Author: ksuchor

Entire Convention Program

(Note: this is a large PDF file and may take several minutes to open)

Program by section

• Calendar 
• Individual CCCC Program 
• Contents 
• CCCC Officers, Greetings from the Program Chair, Information for Newcomers, About the CCCC Convention, Technology Center Presentations 
• Special Events, Award Winners, Sessions Presented by Two-Year College Faculty 
• General Information, Committee Meetings, Topic Index to Sessions 
• Preconvention Activities 
• Wednesday 
• Thursday 
• Friday 
• Saturday 
• Past Chairs, Exhibitors, Maps 
• Index

The Committee intends to continue its work with identifying OWI Principles and Effective Practices for OWI as a means of validating this document. Additionally, we will work to present example effective practices using various media for the Web that will be accessible to CCCC members, WPAs, writing teachers, and writing tutors nationwide.

Back to Main Page: A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for Online Writing Instruction (OWI)

Following are key definitions and how they are used in the specific context of OWI for the purposes of this document.

• Accessible: An information technology system that is accessible is one that can be operated in a variety of ways and does not rely on a user’s single sense or ability. For example, a system that provides output only in visual format may not be accessible to people with visual impairments, and a system that provides output only in audio format may not be accessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Some individuals with physical and/or learning disabilities may need accessibility-related software or peripheral devices in order to use systems that comply with Section 508 (Guide to Disability Rights Laws). For the purposes of this document, accessibility issues also include those that affect multilingual writers and writers with socioeconomic inequality for whom literal access to technology has or can be problematic.
• Assistive technology or devices: Assistive technology is “any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” (29 U.S.C. Sec 2202[2]). Examples include screen reader software, screen magnifiers, adapted keyboard and alternative input/ output devices, mobility devices, assistive hearing devices, and can include learning software, among many other things.
• Asynchronous: Referring to a learning modality that permits participants to communicate over flexible time periods; typically, there is a significant time lag (non-real-time) between and among interactions. Most often, asynchronous interactions occur through text although one-way voice and video communications also can be asynchronous.
• Digital environment: A learning setting that is computer-based or that uses other integrated technologies that can be accessed anywhere and anytime.
• Disability: According to the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), “the term ‘disability’ means an individual has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his/her major life activities or there is a record of such an impairment or an individual is regarded as having such an impairment.” Caused by injury, disease or medical condition, or neurological, chemical, or developmental factors, severe disabilities affect about 12% of the U.S. population.
• Distributed environment: A learning setting that is linked through a computer network while being geographically dispersed.
• Fully online: Any writing course that meets in a completely online-based setting through computer mediation with no scheduled face-to-face interactions among or between students and faculty.
• Hybrid: Sometimes called “blended,” any writing course that meets in both a distance-based or computer-mediated setting and in a traditional onsite classroom.
• Learning Management System (LMS): Also known as a “Course Management System” (CMS). Some of the most common examples are Blackboard, Moodle, Angel, and Sakai. These are online sites that house the course’s content and facilitate communication among teacher and students.
• Massive Open Online Course (MOOC): Also known as scalable online educational experience (SOE2). College classes that are (1) extremely large with as many as 50,000 or more participants, (2) open access to all who can pay when they are not free, (3) online with potential for both asynchronous and synchronous components, and (4) courses that enable various set-ups such as credit, noncredit, drop-in, or enrolled participants.
• Multimodal: Strategically using modes of communication beyond traditional alphabetic text, for example, still image, motion video, and sound.
• Online environment: A learning setting that is Internet-based (e.g., through the World Wide Web) or Intranet-based (e.g., through a common server).
• Online: Referring to any communication or activity, such as instruction, that is mediated by digital, Internet-connected technologies. In most contexts, the word online refers to text-based technologies (e.g., discussion boards, emails, blogs, chat), but it also can refer to other media, such as audio (e.g., podcasts) and video (e.g., video presentations, live video meetings).
• OWC: Online writing course.
• OWI: Online writing instruction.
• OWL: Online writing lab or online writing center
• Synchronous: Referring to a learning modality that permits participants to communicate in real time or nearly in real time. Many real-time synchronous interactions occur through two-way voice or voice and video. Many near-real-time synchronous interactions transpire using text in a chat-based scenario.

Back to Main Page: A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for Online Writing Instruction (OWI)

A position statement is a document that asserts the official position of an organization (in this case, CCCC) on a particular issue or set of issues. The position statement is itself a genre. However, effective position statements should make possible the creation of other genres intended for other audiences through their clear and cogent presentation of position, relevant evidence and/or data, and implications.

CCCC position statements should address issues associated with writing or literacy activities (including instruction, instructors, research, use, or other activities). These statements should be written with clear and explicit purposes and audiences in mind. They should synthesize positions or stances that reflect research/research-based best practices, and outline implications of this work for action.

Position Statement Guidelines

Position statements should:

• Be no longer than 4 pages (excluding appendices)
• Include an executive summary
• Clearly identify the purpose(s) of and audience(s) for the statement
• Include a clear statement of no more than 1–3 sentences of the goal or thesis of the statement
• Outline research-based actions associated with the position and implications
• Use language that is direct and accessible to an educated audience

Position statements may:

• Outline the exigency for the statement as part of the purpose
• Position the point(s) advanced in the statement as an alternative to the exigency
• Include a synthesis of research with citations or references to additional information
• Use concise, descriptive headings to help organize the statement

Position statements should avoid:

• Buried leads—putting the primary argument of the position statements deep in the document
• Becoming articles—documents that include levels of exploration of subjects appropriate for a group of researchers rather than other audiences (unless appropriate for the audience)
• Include resolutions or advocate for CCCC action outside of the established resolution process.

How Position Statements Come About

The genesis of CCCC position statements can come from a resolution or sense-of-the-house motion passed at an Annual Business Meeting; from a strategic governance motion; from a committee or task force; or from the CCCC Executive Committee or officers. (See /cccc/resources/positions/creation.) Position statements cannot, however, be generated by or from an individual.

The Executive Committee and/or Officers will authorize a group of people to create position statements. The authorization will include a charge, broad parameters for the statement (i.e., the broad issue/s it should address), and a timeline for submission of a draft statement. Statements will then be reviewed by a working group of the Executive Committee. Comments will be returned to the primary author/chair of the authoring task force by the CCCC liaison. Each statement will also have an Executive Committee liaison, who will work with the task force to coordinate recommended revisions and guide the statement through the EC approval process. Once the Executive Committee approves the statement, it will be posted on the CCCC web site.

Models:

http://legacy.ncte.org/positions/statements/contingent_faculty
/cccc/resources/positions/writingassessment
/cccc/resources/positions/promotionandtenure
/cccc/resources/positions/secondlangwriting

Resources:

Frameworks Institute materials on framing messages about education (P–16):
All education: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/issues-education.html
Higher ed: http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/higher-education.html

SPIN Works! (Strategic Press Information Network guide to writing, frame changing, op-ed pieces, and more): http://spinacademy.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SPIN-Works.pdf

The Op Ed Project (Resources on writing and pitching op eds): http://www.theopedproject.org/

A conversation with Steven Fraiberg, author of “Pretty Bullets: Tracing Transmedia/Translingual Literacies of an Israeli Soldier across Regimes of Practice” (17:15).

Steven Fraiberg is an assistant professor in the Department of Writing, Rhetoric, and American Cultures at Michigan State University. His research focuses on multilingual literacy practices in classrooms, communities, and workplaces. He has published in CCC, Kairos, Computers and Composition, Israel Studies Review, and Technical Communication Quarterly. His forthcoming book (coauthored with Xiaoye You and Xiqiao Wang) published by Utah State University Press is titled Inventing the World Grant University: Chinese International Students’ Mobilities, Literacies, and Identities.

 

 

 

Rhea Estelle Lathan is an assistant professor of English rhetoric and composition at Florida State University and author of the SWR Series book Freedom Writing: African American Civil Rights Literacy Activism, 1955-1967.

In this conversation with Telsha Curry, Lathan talks about different types of literacy and social activism, how the ideas of gospel consciousness manifest in Lathan’s pedagogy, as well as how they relate to current movements such as Black Lives Matter. (1:30:12)

 

In this conversation with Brett Keegan, Yancey and McElroy talk about the genesis of their edited collection Assembling Composition and the growing interest in scholarship on assemblage theory. (32:01)

 

 

Kathleen Blake Yancey is Kellogg W. Hunt Professor of English and Distinguished Research Professor at Florida State University. She has served in several elected leadership positions: as president of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE); chair of the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC); president of the Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA); and president of the South Atlantic Modern Language Association (SAMLA). Immediate past editor of College Composition and Communication, she co-founded the journal Assessing Writing and coedited it for seven years: she also co-founded and co-directs the Inter/National Coalition for Electronic Portfolio Research; and she is the lead investigator for the Transfer of Transfer Project, a cross-institutional research study of the efficacy of the Teaching for Transfer (TFT) writing curriculum.

Stephen J. McElroy is director of the Reading-Writing Center and Digital Studio at Florida State University. He has pursued his broad interest in visual rhetoric, multimodal design, and digital composing—in terms of both theory and practice as well as both past and present—recently in the Computers and Composition article “Assemblage by Design: The Postcards of Curt Teich & Company,” which examines the design and production of picture postcards in the early twentieth century, focusing specifically on cards produced by Teich & Company and depicting scenes of Key West, Florida. Examining microhistories of design and production through the lens of assemblage, he argues, helps us better attend to and better theorize our current composing practices.

Studies in Writing & Rhetoric (SWR) series. 157 pp. 2010. College. NCTE/CCCC and Southern Illinois University Press. ISBN 978-0-8093-2956-4.

Listen to the Podcast Interview with authors Howard Tinberg and Jean-Paul Nadeau and interviewer Brandon Alva:

Book Description

The Community College Writer: Exceeding Expectations is an informative study on the challenges, expectations and adjustments facing first semester, two-year college students…more (PDF)

Author Information

Howard Tinberg, a professor of English at Bristol Community College, Massachusetts, is the author of Border Talk: Writing and Knowing in the Two-Year College and Writing with Consequence: What Writing Does in the Disciplines and is a coeditor of What Is “College-Level” Wriitng?; What Is “College-Level” Writing? Volume 2: Assignments, Readings, and Student Writing Samples; and Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom.

Jean-Paul Nadeau, a coauthor of Foundations for Learning, is an assistant professor of English at Bristol Community College.

Review

http://crw.sagepub.com/content/39/2/201.full.pdf+html

Purchase The Community College Writer from Southern Illinois University Press.

Leigh Ann Jones is an assistant professor of English at Hunter College of the City University of New York, where she teaches rhetorical criticism and history, composition, and pedagogy in the undergraduate and graduate programs. She also codirects Hunter’s first-year writing course. In addition to her work on rhetorics of national masculinity, Jones has published on performative epistemology, a multimodal approach to composition pedagogy. She is the author of the SWR book From Boys to Men: Rhetorics of Emergent American Masculinity.

In this conversation with Vincent Portillo, Jones talks about the book’s focus on national organizations for boys and young men, including the Boy Scouts of America, the Sigma Chi college fraternity, and the US Army; the interdisciplinary nature of her book (it draws from history, political science, and rhetoric); the work of transforming a dissertation into a book; and some possibilities for political intervention in the rhet/comp classroom. (22:14)

Conference on College Composition and Communication
April 2016

Executive Summary

As the non-tenure-track (NTT) cohort of writing faculty grows, departments and programs need to provide equitable working conditions for all faculty, including reasonable workloads and protections against unnecessary changes; access to shared governance and curricular decisions; transparent and fair hiring, evaluation, and renewal processes; access to technology and other resources necessary for job performance; access to professional development and scholarly resources; and fair compensation. To provide such conditions, departments need consistent and transparent policies developed as much as possible in collaboration with NTT faculty.

Introduction

The term non-tenure-­track (NTT) refers to all faculty who are not protected by tenure. Faculty off the tenure track face conditions that tenure-­track and tenured (TT/T) faculty do not—even NTT faculty in the most secure positions.

From 2005 to 2012, the number of contingent faculty members increased from 48.2 percent to 52.9 percent at doctoral-granting universities, held steady at about 61 percent at masters-granting universities, grew from 55 to 57 percent at baccalaureate colleges, and stayed constant at almost 80 percent in two-year colleges.¹ One 2010 study, for example, found that roughly 75 percent of faculty were working off the tenure track, most part-time.² While data vary based on differing reporting mechanisms, contingent faculty employment clearly continues to rise in US colleges and universities. Additionally, it is challenging to obtain comprehensive and accurate information about contingent faculty demographics and working conditions following the discontinuation of the National Postsecondary Faculty Survey, an instrument that attempted to gather this information.

These figures are especially significant for faculty teaching college writing courses. These courses include those labeled “basic” or “remedial” writing and general education courses such as first-year writing. The Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW), which brings together faculty and disciplinary associations around issues related to academic labor practices, found in a 2012 survey of contingent teachers that 16.4 percent of all contingent faculty in the United States were from English language and literature departments; most of these faculty were teaching writing courses. A 2007 Association of Departments of English of the MLA study also found that almost 70 percent of composition courses housed within English departments are taught by contingent faculty.

As institutions encounter tightening budgets, calls for flexibility, and greater demand for instructional activities supporting students, many are relying on NTT faculty, especially in writing courses. With increasing pressure from state legislatures and campus or system governing bodies to maximize “efficiency” through such measures as increasing class sizes and demanding higher teaching loads, such situations are becoming more common and the need for specific disciplinary recommendations more urgent.

Summary of Recommendations

Given increasing institutional reliance on NTT faculty in writing courses and departments, recommendations here emerge from two core principles:

(1) Departments, programs, and faculty must work to ensure equity³ for NTT writing faculty by attending to issues associated with employment: compensation; job security; benefits; access to resources; access to shared governance; and opportunities for professional advancement⁴; and

(2) Decisions about hiring, workload, and working conditions should be made based on policies applied consistently to all faculty and take into consideration parameters of existing agreements, such as union contracts. Where no parameters currently exist, departments should develop and apply consistent and transparent standards based on factors such as seniority and quality of performance. NTT faculty should have as much input into those standards as possible.  

These principles can be applied to a number of practices and situations affecting NTT faculty and their efforts: workload; hiring; evaluation and renewal; basic workplace resources; support for professional development and scholarly activity; and compensation. Each of the following sections outlines specifics related to these principles and their application.

Workload: Teaching and Service

• NTT faculty workloads should be limited to a maximum twenty students per section of first-year and/or advanced composition courses and a maximum fifteen students per section of basic (or “remedial”) writing courses. Generally, NTT faculty should not teach more than three sections of such courses per term⁵. If TT/T faculty teaching loads exceed three sections of first-year, advanced, or basic writing courses per term or exceed the class size recommendations, NTT faculty teaching loads should be consistent with those of TT/T faculty. NTT faculty should not teach larger sections of the same course as TT/T faculty.
• Departments should not use recommendations regarding numbers of students or sections to prevent the creation of full-time NTT positions, nor to deny health care benefits to NTT faculty.
• NTT faculty should have access to teaching assignments in their areas of expertise and at various levels of the curriculum. NTT faculty should not be assigned exclusively to courses enrolled by students at any one level.⁶
• NTT faculty should be protected against last-minute schedule changes/reductions.⁷ When such changes are absolutely necessary, departments should follow clear and transparent policies for determining how those changes or reductions are made.
• Departments should provide full-time schedules for NTT faculty who want them before offering overloads to TT/T faculty.
• NTT faculty should be included in and receive credit for department/program/campus governance. Such participation should be compensated.⁸ When NTT faculty are included in service, they should have voting rights on matters connected to that work.
• NTT faculty should be included in curriculum decisions for courses that affect their teaching and receive credit for their involvement.
• NTT faculty should be able to vote on all policy matters unless specifically excluded by department code, faculty manual, or collective bargaining agreement.

Hiring, Evaluation, and Renewal Practices

• NTT faculty should be hired through formal, transparent, and systematic processes, e.g., submission of an application letter, CV, names of recommenders, and teaching materials followed by a formal interview process and reference check.⁹
• NTT faculty should undergo rigorous, systematic evaluations on par with evaluations of TT/T faculty in terms of frequency and rigor. Most frequently, these include: teaching observations; student evaluations; teaching portfolio; and evaluations of scholarship and service where appropriate.¹⁰
• If NTT faculty are involved in evaluations of superiors, they should receive appropriate provisions/protections.
• NTT faculty should be hired into long-term (multiyear) lines, including the creation of “teaching specialist” lines¹¹ (or their equivalent), as often as possible.      
• Institutions should develop pathways to tenure-track or other secure positions for NTT faculty whose quality performance has kept them continually renewed.¹²
• Departments should provide timely notification of renewals and non-renewals so that NTT faculty have enough time and notice to find other work and/or apply for unemployment insurance and other forms of assistance.
• NTT faculty should be granted due process rights, including written rationales for renewal and non-renewal decisions, and opportunities to respond to evaluations and non-renewal decisions.

Basic Workplace Resources

• NTT faculty require office space that allows them to comply with FERPA and Title IX regulations. They also should have access to a desk and locked storage space; building and workspace access on weekends and nights, including building/office keys or electronic passkeys; access to faculty lounges and dining halls; mailboxes in the main department office; and adequate faculty parking.
• NTT faculty need access to technology required for teaching including but not limited to: campus email address and phone service; course management software; photocopy machines and codes; and representation on mailing lists, listservs, and rosters for departmental and university opportunities.
• NTT faculty should receive written notice of policies that differ for TT/T and NTT faculty. Such policies should not discriminate arbitrarily based on status.

Support for Professional Development and Scholarly Activity

• NTT faculty should receive funding for travel and professional opportunities. This support should be proportional to NTT faculty workload.¹³
• NTT faculty should be eligible for no- or low-cost access to graduate courses at institutions with graduate programs, or for subsidized graduate credits if their institutions do not have graduate programs, where such credits enhance professional development or lead toward improved credentials for the teaching of writing.
• NTT faculty should be eligible for institutional grant funding without requiring TT/T sponsors. Where such eligibility violates policies, departments should offer opportunities to NTT faculty, including collaborations on projects, in order to help NTT faculty become eligible for such resources.

Compensation and Benefits¹⁴

• Consistent with MLA’s current recommendation, NTT faculty should be paid a minimum (as of 2016) of $7,350 for a standard 3-credit-hour semester course or $4,900 for a standard 3-credit-hour quarter or trimester course.¹⁵
• NTT faculty should be eligible for health insurance.
• NTT faculty should be offered retirement benefits.
• NTT faculty should be offered support for filing unemployment claims, and other non-salary benefits.
• NTT faculty should be eligible for additional benefits available to TT/T faculty, including sabbatical leave, family/maternity leave, and sick leave.

Endnotes

1. Reported by Steven Shulman, Chair of the Research Committee for the AAUP and co-director of the Center for the Study of Academic Labor (CSAL).
2. As reported by the Coalition on the Academic Workforce (CAW).
3. The term equity is used deliberately. The term is distinct from but in service to equality. While equal compensation and institutional support for equal responsibilities is important, achieving equality will also involve adopting restorative policies (e.g., low-/no-cost access to PhD programs; retirement buyouts for longtime NTT faculty; etc.) that help to redress injustices that have been endemic to the contingent system.
4. Adapted from the New Faculty Majority’s “Seven Goals.”
5. These recommendations are consistent with both ADE recommendations and the CCCC Principles for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing.
6. Following the recommendation that no faculty teach more than three writing courses per semester or more than sixty students, NTT writing faculty whose contracts mandate four sections per semester will need assignments beyond introductory courses to fill their workloads. Furthermore, teaching across a curriculum improves teaching at each level of it. Finally, access to different courses/areas enhances NTT faculty inclusion in departments, especially as they are more involved in developing and assessing courses.
7. The NFM/CFHE “Who Is Professor Staff?” report highlights harms to students and faculty from just-in-time hiring. Also harmful for faculty and students are sudden changes/reductions in schedules enabled by NTT faculty’s contingent status. Departments should not allow TT/T faculty to force NTT faculty schedule changes unless the change is required by policy.
8. NTT faculty should have governance responsibilities as part of their base workload calculation. An array of models exists for crediting committee work, including several that constitute 10 to 20% of an NTT’s base workload. Alternately, NTT faculty’s shared governance responsibilities can be compensated via reassigned time or overload pay.
9. The Delphi Project and others advocate aligning NTT with TT/T hiring practices as closely as possible. Hiring NTT faculty under dubious conditions enables systemic, untenable bias and disrespect. Formal processes provide institutions the benefit of the full range of an NTT faculty member’s qualifications. Poor hiring practices also hurt students and expose the institution to legal risk.
10.  Rigorous evaluations are essential faculty development tools. They also buffer against arbitrary and capricious non-renewals. Evaluation processes should reflect the actual work of NTT faculty, providing faculty opportunities to document teaching excellence and improvements, and be rewarded. Such processes should be connected to career ladders and potential rank and salary advancement.
11.  Long-term contracts offer some job security. We endorse them as improvements over casual and temporary employment, but we advocate for the codification of formalized long-term protected employment, or instructor tenure.
12.  Those pathways should not deny NTT faculty access to continued part-time work if they want it. Pathways should also exist for faculty who have been in part-time positions. One model for NTT-to-TT conversion process is in the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculty (APSCUF) Collective Bargaining Agreement (see Article 11.G).
13.  Such that a full-time NTT faculty member receives the same travel funding as TT/T faculty; a 50% NTT faculty receives half as much; etc.
14.  SEIU’s aspirational call for a combined salary/benefits package of $15,000/section in 2015 offers a strong reminder that per-section salary is not the only relevant figure. Models for benefited positions include Colorado State University, where a 50% appointment qualifies the employee for full benefits participation, including retirement and health, maternity leave, family leave, and sick leave, employee study privileges, tuition scholarships for family members, etc. See http://www.hrs.colostate.edu/benefits/.
15.  See “MLA Recommendation on Minimum Per-Course Compensation for Part-Time Faculty Members” for an explanation of how they arrived at this figure.

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