Meet the Taking Action Workshop facilitators and learn more about what to expect in their workshops!
Naming and Narrowing with Glenda Eoyang
Building Alliances with Sarah Scanlon
Framing Messages with Jenna Fournel
Influencing Policy with Lori Shorr
Influencing Policy with Carolyn Calhoon-Dillahunt
Making Action Plans with Cathy Fleischer
Learn more about the framework for the Taking Action workshops with CCCC 2016 program chair Linda Adler-Kassner
Committee on Undergraduate Research
General Charge: The Committee on Undergraduate Research sponsors activities and initiatives related to undergraduate research in rhetoric, composition, and writing studies.
Responsibilities
Membership
The Committee on Undergraduate Research is charged with fostering the culture of undergraduate research (UR) in writing on behalf of NCTE/CCCC. Established in 2011, this Special Committee operates from the idea that UR benefits not only the students and teachers who work together in different forms of collaborative inquiry but also the programs and departments, institutions, and disciplines that support undergraduate writing researchers, their mentors, and their work. The CCCC Position Statement on Undergraduate Research in Writing Studies and Bibliography further articulates these ideas. The committee also sponsors activities and initiatives affiliated with the CCCC annual convention, including regular data collection and active support for the CCCC Undergraduate Research Poster Session.
Your CCCC Membership now includes access to the new CCCC Connected Community – an online interactive website designed to assist our members in their own professional goals. The CCCC Connected Community is resource for all NCTE and CCCC Members that allows you to interact, share resources, and network with other members. It allows you to:
Questions? Ideas? Please contact CCCC Memberweb Editor Dana Lynn Driscoll at driscoll@oakland.edu
To make full use of the Connected Community, log in using your NCTE username and password. If this is your first visit, please go to the “My Profile” tab on the top/left side of the page and take a few minutes to complete the “My Privacy Settings” and “My Profile” features. By doing so, you’ll be able to adjust how much information you share with others and you’ll be able to easily identify and network with others who share your professional interests or circumstances.
Next, take some time to just scan the site. You’ll find that you are already subscribed to the “NCTE Members Open Forum” — a collective discussion list and resource archive for all members.
If you serve in a governance or committee role for the Council, you should also be pre-subscribed to communities set up for these groups.
But, depending on your interests, you may elect to join any of the topically-focused communities or may elect to start your own. Just go to the “My Profile” tab and click on the “My Communities” link in the drop down menu that appears. You can use the search function there to look for a particular online community; you can scroll down to see all the communities already available to you; or you can click on the “Create a New Community” link to set up your own group. You’ll note that each community has both an “eGroup” discussion list and a “Library” for shared resources.
There are many other useful elements of your Connected Community to explore — the member directory, member blogs, shared teaching resources, discussion of timely news stories, member accomplishments, even a glossary of literacy terms. For tips in navigating the site, take some time to click on the “helpful hints” video clips or follow the step-by-step instructions. Thanks for taking the time to explore the Connected Community and making it your place to share and grow professionally.
Clark, Sandra L. “Women Faculty in Community Colleges: Investigating the Mystery.”
Community College Review, Vol. 26, 1998.
Note: “The author reviews recent literature on women faculty in higher education and in two-year institutions specifically.”
Dugger, K. “Women in Higher Education in the United States: I. Has There Been Much
Progress?” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Vol. 21, 2001.
Note: Because of economics, community colleges rely more heavily on adjunct and non-tenured faculty.
FORUM: Newsletter for issues about part-time and contingent faculty is a newsletter on
contingent, adjunct, and part-time faculty issues in college composition and communication. This newsletter is published twice annually (alternately in CCC and TETYC) and is sponsored by the Conference on College Composition and Communication.
Gahn, Sandra and Susan B. Twombly. “Dimensions of the Community College Faculty
Labor Market.” The Review of Higher Education. Vol. 24, Spring 2001.
Note: Looks at student and faculty demographics.
Hendrix, Katherine Grace. Ed. Neither White Nor Male: Female Faculty of Color. New
Directions for Teaching and Learning, No. 110. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2007. Reviewed by Sharon L. Holmes. The Review of Higher Education 31.3 (2009) 367-68.
Jaschik, Scott. “The Adjunctification of English.” Inside Higher Ed. 11 12 2008.
Note: Provides highlights of MLA’s “Education in the Balance: A Report on the Academic Workforce in English.” Part-time faculty make up 68% of English teachers in two-year institutions; 40% of English teachers at four-year institutions. Site allows for comments.
Jaschik, Scott. “Evaluating the Adjunct Impact.” Inside Higher Ed. 6 11 2008.
Note: Provides review of studies presented at the Association for the Study of Higher Education and includes studies on community colleges—including impact on transfer. Site allows for comments.
Jaschik, Scott. “The Teaching Paradox.” Inside Higher Ed. 29 12 2008.
Note: Provides highlights of the MLA “associate Professor survey,” focusing on gender differences. Acknowledges low response rate from two-year colleges. Site allows for comments.
Outcalt, Charles. Ed. Community College Faculty: Characteristics, Practices, and
Challenges: New Directions for Community Colleges. No. 118. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, August 2002.
Note: The volume examines the practices and attitudes of particular groups of instructors, including part-timers, female faculty, and faculty of color.
Wolf-Wendel, Lisa, Kelly Ward, Susan Twombly. “Faculty Life at Community Colleges:
The Perspectives of Women With Children.” Community College Review Vol. 34, 2007.
American Association of for Women in Community Colleges. Divided into 10 geographic regions.
“Tips on Getting a Community College Presidency.” Women in Higher Education 2009.
Inside Higher Education, while it covers a variety of issues in academe, the allows for commenting—blog like—in response to articles. In addition, the site is easily searchable by subject matter.
The CCCC Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession invites you to participate in a “crowd-sourcing” project focused on documenting, mapping, and measuring institutional service. Michelle Masse and Katie Hogan have explored questions about gendered service in their book Over Ten Million Served: Gendered Service in Language and Literature Workplaces, and our committee is interested in creating a database or clearinghouse that would begin to develop a “map” of service responsibilities in different kinds of institutions, position types, and work environments.
Like the exciting Adjunct Project, we hope to build from the wide range of faculty experiences across higher education to gain accurate knowledge about what constitutes service, how it is compensated, and how it is rewarded. Please add information about your experiences with instiutitonal service to this Google Doc form. If you wish to ensure that your contribution is anonymous, please be sure to log out of your Google account before you add any information. (Your addition need not be anonymous, though.) You do not need to have a Google account in order to make a contribution; you only need the link.
We imagine that this data will be useful to institutions and individual instructors who are developing policies at their home campuses, who are evaluating their own service workloads, and who participate in retention, tenure, and promotion decisions at their institutions. A firmer grasp of how service is counted, compensated, and performed will assist our profession with a possible position statement or policy recommendations on service in rhetoric and composition.
We appreciate your voluntary participation in this project. Before your workload gets too heavy, and for our committee to assess its efforts, please make your contribution by September 20, 2013.
Please also feel free to share the link with interested others.
If you have questions, please contact Holly Hassel or Hyoejin Yoon, co-chairs of the CCCC Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession.
Ballif, Michelle, D. Diane Davis, Roxanne Mountford. Women’s Ways of Making It in Rhetoric and Composition. Routledge, 2008.
Enos, Theresa. Gender Roles and Faculty Lives in Rhetoric and Composition. Southern Illinois University Press. Place of Publication: Carbondale, IL: 1996.
Jarratt, Susan C. and Lynn Worsham. Feminism and Composition: In Other Words. Modern Language Association of America, 1998
Kirsch, Gesa, Faye Spencer Maor, Lee Nickoson-Massey, Lance Massey, Mary P. Sheridan-Rabideau. Feminism and composition: a critical sourcebook. Macmillan, 2003.
Schell, Eileen E. Gypsy Academics and Mother-teachers: Gender, Contingent Labor, and Writing Instruction. Heinemann, 1997.
This committee is charged to:
The Committee on Part-Time, Adjunct, or Contingent Labor is currently collecting information on departmental/program needs, and on successful efforts on behalf of contingent faculty equity; the committee is also working with disciplinary and professional associations to build contingent faculty advocacy networks within and across the academy.
Name: Scott Warnock
Title: Associate Professor of English
Director of the Writing Center and Writing Across the Curriculum
Co-Chair, CCCC Committee on Best Practices for Online Writing Instruction
Institution: Drexel University
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Phone: 215.895.0377
Email: sjwarnock@drexel.edu
Skype: scott.warnock2
Website: onlinewritingteacher.blogspot.com
This committee should:
Charge 1: Document the variety of writing majors across the country in diverse institutional types and in diverse units, working with NCTE staff to incorporate/add data into its database.
Charge 2: Identify and describe a common set of learning outcomes for writing majors.
Charge 3: Identify and describe specific courses/curricula that may be adapted to other majors.
Charge 4: Track what writing majors do after graduation and report these findings to the CCCC officers and EC and membership in various venues.
The number of majors in writing and rhetoric has doubled in the last decade, and in Fall 2015 the Committee completed an updated list of 141 majors. We have also compiled a bibliography of sources for those interested in the writing major, which we will update each year along with the list of majors. Using this list and local studies we are currently researching commonalities across majors at the curricular and institutional level, and beginning to track career outcomes of students who graduate with writing majors. We are also working on an updated database of writing studies majors, beginning with a survey of program chairs and directors. If you have a writing studies major and do not see your name on this list, please email sjamieson@drew.edu and you will be added to the list and sent a survey. If you are developing a major we would love to hear from you, too.
Kim. D. Gainer
Radford University
Google Books allows readers to search digitized books as if they were web sites. Depending upon a book’s copyright status and upon the settings chosen by authors and publishers, the results of a search may allow a reader to see as little as a snippet from a volume or as much as an entire book.
Google inaugurated this search feature in 2004. The following year, two suits charging copyright infringement were filed against Google. Litigation led to negotiation, and in 2008 a settlement was announced between Google, the Association of American Publishers, and the Authors Guild. This settlement was subsequently amended in 2009, and the amended settlement received preliminary approval, also in 2009. The final hearing on the proposed settlement was held the following year. The latest twist in the case occurred last month, when, in spite of having granted preliminary approval, the judge in the case rejected the settlement. Several groups, including the American Library Association, had expressed concern over such issues as the control that Google potentially would have gained over “orphan” books that are out of print and whose copyright holders are unidentifiable or unreachable.
In spite of the potential drawbacks of the settlement, it might have made many books available that are otherwise out of the reach of readers without access to large research libraries. Both the original and the amended versions of the settlement would have created a subscription service for libraries and other institutions that would have provided access to the full texts of books that were under copyright but out of print. In addition, a certain level of access to these books would have been provided free of charge. This free public access would have been available at one computer terminal for every 10,000 students at not-for-profit colleges or universities granting bachelor’s degrees and at one computer terminal for every 4,000 students at not-for profit colleges granting associate’s degrees. In addition, for public library systems, access would have been available at one terminal per each library building.
The future of the proposed subscription service and of free public access to the full texts of copyrighted books that are out of print is now uncertain, but readers who have been conducting searches via Google Books will not notice any immediate reduction in their current access to resources as a result of the judge’s decision. Google has scanned two million books in the public domain, and those volumes will continue to be freely accessible in their entirety. Readers also still will be able to access expanded previews of some copyrighted books as a result of agreements separate from the proposed settlement. However, there will be no expanded access to the large number of additional books that would have been covered by the settlement.
Going forward, the organizations that originally brought suit against Google have several options, which include resuming litigation or renegotiating the settlement, as they have done once before. The judge in the case identified one modification that might make a settlement acceptable: changing an “opt out” provision for copyright holders to an “opt in” one instead.
Changes in the law may also revive the prospects for a settlement. In 2008 Congress considered legislation that would have addressed the problem of orphan books. The unresolved Google Books settlement may provide the impetus for Congress to return to the issue and pass the legislation that it failed to approve three years ago.
Meanwhile, instructors must help their student make effective use of Google Books as it currently exists. Students need to understand the impact copyright date will have on whether and to what extent they can access a book via this search tool, and they need to recognize that in some cases Google Books can point them to a resource that they may need to acquire via interlibrary loan or by visiting a bricks-and-mortar library. Even in its current restricted form, Google Books may be useful to students, even if only to illustrate that copyright matters to anyone seeking access to books.
This column is sponsored by the Intellectual Property Committee of the CCCC and the CCCC-Intellectual Property Caucus. The IP Caucus maintains a mailing list. If you would like to receive notices of programs sponsored by the Caucus or of opportunities to submit articles to either this column or to an annual report on intellectual property issues, please contact kgainer@radford.edu.
Copyright © 1998 - 2025 National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved in all media.
1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096 Phone: 217-328-3870 or 877-369-6283
Looking for information? Browse our FAQs, tour our sitemap and store sitemap, or contact NCTE
Read our Privacy Policy Statement and Links Policy. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use
