Author: ksuchor

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

(For 4th year review, research expectations are that candidates have at minimum a completed book manuscript of high quality (it doesn’t have to be accepted at that point; by 6th year it does); teaching expectations are that candidates be “excellent”; service expectations are that candidates do their assigned service well and that they participate in the life of the department beyond their minimal assignments.)

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in English
M.A. granted in English
B.A. granted in English

(Although all the degrees are in English, students can—and do—specialize in Composition/Rhetoric at all levels.)

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

A lot would depend on the department’s qualitative evaluation of the on-line book. On-line publications count in our department, though we want them to be refereed. The status of the review process for Johns’s book would need to be clarified.  Finally, though, if most people agreed with the report of the external reviewer, then the recommendation would be positive.  Johns, however, would be given warnings about the need to improve the undergraduate teaching—both by adjusting the syllabi so that his courses achieve the department’s general goals and by increasing his effectiveness with the range of students who sign up for those courses. We would praise his graduate teaching, and we’d talk with him about whether he was carrying too heavy a load of advising.   We would also praise Johns’s service, which seems extraordinary, though we’d encourage him to see if someone else could take over as manager/moderator of the Technology and Pedagogy listserv.

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

The Chair needs to be sure Johns understands the tenure expectations and how his choices and his ongoing performance either match or don’t match with those expectations.  He also needs to communicate what’s involved in Johns’s administration of the computer facility—to what extent is Johns responsible for technical support and to what extent is Johns responsible for promoting research and instruction with technology.

The Chair did well in the first conference with Johns—the advice was clear and appropriate—but then the Chair failed by not continuing to communicate with Johns except to tell him to write the letter to the unhappy parents of his student. The Chair did not do well in communicating with Johns about the position of computer-facility administrator.

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

The Personnel Committee’s responsibilities are to examine Johns’s record in relation to the established departmental criteria and standards in research, teaching, and service. The Committee doesn’t seem to be fulfilling those responsibilities very well, since they instruct the Chair to tell Johns to publish only in refeered print journals, when the department is on record as recognizing “electronic publication,” if peer-reviewed. The message should have been to ensure that electronic publications are peer-reviewed.

Furthermore, the question of whether the book will count—and for how much–needs to be answered much more definitively and in clear reference to the departmental criteria and standards. Does it not count at all because of the questions about peer-review?  Does it count as the equivalent of 2-3 refereed articles?  What are the quantitative expectations for Johns between now and the tenure review?  The Committee and the Chair need to make that clear to him.

A related point: whether the poetry should count seems one that should be handled in reference to a general policy about publication outside the field for which one is hired rather than by the Committee’s judgment in John’s case.

The Committee also seems not to be giving Johns sufficient credit for his service or his graduate teaching—but again it would be helpful to know more about general criteria and standards.  The assessment of the undergraduate teaching seems OK in some respects, troubling in others. Concern about Johns being below the departmental standard for his courses is appropriate, and the concern about whether the innovative assignments were fulfilling the goals of the course seems fair. But, other parts of their assessment seem questionable: the lack of conventional argumentative work shouldn’t by itself be bothersome unless the unconventional work doesn’t produce relevant argumentative skill; not reviewing the visual argument assignment because one’s machine doesn’t have a Java plug-in seems lame.

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

The Dean has the responsibility to ensure that the Chair is giving appropriate and regular guidance to the junior faculty.  S/he also might have taken steps so that the University would identify technology-rich courses in the catalogue.  (Someone should have done that for the sake of both students and instructors.)  In any case, since the Dean doesn’t figure in this narrative, the inference is that the Dean didn’t carry out these responsibilities.

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

He’s responsible for carrying out his teaching, research, and service assignments as effectively as he can.  He is also responsible for knowing the objectives of the department’s courses and for knowing the criteria and standards for tenure. He’s also responsible for his own career, and in that respect, he needs to make sure that his colleagues know enough about the nature of his work for them to judge it appropriately.

He seems to be a very conscientious worker, and it’s clear that he’s made good contributions to his department. But he’s also made some mistakes. He, too, could have done a better job in the communication about his duties as administrator of the computer-facility.

He should have asked more questions about the publisher of his book, and, indeed, about whether he should pursue that publication or focus on journal articles.  He should have been wiser about the amount of time he devoted to service. He should have adjusted his teaching of the undergraduate courses. He should have taken the advice of the Graduate Studies Director.

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went right is that Johns passed the review.  What went wrong is that there was not enough recognition on the part of the department and of Johns that he was not the standard junior faculty member and that everyone needed to make some adjustments as a result of that—even as the department could maintain its basic criteria and standards.

Widespread work with computer technology in the field of composition studies began during the1980s when the first fully assembled microcomputers began making their way, in large numbers, into American classrooms, specifically English, language arts, and composition classrooms.

Faced with the reality of computer environments that were fast becoming the accepted milieu for literacy practices and values, universities and departments began seeking qualified candidates well prepared in the areas of composition and rhetoric, and yet knowledgeable about the computer environments that had begun changing communication on local, national, and global levels.

Given the relative youth of this specialized area, departments and universities continue to face some distinctive challenges when dealing with the preparation and assessment of faculty bringing forward tenure and promotion cases.

At least four major factors figure into these challenges.  The first challenge involves the preparation of these professionals—which often takes place in Ph.D. programs in Rhetoric and Composition or English.  Within such contexts, the interests of computers and composition specialists represent an unusual blend of humanist and technological.  In their graduate preparation, these scholars may combine—among many other areas of study—composition theory, rhetorical theory, technology studies, computer science, critical and social theories, new-media studies, and communication.  As a result of this non-traditional preparation, scholars who focus their work on technology may have a wide range of expectations about their own responsibilities to a department and the ways in which tenure and promotion criteria apply to the work they may do.

Second, because these professionals often cross traditional disciplinary boundaries in their scholarly work as well as their preparation, they may publish in unfamiliar journals or emerging digital venues that can accommodate their work.   The publications that such specialists produce may also take digital forms unfamiliar to department chairs, other colleagues, and tenure and promotion committees:  among just a few of these, new-media texts, hypertexts, software, CDs, visual arguments and narratives, digitized documentaries or coverwebs.  Similarly, the teaching materials and approaches of these new faculty may diverge from the conventional.  Their syllabi and assignments may be online or in digital forms unfamiliar to other faculty.  Their classes may take place in electronic environments or their exchanges with students and colleagues may be conducted in synchronous exchanges.  As a result, the teaching and scholarly profiles of these colleagues may take unfamiliar forms.

Third, composition professionals who focus their work on technology—faced with the complex task of keeping abreast of fast-changing communication technologies and helping their departments to do so, as well—may be asked to take on departmental assignments that involve an unusually heavy time commitment and service load:  administering a computer-supported writing facility; assisting departmental faculty with distance-education efforts; serving on university, college, and department technology committees; helping colleagues learn how to use instructional technology; supervising graduate students teaching in computer-supported classrooms.  As a result, their departmental profiles may look unlike those of other colleagues, their work loads may need adjusting, or their progress toward tenure and promotion may need special attention.

Fourth, faculty members who focus their work on technology are often charged with staying abreast of changing technology and exploring new forms of digital composition, literacy, texts, and professional involvement.  As a result, they may value various forms of scholarship, teaching, and service work that are unfamiliar to other department members and to the university as a whole.  Hence faculty members who work with technology need to meet regularly with department chairs and the chairs of department personnel committees to clarify expectations for tenure and promotion and their progress toward tenure and promotion.

For more information about these factors and advice that may benefit new faculty working with technology, see the links provided to statements of the CCCC and the MLA.

Tenure and Promotion Cases for Composition Faculty Who Work with Technology

Introduction

This Web site is designed for composition faculty whose professional lives focus on computer technology.  It provides multiple perspectives on the ways others—especially department chairs and members of tenure and promotion committees—may see and evaluate work with technology.

This site outlines five fictional tenure and promotion cases of composition faculty who work with computer technology—addressing their contributions in the area of teaching, scholarship, and service.

Linked to each case are the comments of real department chairs, deans, and personnel committee chairs, writing anonymously and frankly about how the case would be evaluated at their institutions.  We have tried to include assessments from individuals at a wide range of institutions, so that the site is useful to as many faculty members as possible.

The evaluations of these cases should not be substituted for the advice of the dean, department chair, and personnel committee chair on a candidate’s own campus.  Nor do these evaluations represent, in any way, an official position of the CCCC.

This site is sponsored by the CCCC Committee on Computers in Composition (the 7 Cs) and compiled by the following sub-committee members in 2001:

Cynthia L. Selfe, sub-committee Chair, Michigan Technological University
Linda Hanson, Ball State University
Gail Hawisher, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Victor Villanueva, Jr., Washington State University
Kathleen Yancey, Clemson University

Background

Resources

• CCCC Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Work with Technology 
• CCCC Statement of Professional Guidance 
• CCCC Statement on Scholarship in Composition 
• MLA Guidelines for Evaluating Work with Digital Media in the Modern Languages 

• MLA Guidelines for the Institutional Support of and Access to IT for Faculty Members and Students

Call to Host

• Proposal Timeline
• Application Criteria
• Required Application Sections
• Past and Future Computers and Writing Locations and Hosts

The CCCC Committee on Computers in Composition and Communication (7Cs) invites all interested institutions to submit proposals to host the onsite Computers and Writing conference(s), which are held annually.

The Computers and Writing Conference is the main conference for those who use computers and networks to teach writing. It brings together scholars, teachers, and professionals from all over the world in an intimate, welcoming setting to discuss the problems, successes, innovations, and logistics of computer and network-based writing instruction.

Since there is no formal organization that oversees the conference and its continuity from year to year, the Computers and Writing community relies upon the generosity of institutions of higher education to host the conference. Typically, these institutions can donate time, personnel, facilities, and limited funding to make the conference a success. Proposals include information about a proposed theme, possible keynote speakers, activities, and innovations that will make the conference a success.

The 7Cs welcomes proposals from individual institutions of higher education as well as those that are collaborative across institutions, including community colleges, K-12 institutions, and nonprofits.

Proposal Timeline

We seek applications two to three years prior to target hosting dates (e.g., for proposing to host C&W in 2024, the application should be completed during 2022; proposals to host in 2025 may be completed in 2022 or 2023).

• May-June (post-C&W): Call for Hosts posted
• June to October: If desired, talk with 7Cs to discuss interest
• November 1: Email of Intent due to Committee chair(s)
• February 15: Applications due
• March-April (at CCCC): Applications reviewed
• May-June (at C&W): Site(s) for conference(s) announced

1. Question period. After the Call for Hosts comes out, look over these guidelines and decide if you need to speak with the 7Cs committee before considering your intent to host. If you have questions about hosting—anything from budgets to locations to technologies used, etc.—email the committee chair with your questions, or request an online meeting. Alternatively, you can meet in person by setting up an individual meeting during the CCCC or C&W, attending the open portion of the 7Cs Business Meeting at CCCC, or attending the 7Cs Open Meeting during the C&W conference that year. Meeting f2f is not mandatory, nor is querying the committee prior to submitting your letter of intent. It’s just in case you have questions.
2. Statement of Intent. By November 1, submit a statement of intent by sending an email to the committee chair. Indicate in the subject line which year you are interested in proposing to host. This statement can be an informal email that allows 7Cs to know who’s interested and who the host-proposal contact person is, in case we have questions prior to the application due date. (This also allows 7Cs time to solicit proposals, if we don’t get any intentions by Nov. 1.)
3. Application. By February 15, email the committee chair with the URL of a web-accessible version or Google Doc responding to the application criteria, listed in the next section. The committee may contact submitters, and in some cases ask for revisions, if it has questions or concerns about a proposal.
4. Acceptance. Following its CCCC Business Meeting, the committee will contact proposers to indicate acceptance status of the proposals. The selected host(s) will be publicly announced at that year’s C&W conference. After that point, the selected host(s) are responsible for all advertising, although the 7Cs is available for help and to answer questions during the lead-up to the conference(s).

Application Criteria

The 7Cs committee will be assessing proposals based on the following criteria:

• The stability, experience, and status of the applicant and identified staff members.
• Evidence of adequate funding and commitment from funding agencies, departments, and so forth.
• Complete budget showing well-thought out and realistic projections.
• Reasonable facilities (rooms, technology, etc.) for conference session accommodations (as well as the quality of the accommodations themselves).
• Reasonable costs for hotel and/or dorm accommodations, including concern for graduate students and others in the community who traditionally have less departmental support for professional development.
• Plans for the conference program that show a theme (if desired), variety of possible keynotes and/or session strands, appropriate focus, clear sense of structure.
• Plans for including hybrid or online participation elements (if applicable).
• Reasonable registration costs that account for multiple kinds of attendees.
• Added value of any sponsoring events (dinners, tours, etc.).
• Facility support for disabled conference attendees and other attendees with special needs.
• Accessibility of site (geographical location) and distance/difference from recent, previous conference sites (when possible).
• Uniqueness, ability to enhance or improve the conference.
• Depth and substance of plans to collaborate with online conference organizers

When applying, consider the above criteria when answering the Required Application Questions in the next section. Your application can include links to material about the speakers, hotel, local attractions, technologies being considered, and so forth. The more information you can provide for the Selection Committee, the better.

Required Application Sections

If a section or item isn’t applicable, please indicate so.

Background Information

1. Date Application Posted
2. Name of Organizing Committee Chair/Lead Applicant
3. Institution (if applicable)
4. Postal and Email Address
5. Phone
6. Name, Affiliation, and Contact Information for All Other Organizing Committee Members
7. Year Proposed

Conference Funding

1. Source of funding
2. Amount of funding
3. How will you allocate funding? (Please attach detailed preliminary budget)
4. Approximately what will you charge for registration? What will additional events (e.g., special tours or trips) cost?

Conference Facilities

1. In the past, up to 400 people have registered for the Computers and Writing onsite conference. Please list hotel(s) or dorm(s) and number of rooms to be set aside for attendees.
   a. Main facility providing accommodations
   b. Number of rooms reserved
   c. Additional Hotels
   d. Number of rooms reserved
2. What will you do to provide a location and adequate exposure for affiliate groups? How will you guard against uneven placement and ensure traffic for the exhibits?
3. What will be the cost of hotel or university accommodations for attendees?
4. Why are you a good site for the conference in terms of excellence of faculty planners, computer/conference facilities, and accommodations?
5. How far is the conference site from a major transportation hub? Identify any potential travel agency connections.
6. What computer support can you provide for attendees drafting papers, printing documents, checking email, and so forth? Are labs available on campus? What kind of Internet access will be available?
7. The ideal site will be in a location that offers a safe environment for conference attendees regardless of their race, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, religious belief, or cultural background. To your knowledge, are there any legal, social, or cultural reasons that your site may pose a problem? How does your site ensure accessibility?

Conference Program and Events

1. Past conferences have sponsored as many as 55 hour-and-15-minute sessions over a two- or three-day period. These are concurrent sessions with approximately four speakers for each session. Conferences have commonly begun with workshops, registration, and (sometimes a) keynote or reception on Thursday, held concurrent sessions all day Friday and Saturday and on Sunday morning, and occasionally ended with a brunch or lunch and final speaker on Sunday, followed by an open 7Cs meeting and/or area tours. Briefly describe your plans for the conference program—its structure, focus, and/or theme.
2. Briefly describe any plans to include hybrid and/or online conference participation. What support structures are in place to ensure their success?
3. Who will you ask to review proposals to ensure high quality?
4. Are you planning on sponsoring other events (dinners, tours) that attendees might participate in? If so, please list, with cost above in the Funding section.
5. What specific features are you planning to make your meeting unique or to improve or enhance the Computers and Writing conference?

Conference Management and Staff

1. What kind of help or advice from past organizers would you find most useful?
2. Would you be willing to serve as a non-voting member on the CCCC’s Committee on Computers and Composition for the year preceding and following your hosting the conference, to receive and then provide counsel about hosting the conference?
3. Which previous Computers and Writing Conferences have you and/or your Co-Chairs attended?
4. Please add any other comments you might have regarding plans for Computers and Writing.

Introduction to the 2015 CCCC-IP Annual

by Clancy Ratliff

• Downloadable PDF of the report.
• Downloadable Word Document of the report.
• Table of Contents

I remember being in John Logie’s rhetoric and intellectual property seminar at the University of Minnesota in 2003.

From my personal archives: a photo of the course syllabus.

He would often ask us to find news stories about, to use his phrase, the IP landscape, and in class we would juxtapose our discussions of critical theory of authorship and complex analysis of copyright law with current news about intellectual property issues. This began a habit of mind for me, which after about a decade I have systematized: all through the year, I see interesting stories in my social media feeds and my other reading, and I paste those URLs into a TextEdit document (and I’m increasingly doing screen capturing to augment this), which I turn into a CFP around the end of each year – a wish list of topics I hope people will want to write about, and they do, and very well.

In the 2015 Caucus meeting, we decided to start including a dedicated pedagogy section in the Annual. All the articles have had connections to rhetoric and composition in some way, but the three articles in the Pedagogy section this year are more explicitly directed toward classroom application and reflections on teaching writing. Kristi Murray Costello’s excellent analysis of the FI (failure for cheating or plagiarism) course grade is the first scholarly examination in our field of this new institutional development. Steven Engel gives us several clever classroom activities about the misattributed quotation on the Maya Angelou postage stamp that help students better understand authorship. Kathrin Kottemann helps us reflect on what we’re asking students to do as authors; through her research about catfishing, an online dating phenomenon, she raises the question: are we asking our students to be catfish? To pretend to be someone else?  In future years, we hope to have not only pieces such as these, but other teaching genres as well: syllabuses for new courses on IP issues, lesson plans, assignment descriptions, and curated lists of resources for teaching about copyright and authorship.

After the section of articles that are closely related to pedagogy is the section I’m calling Copyright and Authorship in Culture. The six articles in this section all look at 2015 events in the IP landscape and situate them in rhetoric and composition broadly. Matthew Teutsch illustrates the stakes of appropriation in his analysis of a political cartoon on Twitter that perhaps some of us saw: the lowering of the Confederate flag followed by the raising of the LGBT pride flag, a visual comment on two of the most important (and in one case, tragic) historical moments of the year. Craig A. Meyer writes about an artist who enlarged and printed Instagram photos of members of SuicideGirls, an adult lifestyle brand, as they describe themselves online. I will admit that I found the moving of the Instagram images across contexts to large gallery-quality prints to be an inventive and chic stylizing. However, the artist did not inform anyone in SuicideGirls that he intended to do this, and he sold the images for $90,000 each. Meyer’s analysis of this case is insightful.

William Duffy provides an impressively thorough explanation of the complexities and stakes of the “defeat devices” in Volkswagens: software that reported false data about emissions. Freedom to tinker in this case has implications for the environment, road safety, and much more. Wendy Warren Austin has taken the news story about the emergence of the kilo-author – which is exactly what it sounds like: 1000 or more co-authors – and made a substantial contribution to composition scholarship in her analysis of authorship in the sciences.

Laurie Cubbison continues her tracking of Taylor Swift’s copyright advocacy, which began in the last CCCC-IP Annual with a report about Swift’s decision to pull her album from Spotify. This year, Cubbison analyzes Swift’s argument to Apple: she pulled her album from the Apple Music streaming service because artists would not be paid for songs streamed during the free trial period for users, and Apple reacted by agreeing to pay the royalties. Kim Gainer reports on the most recent legal developments involving the status of the song “Happy Birthday,” a song that should have been in the public domain already but has not been. Now, however, those wanting to use “Happy Birthday” in audio or video compositions may do so without worry – though specific performances of the song may still be protected by copyright, of course.

The CCCC-IP Annual has always featured thoughtful and critical reviews of longer texts about copyright and intellectual property, particularly white papers from other organizations such as Creative Commons and the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Traci Zimmerman continues this tradition with a review of a new handbook from the Authors Alliance, Understanding Open Access: When, Why, & How to Make Your Work Openly Accessible.

In sum, I’ve learned a lot from reading this year’s Annual articles, and I hope you do too. If you assign any of them in your classes (they would work so well not only in composition classes, but in technical writing and literature courses also), please contact me and let me know how it went.

.telerik-reTable-3 { border-collapse: collapse; border: solid 0px; font-family: Tahoma; } .telerik-reTable-3 tr.telerik-reTableHeaderRow-3 { margin: 10px; padding: 10px; color: #3a4663; text-align: left; font-size: 10pt; font-style: normal; font-family: Verdana; text-transform: capitalize; font-weight: normal; border-spacing: 10px; vertical-align: top; background-color: #C4D1E3; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableHeaderFirstCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; color: #3a4663; line-height: 14pt; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableHeaderLastCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; color: #3a4663; line-height: 14pt; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableHeaderOddCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; color: #3a4663; line-height: 14pt; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableHeaderEvenCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; color: #3a4663; line-height: 14pt; } .telerik-reTable-3 tr.telerik-reTableOddRow-3 { color: #666666; vertical-align: top; font-size: 10pt; } .telerik-reTable-3 tr.telerik-reTableEvenRow-3 { color: #666666; vertical-align: top; font-size: 10pt; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableFirstCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; background-color: #E7EBF7; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableLastCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; background-color: #E7EBF7; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableOddCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; background-color: #F7F3F7; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableEvenCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; background-color: #E7EBF7; } .telerik-reTable-3 tr.telerik-reTableFooterRow-3 { background-color: #C4D1E3; color: #3a4663; font-weight: normal; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana; line-height: 11pt; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableFooterFirstCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; text-align: left; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableFooterLastCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; text-align: left; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableFooterOddCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; text-align: left; } .telerik-reTable-3 td.telerik-reTableFooterEvenCol-3 { padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; text-align: left; }

Committees are appointed for terms not to exceed three years. Committee terms end during the month and year indicated. The Executive Committee may reconstitute a committee at the end of its term. The committee chair must submit a request for renewal more than six weeks prior to the upcoming CCCC Executive Committee Meeting if the committee wishes to request reconstitution. CCCC Committee Chairs should refer to the CCCC Committee Management Guidelines document for more information. The following are current CCCC 3-year committees.

Visit the CCCC Resources page for a variety of resources resulting from the work of previous CCCC committees.

Committees

Accountability for Equity and Inclusion Committee

Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure/Renewal/Reappointment, and Employment Security (March 2028)

Committee for Decolonizing Writing, Rhetoric, and Communication Curriculum, Pedagogy, and Organizational Culture (March 2027)

Committee on Computers in Composition and Communication (November 2024)

Committee on Disability Issues

Language Policy Committee

Newcomers’ Welcoming Committee

Research Committee

Social Justice at the Convention Committee

Committee on Undergraduate Research

Current CCCC Task Forces

Return to Table of Contents

Return to Table of Contents

Editor:

Assistant Editors:

Editorial Board:

View videos related to content published in College Composition and Communication (CCC).

Geocomposition in Public Rhetoric and Writing Pedagogy (2:22)
Nathaniel A. Rivers
View a brief video abstract for Rivers’s article “Geocomposition in Public Rhetoric and Writing Pedagogy.”

Metanoic Movement: The Transformative Power of Regret (5:53)
Kelly Myers
In this short video (related to the article of the same title), Kelly Myers and some of her students discuss metanoia and revision.