Author: ksuchor

CCCC Convention Siting and Hostile Legislation: Guiding Principles (November 2013, revised March 2019)

2025

April 9–12, 2025, Baltimore, MD
“Computer Love”: Extended Play, B-sides, Remix, Collaboration, and Creativity

Conference on College Composition and Communication, November 2007, Revised March 2015

[Submitted by the CCCC Taskforce on Best Practices in Electronic Portfolios and adopted by the CCCC Executive Committee on November 19, 2007. Revised in March 2015]

Introductory Premises

Composition professionals in post-secondary institutions—composition faculty, writing program administrators, and technology staff—share concern and responsibility for helping students learn to write at a college level, using the most effective communication technologies. Disciplinary practice and research suggest that portfolio assessment has become an important part of the learning-to-write process.

In turn, electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) have become a viable institutional tool to facilitate student learning and its assessment. E-portfolios can be “web-sensible”—a thoughtfully arranged collection of multimedia-rich, interlinked, hypertextual documents that students compose, own, maintain, and archive on the Internet or in other formats. Web applications designed to support e-portfolio composition can offer additional opportunities for providing structure, guidance, and feedback to students, and can provide students with opportunities to connect selectively with multiple audiences.

E-portfolios communicate various kinds of information for the purposes of assessment. For example, e-portfolios can:

• Identify connections among academic and extra-curricular learning for admission to higher education and vocational opportunities
• Demonstrate applications of knowledge and critical literacies for course or programmatic assessment
• Provide evidence of meeting standards for professional certification
• Display qualifications for employment
• Showcase job-related accomplishments beyond schooling, for evaluation or promotion
• Represent lifelong learning for participation in public service

However, these purposes do not capture important kinds of student learning in composition courses that should carry over to writing tasks in other courses and contexts, such as students understanding different writing processes or learning styles or students setting their own goals for future learning.

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, vested 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.

Suggested Principles and Best Practices

E-portfolios develop over time, taking many forms that are unique to the missions of different programs and institutions. No list of principles and practices can describe such assessment in toto. Neither can any list suggest an ideal path of development or endpoint, because e-portfolio projects are dynamic, in-progress projects that necessarily undergo changes that are influenced by institutional exigencies and available resources.

Nonetheless, this document proposes that successful uses of e-portfolios share in common certain principles and best practices. The following suggested principles—accompanied by supportive practices in the teaching of writing—can inform the use of e-portfolios in writing programs. These principles and best practices can also inform cross-disciplinary faculty, program directors, technology staff, and university administrators, as e-portfolios are adapted on a wider institutional scale.

It may be most useful to consider these principles and practices in conjunction with the National Council of Writing Program Administrators’ “Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition,” since that document provides a sound foundation upon which successful writing instruction and assessment rests.

Principle #1: Learning Outcomes

Students are guided by clearly articulated individual, course, programmatic, or institutional outcomes in their collection, selection, reflection upon, and presentation of “artifacts” (various electronic documents) in the e-portfolio.

At the same time, students structure portfolios around their own learning goals.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Familiarize students with programmatic learning outcomes
  • Share the rubric that will be used in e-portfolio assessment
  • Provide students with models of e-portfolios that illustrate different ways of meeting programmatic outcomes and satisfying rubric criteria
  • Help students identify personal learning goals and adapt programmatic outcomes to those goals
  • Design e-portfolios that demonstrate their own learning goals in teaching
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Familiarize faculty with learning outcomes that the profession values nationally
  • Collaborate with faculty to establish local programmatic learning outcomes based on actual classroom activities and assignments
  • Collaborate with faculty in designing rubrics that consistently facilitate a valid and reliable process of measuring programmatic learning outcomes
  • Collaborate with faculty to cull various models of successful e-portfolios
  • Participate in the selection of software that will help faculty and students meet the program or course learning objectives
  • Observe protocols of permission and confidentiality in obtaining model e-portfolios for instructional purposes
  • Design e-portfolios that demonstrate their own learning goals in writing program direction
• Technology staff:
  • Maintain an archive of student and faculty e-portfolios that successfully illustrate programmatic learning outcomes in various ways
  • Make the archive easily accessible for instructional purposes
  • Collaborate with faculty and program directors to determine how technology facilitates programmatic learning outcomes
• University Administrators:
  • Encourage authentic assessment driven by locally-designed programmatic objectives and outcomes
  • Select e-portfolio platforms that best support the teaching and assessment of those locally-designed programmatic objectives and outcomes
  • Provide resources for writing programs to develop and share learning outcomes with other programs
  • Highlight how e-portfolios demonstrate student learning outcomes in annual institutional reports and accreditation cycles
  • Factor faculty and director e-portfolios in reviews for promotion and tenure

Principle #2: Digital Environments

Students develop digital literacies in composing, collaboration, and records-keeping, and consider the rhetorical implications of circulating e-portfolios to both public and private audiences.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Introduce students to the affordances of different digital media
  • Teach students to attend to web design in rhetorically effective and ethical ways, e.g., linking, choosing images, creating webpage formats
  • Discuss the ethical use of digital sources (e.g., fair use, copyright, Creative Commons licenses) and protocols for obtaining permission and documenting digital sources
  • Provide classroom experiences that allow students to practice multimodal composing
  • Encourage students to collaborate when composing and designing multimodal texts
  • Prompt student reflection and discussion on the potentials and limitations of creating e-portfolios with institution-supported e-portfolio platforms or with other outside platforms and tools
  • Facilitate critical discussions on the benefits and disadvantages of students allowing public access to their documents
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Train faculty how to create and teach e-portfolios well in advance of initial attempts to implement programmatic assessment
  • Show faculty how to implement web design for e-portfolios in easy-to-teach steps
  • Give faculty a clear rationale and explanation of how e-portfolios enhance digital learning and assessment, so faculty can explain the same to students
• Technology staff:
  • Develop and test templates for constructing e-portfolios, to assure consistencies in design, layout, and usability
  • Train technology mentors to work individually or in class with students and faculty
  • Provide ongoing, drop-in workshops and studios to support students and faculty
  • Oversee development of online manuals to assist students and faculty with the use of e-portfolio platforms
• University Administrators:
  • Establish budget lines to ensure on-campus technological support and training for students and faculty
  • Show long term commitment to e-portfolios (e.g., purchase equipment, maintain equipment replacement cycles, engage software consultants, provide central electronic sites where students may access their e-portfolios at any time from any location)

Principle #3: Virtual Identities

Students represent themselves through personalized information that conveys a web-savvy and deliberately constructed ethos for various uses of the e-portfolio. Students manage those identities by having control over artifacts and who sees them through privacy and access tools.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Facilitate critical discussions of how writers represent themselves in online resumes, profiles, etc.
  • Help students recognize what information, digital forms, and specific artifacts can best represent them as learners
  • Acquaint students with how they construct professional ethos in their own e-portfolios and how they represent themselves professionally, academically, civically, or culturally
  • Encourage students to represent their multicultural backgrounds effectively
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Acquaint faculty with any institutional policies or protocols relevant to Internet publishing, student confidentiality, and personal information
• Technology staff:
  • Set up access protocols that protect student confidentiality and control over who may read e-portfolios, allowing them selectively to deliver and circulate their work in different forms to a variety of audiences
• University Administrators:
  • Provide guidelines for maintaining student confidentiality and use of e-portfolios as an assessment tool

Principle #4: Authentic Audiences

Students engage in audience analysis of who they intend to read their e-portfolios, not only to accommodate faculty, but also employers, issuers of credentials, family, friends, and other readers. Students coordinate access to their e-portfolios with faculty, programs, the institution, and other readers.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Facilitate critical discussions of different readers’ expectations about grammatical usage and digital styles (e.g., font, layout, colors, text-image balance)
  • Teach conventions and principles of user-friendly design and functionality
  • Identify the readers who will assess students’ programmatic e-portfolios, and familiarize students with those readers’ expectations
  • Help students identify and cultivate appropriate outside readers to respond to their e-portfolios (e.g., former teachers or employers)
  • Teach rhetorical knowledge and dexterity by asking students to analyze how e-portfolios might be written and designed for different readers (e.g., program directors in their major, prospective employers, evaluators of transferable course credits)
  • Encourage students to understand that e-portfolios are dynamic, not static, collections that they will continue to change as they encounter new readers in various contexts
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Invite students to present their e-portfolios in faculty training sessions
  • Develop protocols to inform students and faculty about expectations for e-portfolio assessment (e.g., required minimal content, elements of format, reflective artifacts)
• Technology staff:
  • Design websites that showcase programmatic uses of e-portfolios for purposes of recruiting students, informing administrators, attracting employers, and educating legislators or the public (while maintaining the technology that allows students to continue to choose and change whatever artifacts are put on public display)
• University Administrators:
  • Encourage involvement of students in campus-wide workshops to acquaint cross-curricular faculty and program directors in all disciplines with various uses of e-portfolio assessment
  • Include student representation in university assessment committees
  • Provide recognition and awards for excellence in student e-portfolios

Principle #5: Reflection and E-portfolio Pedagogy

Students create “reflective artifacts” in which they identify and evaluate the different kinds of learning that their e-portfolios represent. In particular, students may explain how various forms of instructive feedback (from faculty, Writing Centers, peers, and other readers) have influenced the composition and revision of their various e-portfolio artifacts, making teaching methods and learning contexts more transparent to their readers.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Teach students different formats and forms that facilitate reflection on their learning at various stages of drafting and web-design (e.g., reflective cover letters that introduce and link readers to various artifacts; concept maps)
  • Teach students that ongoing, rigorous reflection is a crucial part of the process of creating e-portfolios that are dynamic, not static collections
  • Provide opportunities for students to give each other feedback on e-portfolio artifacts, including reflective artifacts
  • Give students clear, constructive feedback that encourages revision and offers tips for improvement in design and communication modalities
  • Encourage students to consult with Writing Center tutors or other institutional support services
  • Collaborate regularly with other faculty, technology staff, and program directors to share the most effective ways to provide feedback and teach reflection
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Acquaint faculty with exemplary e-portfolio formats and forms that show how students can effectively link reflective artifacts with their selected written work (e.g., cover letters, concept maps)
  • Collaborate with teachers to craft effective writing prompts that lead to intellectually rigorous reflective thinking
  • Give faculty feedback on their own e-portfolios and encourage them to incorporate it in their annual self-evaluations
• Technology staff:
  • Coordinate closely with writing program directors and faculty to develop technologies that can help track or display the “feedback loop” between writers and responders/evaluators
  • Keep faculty aware of new technologies that have potential for creating reflective artifacts
• University Administrators:
  • Understand reflection as a critical thinking skill that reinforces student learning outcomes and yields valuable insights about programmatic effectiveness
  • Oversee campus events that introduce or advance knowledge about reflection and e-portfolio pedagogy (e.g., invite national speakers, sponsor regional conferences)

Principle #6: Integration and Curriculum Connections

Students link artifacts in a flexible structure that (1) synthesizes diverse evidence and ideas, (2) invites linear or non-linear ways to read and evaluate e-portfolios, and (3) makes connections to portfolio-related evidence and relationships distributed across the Internet. Students may therefore use linking to represent how e-portfolio artifacts inter-relate with other courses in the larger context of whole-curriculum learning.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Encourage students to show learning outcomes by linking artifacts to earlier drafts, or even to artifacts from earlier, relevant courses
  • Encourage students to show transferability of learning outcomes by linking artifacts developed in writing courses to cross-curricular courses
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Facilitate discussions with faculty on how e-portfolios can encourage articulation among related courses (e.g., first and second-semester FYC, or FYC and advanced composition courses)
  • Collaborate with other program directors to stimulate cross-curricular articulation among courses and address shared assessment goals
• Technology staff:
  • Develop e-portfolio systems that feature compatibility with other programmatic or institutional e-portfolio systems
• University Administrators:
  • Encourage faculty, program directors, departments, and colleges to identify and agree upon where in the overall scheme of institutional accountability e-portfolios can play a well-defined, cross-curricular role in student learning and assessment
  • Embrace flexibility in software/technology to accommodate various institutional and programmatic  assessment needs
  • Endorse and provide resources for writing across the curriculum

Principle #7: Stakeholders’ Responsibilities

Students receive the necessary support from faculty, program directors, and university administrators who not only use e-portfolios for assessment purposes and program improvement, but also keep informed about what resources are essential for implementing, maintaining, and accessing e-portfolios.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Familiarize themselves with relevant theory and e-portfolio research
  • Participate in ongoing programmatic assessment of student e-portfolios
  • Use findings of e-portfolio assessment to improve approaches to teaching
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Acquaint faculty with the most relevant sources available in portfolio learning, research, and assessment
  • Set up and train a small cohort of faculty to participate in a pilot program when first implementing e-portfolios
  • Expand e-portfolio assessment gradually
  • Conduct faculty scoring of e-portfolios, involving mixes of teachers who are experienced and inexperienced with programmatic assessment
    Invite teachers to suggest ways to improve training in e-portfolios, and use findings of e-portfolio assessment to improve the program
  • Report assessment data promptly and provide university administrators with examples of actual student- and teacher-designed e-portfolios that help interpret what the data means
  • Collaborate with directors who are using e-portfolios at their own and other institutions
• Technology staff:
  • Contribute to the development of open-source software and standards that support e-portfolio implementation and maintenance
  • Adapt portfolio rubrics to electronic formats that collect and process data efficiently
• University Administrators:
  • Provide start-up funds for writing directors, technology staff, and interested teachers to engage in professional development related to e-portfolios (e.g., conferences, national workshops)
  • Use e-portfolio assessment findings to help inform further decisions about allocating resources

Principle # 8: Lifelong Learning

Students are able to adapt their e-portfolios to various purposes/ uses beyond their academic careers, enabling their various readers, in turn, to track their learning longitudinally.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Introduce students to a range of uses for which e-portfolios are used beyond programmatic or institutional goals
  • Provide students with models of e-portfolios that have been adapted for different purposes, to show development of learning over time
  • Demonstrate how their own e-portfolios are examples of lifelong learning
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Coordinate with other program directors and university administrators to develop institutional e-portfolio systems that accommodate longitudinal tracking
• Technology staff:
  • Collaborate with other institutions and organizations, to develop e-portfolio systems that are compatible and interoperable, accommodating “open standards” so that students can easily transfer their e-portfolios to other institutions or sites
• University Administrators:
  • Collaborate with other institutions, state boards of education, and organizations that could provide space and support for e-portfolios that demonstrate lifelong learning

Current Examples

Current examples of well-conceived e-portfolio projects include:

1. Alverno Diagnostic Digital Portfolio— http://ddp.alverno.edu/
2. E-Folio Minnesota— http://efoliominnesota.com/
3. Elon University Student Portfolios—http://www.elon.edu/e-web/academics/elon_college/english/pwr/portfolios.xhtml
4. Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, Institutional Portfolio— http://www.iport.iupui.edu/about/
5. John Hopkins Digital Portfolio—http://olms1.cte.jhu.edu/2845
6. Kapi’olani Community College—http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kirkpatr/kite/kiteloa/
7. La Guardia Community College— http://eportfolio.lagcc.cuny.edu/
8. Louisiana State University Communication Across the Curriculum Digital Portfolio Examples— http://sites01.lsu.edu/wp/cxc/digital-portfolio-examples/
9. Michigan State University, Professional Writing Alumni Portfolios—http://wrac.msu.edu/professional-writing/portfolio/
10. New York City College of Technology ePortfolio— http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/eportfolio.html
11. Portland State University University Studies Portfolios—http://www.pdx.edu/unst/our-portfolios
12. Portfolios at Penn State—http://portfolio.psu.edu/
13. St. Olaf College Web Portfolios— http://wp.stolaf.edu/cis/individual-majors-web-portfolios/
14. University of British Columbia ePortfolios— http://elearning.ubc.ca/toolkit/eportfolios/
15. University of Denver DU Portfolio— https://portfolio.du.edu/
16. University of Washington Bothell ePortfolios http://www.uwb.edu/learningtech/elearning/eportfolios
17. Virginia Tech ePortfolio— https://atel.tlos.vt.edu/eportfolios

Interested teachers, writing program administrators, technology professionals, and university administrators interested in learning more about e-portfolio programs at particular universities should also consult the ePortfolio case studies (Section II, Chapters 23–51) in Handbook of Research on ePortfolios, edited by Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman (Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006, 248–575).

This shorter list presents examples of professional e-portfolios created by scholars and teachers in composition studies. All e-portfolios are shared with permission from the authors.??

1. Dr. Daniel Anderson, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “LitCasting: Sharing Engagement with Literature”—http://www.teachmix.com/litcast/node/155

2. Dr. Steven J. Corbett, Visiting Assistant Professor, George Mason University, “Poetics, Rhetorics, and Relationships”—http://writing.colostate.edu/community/portfolios/portfolio.cfm?portfolioid=2870

3. Dr. Michael Day, Professor, Northern Illinois University, “Assignment for Reflective Teaching Portfolio.” http://www.engl.niu.edu/mday/600eportf.html
These sample professional portfolios were generated by teaching assistants at Northern Illinois University in response to Dr. Michael Day’s reflective teaching e-portfolio assignment:

• Jeff Gard, “Teaching Portfolio”—http://jgard2.wix.com/teaching-portfolio
• Tim Koppang, “Teach” http://www.deskandmind.com/teach/
• Andy Bero, “Teaching Portfolio”—https://sites.google.com/a/students.niu.edu/abero_engl103m28/

Bibliography

This bibliography of current sources on e-portfolios includes important research in composition studies and other disciplines:

Abrami, Philip, and Helen Barrett. “Directions for Research and Development on Electronic Portfolios.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web 5 Mar. 2015.

Acker, Stephen, and Kay Halasek. “Preparing High School Students for College-Level Writing: Using ePortfolio to Support a Successful Transition.” Journal of General Education 57.1 (2008): 1–14. Print.

Acosta, Teresa, and Youmei Liu. “ePortfolios: Beyond Assessment.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 15–23. Print.

Al Kahtani, Saad. “Electronic Portfolios in ESL Writing: An Alternative Approach.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 12.3 (1999): 261–68. Print.

Alverno College. “The Diagnostic Digital Portfolio.” Nov. 2003. Web. 1 Mar. 2015. http://www.ddp.alverno.edu/.

Anderson, Dan, Jacklyn Ngo, Sydney Stegall, and Kyle Stevens. “This is What We Did in Our Class.” CCC Online 1.1 (2012). Web. 3 Mar 2015. http://bit.ly/castinglearning.

Ash, Linda. Electronic Student Portfolios. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development, 2000. Print.

Avraamidou, Lucy, and Carla Zembal-Saul. “Exploring the Influence of Web-based Portfolio Development on Learning to Teach Elementary Science.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 11.3 (2003): 415–42. Print.

Bacabac, Florence Elizabeth. “Creating Professional ePortfolios in Technical Writing.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 27.1 (2013): 91–110. Print.

Barkley, Elizabeth. “From Bach to Tupac: Using an Electronic Course Portfolio to Analyze a Curricular Transformation.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 117–23. Print.

Barrett, Helen C. “Electronic Portfolios = Multimedia Development = Portfolio Development: The Electronic Development Process.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.110–116. Print.

_____. “Researching Electronic Portfolios and Learner Engagement: The REFLECT Initiative.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 50.6 (2007): 436–49. Print.

Batson, Trent. “The Electronic Portfolio Boom: What’s it All About?” Campus Technology (Dec. 2002). Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

Bauer, William, and Robert Dunn. “Digital Reflection: The Electronic Portfolio in Music Teacher Education.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 13.1 (2003): 7–20. Print.

Beck, Robert, Nava Livne, and Sharon Bear. “Teachers’ Self-Assessment of the Effects of Formative and Summative Electronic Portfolios on Professional Development.” European Journal of Teacher Education 28.3 (2005): 221–44. Print.

Blair, Kristine L. “Digital Ideologies and Electronic Portfolios: Toward a Rhetoric of Hybridity.” Digital Tools in Composition Studies. Ed. Ollie O. Oviedo, Joyce R. Walker, and Byron Hawk. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2010. 253–70. Print.

_____. “Technological Labor and Tenure Decisions: Making a Virtual Case via Electronic Portfolios.” Labor, Writing Technologies, and the Shaping of Composition in the Academy. Ed. Pamela Takayoshi and Patricia Sullivan. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007. 59–74. Print.

Blom, Diana, Jennifer Rowley, Dawn Bennett, Matthew Hitchcock, and Peter Dunbar-Hall. “Knowledge Sharing: Exploring Institutional Policy and Educator Practice through ePortfolios in Music and Writing.” Electronic Journal of e-Learning 12.2 (2014): 138–48. Print.

Borden, Victor. “The Role of Institutional Research and Data in Institutional Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 192–202. Print.

Brammer, Charlotte. “Eportfolios and Cognitive Storytelling: Making the Journey Personal.” Business Communication Quarterly 74.3 (2011): 352–55. Print.

Cambridge, Barbara. “Electronic Portfolios as Knowledge Builders.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 1–11. Print.

Cambridge, Barbara L., Susan Kahn, Daniel P. Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey, eds. Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. Print.

Cambridge, Darren. “Integral ePortfolio Interoperability with the IMS ePortfolio Specification.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 234–47. Print.

_____, ed. E-Portfolios and Global Diffusion: Solutions for Collaborative Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2012. Print.

Cambridge, Darren, Barbara Cambridge, and Kathleen Yancey. Electronic Portfolios 2.0: Emergent Research on Implementation and Impact. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2009. Print.

Campbell, Jo. “Electronic Portfolios: A Five-Year History.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 185–94. Print.

Carliner, Saul. “Commentary: Assessing the Current Status of Electronic Portfolios.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Carmean, Colleen, and Alice Christie. “ePortfolios: Constructing Meaning Across Time, Space, and Curriculum.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 33–43. Print.

Carney, Joanne. “Setting an Agenda for Electronic Portfolio Research: A Framework for Evaluating Portfolio Literature.” Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, April 14, 2004. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/IT/Research/Eportfolios/AERAresearchlit.pdf.

Chalfen, Richard. “Electronic Demonstration Portfolios for Visual Anthropology Majors.” Journal of Educational Media 29.1 (2004): 37–48. Print.

Challis, Diana. “Towards the Mature ePortfolio: Some Implications for Higher Education.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Chang, Chi-Cheng. “A Study on the Evaluation and Effectiveness Analysis of Web-based Learning Portfolio.” British Journal of Educational Technology 32.4 (2001): 435–58. Print.

Chappell, David, and John Schermerhorn Jr. “Using Electronic Student Portfolios in Management Education: A Stakeholder Perspective.” Journal of Management Education 23.6 (1999): 651–62. Print.

Chen, Helen L., and Thomas Black. “Using E-Portfolios to Support an Undergraduate Learning Career: An Experiment with Academic Advising.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly Magazine 15 Dec. 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Chen, Helen, David Cannon, Jonathan Gabrio, Larry Leifer, George Toye, and Tori Bailey. “Using Wikis and Weblogs to Support Reflective Learning in an Introductory Engineering Design Course.” Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education, 2005. Print.

Clark, J. Elizabeth. “The Digital Imperative: Making the Case for a 21st Century Pedagogy.” Computers and Composition 27.1 (2010): 27–35. Print.

Click, Ben A., and Sarah C. Magruder. “Implementing Electronic Portfolios for Performance Assessment: A Pilot Program Involving a College Writing Center.” Assessment Update 16.4 (2004): 13–5. Print.

Cohn, Ellen, and Bernard Hibbits. “Beyond the Electronic Portfolio: A Lifetime Personal Web Space.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 27.4 (2004): 7–10. Print.

Colby, Richard. “Digital Portfolio Sensibility: An Interview with Kathleen Blake Yancey.” Computers and Composition Online. Spring 2005. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/yancey/index.htm

Condon, William, Fiona Glade, Richard Haswell, Lisa Johnson-Shull, Diane Kelly-Riley, Galen Leonhardy, Jennie Nelson, Susan McLeod, and Susan Wyche. “Whither? Some Questions, Some Answers.” Beyond Outcomes: Assessment and Instruction Within a University Writing Program. Ed. Richard Haswell. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing, 2001. 191–205. Print.

Corwin, Terry. “Electronic Portfolios.” Campus-Wide Publications 20.1 (Jan. 2003): 32–8. Print.

Crandall, Bryan Ripley. “Senior Boards: Multimedia Presentations from Yearlong Research and Community-Based Culminating Projects.” Teaching the New Writing: Technology, Change, and Assessment in the 21st Century. Ed. Anne Herrington, Kevin Hodgson, Charles Moran, and Elyse Eidman-Aadahl. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009. 107–23. Print.

Dagley, Valerie, and Bob Berrington. “Learning from an Evaluation of an Electronic Portfolio to Support General Practitioners’ Personal Development Planning, Appraisal, and Revalidation.” Education for Primary Care 16.5 (Sept. 2005): 567–74. Print.

Desmet, Christy, Deborah Church Miller, June Griffin, Ron Balthazor, and Robert E. Cummings. “Reflection, Revision, and Assessment in First-Year Composition ePortfolios.” Journal of General Education 57.1 (2008): 15–30. Print.

DiMarco, John. Portfolio Design and Applications. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2006. Print.

Dorn, Dean. “Electronic Department Portfolios: A New Tool for Department Learning and Improvement.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 203–8. Print.

Dornan, Tim, Carmen Carroll, and John Parboosingh. “An Electronic Learning Portfolio for Reflective Continuing Professional Development.” Medical Education 36.8 (2002): 767–69. Print.

Ehrmann, Stephen C. “Electronic Portfolio Initiatives: A Flashlight Guide to Planning and Formative Evaluation.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 180–93. Print.

Ellertson, Anthony. “Information Appliances and Electronic Portfolios: Rearticulating the Institutional Author.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 10.1 (2005). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Feng, Franc. “Toward a Framework/Data Model: From ePortfolio Thinking to Folio Culture.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 217–33. Print.

Fischer, Kathleen M. “Down the Yellow-Chip Road: Hypertext Portfolios in Oz.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 169–83. Print.

Flanigan, Eleanor J., and Susan Amirian. “ePortfolios: Pathway from Classroom to Career.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 102–11. Print.

Forbes, Cheryl. “Cowriting, Overwriting, and Overriding in Portfolio Land Online.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 195–205. Print.

Gathercoal, Paul, Douglas Love, Beverly Bryde, and Gerry McKean. “On Implementing Web-Based Electronic Portfolios.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 2 (2002): 29–37. Print.

Getis, Victoria, Catherine Gynn, and Susan E. Metros. “New Partnerships: Engaging Undergraduates in Research through Technology.” EDUCAUSE. 2006. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Gibson, David. “ePortfolio Decisions and Dilemmas.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 135–45. Print.

Grant, Simon, Adam Marshall, Janet Strivens, and Roger Clark. “Development Issues for PDP with ePortfolios: Web Services and Skills.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 146–57.

Graves, Nikki, and Molly Epstein. “Eportfolio: A Tool for Constructing a Narrative Professional Identity.” Business Communication Quarterly 74.3 (2011): 342–46. Print.

Greenberg, Gary. “Extending the Portfolio Model.” Educause Review (July/Aug. 2004): 28–36. Print.

Hamilton, Sharon. “Snakepit in Cyberspace: The IUPUI Institutional Portfolio.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.159–177. Print.

Hamp-Lyons, Liz, and William Condon. Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice, Theory, and Research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 2000. Print.

Hartnell-Young, Elizabeth. “ePortfolios for Knowledge and Learning.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 125–34. Print.

Hawisher, Gail E., and Cynthia L. Selfe. “Wedding the Technologies of Writing Portfolios and Computers: The Challenges of Electronic Classrooms.” Eds. Kathleen Blake Yancey and Irwin Weiser. Situating Portfolios: Four Perspectives. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 1997. 305–21. Print.

Henry, Ronald J. “ePortfolio Thinking: A Provost Perspective.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 54–61. Print.

Herner, Leah, Silva Karayan, Gerry McKean, and Douglas Love. “Special Education Teacher Preparation and the Electronic Portfolio.” Journal of Special Education Technology 18.1 (2003): 44–49. Print.

Hicks, Troy, Anne Russo, Tara Autrey, Rebecca Gardner, Aram Kabodian, and Cathy Edington. “Rethinking the Purposes and Processes for Designing Digital Portfolios.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 50.6 (2007): 450–58. Print.

Howard, Rebecca M. “Memoranda to Myself: Maxims for the Online Portfolio.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 155–67. Print.

Hult, Christine. “Using On-line Portfolios to Assess English Majors at Utah State University.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 60–70. Print.

Huot, Brian. “Computers and Assessment: Understanding Two Technologies.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 231–43. Print.

Irvin, Lennie. “Reflection in the Electronic Writing Classroom.” Computers and Composition Online. 2005. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/irvin/Introduction.htm

Jafari, Ali. The ‘Sticky’ ePortfolio System: Tackling Challenges and Identifying Attributes.” EDUCAUSE Review (July/Aug. 2004): 38–48. Print.

Jafari, Ali, and Catherine Kaufman. Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. Print.

Johnson, Carol Siri. “The Analytic Assessment of Online Portfolios in Undergraduate Technical Communication: A Model.” Journal of Engineering Education 95.4 (2006): 279–87. Print.

Johnson, Glenn, and David DiBiase. “Keeping the Horse Before the Cart: Penn State’s E-Portfolio Initiative.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 4 (2004): 18–26. Print.

Kahn, Susan. “Linking Learning, Improvement, and Accountability: An Introduction to Electronic Institutional Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.135–58. Print.

_____. “Recommendations.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 217. Print.

Kaplan, Matthew. Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2013. Print.

Kelly, T. Mills. “Wired for Trouble? Creating a Hypermedia Course Portfolio.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.124–29. Print.

Ketcheson, Kathi. “Portland State University’s Electronic Institutional Portfolio: Strategy, Planning, and Assessment.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.178–91. Print.

_____. “Hands and Minds: Collaboration among Faculty and Institutional Researchers in Portland State University’s Portfolio Project.” Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 13.3 (2002): 22–9. Print.

Kim, Paul. “Perspectives on a Visual Map-Based Electronic Portfolio System.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 44–53. Print.

Kimball, Miles. “Database E-Portfolio Systems: A Critical Appraisal.” Computers and Composition. 22.4 (2005): 434–58. Print.

_____. The Web Portfolio Guide: Creating Electronic Portfolios for the Web. NY: Longman, 2003. Print.

Klages, Marisa A., and J. Elizabeth Clark. “New Worlds of Errors and Expectations: Basic Writers and Digital Assumptions.” Journal of Basic Writing 28.1 (2009): 32–49. Print.

Knadler, Stephen. “E-Racing Difference in E-Space: Black Female Subjectivity and the Web-Based Portfolio.” Computers and Composition 18.3 (2001): 235–55. Print.

Kryder, LeeAnne. “Eportfolios: Proving Competency and Building a Network.” Business Communication Quarterly 74.3 (2011): 333–41. Print.

Lorenzo, George, and John C. Ittelson. “An Overview of E-Portfolios.” EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. 1 Jan. 2005. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

_____. “An Overview of Institutional E-Portfolios.” EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. 1 Jan. 2005. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

_____. “Demonstrating and Assessing Student Learning with E-Portfolios.” EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. 2005. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Love, Douglas, Gerry McKean, and Paul Gathercoal. “Portfolios to Webfolios and Beyond: Levels of Maturation. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 2 (2004): 24–37. Print.

Lynch, Linda, and Pupung Purnawarman. “Electronic Portfolio Assessments In U.S. Educational and Instructional Technology Programs: Are They Supporting Teacher Education?” TechTrends 48 (2004): 50–56. Print.

Marcoul-Burlinson, Isabelle. “ePortfolio: Constructing Learning.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 168–79. Print.

Mason, Robin, Chris Pegler, and Martin Weller. “E-Portfolios: An Assessment Tool for Online Courses.” British Journal of Educational Technology 35.6 (Nov. 2004): 717–27. Print.

Mayers, Tim. “From Page to Screen (And Back): Portfolios, Daedalus, and the ‘Transitional Classroom.’”Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 147–54. Print.

McIntire-Strasburg, Janice. “The Flash or the Trash: Web Portfolios and Writing Assessment.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 6.2 (2001). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

McKee, Heidi A., and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, eds. Digital Writing: Assessment and Evaluation. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press, 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Milman, Natalie B., and Clare R. Kilbane. “Digital Teaching Portfolios: Catalysts for Fostering Authentic Professional Development.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Mullen, Laurie, William Bauer, and W. Webster Newbold. “Developing a University-Wide Electronic Portfolio System for Teacher Education.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 6.2 (2001). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

National Writing Project, with Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, Elese Eidman-Aadahl, and Troy Hicks. Because Digital Writing Matters: Improving Student Writing in Online and Multimedia Environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

O’Brien, Kathleen. “ePortfolios as Learning Construction Zones: Provost’s Perspective.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 74–82. Print.

Olds, Barbara M. and Ronald L. Miller. “Portfolio Assessment: Measuring Moving Targets at an Engineering School.” NCA Quarterly 71.4 (1997): 462–67. Print.

Pelliccione, Lina and Glenda Raison. “Promoting the Scholarship of Teaching Through Reflective E-Portfolios in Teacher Education.” Journal of Education for Teaching 35.3 (2009): 271–81. Print.

Peters, Martine, Jacques Chevrier, Raymond Leblanc, Gilles Fortin, and Judith Malette. Compétence réflexive, carte conceptuelle et webfolio à la formation des maîtres.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Plaisir, Jean, Alyse Hachey, and Rachel Theilheimer. “Their Portfolios, Our Role: Examining a Community College Teacher Education Digital Portfolio Program from the Students’ Perspective.” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 32.2 (2011): 159–75. Print.

Plater, William M. “The Promise of the Student Electronic Portfolio: A Provost’s Perspective.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 62–73. Print.

Pullman, George. “Electronic Portfolios Revisited: The eFolios Project.” Computers and Composition 19.2 (2002): 151–69. Print.

Purves, Alan C. “Electronic Portfolios.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 135–46. Print.

Reiss, Donna. “Reflective Webfolios in a Humanities Course.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 31-36. Print.

Rice, Richard. “Composing the Intranet-Based Electronic Portfolio Using ‘Common’ Tools.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 37–43. Print.

_____. Rev. of The Web Portfolio Guide: Creating Electronic Portfolios for the Web, by Miles A. Kimball. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 7.3 (2002). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

_____. Teaching and Learning First-Year Composition with Digital Portfolios. Diss. Ball State University, 2002. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://richrice.com/dissertation.pdf

Ryan, Tricia. “A Portrait of Academic Life: Creating an Outline Research Portfolio.” TechTrends 46.4 (2002): 44–48. Print.

Sandars, John. “Commentary: Electronic Portfolios for General Practitioners: The Beginning of an Exciting Future.” Education for Primary Care 16.5 (2005): 535–39. Print.

Selber, Stuart. “Institutional Dimensions of Academic Computing.” College Composition and Communication 61.1 (2009): 10–34. Print.

Shafrir, Uri, Masha Etkind, and Jutta Treviranus. “eLearning Tools for ePortfolios.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 206–16. Print.

Sherman, Greg. “Instructional Roles of Electronic Portfolios.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 1–14. Print.

Sherman, Greg, and Al Byers. “Electronic Portfolios in the Professional Development of Educators.” Adaptation, Resistance and Access to Instructional Technologies: Assessing Future Trends in Education. Ed. Steven D’Agustino. Hershey, PA:  IGI Global, 2010. 429–449. Print.

Smits, Han, HsingChi Wang, Jo Towers, Susan Crichton, Jim Field, and Pat Tarr. “Deepening Understanding of Inquiry Teaching and Learning with E-Portfolios in a Teacher Preparation Program.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Springfield, Emily. “A Major Redesign of the Kalamazoo Portfolio.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 53–59. Print.

_____. “Comparing Electronic and Paper Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 76–82. Print.

Stevenson, Heidi J. “Using ePortfolios to Foster Peer Assessment, Critical Thinking, and Collaboration.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 112–24. Print.

Sunal, Cynthia, Theresa McCormick, and Dennis Sunal. “Elementary Teacher Candidates’ Construction of Criteria for Selecting Social Studies Lesson Plans for Electronic Portfolios.” Journal of Social Studies Research 29.1 (2005): 7–17. Print.

Syverson, M.A. “Beyond Portfolios: The Learning Record Online.” 7 Jan. 2003. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www.learningrecord.org/

Takayoshi, Pamela. “The Shape of Electronic Writing: Evaluating and Assessing Computer-Assisted Writing Processes and Products.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 245–57. Print.

Tetreault, Mary Kathryn, and Kathi A. Ketcheson. “Creating a Shared Understanding of Institutional Knowledge through an Electronic Institutional Portfolio.” Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 13.3 (2002): 40–49. Print.

Tompkins, Daniel. “Ambassadors with Portfolios: Electronic Portfolios and the Improvement of Teaching.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 91–105. Print.

_____. “Ambassadors with Portfolios: Recommendations.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 130–31. Print.

Tosh, David, Tracy Penny Light, Kele Fleming, and Jeff Haywood. “Engagement with Electronic Portfolios: Challenges from the Student Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Tosh, David, and Ben Werdmuller. “Creation of a Learning Landscape: Weblogging and Social Networking in the Context of E-Portfolios.” Working paper. 15 July 2004. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Tosh, David, Ben Werdmuller, Helen L. Chen, Tracy Penny Light, and Jeff Haywood. “The Learning Landscape: A Conceptual Framework for ePortfolios.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. A. Jafari and C.W. Kaufman Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 24–32.

Treuer, Paul, and Jill Jenson. “Electronic Portfolios Need Standards to Thrive.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 2 (2003): 34–42. Print.

Tulley, Christine. “Migration Patterns: A Status Report on the Transition from Paper to Eportfolios and the Effect on Multimodal Composition Initiatives.” Computers and Composition 30.2 (2013): 101–14. Print.

van Wesel, Maarten, and Anouk Prop. “The Influence of Portfolio Media on Student Perceptions and Learning Outcomes.” Symposium on Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING overcome barriers of Life-Long learning? Masstrict, The Netherlands. 19–20 Nov. 2008. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Wade, Anne, Phillip Abrami, and Jennifer Sclater. “An Electronic Portfolio to Support Learning.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Wall, Beverly C., and Robert F. Peltier. “‘Going Public’ with Electronic Portfolios: Audience, Community, and the Terms of Student Ownership.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 207–17. Print.

Walz, Phil. “An Overview of Student ePortfolio Functions.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 194–205. Print.

Watson, Steve. “World Wide Web Authoring in the Portfolio-Assessed, (Inter)Networked Composition Course.” Computers and Composition 10.2 (1996): 219–30. Print.

Werner, Courtney. “Dear Professor X: This is Not My Best Work. Multimodal Composition Meets e-Portfolio.” Computers and Composition Online (2013). Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/WernerPortfolios/HomePort.html

Wexler, Judie. “The Role of Institutional Portfolios in the Revised WASC Accreditation Process.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 209–16. Print.

Williams, Julia M. “Evaluating What Students Know: Using the RosE Portfolio System for Institutional and Program Outcomes Assessment Tutorial.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 53.1 (2010): 46–57. Print.

Wills, Katherine V., and Richard Aaron Rice. ePortfolio Performance Support Systems: Constructing, Presenting, and Assessing Portfolios. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2013. Print.

Whithaus, Carl. “A Review of Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 7.1 (Spring 2002). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

_____. “Green Squiggly Lines: Evaluating Student Writing in Computer Mediated Environments.” Academic.Writing: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Writing Across the Curriculum (2002). Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/articles/whithaus2002/.

Whithaus, Carl, and Mary Beth Lakin. “Working (on) Electronic Portfolios: Connections between Work and Study.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 9.2 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Wilferth, Joseph. “Private Literacies, Popular Culture, and Going Public: Teachers and Students as Authors of the Electronic Portfolio.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 7.2 (Summer 2002). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Wilson, Elizabeth, Vivian Wright, and Joyce Stallworth. “Secondary Preservice Teachers’ Development of Electronic Portfolios: An Examination of Perceptions.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 11.4 (2003): 515–27. Print.

Worley, Rebecca B. “Eportfolios Examined: Tools for Exhibit and Evaluation.” Business Communication Quarterly 74.3 (2011): 330–32. Print.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Digitalized Student Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 15–30. Print.

_____. “Electronic Portfolios and Writing Assessment: A Work in Progress.” Assessment in Writing (Assessment in the Disciplines, Vol. 4). Ed. Marie C. Paretti and Katrina M. Powell. Tallahassee, TN: Association of Institutional Researchers, 2009. 182–206. Print.

_____. “General Patterns and the Future.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 83–87. Print.

_____. “Portfolio, Electronic, and the Links Between.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 129–33. Print.

_____. “Postmodernism, Palimpsest, and Portfolios: Theoretical Issues in the Representation of Student Work.” College Composition and Communication. 55.4 (2004): 738–61. Print.

_____. “The Rhetorical Situation of Writing Assessment: Exigence, Location, and the Making of Knowledge.” Writing Assessment in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of Edward M. White. Ed. Norbert Elliot and Les Perelman. New York: Hampton Press, 2012. 475–92. Print.

Young, Jeffrey. “Creating Online Portfolios Can Help Students See ‘Big Picture,’ Colleges Say.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 21 Feb. 2002. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Zalatan, Katrina. “Electronic Portfolios in a Management Major Curriculum.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 44–52. Print.

Zembal-Saul, Carle, Leigh Haefner, Lucy Avraamidou, Mary Severs, and Tom Dana. “Web-Based Portfolios: A Vehicle for Examining Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Developing Understandings of Teaching Science.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 13.4 (2002): 283–302. Print.

Zubizarreta, John. The Learning Portfolio: Reflective Practice for Improving Student Learning. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009. Print.

Some Relevant Sources on Reflection

Blackburn, Jessica L., and Milton D. Hakel. “Enhancing Self-Regulation and Goal Orientation with ePortfolios.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 83–89. Print.

Brookfield, Stephen. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995. Print.

Doig, Bob, Barbara Illsley, Joseph McLuckie, and Richard Parsons. “Using ePortfolios to Enhance Reflective Learning and Development.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 158–67. Print.

Granville, Stella, and Laura Dison. “Making Connections Through Reflection: Writing and Feedback in an Academic Literacy Programme.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 27.1 (2009): 53–63. Print.

Journet, Debra, Tabetha Adkins, Chris Alexander, Patrick Corbett, Ryan Trauman. “Digital Mirrors: Multimodal Reflection in the Composition Classroom.” Computers and Composition Online (Spring 2008). Web. 5 Mar. 2015. http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/ed_welcome/spring2008.html

Jung, Julie. “Reflective Writing’s Synecdochic Imperative: Process Descriptions Redescribed.” College English 73.6 (2011): 628–47. Print.

Mills, Roxanne. “‘It’s Just a Nuisance’: Improving College Student Reflective Journal Writing.” College Student Journal 42.2 (2008): 684–90. Print.

Riedinger, Bonnie. “Mining for Meaning: Teaching Students How to Reflect.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 90–101. Print.

Robertson, Liane, Kara Taczak, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. “Notes toward a Theory of Prior Knowledge and Its Role in College Composers’ Transfer of Knowledge and Practice.” Composition Forum 26 (Fall 2012). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Rodgers, Carol. “Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking.” Teachers College Record 104.4 (2002): 842–66. Print.

Schon, Donald. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987. Print.

_____. “Causality and Causal Inference in the Study of Organizations.” Rethinking Knowledge: Reflections Across the Disciplines. Ed. Robert Goodman and Walter Fisher. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. 69–103. Print.

Scott, Tony. “Creating the Subject of Portfolios: Reflective Writing and the Conveyance of Institutional Prerogatives.” Written Communication 22.1 (2005): 3–35. Print.

Yancey, Kathleen. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1998. Print.

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

CCCC has developed position statements on a variety of education issues vital to the teaching and learning of writing.  Characteristically, a position statement is a short summary of what is currently known about an issue and the organizational beliefs about that issue.  Generally, in addition, the statements include the history and background of the issue, the exigency for the statement, supporting information, and a short reference list.  Statements also often include implied suggestions for putting recommendations to practice.

Position statements result from the work of a CCCC Executive Committee- commissioned task force that researches a proposed issue, drafts and revises a position statement, and presents the revised position statement to the Executive Committee for its approval in order to represent the organization at large.

Because policy statements are documents of the entire CCCC organization, they cannot be originated by one individual. CCCC member groups who have an issue about which they would like to propose a statement should first check with the CCCC Chair or Administrative Liaison for suggestions, support, and information about whether the issue is already addressed elsewhere (NCTE position statements, for example).

Issues that are addressed by position statements come to the forefront of CCCC concern in a variety of ways:

1. A position can stem from a resolution or sense of the house motion passed at an Annual Business Meeting.
2. A position could be the result of a Strategic Governance motion passed by the CCCC EC (i.e. they’ve researched an issue for a year and decided CCCC’s best course of action is a position statement on that issue).
3. A position could come out of an already existing committee that suggests the need for a statement to the CCCC EC.  
4. A position could be written if there is a feeling among the Officers and/or the EC that there is some exigency for such a statement.  An example of this is the Statement on the Multiple Uses of Writing.  Sometimes the exigency is presented to an Officer or EC member by a CCCC member, an NCTE staff member, or simply through the natural course of information sharing within the organization.

Return to the main CCCC Position Statement page.

by the Conference on College Composition and Communication
(May 1998, revised May 2016, revised June 2021)

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), composed of 5,100 scholars who teach at colleges and universities across the nation, is deeply committed to the development of literacy for all students. The “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” resolution and the “National Language Policy,” passed by CCCC in 1974 and 1988 respectively, continue to be strong organizational statements for appropriate pedagogies to ensure that all students are afforded the same opportunities to realize their potential as learners and citizens. Given continuing myths and misconceptions in the media and in the nation’s schools about the language many African American students use, the public deserves a statement reflective of the viewpoints of language and literacy scholars on Ebonics.

Ebonics is a superordinate term for a category of Black Language forms that derive from common historical, social, cultural, and material conditions. It refers to language forms such as African American Language, Jamaican Creole, Gullah Creole, West African Pidgin English, and Haitian Creole, as well as Afro-Euro language varieties spoken in European countries. The term “Ebonics” was created by Black psychologist Dr. Robert Williams in 1973 to identify the various languages created by Africans forced to adapt to colonization and enslavement (Williams, 1975).

The variety of Ebonics spoken by African Americans in the United States—known as Black English Vernacular, African American English, U. S. Ebonics, African American Language, among other names—reflects a distinctive language system that many African American students use in daily conversation and in the performance of academic tasks. Like every other linguistic system, the Ebonics of African American students is systematic and rule governed, and it is not an obstacle to learning. The obstacle lies in negative attitudes toward the language, lack of information about the language, inefficient techniques for teaching language and literacy skills, and an unwillingness to adapt teaching styles to the needs of Ebonics speakers.

Brief, Selective Historical Walk through Ebonics

We offer the following summary for readers interested in the issue of U. S. Ebonics over the centuries, including attendant language education issues. In 1554, William Towerson, an Englishman, took five Africans to England to learn English and serve as interpreters in the slave trade and in Britain’s colonization campaign on the west coast of Africa. Three of them returned to the African Gold Coast in 1557. “It is reasonable to accept this as the date from which the African use of English began” (Dalby, 1970, pp. 11–12). During the centuries of enslavement and colonization, “Negro English” (and other Ebonic language forms) was primarily of interest to historians and folklore scholars, the former principally concerned with the linguistic origins of the language (e.g., Harrison, 1884; Krapp, 1924; Mencken, 1936), the latter with what was perceived as its exotic appeal (e.g., Bennett, 1909; Gonzales, 1922). Although these early scholars acknowledged the African language origin of the U. S. variety of Ebonics, most considered the Africanness pathological, inferior, and “baby talk” (Harrison). Gullah Blacks were considered “slovenly and careless of speech” with “clumsy tongues, flat noses and thick lips” (Gonzales). A critical exception in the early twentieth century was Black linguist Lorenzo Dow Turner, born in North Carolina in 1895. Turner’s lifelong study of the Gullah language was motivated by a chance encounter with two Gullah women students in his class at South Carolina State College in Orangesburg (Holloway and Vass, “Lorenzo Dow Turner: A Biographical Dedication,” 1993, p. ix).  Believed to be the first U. S. Black linguist, Turner mastered several African languages to help him in his quest to uncover the origin and system of Gullah and other varieties of U. S. Ebonics. His decades of research on Ebonics, which included making his own phonograph recordings of speech in Gullah communities, was published in his Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect in 1949. Countering the “baby talk” and intellectual inferiority myths about Black Language and its speakers, he described linguistic processes such as sound substitutions of Africanizing English, which resulted under conditions of foreign language acquisition and the experience of enslavement and neo-enslavement. He thus demonstrated the African language background of Gullah and its connection to other varieties of U. S. Ebonics.

The legacy of Beryl Bailey, believed to be the first Black woman linguist, is critical to this twentieth-century historical account of Ebonics. Bailey was the first linguist to apply Chomsky’s new syntactic theory paradigm (known in those years as “Transformational-Generative Grammar”) to an analysis of Ebonics, in this case to her native Jamaican Creole. She published her work in Jamaican Creole Syntax: A Transformational Approach in 1966. Professor and Chair in the Black and Puerto Rican Studies Department at Hunter College in New York, Bailey theorized and was beginning to validate the conception of a Black linguistic continuum from the Caribbean to the United States (“Toward a New Perspective in Negro English Dialectology,” 1965). However, this line of research was cut short by her untimely death.

In Colonial America and after 1776 in the United States of America, there was no concern about the denial of education to Africans. Education was not essential to the performance of slave labor; in fact, there were laws making it illegal to teach the enslaved to read and write. Then, in the post-Emancipation era, Jim Crow emerged and with it the establishment of “separate but equal” education. Hence, the relationship between U. S. Ebonics and the education of U. S. slave descendants only began to be addressed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and the subsequent push for school desegregation and equality of education for African Americans. Further, it was not until the emergence of the Black Freedom Struggle of this era that White scholars began to publish scientific, linguistic studies of the rule-governed system of U. S. Ebonics (e.g., Stewart, 1967; Dillard, 1967; Labov, 1970).

The pedagogical issue in the latter half of the twentieth century and continuing into this second decade of the twenty-first century continues to be how to achieve maximum language and literacy skills for African American students who use U. S. Ebonics, in speech and in writing, and in and outside of the classroom—and at the same time, enhance their sociocultural, intellectual self-esteem and community rootedness. This challenge was addressed in the King v. Ann Arbor federal court case (1977–79) and in the Oakland, California School Board’s Ebonics Resolution (1996), available here: https://www.linguistlist.org/topics/ebonics/ebonics-res1.html.

From King v. Ann Arbor to the Oakland Ebonics Resolution

The King ruling established the legitimacy of African American Language/ “Black English” within a legal framework and mandated the Ann Arbor School District to take “appropriate action” to teach the Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary school children to read in the [standardized English] of the school, the commercial world, the arts, science, and the professions.”

—Smitherman, 2006, p.12

The parents of the children in the Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School who brought a federal lawsuit against the Ann Arbor School District were a small group of single female heads of households. While there were some other Black children at King School, they were middle class, like the White children at King School. The children from the Green Road housing project, being both Black and poor, were thus a minority within a minority at King School. Their U.S. Ebonics presented a variety of English that King School teachers had negative attitudes toward, and these teachers had not been trained to teach the “three R’s”—and reading was crucial for the mothers of these children—to young children who did not use Standardized English in the classroom. Because of their language—“Black English”/U. S. Ebonics—the children were classified as learning disabled and assigned to speech correction classes. Judge Charles Joiner ruled in the parents’ favor, finding that the Ann Arbor School District had failed to provide equal educational opportunity to the children by not “taking into account” the language barrier presented by their “Black English.” The mandated remedy was ongoing training for the teachers at King School.

In the case of the Oakland, California Unified School District, Blacks were not a minority. Rather, they comprised 53% of the school district population. Students K–12 were all adversely affected by Oakland’s lack of a language education policy around the issue of Ebonics. The Resolution sought to address the problem by providing education in Ebonics, using the students’ primary/home language as a bridge to teaching them “Standard English.” This is the situation of twenty-first-century African American students in urban districts nationwide. (See United States Senate Hearing on Ebonics, available here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-105shrg39641/pdf/CHRG-105shrg39641.pdf.)

Despite the national uproar and negative, distorted media treatment around Oakland’s Ebonics Resolution, the District was on the right track, according to UNESCO, for example—that is, using the students’ home/mother tongue to teach them language and literacy skills.

The Way Forward

Teachers, administrators, counselors, supervisors, and curriculum developers must undergo training to provide them with adequate knowledge about Ebonics and help them overcome the prevailing stereotypes about the language and learning potential of African American students (and others) who speak Ebonics. CCCC thus strongly advocates new research and teaching that will build on existing knowledge about Ebonics to help students value their linguistic-cultural heritage, maintain Black identity, and to read, write, speak, and listen with critical discernment and power.

Ebonics reflects the Black experience and conveys Black traditions and socially real truths. Black Languages are crucial to Black identity. Black Language sayings, such as “What goes around comes around,” are crucial to Black ways of being in the world. Black Languages, like Black lives, matter.

Bailey, B. (1965). Toward a new perspective in Negro English dialectology. American Speech, 40(3), 171–77.

Bailey, B. (1966). Jamaican Creole syntax: A transformational approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, J. (1909). Gullah: A Negro patois. South Atlantic Quarterly, 8, 39–52.

Dalby, D. (1970). Black through white: Patterns of communication. Bloomington, IN:  Indiana University Press.

Dillard, J. L. (1967). Negro children’s dialect in the inner city. The Florida FL Reporter, Fall, 2–4.

Gonzales, A. (1922). The Black border: Gullah stories of the Carolina Coast. Columbia, SC: The State Company.

Harrison, J. A. (1884). Negro English. Anglia, 7, 232–79.

Holloway, J. E., & Vass, W. K. (1993). Lorenzo Dow Turner: A biographical dedication. The African heritage of American English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Krapp, G. (1924). The English of the Negro. The American Mercury, 2, 190–95.

Labov, W. (1970). The logic of non-standard English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Mencken, H. L. (1936 [1919]). The American language. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Smitherman, G. (2006). Word from the mother: Language and African Americans. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stewart, W. A. (1967). Sociolinguistic factors in the history of American Negro dialects. Florida FL Reporter, Spring, 2–4.

Turner, L. D. (1949). Africanisms in the Gullah dialect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Williams, R. L. (ed.) (1975). Ebonics: The true language of Black folks. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Black Studies; reissued, 1997, by Robert L. Williams and Associates.

Suggested Work on African American Language and Literacy Pedagogy

Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting issues and revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. Educational Researcher, 34(7), 24–31.

Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and race in the U. S. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baker-Bell, A. (2013). “I never really knew the history behind African American language”: Critical language pedagogy in an Advanced Placement English language arts class. In K. C. Turner & D. Ives (Eds.), Social justice approaches to African American language and literacy practices [Special issue]. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 355–370.

Carpenter Ford, A. (2013). “Verbal ping pong” as culturally congruent communication: Maximizing African American students’ access and engagement as socially just teaching. In K. C. Turner & D. Ives (Eds.), Social justice approaches to African American language and literacy practices [Special issue]. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 371–386.

Gilyard, K., & Richardson, E. (2001). Students’ right to possibility: Basic writing and African American rhetoric. In A. Greenbaum (Ed.), Insurrections: Approaches to resistance in composition studies (pp. 37–51). Albany, NY: SUNY University Press.

Haddix, M. (2015). Cultivating racial and linguistic diversity in literacy teacher education: Teachers like me. New York, NY, & Urbana, IL: Routledge & National Council of Teachers of English.

Jackson, A., Michel, T., Sheridan, D., & Stumpf, B. (2001). Making connections in the contact zones: Towards a critical praxis of rap music and hip hop culture. In H. S. Alim (Ed.), Hip hop culture: Language, literature, literacy and the lives of Black youth [Special issue]. Black Arts Quarterly, 21–26.

Kinloch, V. (2015). Urban literacies. In J. Rowsell & K. Pahl (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of literacy studies (pp. 140–156). London, England: Routledge.

Kinloch, V. (2010). Harlem on our minds: Place, race, and the literacies of Urban youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kirkland, D. E. (2013). A search past silence: The literacy of young Black men. New York, NY, & London, England: Teachers College Press.

Kirkland, D., & Jackson, A. (2009). “We real cool”: Toward a theory of Black masculine literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 278–297.

Kynard, C. (2013). Vernacular insurrections: Race, Black protest, and the new century in composition-literacies studies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.

Morrell, E., & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth through engaging hip-hop culture. English Journal, 91(6), 88–92.

Muhammad, G. E. (2015). Searching for full vision: Writing representations of African American adolescent girls. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 224–247.

Paris, D. (2012). Language across difference: Ethnicity, communication, and youth identities in changing urban schools. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Perryman-Clark, S. (2012). Ebonics and composition: Extending disciplinary conversations to first-year writing students. Journal of Teaching Writing, 27(2), 47–70.

Rickford, J., Sweetland, J., Rickford, A., & Grano, T. (2012). African American, Creole, and other vernacular Englishes in education: A bibliographic resource. New York, NY, & Urbana, IL: Routledge & National Council of Teachers of English.

Rickford, J., Sweetland, J., & Rickford, A. (2004). African American English and other vernaculars in education: A topic-coded bibliography. Journal of English Linguistics, 32(3), 230–320.

Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that talk: Language and education in Black America. New York, NY: Routledge.

Smitherman, G., & Baugh, J. (2002). The shot heard from Ann Arbor: Language research and public policy in African America. Howard Journal of Communication, 13(1), 5–24.

Williams, B. (2013). Students’ “write” to their own language: Teaching the African American verbal tradition as a rhetorically effective writing skill. In K. C. Turner & D. Ives (Eds.), Social justice approaches to African American language and literacy practices [Special issue]. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 411–427.

Young, V., Barrett, R., Young-Rivera, Y., & Lovejoy, K. B. (2014). Other people’s English: Code-meshing, code-switching, and African American literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

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

Email Questions

1. A call for Resolutions will appear in the February issue of College Composition and Communication. Proposed resolutions received by the chair of the Resolutions Committee two weeks before the conference require the signature of only five conference members; however, additional signatures are welcome as a means of indicating the base of support for the resolution.
       
2. The function of the Resolutions Committee is to review all resolutions presented and to prepare resolutions of its own in areas in which it or the Executive Committee believes conference action is needed. Special attention will be given to including areas covered in sense-of-the-house motions passed at the last Annual Business Meeting. In reviewing resolutions, the Resolutions Committee is responsible for combining all resolutions that duplicate one another in substance and for editing all resolutions.  

   The Resolutions committee will report all properly submitted resolutions to the Annual Business Meeting with a recommendation for action.  

   Resolutions that call for conference action in the areas in which the CCCC Constitution assigns authority to the officers or the Executive Committee will be clearly labeled as advisory to the officers or the Executive Committee.

   Resolutions of appreciation may be prepared by the CCCC officers and may be presented by the Resolutions Committee.

   The Resolutions Committee will hold an open meeting during the Special Interest Group time period to clarify and discuss these resolutions with concerned conference members. It is especially urgent that the authors of resolutions or their delegates come to this meeting. Although no new resolutions may be added at this time, members suggesting additional resolutions will be informed that they may introduce sense-of-the-house motions at the Annual Business Meeting in accordance with the rule give in item 4 below. The Resolutions Committee will also have a closed meeting after the open meeting to make such editorial and substantive changes as the deliberations of the open meeting may suggest.
       

3. As necessary, resolutions will be retyped so that complex changes will be incorporated into the copies of the resolutions distributed at the Annual Business Meeting.

   During the report of the Resolutions Committee at the Annual Business Meeting, one member of the committee will read the “resolved” portion of each resolution and move its adoption. Adoption will require only a simple majority of members present. Action will be taken on each resolution before the next resolution is presented.

   The CCCC officers at their post-convention session will determine the dissemination of, and the action to be taken on, all resolutions adopted.
       

4. Members may offer sense-of-the-house motions for discussion and action. Such motions, if passed, will be announced to CCCC members, not as official CCCC statements, but as the will of the majority of members at the Annual Business Meeting. Sense-of-the-house motions can affect action by the Executive committee, or by another appropriate CCCC body, as well as become the substance of a resolution at the next annual convention. In order to be considered, sense-of-the-house motions of no more than 50 words must be presented in writing (three copies) to the chair of the Annual Business Meeting before the adoption of the agenda.

Email Questions

The following resolutions were passed at the CCCC Annual Business Meeting held on Saturday, April 9, 2016, in Houston.

Resolution 1

Whereas, in the spirit of activism and public engagement emerging from her scholarship in assessment, basic writing, and writing program administration, Linda Adler-Kassner has reimagined the CCCC Annual Convention as a catalytic converter for public action and a celebration of our diversity, creating a rich forum for composition scholars/teachers not only to share their theories and practices through posters, workshops, and presentations, but also to practice public scholarship and advocacy in venues such as the Taking Action Workshops and the Pitch Practicing, Knowledge Shaping, and Writing for Change stations in the Action Hub, not to mention the whiteboards, suggestion postcards, and Closing Plenary Session that will synthesize all the Taking Action suggestions;

Whereas she has connected with convention presenters and attendees through social media to tell the emerging story of CCCC 2016 and energize presenters and attendees for this signature event, setting the bar even higher for future conference chairs;

Whereas we all spent time with Linda in her office as she delivered key information to us in her informational videos, spoke directly to each of us whenever there was a key deadline, process, or idea that needed to be translated or communicated, and encouraged us to ask questions;

Whereas we can see the tangible evidence of change in every convention space, and we have seen her everywhere; and

Whereas she has done all this work in a spirit of generosity, goodwill, and collaboration;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2016 Conference on College Composition and Communication thank Linda Adler-Kassner for her many contributions to us and to the profession.

Resolution 2

Whereas in the spirit of inclusiveness and in response to Houston’s vote to abolish the Houston Equal Rights Ordinance, the Local Arrangements Committee moved to build and foment connections between our organization and members of the Houston LGBTQ community;  

Whereas the local committee designed and curated a web guide that facilitated convention attendees’ exploration of Houston’s identity through its businesses, neighborhoods, and other cultural centers; and

Whereas in the spirit of accessibility, the Local Arrangements Committee collaborated with the Committee on Disability Issues in College Composition to ensure that the 2016 CCCC was an accessible convention by providing an accessibility guide, producing a video on how to use the accessibility guide, as well as encouraging presenters to consider how they could make their presentations accessible and advocating that future CCCC conventions be accessible;  

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2016 Conference on College Composition and Communication thank its Local Arrangements Committee co-chair Jen Wingard and committee members Geneva Canino, Casie Cobos, TJ Geiger, Allison Laubach-Wright, and Nathan Shepley and applaud their efforts.

Resolution 3

Whereas the Indianapolis Resolution, a collaboratively drafted resolution reenvisioning the Wyoming Resolution, provides a needed response to unfair labor practices experienced by contingent labor and other writing instructors;

Whereas the majority of postsecondary writing instruction is the responsibility of contingent labor who need and deserve the support of our professional organization; and

Whereas, as of March 2016, the Indianapolis Resolution has received well over 300 endorsements, including current members of the Conference on College Composition and Communication Executive Committee and several other former members and officers;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that:

• We ask that the chair commit to appointing a member to an interorganizational labor board in keeping with Section A of the Indianapolis Resolution.
• We ask CCCC to work with relevant committees, task forces, and the general membership to mentor graduate students and contingent faculty on the realities of our labor conditions.
• We ask CCCC journal editors and convention organizers to encourage labor-oriented research in keeping with Section C of the Indianapolis Resolution.

Resolution 4

Whereas the contingent status of an increasing cadre of writing instructors is seemingly entrenched in our institutions; and

Whereas advocates for contingent writing faculty often need support on an ad hoc basis;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Conference on College Composition and Communication dedicate a liaison for contingency issues (e.g., fair labor standards, unemployment insurance claims, legal issues related to hiring/nonrenewals).

Resolution 5

Whereas contingent faculty often receive low pay for their work and are often precluded from summer teaching;

Whereas contingent faculty may lose teaching assignments at the last minute, thus making it impossible to find replacement work; and

Whereas many universities and unemployment offices invoke “reasonable assurance of continued employment” as grounds to deny unemployment claims between academic terms;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Conference on College Composition and Communication Chairperson issue a statement affirming that faculty on contingent appointments do not have “reasonable assurance of continued employment.”

Resolution 6

Whereas the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) collects employment data for tenure-track/tenured (TT/T) faculty but much less systematically for non-tenure-track (NTT) faculty; and

Whereas more complete employment data for NTT faculty improve advocacy efforts at the department, college, campus, and national levels;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Conference on College Composition and Communication call for NCES to reinstate the National Survey of Postsecondary Faculty (and to collect the same employment data through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System) for part­time and full­time NTT faculty as it does for TT/T faculty.

Resolution 7

Whereas laws such as the Affordable Care Act and the Public Student Loan Forgiveness Act stipulate minimum number of hours worked per week in order to determine eligibility based on guidelines that institutions sometimes use to report actual hours to the IRS and Department of Labor; and

Whereas CCCC is best positioned to articulate the ratio of in-class/out-of-class hours worked based on research and best practices in writing instruction;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Conference on College Composition and Communication articulate a minimum acceptable ratio of in-class/out-of-class hours worked for the purposes of calculations to determine eligibility for both health insurance and public student loan forgiveness.

The following resolutions were passed at the CCCC Annual Business Meeting held on Saturday, March 22, 2014, in Indianapolis.

Resolution 1

Whereas Adam Banks has worked as program chair to ensure all the voices in the profession are provided a platform to share their traditions and insights, especially helping us see the opportunities in the changing landscapes of technology, media, disabilities issues, LGBQT issues, rhetoric, and other venues;

Whereas he has organized our time together to foster dialogue not only among ourselves, but also with organizations and diverse individuals whose work and insights can inform our classroom and disciplinary practices, as well as our hearts and minds;

Whereas his scholarship in African American rhetoric and new media helps us see tradition and the future in new ways, and whereas his teaching inspires ways of envisioning tradition and theory to inspire a generation of young scholars; and

Whereas he has done all this work in a spirit of generosity, goodwill, collaboration, and swag;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2014 Conference on College Composition and Communication express our deep appreciation to Adam Banks for his many contributions to us and to the profession.

Resolution 2

Whereas Tracy Donhardt and the Local Arrangements Committee have provided a remarkably comprehensive Hospitality Guide that informs convention attendees of entertainment, cultural, edible, and drinkable options in Indianapolis;

Whereas Tracy Donhardt and the Local Arrangements Committee members have made themselves readily available to attendees as resources for getting around the city and the convention;

Whereas Tracy Donhardt and the Local Arrangements Committee have included a section of the guide specifically to provide information on a variety of gender-friendly nightlife options;

Whereas Tracy Donhardt and the Local Arrangements Committee have followed in the long tradition of helping convention attendees have satisfying experiences with the convention and in this year’s location of Indianapolis; and

Whereas Tracy Donhardt and many members of the Local Arrangements Committee have made these contributions to support us at the convention in spite of the limited support generally afforded contingent faculty;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2014 Conference on College Composition and Communication express our deep appreciation to Tracy Donhardt and the Local Arrangements Committee by applauding their energy and efforts.

The following resolutions and sense of the house motions were passed at the CCCC Annual Business Meeting held on Saturday, April 5, 2008, in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Resolution 1

Whereas open source software is freely distributed software with open, accessible code that can be readily improved upon by communities; and

Whereas open source software has the potential to control spiraling technology costs because software and upgrades are often free; and

Whereas open source software allows teachers, students, and institutions to participate in customizing software according to the specific, situated needs of a program or institution; and

Whereas open source software development permits collaboration with other institutions and organizations in its creation and maintenance; and

Whereas investment in open source software can prevent vendor lock dependence, that is, dependence upon one software company because it controls maintenance, development, and support; and

Whereas the open source development model parallels the academic model of knowledge creation and distribution; and

Whereas open source embodies a set of principles in which collaboration, peer review, and public knowledge are highly valued; and

Whereas investment in open source software development by institutions results in software which can be freely shared with all of education with the benefits described above;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Conference on College Composition and Communication support consideration of and strategic use of open source software whenever possible; will explore the use of open source software within its own organization and recommend that educators, institutions, and other educational organizations do the same; will educate CCCC’s members about the results of CCCC initiatives to use open source software; and will inform CCCC’s members about the associated costs of any open source implementation by CCCC.

Resolution 2

Whereas T.R. Johnson and the local arrangements committee invited us to “take the boat to the land of dreams” and “steam down the river down to New Orleans” and made sure that the band was “there to meet us/Old friends to greet us”;

Whereas they opened to us “Basin Street—Where black and white meet/In New Orleans, the land of dreams,” a city now dear to all of us, a home revived and reviving, soon to be thriving, where we celebrate our common bonds;

Whereas we acknowledge that providing local arrangements for several thousand writing teachers and rhetoricians is not an easy task, even in the Big Easy; and

Whereas T.R. Johnson and the Local Arrangements Committee gave us incomparable recommendations on local food, music, art, museums, and tourist attractions, making our stay in New Orleans truly one to be remembered;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2008 Conference on College Composition and Communication applaud T. R. Johnson and the Local Arrangements Committee for their hard work and generous hospitality.  Laissez les bon temps rouler!

Resolution 3

Whereas Charles Bazerman has over the last thirty years been Involved in Constructing Experience, Shaping Written Knowledge, creating Informed Readers of All of Us, Side-by-Side, examining What Writing Does and How It Does It, and leading us as we strive toward Writing Selves, and Writing Societies;

Whereas he has in the 2008 Conference on College Composition and Communication asked us to (re)examine “Writing Realities, Changing Realities,” challenging us both to write and change our own and others’ realities in the midst of a city whose reality is written on, by, and through its people, its traditions, and its geographies and whose realities are indeed changing; and

Whereas, we all strive to meet his challenge and embrace his vision by emulating his humanity, civic responsibility, intellectual acuity, fancy footwork, and commitment to the profession;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 59th CCCC Annual Convention Conference on College Composition and Communication warmly and respectfully thank Charles Bazerman for his leadership and service to the profession.

The following resolutions and sense of the house motions were passed at the CCCC Annual Business Meeting held on Saturday, March 24, 2007, in New York City.

Resolution 1

Whereas, in 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau began categorizing individuals and families as “linguistically isolated” if their household is one in which no member l4 years old and over (1) speaks only English or (2) speaks a non-English language and speaks English “very well” [Source; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 3, Matrices P19, P20, PCT13, and PCT14]; and

Whereas there is no threat to the primacy of English, since 82% of the U.S. population speaks only English at home and more than two-thirds of those who do speak a language other than English at home, primarily Spanish speakers, also speak English “well” or “very well” (2000 Census); and

Whereas the Census does not ask about proficiency in any language except English, even though multilingualism is a valued norm in most communities worldwide, and even though every national study of education in the U.S. decries the failure of most of the U.S. population to speak a second language, including the failure of immigrants’ children to keep their heritage language; and

Whereas a widespread and growing English-only ideology, fostered by misinformation about the desire and ability of immigrants to speak English, has led numerous states to declare English their official language, thus denying bilingual services and/or making it illegal to teach children in their heritage language even when they are also taught in English; and

Whereas increasing linguistic intolerance and linguistic profiling in housing, employment, education, health, and child custody cases have been documented throughout the U.S.; and

Whereas the term “linguistically isolated” conveys the false and damaging view that people who do not speak English “very well” have no contact with English speakers and/or are outside the pale of U.S. society; and

Whereas the Census Bureau’s application of the term “linguistically isolated” to all members of a family, in which no one over the age of l4 speaks English “very well,” incorrectly categorizes the children in those families under the age of l4 who do speak English very well; and

Whereas the Census Bureau categorizes as “isolated” only the small percentage of households in the U.S. where adults have some difficulty with English, rather than the majority of households in which only English is spoken;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Conference on College Composition and Communication join the American Anthropological Association and other professional organizations in urging the Census Bureau to include on the long-form questionnaire a question about proficiency in languages other than English.  Further, we urge that the Census Bureau discontinue classifying those who speak English less than “very well”–and all members of their household–as “linguistically isolated” because the term is inaccurate and discriminatory, and the classification promotes an ideology of linguistic superiority that foments linguistic intolerance and conflict.

Resolution 2

Where as Cheryl Glenn’s identities as Program Chair, grandmother, sister, rhetorician and scholar, and Jon’s girlfriend has helped us understand what matters; and

Whereas we are well acquainted with Cheryl’s kindness, gentleness, collegial generosity, great good humor, and willingness to share her cake; and

Whereas her scholarship on women, on rhetoric, and on the power of silence has inspired us; and

Whereas this conference in the heart of New York City has paid special attention to newcomers, graduate students, and international scholars and has allowed so many CCCC colleagues to represent their identities through reading, writing, speaking, listening, and silence;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2007 Conference on College Composition and Communication thank Cheryl Glenn for her many gifts to us and to the profession.

Resolution 3

Whereas Paul Puccio and the Local Arrangements Committee have assembled a rich list of New York’s historical, cultural, and entertainment attractions; and

Whereas Paul Puccio and the Local Arrangements Committee have provided an intellectually rewarding, professionally valuable, and socially pleasurable conference; and

Whereas Paul has revealed to us in his own gentle and polite way his vision of the New York skyline from the vantage point of his own New Jersey terrace and delivered it to us in song; and

Whereas Paul Puccio thus has developed commendable expertise for the career he will assume upon retirement;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2007 Conference on College Composition and Communication applaud Paul Puccio and the Local Arrangements Committee for their hard work and generous hospitality.

Resolution 4

Whereas we appreciate Akua Duku Anokye’s steady attention to issues of representation, community, and honesty within our organization and the profession; and

Whereas she has taught us to pay attention to the voices we hear and to appreciate the company we keep; and

Whereas she takes a little bit of New York with her everywhere she goes; and

Whereas she has the rare ability to be sincere and gracious and smart all at once; and

Where as she will soon be a grandmother and will pass along the gift of stories and the strength of women;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the 2007 Conference on College Composition and Communication thank Akua Duku Anokye for her leadership and service to the profession.

Sense of the House Motions

S1. Even though the Committee on the Status of Women originally did not ask to be reconstituted, it now supports our motion urging the CCCC Executive Committee to reconstitute the Committee on the Status of Women with a streamlined charge.  This committee provides an essential component of the governance structure promoting strategic conversations about the social, political and economic conditions for women.

S2. CCCC should:

1. Support consideration of and strategic use of open source software whenever possible;
2. Explore use of open source software within its own organization;
3. Encourage and support CCCC members pursuing open source alternatives; and
4. Educate CCCC’s members about the results of these initiatives, including associated costs.

Call for Resolutions

The Chair of the 2024 CCCC Resolutions Committee, urges all CCCC members who care deeply about key issues, external and internal, that bear on the teaching of writing and communications to compose resolutions that can facilitate our collective efforts. Proposed resolutions will be considered for presentation at the Annual Business Meeting in Spokane, WA. To obtain copies of resolutions passed at recent CCCC conventions, please see the links below or contact the CCCC Liaison at cccc@ncte.org. The signatures of at least five CCCC members are required for each proposed resolution. Proposed resolutions, with these signatures, should be emailed the CCCC Resolutions Committee cccc@ncte.org. Resolutions must be received on or before March 20, 2024.

Do you have questions about the handling of resolutions at the CCCC Annual Business Meeting?  Click here for the “Basic Rules” (also see these rules for information on sense of the house motions).

2024 Resolutions

2023 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2019 Resolutions

2017 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2016 Resolutions

2015 Resolutions

2014 Resolutions

2013 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2012 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2011 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2010 Resolutions

2009 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2008 Resolutions

2007 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2006 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2005 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2004 Resolutions & Sense of the House Motions

2003 Resolutions

2002 Resolutions

2001 Resolutions

2000 Resolutions

For resolutions prior to 2000, please email cccc@ncte.org.