of Audience Intimacy on Linguistic Features and Quality in the Audience Specified Essays of First Year College Students.” Diss. Indiana U of Pennsylvania, 1986.

Scherer, Darlene L. Measuring the Measurements: A Study of the Evaluation of Writing-An Annotated Bibliography. ERIC, 1985. ED 260 455.

Sloan, Charles A., and Iris McGinnis. The Effects of Handwriting on Teachers’ Grading of High School Essays. ERIC, 1978. ED 220 836.

Smith, Frank. Understanding Reading. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, 1983.

—. “The Writer as Reader.” Language Arts 60 (1983): 558-67.

Smith, William L. Personal Correspondence. U of Pittsburgh, 1988.

Spandel, Vicki, and Richard J. Stiggins. Direct Measures of Writing Skill: Issues and Applications. Portland: Northwest Regional Laboratory, 1980.

Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1974.

Stewart, Murray F., and Cary H. Grobe. “Syntactic Maturity, Mechanics, Vocabulary and Teachers’ Quality Ratings.” Research in the Teaching of English 13 (Oct. 1979): 207-15.

Stock, Patricia L., and Jay L. Robinson. “Taking on Testing.” English Education 19 (May 1987): 93-121.

Tierney, Robert J., and P. David Pearson. “Toward a Composing Model of Reading.” Language Arts 60 (May 1983): 568-80.

Vaughan, Carolyn. “What Affects Raters’ Judgments)” CCCC Convention. Atlanta, Mar. 1987.

Veal, L. Ramon, and Sally A. Hudson. “Direct and Indirect Measures for Large-Scale Evaluation of Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 17 (Oct. 1983): 290-96.

White, Edward M. Teaching and Assessing Writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

White, Edward M., and Linda G. Polin. Research in Effective Teaching of Writing: Volumes I and II. Final Project Report to California State U Foundation. ERIC, 1986. ED 275007.

White, Edward M. “Language and Reality in Writing Assessment.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 187-200.

Abstract:

This article investigates the difference between how compositionists assess writing and how those outside the field, such as administration, assess writing performance, citing that the difference comes from a conflict between discourse communities. This spells trouble for writing programs, who are evaluated by measurement specialists who come from other fields that have a different set of assumptions, definitions, and beliefs about writing. The author argues that writing teachers are right to be vocal against measurement techniques that reduce writing to a mechanical skill, but to dismiss all assessment is unwise, for there is value in measurement practices that take into account the complex nature of writing. Above all, the author argues, compositionists interested in assessment should broaden their reading in order to understand, appreciate, and use knowledge on writing evaluation produced by other fields.

Keywords:

ccc41.2 Language Writing Measurement Assessment Value World Community Score Discourse Students Data Testing Reality

Works Cited

Bloom, Benjamin, et al. Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw, 1971.

Cronbach, 1. J., M. Rajaratnam, and G. Gleser. “Theory of Generalizability: A Liberation of Reliability Theory.” British Journal of Statistical Psychology 16.2 (963): 137-63.

Hillocks, George, J r. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana: NCTE, 1986.

Leitch, Vincent. “Deconstruction and Pedagogy.” Writing and Reading Differently. Ed. G. Douglas Atkins and Michael Johnson. Lawrence: UP of Kansas, 1985. 1-26.

Sapir, Edward. “The Status of Linguistics as a Science.” Selected Writings in Language. Culture and Personality. Ed. David G. Mandelbaum. Berkeley: U of California P, 1963. 160-66.

Skinner, B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Knopf, 1972.

White, Edward M. Teaching and Assessing Writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

White, Edward M., and Leon Thomas. “Racial Minorities and Writing Skills Assessment in The California State University and Colleges.” College English 43 (Mar. 1981): 276-83.

Whorf, Benjamin L. “Science and Linguistics'” Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings. Ed. John B. Carroll. Cambridge: MIT P, 1956. 207-19.

Tirrell, Mary Kay. “James Britton: An Impressionistic Sketch.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 166-171.

Pradl, Gordon M. “Collaborating with Jimmy Britton.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 171-175.

Warnock, John. “Rejoicing in the Margins.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 176-181.

Britton, James. “James Britton: An Impressionistic Sketch: A Response.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 181-186.

Keywords:

ccc41.2 JBritton Language Teaching Writing Research Theory Development Discourse Field English Knowledge

Works Cited

Bernstein, Richard J. Praxis and Action. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1971.

Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford UP, 1973.

Boomer, Garth. “The Helping Hand Strikes Again.”‘ English Education 21 (Oct. 1989): 132-51.

Britton, James. “Attempting to Clarify Our Objectives for Teaching English.” English Education 18 (Oct. 1986): 153-58.

—. “English Teaching: Prospect and Retrospect.” Prospect and Retrospect 201-15.

—. Language and Learning. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin, 1970.

—. “Language and the Nature of Learning: An Individual Perspective.” The Teaching of English. Ed. James Squire. The 76th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1977. 1-38.

—. “A Note on Teaching, Research and ‘Development.'” Prospect and Retrospect 149-52.

—-. “Notes on a Working Hypothesis about Writing.” Prospect and Retrospect 123-39.

—. Prospect and Retrospect: Selected Essays of James Britton. Ed. Gordon M. Pradl. Upper Montclair: Boynton, 1982.

—. “Second Thoughts on Learning.” Language Arts 62 (Jan. 1985): 72-77.

—. “The Spectator as Theorist: A Reply.” English Education 21 (Feb. 1989): 5.)-60.

—. “Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing.” Prospect and Retrospect 46-67.

—. “Writing and the Story World.”‘ Exploration of Children’s Writing Development. Ed. Gordon Wells and Barry Kroll. Chichester: Wiley, 1983. 3-30.

Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, and Harold Rosen. The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). London: Macmillan, 1975.

Burke, Kenneth. “In Response to Booth: Dancing with Tears in My Eyes.” Critical Inquiry 1. 1 (Sept. 1974): 23-31.

Coles, William E. The Plural I: The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, 1978.

Emig, Janet. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana: NCTE, 1971.

Gill, Margaret. “And Gladly Learn.”‘ Lightfoot and Martin 271-72.

Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Function of Language. London: Edward Arnold, 1973.

Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse. New York: Prentice, 1971.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1970.

Lightfoot, Martin, and Nancy Martin. The Word for Teaching Is Learning: Essays for James Britton. London: Heinemann, 1988.

Macrorie, Ken. Twenty Teachers. New York: Oxford UP, 1984.

Moffett, James. Teaching the Universe of Discourse. Boston: Houghton, 1968.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair: Boynton, 1987.

Oakeshott, Michael. The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind. London: Bowes, 1959.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. Composition as a Human Science. New York: Oxford UP, 1988.

Pradl, Gordon. “Learning Listening.”‘ Lightfoot and Martin 33-48.

Pringle, Ian. “Jimmy Britton and Linguistics.” Lightfoot and Martin 264-66.

Rosenblatt, Louise. Literature as Exploration. 1938. 3rd ed. New York: Barnes, 1976.

Schon, Donald A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey, 1987.

Tirrell, Mary Kay. “A Study of Two Scholar/Practitioners in Composition: Developmental Themes in the Work of James Moffett and James Britton.” Diss. U of Southern California, 1988.

Tompkins, Jane. “Fighting Words: Unlearning to Write the Critical Essay.” Georgia Review 42 (Fall 1988): 585-90.

Volosinov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar, 1973.

Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978.

Warnock, John. “Brittonism.” Rev. of The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). Rhetoric Society Quarterly 9 (Winter 1979): 7-15.

Young, Richard. “Paradigms and Problems: Needed Research in Rhetorical Invention.” Research on Composing: Points of Departure. Ed. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1978. 29-47.

Young, Richard, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. New York: Harcourt, 1970.

Raines, Helon Howell. “Is There a Writing Program in This College? Two Hundred and Thirty-Six Two-Year Schools Respond.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 151-165.

Abstract:

This article, based on a survey of 236 community college writing programs and eight telephone interviews of chairs of two-year college writing departments, argues that “two year schools are…as different from one another as they are alike.” The survey asked questions about the schools’ institutional structure for writing and English departments, the curriculum, the conceived purpose of writing courses, the faculty, the students, the teaching loads, and support services, such as WAC and writing centers, at the college. The challenges of teaching at two-year institutions – given its much more socially and economically diverse student population – are not often heard because two-year college writing instructors are too busy with large teaching loads and do not have the financial assistance to do research and travel to national composition conferences to share their experiences.

Keywords:

ccc41.2 Writing WritingProgram Colleges Schools Students Faculty Survey Questions English

Works Cited

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Membership Directory 1988. Ed. Jim Palmer. Washington: National Center for Higher Education, 1988.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. Building Communities: A Vision for a New Century. Washington: Center for Higher Education, 1988.

Bartholomae, David. ” Freshman English, Composition, and CCCC .” CCC 40 (February 1989); 38-50.

English in the Two-Year College. Report of a Joint Committee of the National Council of Teachers of English and the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Urbana: NCTE, 1965.

“Facts in Brief.” Higher Education and National Affairs 6 Oct. 1986: 3.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretative Communities. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.

Hairston, Maxine. “Breaking Our Bonds and Reaffirming Our Connections.” CCC 36 (Oct. 1985); 272-82.

Lunsford, Andrea. ” Composing Ourselves: Politics, Commitment, and the Teaching of Writing .” CCC 41 (Feb. 1990): 71-82.

National Association of College and University Business Officers. 1987 Comparative Financial Statistics. Washington; Financial Management Center, 1987.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Montclair: Boynton, 1988.

Raines, Helon. “Teaching Writing in the Two-Year College.” Writing Program Administration 12.1-2 (Fall/Winter 1988): 29-37.

United States Department of Education. Center for Education Statistics. Institutional Characteristics of Colleges and Universities. Washington: Dept. of Education, 1986.

McPherson. Elisabeth. “Remembering, Regretting, and Rejoicing: The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Two-Year College Regionals.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 137-150.

Abstract:

This article is a history and a reflection of the two-year college regional conventions, which were sponsored by NCTE and CCCC and established in 1965 for the purpose of providing professional development and recognition for the teachers of English at junior community colleges. Beginning in the 1970s, community college writing instructors, through the collective voice of the National Junior College Committee, issued statements about the training and the workload of writing teachers at community colleges. Over the past twenty-five years, two-year college writing instructors have been subject to trends and fads in writing instruction and pressure from government and corporate interests. The author insists that teachers cut through these distractions and influences and instead focus on the purpose of college writing – “helping students think more clearly” – by constantly reevaluating their courses through asking “What is this class for?”

Keywords:

ccc41.2 College Students Teachers NCTE CommunityColleges JuniorColleges CCCC Community Conferences Regionals Meetings

Works Cited

An Annotated List of Training Programs for Community College English Teachers: A CCCC Report. Urbana: ERIC Clearing House for Junior Colleges, 1977.

Barton, Thomas L., and Anna M. Beachner, eds. Teaching English in the Two- Year College. Menlo Park: Cummings, 1970.

English in the Two-Year College. Champaign: NCTE, 1965.

Guidelines for the Workload of the College English Teacher. Urbana: NCTE, 1987.

Research and the Development of English Programs in the Junior College. Champaign: NCTE, 1965.

Stewart, Donald C. ” What is an English Major, and What Should It Be? ” CCC 40 (May 1989): 188-202.

Students’ Right to Their Own Language. CCC [Special Issue] 25 (Fall 1974): 1-32.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v39-1

Schuster, Charles I. Rev. of The Structure of Written Communication: Studies in Reciprocity between Writers and Readers by Martin Nystrand pp. 89-91.

Stotsky, Sandra. Rev. of The Dynamics of Language Learning: Research in Reading and English by James R. Squire pp. 91-93.

Kneupper, Charles. Rev. of Actual Minds, Possible World by Jerome Bruner pp. 93-95.

Clark, Beverly Lyon. Rev. of Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications by Anne Ruggles Gere pp. 95-96.

Sudol, Ronald A. Rev. of Composition and the Academy: A Study of Writing Program Administration by Carol P. Hartzog pp. 97-98.

Sides, Charles H. Rev. of How to Teach Technical Editing by David K. Farkas pp. 98-99.

Clifford, John. Rev. of Write to Learn by Donald M. Murray pp. 99-101.

Weltzien, O. Alan. Rev. of Generating Prose: Relations, Patterns, Structures by Willis L. Pitkin, Jr. pp. 101-102.

Brent, Harry. Rev. of Literature and the Writing Process by Elizabeth McMahan, Susan Day, and Robert Funk pp. 102-103.

Schwartz, Helen J. “Writing with the Carbon Copy Audience in Mind.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 63-65.

McLeod, Susan H., and Laura Emery. “When Faculty Write: A Workshop for Colleagues.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 65-67.

Devet, Bonnie. “Stressing Figures of Speech in Freshman Composition.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 67-69.

Raymond, Richard C. “Reading and Writing on the ‘Nuclear Predicament.'” CCC 39.1 (1988): 69-74.

Madigan, Chris. “Applying Donald Murray’s ‘Responsive Teaching.'” CCC 39.1 (1988): 74-77.

Sommers, Jeffrey. “Behind the Paper: Using the Student-Teacher Memo.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 77-80.

Reynolds, Mark. “Make Free Writing More Productive.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 81-82.

Gordon, Helen H. “Clustering: Generating Ideas for Original Sentences.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 83-84.

Haviland, Carol Peterson, and Adele Pittendrigh. “Writing Discovery Journals: Helping Students Take Charge.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 84-85.

Veglahn, Nancy J. “Searching: A Better Way to Teach Technical Writing.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 85-87. </ph2

Swaim, Kathleen M. “Making a Virtue of Necessity.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 87-88.

Chaplin, Miriam T. “Issues, Perspectives and Possibilities.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 52-62.

Abstract:

This, a revision of the author’s 1987 CCCC Chair’s address, discusses how larger and complex social and economic problems are affecting the field of composition. The economic strain of recession has led students, who are increasingly independent and non-traditional, to demand serious, real-world applicable writing courses. Concerns about recruiting and retaining students in an era of dwindling enrollments has prompted national reports on the status of higher education, which have placed university curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher training under scrutiny. The push for accountability has led to the creation of objective, standardized tests to measure student progress, which many in composition argue do not effectively judge student writing development. The author argues that composition needs to change in various ways to accommodate and combat these larger social and political movements affecting the university, including expanding the types of writing taught, recognizing the diversity of student experiences in a given class, insisting on relevant assignments, not merely ones that fulfill a standard requirement, and opening up connections between the university and secondary schools.

Keywords:

ccc39.1 ChairsAddress Students Composition Teachers Education HigherEducation Writing Testing Experience Institutions Language Diversity Faculty

Works Cited

Association of American Colleges. Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community. 1985.

Britton, James. Language and Learning. Baltimore: Penguin, 1972.

Buber, Martin. Between Man and Man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1947.

Kelly, George. “Man’s Construction of His Alternatives.” Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of George Kelly. Ed. Brandon Maher. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969.

Odell, Lee. “A Maturing Discipline.” Chair’s Address. CCCC Convention. New Orleans, 13 March 1986.

Tuman, Myron C. “Class, Codes, and Composition: Basil Bernstein and the Critique of Pedagogy.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 42-51.

Abstract:

The author argues that composition scholars who are critiquing the process movement and raising questions about the connections between language, class, and academic success would be wise to consider the later essays of educational sociologist Byron Bernstein. Bernstein’s essays show that the freedom students are given in student-centered, process-oriented composition classrooms favor middle and upper-class students who possess cultural capital – the educational and social preparation needed to succeed in an environment without much explicit direction. Educational reform movements that don’t address the wider power and class structure of society do not help disadvantaged students succeed, and composition teachers need to reflect on how their pedagogical strategies may help and hurt all the students in their classes. The author argues that some pedagogical practices deemed too traditional and reactionary might better serve students from lower-income or disadvantaged homes.

Keywords:

ccc39.1 Writing BBernstein Curriculum Students Classrooms Pedagogy Process School Children Work Parents Family Education World Communication Power Critique Society LFaigley

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” When a Writer Can’t Write. Ed. Mike Rose. New York: Guilford, 1985. 134-65.

Bernstein, Basil. “Aspects of the Relations Between Education and Production.” Class, Codes and Control Vol. 3. 174-200.

—. “Class and Pedagogies: Visible and Invisible.” Class, Codes and Control Vol. 3. 116- 56.

—. Class, Codes and Control: Towards a Theory of Educational Transmissions. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.

—. “Codes, Modalities, and the Process of Cultural Reproduction: A Model.” Language in Society 10 (1981): 327-63.

—. Introduction. Class, Codes and Control Vol. 3. 1-33.

—. “Language and Social Class.” Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. 2nd ed. New York: Shocken, 1974. 61-67.

—. “The Role of Speech in the Development and Transmission of Culture.” Perspectives on Learning. Ed. C. L. Klept and W. A. Hohman. New York: Mental Material Center, 1967. 15-45.

Bizzell, Patricia. “College Composition: Initiation into the Academic Discourse Community.” Curriculum Inquiry 12 (1982): 191-207.

Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges.” Social Science Information 16 (1977): 645-68.

Brannon, Lil, and C. H. Knoblauch. “On Students’ Rights to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response.” CCC 33 (1982): 157-66.

Chomsky, Noam. Language and Responsibility. New York: Pantheon, 1979.

Faigley, Lester. “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English 48 (1986): 527-42.

Giroux, Henry A. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1983.

Gramsci, Antonio. Prison Notebook. Trans. Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Smith. New York: International, 1971.

Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge UP, 1983.

—. “What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School.” Language in Society 11 (1982): 49-76.

Lasch, Christopher. Haven in a Heartless World. New York: Basic, 1977.

Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne B. K. Scollon. “Cooking It Up and Boiling It Down: Abtrabaskan Children’s Story Retellings.” Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Ed. Deborah Tannen. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 17.3-97.

Brooke, Robert. “Modeling a Writer’s Identity: Reading and Imitation in the Writing Classroom.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 23-41.

Abstract:

This article uses student writing from a semester-long freshman reading and composition course and theoretical understandings of identity construction to argue for a new way of understanding the connection between reading, imitation, and writing. Students, the author argues, form their identity as a writer through imitation of specific, individual authors that they admire and respect, not through dry imitation exercises that focus on generic forms or patterns. The author goes on to argue that composition courses should be primarily concerned with developing writer identities, and the process of forming these identities is complex, drawing from the attitudes towards writing that a teacher models, students’ past histories and experiences, their stance towards reading and writing, and their interpretation of individual authors’ styles.

Keywords:

ccc39.1 Identity Students Writing Courses Experience Reading Imitation Models Writers

Works Cited

Applebee, Arthur. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1974.

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. R. Roberts. New York: Modern Library, 1954.

Berthoff, Ann. Forming/Thinking/Writing. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden, 1978.

Calkins, Lucy. Lessons from a Child. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1983.

Comley, Nancy, and Robert Scholes. “Literature, Composition, and the Structure of English.” Horner 96-109.

Elbow, Peter. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford UP, 1973.

Erikson, Erik. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton, 1950.

—. Identity, Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton, 1968.

Goffman, Erving. Asylums. New York: Anchor, 1961.

—. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoil Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Graves, Donald. A Researcher Learns to Write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1984.

Heath, Shirley Brice. “Ethnography in Education: Toward Defining the Essentials.” Ethnography and Education: Children in and out of School. Ed. P. Gilmore and A. Glatthorn. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1982. 33-55.

—. “Ethnography and Education.” Seminar given at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, March 1986.

—. Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Holland, Norman. 5 Readers Reading. New Haven: Yale UP, 1975.

—. The I. New Haven: Yale UP, 1985.

—. “UNITY IDENTITY TEXT SELF.” PMLA 90 (1975): 813-22. Rpt. in Reader Response Criticism. Ed. Jane Tompkins. Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1980. 118-33.

Horner, Winifred, ed. Composition and Literature: Bridging the Gap. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1983.

Kantor, Ken. “Classroom Contexts and the Development of Writing Intentions.”‘ New Directions in Composition Research. Ed. Richard Beach and Lillian Bridwell. New York: Guilford, 1984. 72-94.

Kantor, Ken, Dan Kirby, and Judith Goetz. “Research in Context: Ethnographic Studies in English Education.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (1981): 293-309.

Kennedy, George. Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP, 1980.

Knoblauch, C. H., and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1984.

Laing, R. D. The Divided Self. London: Tavistock, 1960.

—. Self and Others, 2nd ed. New York: Penguin, 1969.

—. The Voice of Experience. New York: Pantheon, 1982.

Laurence, Margaret. A Bird in the House. Toronto: Seal, 1978.

Miller, J. Hillis. “Composition and Decomposition: Deconstruction and the Teaching of Writing.” Horner 38-56.

Plato. “Gorgias.” Trans. W. D. Woodhead. The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Bollington, 1961. 229-307.

Reither, James. “Writing and Knowing: Toward Redefining the Writing Process.” College English 47 (1985): 620-28.

Rose, Mike. “The Language of Exclusion.” College English 47 (1985): 341-59.

Young, Richard, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, New York: Harcourt, 1970.

Chase, Geoffrey. “Accommodation, Resistance and the Politics of Student Writing.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 13-22.

Abstract:

This article uses case studies of extended writing projects of three college seniors to show how students practice what Giroux terms accommodation, opposition, and resistance strategies when they are asked to adopt established academic discourse conventions in their writing. Through analyzing the students’ writing, the author argues that when instructors teach different discourse conventions, they need to allow students to both problematize the conventions themselves and understand the conventions within a greater social and historical context. This means broadening what teachers deem as “good” or “correct” writing and giving students the opportunity to compose purposeful texts that work towards a larger social goal instead of merely fulfilling an academic assignment.

Keywords:

ccc39.1 Conventions Project Students Discourse Writing Resistance Audiece History Discourse Communities HGiroux Forms Accommodation Community

Works Cited

Batsleer, Janet, et al. Rewriting English: Cultural Politics of Gender and Class. London: Methuen, 1985.

Bizzel1, Patricia. “College Composition: Initiation into the Academic Discourse Community.” Curriculum Inquiry 12 (1982): 191-207.

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Trans. Richard Nice. London: Sage, 1977.

Faigley, Lester, and Kristine Hansen. “Learning to Write in the Social Sciences.” CCC 36 (1985): 140-49.

Freire, Paulo. The Politics of Education. Trans. Donaldo Macedo. South Hadley, MA: Bergin Garvey, 1985.

Giroux, Henry A. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin Garvey, 1983.

LeSueur, Meridel. The Girl. Minneapolis: West End, 1978.

Lusted, David. “Why Pedagogy?” Screen 27 (1986).

Subscribe to CCC
Purchase a print copy of this issue

CCCC is seeking the next editor of College Composition and Communication. The term of current editor Malea Powell will end in December 2024. Interested persons should send a letter of application to be received no later than Monday, February 13, 2023 (the deadline has been extended).

Letters should be accompanied by (1) a CV, noting any editorial experience, (2) one published writing sample (article or chapter), and (3) a statement of vision, to include any suggestions for changing the journal as well as features of the journal to be continued. Applicants are urged to consult with administrators on the question of time, resources, and other services that may be required. NCTE staff members are available to provide advice and assistance to all potential applicants in approaching administrators about institutional support and in explaining NCTE’s support for editors.

Finalists will be interviewed virtually during the winter/spring of 2023. The applicant appointed by the CCCC Executive Committee in spring 2023 will effect a transition in 2023–24, preparing for their first issue in February 2025. The appointment term is five years.

Applications should be submitted via email in PDF form to jsitar@ncte.org; please include “CCC Editor Application” in the subject line by Monday, February 13, 2023. Direct queries to Jim Sitar, NCTE journals managing editor, at the email address above.

 

CCC homepage

What is CCCC?

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) supports and promotes the teaching and study of college composition and communication. CCCC is one of four conferences of the National Council of Teachers of English, which promotes access, power, agency, and affiliation for all invested in literacy, pre-K through graduate school.¹

Organizational Structure of CCCC

CCCC is governed by its Constitution and Bylaws. It is through the groups and roles specified in these documents that the work of the organization takes place. Leadership of the organization is charged to the CCCC Executive Committee (EC). The EC consists of 25 voting members (who are themselves elected by CCCC members) and five ex officio members who sit on the EC by virtue of their offices. These include, for instance, the editor of College Composition and Communication, CCCC’s journal, and the chair of the Two-Year College English Association (an NCTE association and close ally of CCCC). These ex officio members provide necessary information about the operations of the organization to the larger leadership body.

The CCCC EC is led by six officers (included in the count above): five elected and one who sits on the Officers’ Committee by virtue of their office. These officers include the Chair, Associate Chair, Assistant Chair, Past Chair, Secretary, and the Executive Secretary-Treasurer (non-elected), who form an Officers’ Committee as specified by the Constitution. Along with the EC, the officers have responsibility for policymaking, fiduciary matters, and organizational decision-making.

Also charged with undertaking projects is a series of Special Committees. These are appointed by the EC. They have a set of discrete tasks around a common interest defined by the Executive Committee to achieve purposes associated with the organization (for example, updating or revising a position statement). Organizationally, the other entities included in the structure of CCCC are membership-driven entities such as Special Interest Groups and Standing Groups, which emerge from the body of the organization. These groups are defined on this webpage and can request formal status within the organization in order to pursue goals, projects, or tasks around an area of common interest.

Organizational Structures within CCCC

Committees
Article IV of the CCCC Constitution names four kinds of committees within CCCC: the Executive Committee, Nominating Committee, Officers’ Committee, and Special Committees. The first three committees (Executive, Nominating, and Officers’) consist of elected and ex-officio members, so are necessarily limited in membership. The fourth, Special Committees, covers a range of topics and has more open membership.

• Executive Committee: comprised of 20 elected plus a number of ex-officio members, the EC is CCCC’s policymaking body.
• Nominating Committee: comprised of seven elected members, the NC identifies and encourages a diverse group of potential candidates to run for leadership positions within the organization.
• Officers’ Committee: the officers of the EC make up the OC, which is charged with carrying out the business of the EC.
• Special Committees: At any given time, CCCC will have a number of special committees, each appointed by the CCCC Chair.  While certain committees are ongoing because their charge renews itself each year (e.g., Newcomers’ Orientation Committee and Awards Committees), most are chartered for three years and have specific deliverables. (The EC may renew the charter if provided with evidence that the organization would benefit from doing so.) A list of current Special Committees, along with information on how to join a committee, can be found on the CCCC Committee webpage.

Task Forces
Task forces are convened, charged, and appointed by the CCCC Executive Committee with the Officers’ Committee taking responsibility for charging the group. A Task Force tends to have a short activity span (typically no more than one year) around a very focused goal or outcome.

Member Groups: Special Interest Groups and Standing Groups
Committee membership is relatively limited because committees have specific and focused charges that are defined by the Executive Committee via the Chair. CCCC members who seek to define more ongoing work that is driven by member interests can participate in Member Groups of two types: Special Interest Groups (SIGs) or Standing Groups (SGs).

Currently, the more than fifty Special Interest Groups (SIGs) meet at the CCCC Annual Convention in the spring. They are relatively informal and provide an opportunity for people with common professional interests to meet and talk. Longstanding SIGs can apply to become a Standing Group, resulting in a more formal relationship with CCCC. While SIGs are not accountable to the organization with specific deliverables, Standing Groups are required to submit an annual report of activities and membership.

Who Does What in the Groups?

• Committees are convened by the CCCC Executive Committee, with charges determined by the EC or Officers’ Committee. All committee members (including the chair) are named/appointed rather than elected. The exceptions to this description are the Nominating Committee, the Officers’ Committee, and the Executive Committee.
• Task Forces are convened by the Executive Committee, with charges determined by the EC or Officers’ Committee. The chair is named or appointed rather than elected, as is the membership.
• Standing Groups are membership-driven groups focused around a common interest. They may start as SIGs and apply for Standing Group status. Chairs or co-chairs are elected from the membership rather than appointed. They have organizational status as an ongoing group, presuming they provide necessary annual updates to the CCCC leadership and abide by their bylaws.
• Special Interest Groups (SIGs) are groups assembled by members with a common interest that meet annually at the Convention. SIGs can apply for Standing Group status–recognition by the organization for longstanding activity.

How do I get involved?

• Committees: Because committee membership is named by the Officers/EC, members interested in committee involvement should contact the CCCC liaison and/or respond to the biennial survey circulated to members, which seeks to solicit interest.
• Task Forces: If there is an area of special expertise that a member wants to contribute to the organization, s/he can contact the Officers’ Committee to indicate a willingness to serve on a committee or task force should a task/goal falling under that member’s area of specialization be necessary.
• Standing Groups: Standing Groups are open to all members. Any member is invited to attend the standing group meeting at the annual convention.
• Special Interest Groups: SIGs are open to all members. Any member is invited to attend the special interest group meeting at the annual convention. SIGs and Standing Groups determine their own leadership opportunities and can be great ways to connect to other leadership positions within CCCC.

Statements

• Position Statements: CCCC Position Statements—formal statements approved by the CCCC Executive Committee—have a long history in the organization, with Students’ Right to Their Own Language dating back to 1974. Position statements cover a range of ethical and professional issues. More detailed information can be found at the following sites:
  • /cccc/resources/positions/creation
  • /cccc/resources/positions/guidelines
• Resolutions: Members of CCCC are encouraged to propose and/or support resolutions in order to “facilitate our collective efforts” on issues “that bear on the teaching of writing and communication.” While some resolutions are intended to make a statement, others are meant to spur action. The Resolutions Committee compiles resolutions and then puts them to a vote by the membership at the business meeting on Saturday morning at CCCC.

¹The other three conferences are the English Language Arts Teacher Educators (ELATE), Conference on English Leadership (CEL), and Literacies and Languages for All (LLA). NCTE also has affiliates (NCTE regional affiliates and TYCA regional affiliates) and assemblies.

Aim of the CCCC Studies in Writing & Rhetoric Series

The aim of the CCCC Studies in Writing & Rhetoric Series is to influence how we think about language in action and especially how writing gets taught at the college level. The methods of studies vary from the critical to historical to linguistic to ethnographic, and their authors draw on work in various fields that inform composition—including rhetoric, communication, education, discourse analysis, psychology, cultural studies, and literature. Their focuses are similarly diverse—ranging from individual writers and teachers, to work on classrooms and communities and curricula, to analyses of the social, political, and material contexts of writing and its teaching. Still, all SWR volumes try in some way to inform the practice of writing teachers, students, or administrators. Their approach is synthetic, their style concise and pointed. Complete manuscripts run from 40,000–50,000 words, or about 150–200 pages. Authors should imagine their work in the hands of writing teachers and all who are interested in how we make our ways with language.

SWR was one of the first scholarly book series to focus primarily on the teaching of writing. It was established in 1980 by the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) in order to promote research in the emerging field of writing studies. As our field has grown, the research and scholarship sponsored by SWR has continued to articulate the commitment of CCCC to supporting the work of writing teachers as reflective practitioners and intellectuals. Click here for a list of current books in the SWR series.

New Editor and Publisher of SWR

On July 1, 2012, Professor Victor Villanueva (Auburn University) will become the next SWR series editor. He and the current series editor, Joseph Harris, are working closely together to ensure a seamless transition. The series will continue to seek out the very best work in writing studies.

Submissions

We are eager to identify influential work in writing and rhetoric as it emerges. We thus ask authors to send us project proposals that clearly situate their work in the field and show how they aim to redirect our ongoing conversations about writing and its teaching. Proposals should include an overview of the project, a brief annotated table of contents, and a sample chapter. They should not exceed 10,000 words.

To submit a proposal, please visit www.editorialmanager.com/nctebp.
Good luck!

 

Problems or questions? Please email Victor Villanueva, SWR Editor, at victorv [at] auburn [dot] edu

 

SWR Editorial Advisory BoardVictor Villanueva, SWR Editor, Auburn University
Robin Gosser, Associate Editor, Auburn University

Linda Adler-Kassner, University of California, Santa Barbara
Adam Banks, University of Kentucky
Anis Bawarshi, University of Washington
Patricia Bizzell, Holy Cross College
Ellen Cushman, Michigan State University
Eli Goldblatt, Temple University
Juan Guerra, University of Washington
Krista Ratcliffe, Marquette University
Raúl Sánchez, University of Florida
Mary Soliday, San Francisco State University
Lucille Schultz, University of Cincinnati
Betsy Verhoeven, Susquehanna University