Author: ksuchor

Conference on College Composition and Communication
January 2001, Revised November 2009, Reaffirmed November 2014, Revised May 2020

Part One: General Statement

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) recognizes campuses around the world as fundamentally multilingual spaces, in which students and faculty bring to the acts of writing and communication a rich array of linguistic and cultural resources that enrich academic life and should be valued and supported. The aim of this document is to provide broad research-based guidelines for teachers and administrators to advocate for multilingual writers in all spaces of universities and colleges, including first-year writing, undergraduate and graduate courses across the curriculum, writing centers, and intensive English programs. The secondary aim of this statement is to promote social justice for all multilingual members of the academic community, students, faculty, and staff in order to make visible otherwise underutilized linguistic and literacy resources. This document is divided into sections detailing guidelines for writing classes, writing programs, teacher preparation, and teaching contexts as well as a selected bibliography of helpful resources.

In this document, we will use the term multilingual writers to describe students who often are institutionally categorized as English as a Second Language (ESL) learners. These students are also referred to by other terms such as English language learners (ELLs), second language (L2) writers, and limited English proficiency (LEP) learners. These terms point toward established fields of scholarship as well as a history of student support programs and pedagogical practices. We will use the term multilingual writers to acknowledge that for such writers English may be a second, third, fourth, or fifth language, as well as to acknowledge emerging scholarship about language use by these students.

Multilingual writers include international visa holders, refugees, permanent residents, and undocumented immigrants, as well as naturalized and native-born citizens of the United States and Canada. Many have grown up speaking languages other than English at home, in their communities, and in schools; others began to acquire English at a very young age and have used it alongside their native languages. Multilingual writers can have a wide range of literacies in their first languages, from being unable to read or write to having completed graduate degrees in that language. They learn and acquire English in various educational contexts, by employing various strategies, and to meet various global/local standards.

Colleges and universities, including technical colleges, two-year colleges, four-year institutions, and graduate programs, have actively sought to increase the diversity of their student populations through recruitment of international students and establishment of international branch campuses, even as domestic language minoritized populations have grown. Multilingual writers are and should be recognized as an integral part of writing courses and programs worldwide.

Multilingual writers may demonstrate different expectations for and understandings of discourse, because the nature and functions of discourse, audience, and rhetorical appeals often differ across national, linguistic, and educational contexts—for example, within academic writing, whether the main argument of an essay should appear at the beginning or end, or how sources should be used, are deeply rooted in specific cultural assumptions held by instructors and students. At the same time, however, other writers—especially graduate students—are already knowledgeable about the discourse and content of their respective disciplines. The process of acquiring academic literacies—including syntactic and lexical competence—in an additional language is a complex, recursive, lifelong process.

Historically, languages have been viewed as occupying separate spaces in the minds of multilinguals, so that language users actually “switch” between languages, using the resources from only one language at a time. We understand languages as integrated, so that multilingual writers have the ability to draw on their full linguistic repertoire for communication and meaning-making. We also recognize that language use takes place within material spaces, using diverse resources such as gestures, images, and physical objects. Even as writers develop their competence and confidence in English, they may (intentionally or unintentionally) employ features of multiple languages and literacies in their English writing as they begin to participate as members of their fields through upper-division and/or graduate courses, and beyond.

For these reasons, we urge writing teachers and writing program administrators to

• recognize and support multilingual writers’ practices of integrating their unique linguistic and cultural resources into writing both in classrooms and at the level of the writing program.
• recognize and take responsibility for the regular presence of multilingual students in writing classes, to understand their characteristics, and to develop instructional and administrative practices that are sensitive to their linguistic and cultural backgrounds.
• offer teacher preparation based on evidence-based scholarship and best practices for multilingual writers in the forms of graduate courses, faculty workshops, relevant conference travel, and, when possible, require such coursework or other similar preparation for instructors working with writers in a higher-education context.
• investigate issues surrounding multilingual writing and writers in the context of writing programs, including first-year writing programs, undergraduate and graduate, technical, creative, and theoretical writing courses, writing centers, and Writing Across the Curriculum programs, and make multilingual practices visible and central across these spaces.
• include cross-disciplinary perspectives on multilingual writers in developing theories, designing studies, analyzing data, and discussing implications of studies of writing.
• advocate for emotional and legal support for multilingual writers around issues such as immigration and discrimination, and challenge materials and pedagogical and programmatic practices that disadvantage multilingual writers.

In the following sections, we provide more detailed guidelines for writing and writing-intensive courses, for writing program administrators, and for teacher preparation and pedagogy.

Part Two: Guidelines for Writing and Writing-Intensive Courses

Class Size

Since working with multilingual writers often requires additional feedback and conference time with the instructor, enrollments in mainstream classes with a substantial number of multilingual writers should be reduced to a maximum of 20 students per class. In classes made up exclusively of multilingual writers, enrollments should be limited to a maximum of 15 students per class.

Writing Assignment Design

When designing assignments, instructors should avoid topics that require substantial background knowledge that is related to a specific culture or history that is not being covered by the course. Instructors should also be aware that topics such as sexuality, criticism of authority, political beliefs, personal experiences, and religious beliefs may be sensitive for students of different cultural and educational backgrounds. We encourage instructors to provide students with multiple options for successfully completing an assignment, such as by providing multiple prompts or allowing students to write in a variety of genres for completing the assignment. Instructors should provide clearly written assignments so that expectations are not left tacit. For more on assignment design, see the teacher preparation section.

Assessment

The evaluation of second language texts should take into consideration various aspects of writing (e.g., topic development, organization, grammar, word choice). Writing instructors should look for evidence of a text’s rhetorically effective features, rather than focus only on one or two of these features that stand out as problematic. To reduce the risk of evaluating students on the basis of their cultural knowledge rather than their writing proficiency, writing prompts for placement and exit exams should avoid cultural references that are not readily understood by people who come from various cultural backgrounds. When possible, instructors should provide students with a rubric that articulates assessment criteria. For best practices on responding to student writing, see the teacher preparation section.

The Committee on Second Language Writing supports the recommendations in the CCCC position statement on Writing Assessment. In particular, we endorse the ideas that best assessment practices use multiple measures, that writing ability should be assessed via “more than one piece of writing, in more than one genre, written on different occasions, for different audiences, and responded to and evaluated by multiple readers,” and that instructors should “respect language variety and diversity and [assess] writing on the basis of effectiveness for readers.”

Textual Borrowing

Textual ownership and the ownership of ideas are concepts that are culturally based and therefore not shared across cultures and educational systems. Further, “patchwriting,” defined by Rebecca Moore Howard as the copying of sections of texts, such as phrasings and sentence patterns, is a natural part of the process of learning to write in a second language. As with native English-speaking students, multilingual students may plagiarize when they panic about getting an assignment completed in time or doubt their ability to complete the assignment competently. Plagiarism is attributed to practices that range from the wholesale taking of an entire text to the improper use of citation conventions. To help second language writers avoid practices that violate institutional policies, all writing instructors, as well as disciplinary instructors and writing centers, should teach US expectations for textual borrowing and citation conventions. Instructors and administrators should not expect multilingual writers to perfectly execute these practices after a single lesson. We advocate that when suspecting a multilingual writer of plagiarism, instructors should take into consideration the student’s cultural background, level of experience with North American educational systems, and confidence level for writing in English.

Teacher Preparation

Any writing course, including basic writing, first-year composition, advanced writing, and professional writing, as well as any writing-intensive course that enrolls any second language writers should be taught by an instructor who is able to identify and is prepared to address the linguistic and cultural needs of second language writers.  This preparation may be offered through preparing future faculty programs, first-year composition programming for instructors, or faculty development programming offered through Writing Across the Curriculum programs, writing centers, ESL support services, or other campus initiatives. (More guidelines related to teacher preparation are provided in Part Four: Guidelines for Teacher Preparation and Preparedness.)

Resources for Teachers

Writing programs should provide resources for teachers working with second language writers, including textbooks and readers on the teaching of second language writing as well as reference materials such as dictionaries and grammar handbooks for language learners. Moreover, writing programs should encourage  — and offer incentives for — teachers to attend workshops on teaching second language writers that are presented at professional conferences such as CCCC, NCTE, and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Writing programs without experts in second language writing are encouraged to seek consultation from disciplinary experts.

Part Three: Guidelines for Writing Programs

First-Year Composition

Placement

Decisions regarding the placement of multilingual writers into first-year writing courses should be based on students’ writing proficiency rather than their race, native-language background, nationality, or immigration status. Placement decisions should also not be based solely on the scores from standardized tests of general language proficiency or of spoken language proficiency. Instead, wherever possible, scores from the direct assessment of students’ writing proficiency should be used, ideally with multiple writing samples. Writing programs should work toward making a wide variety of placement options available—including mainstreaming, basic writing, and second language writing as well as courses that systematically integrate native and nonnative speakers of English, such as cross-cultural composition courses.

Not all students self-identify as “ESL,” “multilingual,” or “second language” students. Some students may welcome the opportunity to enroll in a writing course designated for multilingual writers for the additional language support, while others may prefer to enroll in a mainstream first-year composition course. Due to these considerations, we advocate Directed Self-Placement (see Royer and Gilles; Saenkhum) using a combination of direct assessment of student writing and student choice. Writing programs should inform international and residential multilingual students of the advantages and disadvantages of each placement option so that students can make informed decisions.

Credit

Second language sections of first-year composition courses should be offered for credit that satisfies the college’s or university’s writing requirement. Second language writing courses that are prerequisite to required composition courses should be offered for credit that can be used toward satisfying the foreign-language requirement and should receive the same credit accorded other prerequisite composition courses.

Resources for Teachers

Writing programs should provide resources for teachers working with multilingual writers, including textbooks and readers on the teaching of second language writing as well as reference materials such as dictionaries and grammar handbooks for language learners. Moreover, writing programs should encourage—and offer incentives for—teachers to attend workshops on teaching second language writers that are presented at professional conferences sponsored by groups such as CCCC, NCTE, and Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Writing programs without experts in second language writing are encouraged to seek consultation from disciplinary experts.

Staffing

In order to ensure that multilingual students receive high-quality instruction based on up-to-date developments in relevant disciplines (writing studies, TESOL, applied linguistics), it is important to prioritize, when possible, the hiring of tenure-track and tenured faculty. It is a common misperception that “native speakers” of English will necessarily be better teachers; in fact, teachers who are themselves multilingual can offer valuable insight into language learning and serve as models of successful users of English.

Writing Across the Curriculum/Writing in the Disciplines Programs

Beyond the composition requirements, writing instruction, at some institutions, is encouraged or required to further promote academic literacy and prepare students for disciplinary discourse within and beyond the academy. This includes professional writing courses, often taught in English departments. Therefore, the literacy support of multilingual writers needs to extend beyond the composition requirement as well.

Institutions requiring undergraduates to complete writing-intensive courses across the curriculum should offer faculty development in second language writing that should include information about second language writing development, information about second language populations at the institution, approaches for designing writing assignments that are culturally inclusive, and approaches for assessing writing that are ethical in relation to second language writing. When possible, institutions are encouraged to design resources that accommodate their writing students who have moved beyond the first-year writing program (e.g., a campus with a large number of multilingual writers taking technical writing courses may develop a separate section for multilingual writers taught by an individual with expertise in both fields). Institutions requiring a writing assessment as a graduation requirement should design this writing assessment so that it is fair and equitable for multilingual writers.

Writing Centers

Writing centers offer crucial resources to multilingual students in undergraduate and graduate levels. These students often visit the writing center to seek support in understanding writing assignments or developing a piece of writing, and to gauge reader response to their writing. They may also seek input on interpreting teacher feedback or assessment and learning more about nuances of the English language. Therefore, it is imperative that writing centers model and discuss effective approaches for working with multilingual writers in tutor training, make available reference materials specific to language learners such as dictionaries on idiomatic English, and hire tutors with specialized knowledge in second language writing. Writing centers that hire multilingual tutors will have someone who can provide second language writing students with firsthand writing strategies as well as empathy. Multilingual graduate writers can benefit from a writing center with a staff well versed in graduate-level literacy expectations and second language writing.

Support for Graduate Students

At institutions with graduate programs, various writing administrators (especially WAC directors), second language acquisition specialists, and/or other informed advocates of multilingual writers should work closely with graduate programs enrolling multilingual writers to create discipline-specific writing support, such as a graduate writing fellows program, English for Academic Purposes courses, or English for Specific Purposes courses. In these courses second language writing graduate students can learn to examine discipline-specific discourse, and they can compose texts that will help them fulfill program requirements and participate in professionalization opportunities, in addition to learning academic English literacy conventions.

Part Four: Guidelines for Teacher Preparation

The teaching of writing occurs in multiple contexts, from the type of course (basic writing, first-year composition, professional writing, WAC/WID, graduate writing, writing centers, and intensive English courses) to the media through which the course is taught (online classes, hybrid classes). As instructors prepare for these teaching contexts and student populations, they will need to consider some of the pedagogical assumptions that inform their practices.  Writing instructor preparation needs to expand instructors’ knowledge of writing issues in general, as well as how to specifically work with multilingual writers. Writing programs should encourage instructors to perceive their institutional roles as guides that will help all students develop their academic literacy by identifying the strengths and the issues that need the student’s attention. To this end, second language writing should be integrated throughout the professional preparation and development programs of all writing teachers, whether that be through a practicum experience, WAC workshops, ESL support services, writing center training, or other campus initiatives. If case studies are used as a methodology, for example, teachers in training might also conduct case studies with second language writers. If observation is used, teachers in training should consider observing both Native English speaking (NES) and nonnative English speaking (NNES) students. If student texts are shared for analysis, both NES and NNES texts should be used.

Teacher preparation should address the following topics:

Cultural Beliefs Related to Writing

Multilingual writers often come from contexts in which writing is shaped by linguistic and cultural features different from their NES peers. Beliefs related to individuality versus collectivity, ownership of text and ideas, student versus teacher roles, revision, structure, the meaning of different rhetorical moves, writer and reader responsibility, and the roles of research and inquiry all impact how student writers shape their texts. Teacher preparation should address the empirical research on these differences, although it is equally important for teachers to consider students’ individual experiences and avoid reducing students to stereotypes.

Assignments

Writing instructors should gain experience in reflecting on how writing assignments may tacitly include cultural assumptions or tacitly rely on knowledge of culturally specific information.  Writing instructors should also gain experience designing writing assignments with second language students in mind, considering topics that are culturally sensitive to multilingual writers and including directions easily understandable to multiple audiences. Discussions on assignment design might include scaffolding, creating benchmarks within larger projects, and incorporating additional resources such as the writing center. Discussions might also include reflections on students’ negotiations between composing in a home country language (including variations of English) and composing in academic English.

Building on Students’ Competencies

Teacher preparation programs should encourage instructors to identify strengths that multilingual writers bring to the classroom. Instructors should look for opportunities to use students’ current literacy practices as a foundation for teaching the expectations of academic literacy. For example, second language students who use digital technology to keep in touch with friends and family across national borders often demonstrate savvy rhetorical strategies, including the ability to communicate with others who write in other varieties of English. With the help of an instructor, multilingual writers can learn to bridge the strategies they use to communicate socially through digital media to the expectations of the academy.

Response to Student Writing

Teacher preparation should include discussion on how the prose second language writers produce can violate their aesthetic expectations for academic English. Instructors need to learn strategies for seeing and promoting the textual features that are rhetorically effective, and for prioritizing two or three mechanical or stylistic issues that individual multilingual writers should focus on throughout the duration of the course. Teacher preparation should include discussion on how response tools, such as rubrics and conferencing, might consider these differences.

Sustained Professional Development

Teacher preparation experiences are often held as meetings during an orientation, guest lectures by experts, faculty workshops, and graduate-level seminars. While there is value in single-experience situations (e.g., a guest lecture, a single workshop, or a single class dedicated to second language issues), instructors will be better prepared to work with multilingual students if issues of second language writing and writers are a consistent feature that is reinforced throughout their training in writing instruction, especially inservice training encouraged of all writing instructors.

Part Five: Considering L2 Writing Concerns in Local Contexts

The role English has assumed as the lingua franca of academic, business, political, and technical communication internationally has increased the demand for English instruction in global contexts. US colleges and their surrounding communities have grown considerably more diverse in recent years. Recent statistics (2017) collected by the US Census Bureau indicate that 21.3% of the US population speaks a language other than English at home. Writing programs should consider that students enrolled in US college composition courses—“ESL” or “mainstream”—as well as in writing and writing-intensive courses across the curriculum may vary in their linguistic backgrounds and their experiences with academic English. We recommend that writing programs develop a better awareness of the language experiences of their students, including understanding the evolution of English—its fluidity and its global variation (i.e., World Englishes).

Building Awareness of Local Multilingual Populations

We recommend that writing programs familiarize themselves with the multilingual populations surrounding their institutions. Doing so not only provides valuable insight into the language experiences of some students in their writing programs, but it also could identify large multilingual populations wishing to matriculate into the college/university. Information on local populations can be collected from the US Census Bureau’s website. Also, websites such as the National Center for Education Statistics provide data on the number of English language learners (ELLs) receiving special services in area high schools, some of whom might aspire to enter the university one day. Such information can be collected and disseminated on a centrally managed university website for the benefit of both instructors within the composition program and other university faculty.

Collecting Information on Language Use and Language Background

Further, writing programs should actively seek to determine the language use and language backgrounds of their students, particularly since many universities often do not collect such information from multilingual students who enter the university from US high schools. Yearly surveys conducted across the sections of first-year writing could provide writing programs with insight into the language needs of students in their courses. Further, posting the results of these surveys on a centrally managed website could help educate faculty across the university on the language needs and backgrounds of their students.

Encouraging Cross-Institutional Collaborations

For many resident second language students, the journey from secondary school to postsecondary is often met with awkward or inconsistent transitions (Harklau). Writing teachers and writing program administrators would benefit greatly from developing a better understanding of these students’ experiences prior to entering the college or university setting. One way to begin to learn about those experiences and to facilitate a more fluid journey across these educational contexts is to create more opportunities for cross-institutional collaborations with secondary schools and local secondary school teachers. Some possibilities for encouraging such collaborations might include bridge programs for local second language students, writing center outreach to local schools, and collaborations with English teacher education programs.

For more information, see the NCTE Position Paper on the Role of English Teachers in Educating English Language Learners (ELLs): https://ncte.org/statement/teaching-english-ells/.

Part Six: Selected Bibliography

Belcher, Diane, and Alan Hirvela, editors. Linking Literacies: Perspectives on L2 Reading-Writing Connections. University of Michigan Press, 2001.

Bloch, Joel. “Technology for Teaching English as a Second Language (ESL) Writing.” Teaching and Technology, 2018.

Bruce, Shanti, and Ben Rafoth, editors. ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors, 2nd ed., Boynton/Cook Heinemann, 2009.

Canagarajah, Suresh. “The Place of World Englishes in Composition: Pluralization Continued.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 57, no. 4, 2006, pp. 586–619.

Caplan, Nigel A. Grammar Choices for Graduate and Professional Writers. University of Michigan Press ELT, 2019.

Caplan, Nigel, and Ann Johns, editors. Changing Practices for the L2 Writing Classroom: Moving Beyond the Five-Paragraph Essay. University of Michigan Press, 2019.

Casanave, Christine Pearson. Controversies in Second Language Writing: Dilemmas and Decisions in Research and Instruction. 2nd ed., University of Michigan Press, 2017.

Cox, Michelle, Jay Jordan, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, and Gwen Gray Schwartz, editors. Reinventing Identities in Second Language Writing. NCTE, 2010.

Crusan, Deborah. Assessment in the Second Language Writing Classroom. University of Michigan Press, 2010.

Ferris, Dana R. Teaching College Writing to Diverse Student Populations. University of Michigan Press, 2009.

—. Treatment of Error in Second Language Student Writing. University of Michigan Press, 2011.

Ferris, Dana R., and John Hedgcock. Teaching L2 Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice. Routledge, 2013.

Harklau, Linda, Kay M. Losey, and Meryl Siegal, editors. Generation 1.5 Meets College Composition: Issues in the Teaching of Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL. Erlbaum, 1999.

Horner, Bruce, Min-Zhan Lu, and Paul Kei Matsuda, editors. Cross-Language Relations in Composition. Southern Illinois University Press, 2010.

Howard, Rebecca Moore. “Plagiarisms, Authorships, and the Academic Death Penalty.” College English, vol. 57, no. 7, 1995, pp. 708–36.

Hyland, Ken. Second Language Writing. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Hyland, Ken, and Fiona Hyland, editors. Feedback in Second Language Writing. Cambridge

University Press, 2019.

Journal of Second Language Writing. New York: Elsevier.

Lam, Wan Shun Eva. “L2 Literacy and the Design of the Self: A Case Study of a Teenager Writing on the Internet.” TESOL Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, 2000, pp. 457–82.

Laverick, Erin N. “A Late Adopter’s Chance to Take an ESL Program Multimodal.” Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, vol. 3, no. 1, 2014, pp. 56–60.

Laverick, Erin N. “Weaving Multimodal Compositions into an ESL Curriculum.” Cultivating Visionary Leadership by Learning for Global Success, edited by Don Parlow and Mary Alice Trent, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015, 80–8.

Lee, Jerry Won. “Beyond Translingual Writing.” College English, vol. 79, no. 2, 2016, pp. 174–195.

Leki, Ilona. Undergraduates in a Second Language: Challenges and Complexities of Academic Literacy Development. Erlbaum, 2007.

Leki, Ilona, Alister Cumming, and Tony Silva. A Synthesis of Research on Second Language Writing in English. Routledge, 2008.

Manchón, Rosa M., and Paul Kei Matsuda, editors. Handbook of Second and Foreign Language Writing. De Gruyter, 2016.

Matsuda, Paul Kei. “Basic Writing and Second Language Writers: Toward an Inclusive Definition.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 22, no. 2, 2003, pp. 67–89.

—. “Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 50, no. 4, 1999, pp. 699–721.

—. “The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition.” College English, vol. 68, no. 6, 2006, pp. 637–51.

Matsuda, Paul Kei, Michelle Cox, Jay Jordan, and Christina Ortmeier-Hooper, editors. Second Language Writing in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Bedford/St. Martin’s; NCTE, 2006.

Matsuda, Paul Kei, Maria Fruit, and Tamara Lee Burton Lamm, editors. “Bridging the Disciplinary Divide: Integrating a Second-Language Perspective into Writing Programs.” Spec. issue of WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 30, no. 1–2, 2006.

Matsuda, Paul Kei, Christina Ortmeier-Hooper and Xiaoye You, editors. The Politics of Second Language Writing: In Search of the Promised Land. Parlor Press, 2006.

Matsuda, Paul Kei, and Tony Silva, editors. Second Language Writing Research: Perspectives on the Process of Knowledge Construction. Erlbaum, 2005.

Matsuda, Paul Kei, Sarah Elizabeth Snyder, and Katherine Daily O’Meara, editors. Professionalizing Second Language Writing. Parlor Press, 2017.

Ortmeier-Hooper, Christina. “English May Be My Second Language, but I’m Not ‘ESL.’“ College Composition and Communication, vol. 59, no. 3, 2008, pp. 389–419.

Ortmeier-Hooper, Christina, and Todd Ruecker, editors. Linguistically Diverse Immigrant and Resident Writers: Transitions from High School to College. Routledge, 2016.

Pecorari, Diane. Teaching to Avoid Plagiarism: How to Promote Good Source Use. McGraw-Hill Education, 2013.

Raimes, Ann. Grammar Troublespots: A Guide for Student Writers. Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Roberge, Mark, Meryl Siegal, and Linda Harklau, editors. Generation 1.5 in College Composition: Teaching Academic Writing to U.S.-Educated Learners of ESL. Routledge, 2009.

Robertson, Wayne, director. Writing Across Borders. Oregon State University, 2005. (For more information, go to http://wic.oregonstate.edu/writingacrossborders).

Royer, Daniel and Roger Gilles, editors. Directed Self-Placement: Principles and Practices. Hampton Press, 2003.

Saenkhum, Tanita. Decisions, Agency, and Advising: Key Issues in the Placement of Multilingual Writers into First-Year Composition Courses. Utah State University Press, 2016.

Severino, Carol. Tutoring Second Language Writers. Utah State University Press, 2016.

Shapiro, Shawna, Raichle Farrelly, and Mary Jane Curry, editors. Educating Refugee-Background Students: Critical Issues and Dynamic Contexts. Multilingual Matters, 2018.

Shin, Dongshin, and Tony Cimasko. “Multimodal Composition in a College ESL Class: New Tools, Traditional Norms.” Computers and Composition, vol. 28, 2008, pp. 376–95.

Silva, Tony, and Zhaozhe Wang, editors. Reconciling Translingualism and Second Language Writing. Routledge, forthcoming.

Swales, John M., and Christine B. Feak. Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Tasks and Skills. Vol. 1. University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Tardy, Christine. Building Genre Knowledge. Parlor Press, 2009.

Trimbur, John. “The Dartmouth Conference and the Geohistory of the Native Speaker.” College English, vol. 71, no. 2, 2008, pp. 142–69.

Zamel, Vivian, and Ruth Spack, editors. Crossing the Curriculum: Multilingual Learners in College Classrooms. Erlbaum, 2003.

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

The purpose of this statement is to describe the range of scholarly activities in rhetoric, writing, and composition. The audiences for this statement include faculty and administrators who have the responsibility for evaluating this scholarship as part of the recruitment, promotion, and other evaluative activities that occur in colleges and universities; scholars in the field who are explaining their work to nonspecialists; and any others who want to understand the work of scholars in this broadly interdisciplinary field.

Read the full statement, Scholarship in Rhetoric, Writing, and Composition: Guidelines for Faculty, Deans, and Chairs [March 2018 (replaces the 1987 CCCC “The Range of Scholarship in Composition: A Description for Department Chairs and Deans”)]

This statement is intended for promotion and tenure committees, and candidates for promotion and tenure. Its purpose is to provide some general principles to promotion and tenure committees and candidates to ensure that candidates’ work with technology is explained accurately and evaluated fairly. The statement consists of three parts: general statements about technology and its potential impact on the promotion and tenure review processes, specific guidelines for promotion and tenure committees; and specific guidelines for candidates for promotion and tenure.

Read the full statement, CCCC Promotion and Tenure Guidelines for Work with Technology (November 1998, Revised November 2015)

Words and images can be worth a lot of money, and that fact sometimes causes a collision between educators and copyright holders. One notable example of such a collision, the case of Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al, was reported upon in the previous IP Report. The outcome of that case offers some encouragement to educators who use e-reserves to distribute materials to their students. But that is only one example among many. Educators have a stake in numerous other IP-related developments, such as Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) rule making, the proliferation of plagiarism detection services, and the growth of open access journals and repositories and attempts to restrict such growth.

At their conferences, the NCTE and the CCCC provide opportunities for panels and presentations on IP issues as they affect the educational community. In addition to these opportunities for the discussion of IP issues, the NCTE and the CCCC sponsor or facilitate the following:

Intellectual Property Caucus

The IP Caucus was formed in 1994. While it is not a formal organization within the NCTE or CCCC, it has a strong working relationship with both. Each spring, at the CCCC’s annual convention, the IP Caucus holds a meeting, open to all, at which participants break into roundtables to discuss IP-related developments that have affected or are likely to affect the educational community. For example, during the last caucus, in March of 2012, educators at one roundtable discussed the need to re-think academic integrity statements in light of the fact that research from the Citation Project and LILAC Group, among others, provides evidence that what we currently are doing—threatening students and focusing on punishment—is not working. In view of that fact, roundtable participants considered ways to focus on learning rather than penalties.

In 2013, the IP Caucus will again invite educators who are concerned with issues of copyright, fair use, openness, remix, access, and the ownership and use of intellectual property to join in thought-provoking discussions on these topics.

Intellectual Property Committee

The IP Committee was established in 1996, largely at the initiative of the Intellectual Property Caucus, and maintains a close relationship with that group as it promotes discussion among CCCC and NCTE members about IP issues. It also develops policy statements and pedagogical materials on IP-related issues and fosters research on IP topics. Specifically, the Intellectual Property Committee is charged with the following:

• keep the CCCC and NCTE memberships informed about intellectual property developments, through reports in the CCCC newsletter and in other NCTE and CCCC forums,
• maintain a close working relationship with the Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies,
• develop policy statements to guide writing teachers’ and researchers’ uses of coursepacks, electronic materials, etc., and
• address issues of concern to the organizations, such as interpretations of fair use (e.g., in relation to photocopying, use of unpublished material, use of copyrighted materials in multimedia, use of graphic images, etc.); copyright debates and evolving policies regarding electronic rights in publishing and use of published materials; safeguarding the public domain; attitudes and practices regarding authorship of texts, including students’ texts (e.g., collaboration; acknowledgment of sources; plagiarism); and other topics.

IP Annual

Since 2006, one way that the Intellectual Property Committee has both “ke[pt] the CCCC and NCTE memberships informed about intellectual property developments” and “maintain[ed] a close working relationship with the Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies” is through the joint sponsorship of the IP Annual, a yearly report on major IP developments that is hosted by NCTE/CCCC. The first annual, covering events in 2005, consisted of three articles, one on a lawsuit against the Google book scanning project (still being litigated eight years later), and two on rulings in other significant cases, BMG Music v. Gonzalez and MGM v. Grokster. The latest annual, Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2011, consists of six articles, including an essay on open access developments, a report on a significant court ruling affecting the scope of the public domain, and an article on a campaign against legislation that might have restricted public access to publicly funded research. The entire IP Annual series is accessible at the web site of the Committee on Intellectual Property.

IP Reports

In 2009, another collaboration between the IP Committee and the IP Caucus got under way with the publication of the first monthly IP Report in the NCTE InBox. As of today, thirty-six of these reports have been published. These brief articles introduce educators to resources relevant to IP issues and alert them to legislation and court cases that may affect them as writers, researchers, and instructors. Recent reports have included a wide range of articles, from IP considerations that affect textbook affordability to the ins and outs of a lawsuit involving the scanning of copyrighted publications (HathiTrust Case).

Opportunities for Involvement

The IP Committee is a formally constituted group that meets annually at the CCCC convention. During the rest of the year, its members communicate online via their NCTE Connected Community. The IP Caucus, on the other hand, is not a formal part of the NCTE/CCCC, but it works closely with the IP Committee. In fact, the membership is overlapping, as IP Caucus members tend to volunteer to serve on the IP Committee. In addition, the senior chair of the Caucus serves on the Committee. In a sense, then, if you attend the Caucus, you have a voice on the Committee. So come and be heard at next year’s CCCC Convention! Learn about the IP issues that affect you and your students, ask questions, and express opinions. In the meantime, the IP Caucus and the IP Committee, with the support of the NCTE/CCCC, will continue to publish both the IP Annual and the monthly IP Reports as they endeavor to keep educators up to date on rapidly evolving events in the field of IP.

Thank you to Martine Courant Rife, Mike Edwards, Jeff Galin, and Jim Purdy, whose ideas (and occasionally language) were appropriated for this report.

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 either to this column or to the annual report on intellectual property issues, please contact kgainer@radford.edu.

 

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

The CCCC Studies in Writing and Rhetoric Series (SWR), established in 1984, supports research that explores how writing, rhetoric, and literacy are currently and have been historically taught, learned, practiced, and circulated within communities, whether in colleges, workplaces, or neighborhoods, local, national, digital, or international contexts. The series also focuses on supporting a broad range of projects that accurately represent the diverse identities of teachers, learners, administrators, and researchers involved in writing, rhetoric, and literate activity, addressing the cultural, social, political, and material realities that define their work. Work published in SWR seeks to identify and resist the inequities and forces of oppression that shape the teaching of writing, rhetoric, and literacy as well as to intervene in them. The series aspires to be global both in scope and reach, and is dedicated to the use of digital technologies that ensure its publications are accessible and available to a national and international audience.

• • Visit the SWR Submissions page for information on submitting a book proposal.
  • For questions related to the SWR series, please email Stephanie Kerschbaum, SWR Editor, at kersch@uw.edu.
  • View instructions for SWR reviewers.
  • Learn more about and purchase SWR books.
  • SWR Editor search procedures
  • Listen to interviews with SWR authors.

Newest SWR Books

Memoria: Essays in Honor of Victor Villanueva
Editors: Asao B. Inoue, Wendy Olson, and Siskanna Naynaha
ISBN: 9780814101827
Celebrate the profound impact of Victor Villanueva’s scholarship, teaching, and mentorship in the field of rhetoric and composition with this remarkable collection. Engaging both emerging and established scholars, this book explores the legacy of Villanueva’s contributions. Grouped into three sections—Memoria of Rhetoric, Memoria of Mentoring, and Memoria of Relations—the essays in this book invite the reader to sit alongside one of the field’s pioneers and to experience the power of his influence on the discipline.

Transnational Assemblages: Social Justice and Crisis Communication during Disaster
Author: Sweta Baniya
ISBN: 9780814101933
With grounded case studies of the 2015 Nepal earthquake and 2017 Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, Baniya showcases how locals in marginalized and colonized spaces overcome disaster-created complexities via coalitional and transnational engagements.
Read an open-access version of this book at the WAC Clearinghouse.

The Hands of God at Work: Islamic Gender Justice through Translingual Praxis
Author: Amber Engelson
ISBN: 9780814101766
Drawing from ethnographic data collected in Indonesia from 2009 to 2022, Engelson explores how an English-medium Indonesian PhD program in interreligious studies and three Muslim scholar-activists activate knowledge where languages intersect, a process mediated by material circumstances within Indonesia and voices past, present, and future that both are audience to and transcend the traditional geographic and discursive borders associated with them.

Queer Techné: Bodies, Rhetorics, and Desire in the History of Computing
Author: Patricia Fancher
ISBN: 9780814101735
Drawing on archival materials from the Manchester University National Archive for the History of Computing, Fancher first analyzes the technical and scientific writing of Alan Turing and then places Turing’s work in the context of queer friends who collaborated with him and within a community of women whose labor forms the foundation of computing operations. Fancher argues for the importance of embodied experiences, gender, and sexuality as central lenses for understanding technical communication as well as technical innovation.

Living English, Moving Literacies: Women’s Stories of Learning between the US and Nepal
Author: Katie Silvester
ISBN: 9780814101704
Based on an ethnographic study in Nepal spanning a decade, Silvester speaks with and to the stories of Bhutanese women in diaspora learning English later in life during resettlement and in the context of waves of social change brought on by the end of their asylum. The book provides insight for teaching literacies across cultural landscapes.

Recollections from an Uncommon Time: 4C20 Documentarian Tales
Editors: Julie Lindquist, Bree Straayer, and Bump Halbritter
ISBN: 9780814139523
Originally intended to document the 2020 CCCC Convention experience, this book became a means for documentarians to share a common experience in the uncommon time of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read an open-access version of this book at the WAC Clearinghouse.

Transfer in an Urban Writing Ecology: Reimagining Community College–University Relations in Composition Studies
Authors: Christie Toth with Joanne Castillo, Nic Contreras, Kelly Corbray, Nathan Lacy, Westin Porter, Sandra Salazar-Hernandez, and Colleagues
ISBN: 9780814155189
Combining student writing, personal reflection, and academic analysis, this book urges, documents, and helps to enact more transfer-conducive writing ecologies.

Teachers Talking Writing: Perspectives on Places, Pedagogies, and Programs
Author: Shane A. Wood
ISBN: 9780814152768
Shane A. Wood offers a collection of conversations about the theory and teaching of writing in postsecondary contexts.
Read an open-access version of this book at the WAC Clearinghouse.

Entire Convention Program

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

Program by section

• Cover, Advertisements, Calendar, Individual Program
  
• Table of Contents
• CCCC Officers
• Greetings from the Program Chair
• Local Arrangements, Acknowledgments
• First Time to the Convention?
• About the Convention, General Information
• Special Events
• Award Winners
• Sessions Presented by Two-Year College Faculty
• Committee Meetings
• Index of Concurrent Sessions
• Wednesday
• Thursday
• Friday
• Saturday
• CCCC Past Chairs
• Exhibits and Maps
• Index of Participants, Advertisements
  
• Advertisements

 

   

Research Grants

Emergent Researcher Award
These awards are intended to invest in CCCC members by rewarding and supporting: early career researchers; writing faculty/instructors who have not had the opportunity to engage in funded research; and/or writing faculty/instructors who do not have support for research within their institutions. In addition to funding research up to $10,000 per project, the Emergent Researcher Awards also provide research support.
Research

Research Initiative
The CCCC Research Initiative invites proposals for research projects that can contribute to or affect discussions about literacy and writing instruction in and out of formal education. This program funds proposals up to $10,000 each.

CCCC/TYCA Editorial Fellowship

Publications

• College Composition and Communication
• Studies in Writing & Rhetoric (SWR) Series
• FORUM: Issues about Part-Time and Contingent Faculty

Travel Scholarships and Grants

CCCC Childcare Grants

CCCC Annual Convention

CCCC Summer Conferences

Entire Convention Program

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

Program by section

• Calendar
• Contents
• CCCC Officers
• Greetings from the Program Chair
• Information for Newcomers
• Local Arrangements
• General Information, Special Events, Award Winners, Sessions Presented by Two Year College Faculty, Committee Meetings, Topic Index to Sessions
• Preconvention Activities
• Wednesday
• Thursday
• Friday
• Saturday
• Past Chairs

Conference on College Composition and Communication
November 2016; Revised March 2020

Executive Summary

The goal of this position statement is to outline expectations of ethical conduct by CCCC members as they relate to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying, building upon NCTE’s Mutual Respect and Anti-Harassment Policy applied to all NCTE events. This position statement is meant to facilitate a greater understanding of ethical conduct as it pertains to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying as they occur in a range of contexts among postsecondary teachers and researchers in the profession as well as students and other stakeholders served by CCCC members. CCCC condemns sexual violence, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying in any form and seeks to foster a sense of responsibility among members as they combat these forms of ethical misconduct. This statement offers a glossary for understanding such misconduct, as well as resources on reporting sexual misconduct and workplace bullying, and resources on professional ethics.

Introduction

Given histories of sexual misconduct and workplace bullying within academia broadly and our profession specifically, CCCC forwards this statement on sexual violence, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying to help protect vulnerable or subordinate populations from harm incurred, knowingly or unknowingly, by teachers, researchers, and administrators. This document aligns with long-held positions of numerous prominent scholarly organizations (see Resources: Professional Ethics below) and builds upon the foundation laid by NCTE’s Mutual Respect and Anti-Harassment Policy to address sexual harassment, sexual intimidation, and unwelcome sexual attention, with the addition of workplace bullying, as these behaviors apply specifically to postsecondary teachers, researchers, and administrators in the profession.

CCCC is committed to protecting the rights, safety, dignity, and well-being of those involved in our research, our teaching, and in the range of professional training environments that occur within the field of writing studies/rhetoric and composition. CCCC further has a commitment to creating conditions supportive of professional competence, honesty and fairness, professional and scholarly responsibility, and contributing to the public good. Thus, CCCC condemns sexual violence, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying in any form.

To behave ethically within national organizations necessitates an awareness of power differentials among students, teachers, administrators, researchers, research assistants and associates, research participants, peers, mentors, and mentees. Teachers and researchers are responsible for implementing ethical research and professional practices in association with institutional ethics review bodies such as departments, faculties, universities, colleges, community organizations, and funding agencies, as well as regional and national federations of faculty members.

This statement is intended to inform members’ ethical judgments as they consider asymmetric and sometimes shifting power relations—in relation to position titles, identity politics, institutional norms, etc.—among themselves and others they work with in professional roles. The role of CCCC as a professional organization is to serve as a forum for working through problems of research ethics, teaching practices, writing assessment, working with students, and for educating the public about literacy. Its powers of enforcement are limited to moral persuasion, public discussion, and the recommendation of resources for conflict resolution. We recognize that this statement’s strength and requisite influence depend on its circulation, discussion, reflection, and use by CCCC members.

Sexual Misconduct and Harassment

CCCC does not condone sexual harassment, nor does it condone the disregard of complaints of sexual harassment from students, staff, or colleagues. While relationships between faculty and student, mentor and mentee are in some ways unequal, in some circumstances they might raise actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts may arise when personal and professional relationships are mixed, and care should be exercised under those circumstances to protect the interests of less powerful parties. Use of asymmetric power by members of the profession resulting in sexual harassment of a student, a colleague, or a staff member is seen as unacceptable and unethical behavior by CCCC (a conference of NCTE).

Intent and Impact
Intentionality is of central importance when considering instances of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, and discrimination, but the lack of intentionality should not be used or accepted as a blanket excuse for harassment or discrimination. The question of the impact of one’s behavior is more important than the intent behind it. Conduct that impacts a member negatively as unwelcome, coercive, or nonconsensual is determined by the recipient of the behavior rather than the initiator. Sexual, racial, homophobic, transphobic, and other such harassment are abuses of power that negate both the principle of equal opportunity and the possibilities of a good working and meeting environment.

Asymmetrical Power Relations and Exploitation
Ethical behavior by CCCC is recognized as that which recognizes asymmetries in power that are distinguishable between members and does not exploit asymmetric power for personal gain. Asymmetric relationships might include relationships between teachers and undergraduate, graduate, and research students, as well as relationships that place an individual in a position to evaluate their colleagues or allocate resources to them. We define exploitation as engaging in conduct in order to obtain personal, sexual, economic, or professional advantages. CCCC members should be aware that such inequalities of power pertain not only in cases of overt sexual harassment, but also in relationships that involve consent and an attendant hierarchy. Members should take care to ensure that personal or sexual relationships entered into at work on a consensual and reciprocal basis do not exploit those inequalities of power and do not disadvantage or unfairly advantage the less powerful.

Decisions and circumstances involving professional ethical obligations often extend past an individual moment of contact: peer and senior members of the field may be positioned in varied ways in the future beyond a direct supervisory/advisory role. In thinking through situations of professional ethics, it is thus important to remember that the colleagues one encounters today may in the future be department chairs, colleagues with oversight responsibilities, committee members who hire faculty or award grants, reviewers for manuscripts, editors of professional journals, leaders in professional organizations, and writers of support letters for employment, tenure, and promotion cases.

Workplace Bullying

Workplace bullying is bullying that occurs in any setting in which work-related activities happen and consists of a pattern of behavior or behaviors that persist over a period of time. These behaviors negatively impact the target of the bullying, interfering with the target’s ability to do their job. While many behaviors can make up bullying—ranging from rumors and criticism to verbal abuse—research on bullying in the WPA workplace has shown that bullying behaviors often work to exclude and isolate, to undermine individuals and writing programs, to exert control over individuals and writing programs, and to intimidate through verbal or physical actions or attacks (see Defining, Locating, and Addressing Bullying in the WPA Workplace). For a list of 22 workplace bullying behaviors as identified by the NAQ-R (Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised), see the link below under Resources for Workplace Bullying. For a more thorough exploration of bullying specific to writing programs, see the CWPA Statement on Bullying in the Workplace (also below).

CCCC does not condone bullying in the workplace, nor does it condone the disregard of complaints of workplace bullying from students, staff, or colleagues. While relationships between administrators and faculty, faculty and faculty, faculty and student, as well as mentor and mentee are in some ways unequal, power relations are often complicated and shifting. Care should be exercised to protect the interests of less-powerful parties. Use of asymmetric power by members of the profession resulting in workplace bullying is seen as unacceptable and unethical behavior by CCCC.

Intent and Impact
As with sexual harassment and misconduct, workplace bullying may be intentional or unintentional, and it is the impact of the behavior that is at issue, not the intent. In fact, bullies often do not recognize their behavior as bullying. Many scholars of workplace bullying assert that it is the target who decides when bullying has occurred, while others suggest that behaviors can be deemed bullying when a reasonable person identifies abusive behaviors as such. Because workplace bullying can negatively impact the target’s ability to do their work, the impact is more important than the intent.

Structural Risk Factors and Power Differentials
Major risk factors that contribute to the widespread presence of workplace bullying in higher education include the size of higher education institutions, the tenure structure, a ubiquitous lack of resources, and perceptions of unfair practices. Most important to this position statement is the risk that comes along with the hierarchical environment in most postsecondary institutions. For example, the strict reporting lines of tenure structures and departments can make it difficult to report bullying, particularly when one’s supervisor is the bully or one’s supervisor chooses not to address a colleague’s bullying behavior. However, having a higher status in the tenure hierarchy does not necessarily protect one from being the target of bullying, particularly as power relations can change multiple times over the course of one’s career and are affected by identity politics, disciplinary affiliation, mobbing, and other factors. Structural risk factors are typically outside the control of individuals, and targets are not to be blamed for being bullied. Therefore, we emphasize the professional ethical obligation for CCCC members to be aware of their own conduct and to respond as allies when they witness bullying as referenced in the following section.

Professional Ethical Obligations

Implicit in the idea of professionalism is for those in positions of authority to recognize that their relationships with others always involve elements of power, particularly in circumstances where they might be in a position to evaluate and endorse subordinates’ work or to respond to sexual violence, sexual harassment, and workplace bullying they witness or to evaluate their own behaviors for elements of these destructive actions. It is incumbent upon members of the profession not to abuse the power with which they are entrusted.

CCCC recognizes that student members of the profession (whether undergraduate or graduate) as well as contingent and untenured faculty and faculty of color or from underrepresented groups may be particularly vulnerable in the power structure of the academy. For this reason, CCCC supports the position that all members of CCCC feel secure while at CCCC-sponsored events, and that members know that CCCC is concerned with their safety, dignity, and well-being as it relates to their professional lives.

Sexual Misconduct and Harassment
CCCC expects members to recognize and avoid exploitive behavior that manifests as coercive sexual contact or harassment and to be familiar with affirmative consent. Exploitive and nonconsensual sexual relationships undermine the atmosphere of trust among students, staff, and faculty on which the educational process depends and constitute unprofessional and unethical behavior. CCCC encourages in all members a sense of care and responsibility in making decisions in situations that invoke sexual ethics and to know, use, and promote training they’ve received in Title IX and Equity offices in their home institutions. CCCC expects members to be familiar with the NCTE Mutual Respect and Anti-Harassment Policy, which prohibits sexual harassment, sexual intimidation, and unwelcome sexual contact in all venues and events. CCCC supports in all members those reporting obligations set by Title IX, specifically, the expectation that members report witnessed instances of sexual violence and sexual harassment in off-campus education activities. CCCC also acknowledges, however, recommendations offered by the AAUP for colleges and universities to avoid making faculty mandatory reporters. CCCC encourages members to be aware of the ways individual administrations and institutions elect to implement Title IX policy. (See “The History, Uses, and Abuses of Title IX” linked below.) 

Workplace Bullying
CCCC expects members to recognize and avoid exploitive behavior that manifests as workplace bullying. CCCC encourages in all members a sense of responsibility in making decisions in situations that invoke professional workplace ethics and to identify and address workplace bullying they’ve witnessed or been told about. For suggested responses to workplace bullying, see the link below to the CWPA Position Statement on Bullying in the Workplace.

Appendix: Additional Resources

Definitions/Terms

Below is a glossary of terms used to talk about sexual violence, sexual harassment, and hostile environments. The glossary is informed by terms and definitions in Unveiling the Silence: No!: The Rape Documentary Study Guide (2007), edited by Salamishah Tillet, Rachel Afi Quinn, and Aishah Shahidah Simmons.

• Accountability: a willingness for one to have their behavior critiqued by others. If applicable, accountability can also mean taking responsibility for behaviors, actions, and errors that are unjust and accepting and acting on the need for a change to occur in recognition of this new understanding of a matter learned from the response of others.
• Bullying: As defined by the Workplace Bullying Institute, “workplace bullying is repeated, health-harming mistreatment of one or more persons (the targets) by one or more perpetrators. It is abusive conduct that is:
  • Threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, or
  • Work interference — sabotage — which prevents work from getting done, or
  • Verbal abuse”
    (http://www.workplacebullying.org/individuals/problem/definition/)
• Consent: explicit words or actions that express a choice to participate in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. It is imperative to note that affirmative or positive consent is not guaranteed when drugs, alcohol, medication, or any substance or circumstance that could impair someone has been used.
• Harassment: whether verbal, psychological, or physical, behavior that may discriminate or disempower others based on another person’s race/ethnicity, gender identification, religious status, nationality or national origin, age, marital status, sexual orientation, disability status, political beliefs or affiliation, chosen research or teaching area, or employment status. Harassment creates a hostile environment that compromises the professional freedoms, development, and performance of its victims and undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic enterprise. Members of the CCCC are expected to create professional settings that foster respect for the rights of others.
• NAQ-R (Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised): a 22-item survey instrument used to measure exposure to workplace bullying.
• Perpetrator: one who commits or has committed a crime against another. Assailant and Offender are also often used in this statement and elsewhere to refer to a perpetrator.
• Rape: a crime of forced, manipulated, or coerced sexual intercourse.
• Rape Culture: an environment in which attitudes, ideologies, and gender socialization justify (or do not challenge) nonconsensual sexual activity.
• Sexual Harassment: behavior in the context of a professional and educational environment in which one person is sexualized and objectified. Examples of such harassment include sexual comments or remarks upon another individual’s body or sexuality; a quid pro quo in which sexual advances or acquiescence is accompanied by the threat of retaliation or a reward. Such behavior is illegal in the United States under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the 1972 Educational Amendments.
• Sexual Violence: unwanted or coercive sexual behavior, which can range from sexual bullying to rape. The terms rape, sexual assault, and sexual abuse can be used interchangeably and refer to coercive, forced sexual contact.
• Victim Blaming: holding the victim of a harm or assault, including sexually based crimes, responsible for having been assaulted.

Resources: Reporting Sexual Assault

Reporting Sexual Assault to Law Enforcement

How to File a Title IX Complaint

The History, Uses, and Abuses of Title IX

Bystanders: Help Prevent Sexual Assault

How to Respond to a Survivor

What Consent Looks Like

No-Contact Orders

Intersections of Race and Sexual Assault

Resources: Professional Ethics

MLA Statement of Professional Ethics

AAUP Statement of Professional Ethics

Canadian Sociological Association Statement of Professional Ethics

Canadian Association of University Teachers Policy Statement on Freedom from Harassment

Canadian Association of University Teachers Policy Statement on Professional on Professional Rights and Responsibilities

American Association of Geographers Statement on Professional Ethics

American Association of Physical Anthropologists Code of Ethics

National Communication Association Code of Professional Ethics

American Sociological Association Code of Ethics

Organization of American Historians Code of Ethics

American Musicological Association Guidelines for Ethical Conduct

American Political Science Association Guide to Professional Ethics

Resources: Teaching and Learning

Unveiling the Silence: No!: The Rape Documentary Study Guide

Resources: Workplace Bullying

Defining, Locating, and Addressing Bullying in the WPA Workplace

CWPA Position Statement on Bullying in the Workplace

NAQ-R (Negative Acts Questionnaire-Revised)

Workplace Bullying in Higher Education

Workplace Bullying Institute

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

As e-portfolios assume a greater role in institutional assessment, First-Year Composition (FYC) will most likely serve as the course that introduces them to students. Therefore, FYC faculty may have a particular, invested interest in identifying the principles and practices of e-portfolio development that prioritize student learning. Such principles and best practices, based on the theoretical knowledge that classroom evidence substantiates, enable composition faculty to provide students with experiences that help them expand and specialize their writing skills for a variety of cross-disciplinary programs and professional contexts beyond FYC.

Read the full statement, Principles and Practices in Electronic Portfolios (November 2007, Revised March 2015)