Author: ksuchor

In November 2008, educators were introduced to the “Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Media Literacy Education,” and our concept of how to deal with copyright issues in the classroom has, literally, been transformed. As the official policy of NCTE related to fair use in the teaching of English, it is a document worth our attention as students learn to comprehend and compose texts utilizing a variety of forms of media.

“Copyright law and fair use are designed for all of us,” explains Renee Hobbs, Founder of Temple University’s Media Education Lab, and one of the co-authors of the code of best practices. In an interview with me at the 2009 NCTE Convention in Philadelphia, PA, Hobbs suggests that “It will actually interfere with your rights if you don’t learn how to apply fair use to your work.”

While many of us assume that copyright is designed to protect the rights of owners, Hobbs explains that it is also meant to protect the rights of users in order to promote creativity, innovation, and the spread of knowledge. Many educators may not realize that our own reasoning and critical judgment are core components of fair use and, according to the Code of Best Practices, “Copyright law does not exactly specify how to apply fair use, and that gives the fair use doctrine a flexibility that works to the advantage of users” (p. 7).

Most of us have heard about fair use “guidelines.” We may rely on charts that describe how we can use 10% of this kind of work or use 30 seconds of another type, but the unfortunate outcome of these documents is that they actually restrict our use of copyrighted materials in ways that the law never intended. In fact, quite the opposite is true; Hobbs argues that the guideline charts that educators reply on are unduly restrictive. How we apply our rights for fair use depends not on how much of a piece of copyrighted work that we use, but instead on the ways in which we use it.

Hobbs believes that the change in our thinking about copyright that must occur can be stated quite simply: “For many educators, the big ‘aha’ is that, “oh, those guidelines aren’t the law?’” Indeed, the guidelines were constructed mainly through the work of the media companies themselves, and do not accurately reflect all the rights that users have when transforming copyrighted materials.

Thus, Hobbs, along with Peter Jaszi, from The Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, and Patricia Aufderheide, from The Center for Social Media, created the code of best practices. Copyright law, as many of these previous guideline documents tend to suggest, is not static with certain limits on the kind or amount of material used. Instead, fair use requires judgment.

Moreover, as educators, can we leave discussions of copyright only in the norms of academia; even though we ask students to cite their sources as a means of attribution, a common expectation among academics. The code of best practices instead outlines five principles of fair use, one having particular implications for teachers and students that will be outlined below, and invite educators to think about copyright and fair use through a new lens: transformative use.

What is Transformative Use?

The key to applying fair use is understanding the concept of “transformative” use, and Hobbs argues that this is central to the fair use provision of United States Copyright Law. Educators are probably familiar with the “four factors” of fair use, which, according to Wikipedia’s article on Fair Use, include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. (Wikipedia, n.d.)

These are the factors that have guided the construction of many of the copyright guides noted above. But, there is more to fair use than just determining whether the use of a work aligns with these four principles.

For Hobbs, wrapping our heads around the concept of transformative use is essential if we are to truly understand when and how to apply fair use in our own work and, more importantly, if our students are to apply it to their own work. In order for us to use copyrighted materials, we need to apply a set of reasoned questions about how and why we are using the work.

In short, to use copyrighted materials under fair use provisions, the benefit to society needs to outweigh the costs to the copyright holder. If a copyrighted work is simply retransmitted, then it is a violation of copyright law. But, if the user “transforms” the material in some way, repurposing it in a new media composition, for instance, then fair use likely applies. Again, to quote from the Code of Best Practices, there are two central questions to ask about transformative use:

• Did the unlicensed use “transform” the material taken from the copyrighted work by using it for a different purpose than that of the original, or did it just repeat the work for the same intent and value as the original?
• Was the material taken appropriate in kind and amount, considering the nature of the copyrighted work and of the use? (p. 7 in PDF)

If we as educators can invite our students to think critically about their use of copyrighted materials in the process of creating their own digital compositions, and help them understand what it means to build on the work of another in a transformative way, then we can open up thought-provoking discussions about how we compose in the 21st century. One particular principle from the Code of Best Practices, and a tool developed by Hobbs and her colleagues, invites us to do just that.

Inviting Students to Compose Multimedia with Fair Use in Mind

Five principles are outlined in the Code of Best Practices, including discussions of how to create curricular materials and distribute students’ work. One of particular importance to teachers who are asking students to compose multimedia texts is Principle Four: “Student Use of Copyrighted Materials in Their Own Academic and Creative Work.” It states:

Because media literacy education cannot thrive unless learners themselves have the opportunity to learn about how media functions at the most practical level, educators using concepts and techniques of media literacy should be free to enable learners to incorporate, modify, and re-present existing media objects in their own classroom work. (p. 13 in PDF)

This principle encourages teachers and students to think about how they can repurpose existing media for their own compositions. However, it is not an excuse for simply copying and pasting the work of others, or taking it whole without changing it in any way from the original. Both are a violation of the law as well as the norms of academic honesty. In fact, the principle goes on to state that “Students’ use of copyrighted material should not be a substitute for creative effort. Students should be able to understand and demonstrate, in a manner appropriate to their developmental level, how their use of a copyrighted work repurposes or transforms the original” (p. 14 in PDF).

The key to transformative use is thinking critically about how the original material is employed in the new work, and Hobbs argues that getting to deeper questions about how and why to use copyrighted work is where teachers can help their students most. “Most teachers know how to deepen a conversation through asking the ‘why’ question,” she states, and she invites teachers to listen, probe, pair up critical friends, and teach students to support and challenge each other as they think about using copyrighted work. Hobbs and her colleagues and the Media Education Lab have created a thinking guide for reasoning fair use, and encourage students to think about each media element that they repurpose and how it aligns with fair use guidelines.

This process of critical engagement is important in developing a strong classroom community, and in creating media-savvy students. “Teachers give students the power to bring their lived experience with mass media, popular culture, and digital media into the room and students feel valued,” believes Hobbs. Because contemporary media culture does not typically show a respect for civil dialogue, she continues, we have to really practice how to create a respectful learning environment. “Students can learn to reflect on each other’s work when they are invited to offer feedback and when we teach about how to offer feedback to help them develop those skills where we can model disagreeing respectfully.” One strategy she employs, for instance, is to have students take guided notes as they listen and respond to each other’s projects.

Thus, Hobbs suggests that teachers design projects that connect school skills — such as critical thinking, participating, questioning, composing — to something personally meaningful in students’ lives from outside of school. Rarely do they get to compare and contrast the lived experience of popular culture with academic culture, and teaching them to create their own media, and examine copyright implications in the process, allows them to do so. This process can be “really powerful because of the way it taps into students’ own expertise and knowledge,” she concludes.

Given that students are creating products, this inevitably leads to questions about assessment. Hobbs believes that English teaches are well suited to the task, as we are always asking about audience, purpose, and whether a writer’s use of rhetorical devices helps him or her reach a goal. She strongly believes that we need to measure more than the superficial qualities of form and dig deeper into understanding how and why students are repurposing and creating content in new ways. “There is a form/content dynamic. If all we assess is the form, then we are doing students a disservice. We can’t just assess the prettiness of the work, we need to assess the content of the work.” In short, don’t just count words, slides, or images used, but engage your students in broader discussions about the purpose, audience, and effectiveness of their work.

Continuing to Transform: Next Steps for Teachers

Hobbs and her colleagues have created a variety of resources for teachers to use related to fair use. First, the Media Education Lab has a variety of multimedia materials and lesson plans for teachers to explore and use with their students. Filled with lesson plans, informational videos, and other multimedia curriculum resources, this website is the first stop for teachers who are considering how to incorporate copyrighted material into their own work, as well as for students who may use copyrighted work in their own new media compositions. One particular video, User’s Rights, Section 107 by Michael Robb Grieco, highlights the ways in which transformative use works, all to the tune of an upbeat alternative rock song.

Other resources include two wikis. A consistently updated wiki, The End of Copyright Confusion, shares resources related to presentations about Code of Best Practices. Also, award-winning librarian and edublogger Joyce Valenza has a set of resources for copyright friendly works available on her Copyright Friendly wiki. Hobbs and Valenza both encourage teachers to learn more about the Creative Commons license and how students can build on the work of others — as well as share their own — in ways that extend the rights of owners and users of copyrighted work. Understanding the difference between works that are copyrighted, public domain, copyright friendly, and Creative Commons licensed can help students make good choices about how to find and integrate the materials of others into their own work, as well as make choices about how they want to license their own materials.

Finally, in addition to the Media Education Lab website and the wikis, one other web-based resource can provide teachers with an introduction to these concepts. By listening to the Teachers Teaching Teachers episode, “Opening Up to Fair Use,” with an interview from Peter Jaszi, teachers can become familiar with the idea of fair use and gain insights with Jaszi’s brief overview of the Code of Best Practices.

As we invite students to create new media compositions, and use existing copyrighted materials to do so, we need approach their work with the critical lens that fair use allows. Through discussions of fair use and the transformative nature of their own work, we ask them to be critical and creative thinkers, engaging them in discussions with one another about the ways in which they remix the work of others. Also, we need to reiterate that fair use does not mean unlicensed distribution of copyrighted materials. Teaching our students how to repurpose copyrighted materials in a transformative manner is the essence of applying fair use guidelines, and is an imperative skill when teaching them how to compose with new media.

The concept of fair use has the power to transform our teaching in a digital age, and both we and our students will be better readers, writers, and thinkers when we adopt a fair use approach in our classrooms.

Author Information
Troy Hicks
CCCC-IP K-12 Representative
Assistant Professor of English
Director, Chippewa River Writing Project
Central Michigan University

 

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

Pavel Zemliansky, Ph.D.
University of Central Florida

In July of this year, I attended a two-day meeting of the Student Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), in Washington, DC. The meeting was devoted to the problem of rising textbook costs and to finding ways of addressing these increases. I was invited to the event as a co-editor (with Charlie Lowe) of the open access series of peer-reviewed composition volumes Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. The meeting was sponsored by the publisher Flat World Knowledge and attended by its president Eric Frank. Participants also included Creative Commons’ Director of Global Learning Cable Green, several faculty members from DC-area colleges and universities, and leaders of area student groups concerned about the cost of textbooks.

According to the Student PIRGs’ website, an average student spends about nine hundred dollars per academic year on textbooks, and textbook costs are rising four times the rate of inflation.  The primary purpose of the meeting was to launch a campaign that the organizers call “The Textbook Rebellion.” The campaigners are currently on a national tour promoting the cause of stopping the rising costs of college textbooks and educating faculty and students about open access and low-cost alternatives available to them.The campaign employs some clever tools and tactics, from the “Mr. $200 Textbook” character to social media and online petitions.

During the first day of the two-day event, attendees gave presentations on their work in the open educational resource movement and how the educational products they create can help alleviate the problem of textbook costs without sacrificing the quality of those educational materials. For example, when presenting on Writing Spaces, I emphasized the idea that all contribution to the series are peer-reviewed by experts in the field of rhetoric and composition and that we, as editors, see the peer review process as a necessary condition forestablishing and maintaining the quality and reputation of our publications within the profession.The second day of the meeting was devoted to the development of strategies and tactics for “The Textbook Rebellion,” including the collaborative writing of a petition to be distributed nation-wide by e-mail. The complete text of the petition can be found on the organization’s website.

Clearly, any time there is conversation about open access educational resources, intellectual property issues are bound to come up. Using alternative models of creating and disseminating educational resources inevitably demands an approach to intellectual property that is different from that used by mainstream commercial publishers. However, at this meeting, the primary focus was the reduction of textbook costs, and the explicit discussion of IP issues played only a secondary role. In fact, as the meeting progressed, the group reached a consensus that in order for the “rebellion” to be successful, it must carry a single and simple message, and that this message should be about lowering the costs of textbooks for students.It was also agreed that, when recommending a non-commercial alternative educational resource, priority should be given to open access resources. When such open-access resources are not available, other, low-cost alternatives should be considered. The reasoning behind this approach is that the campaign would both educate faculty and students about the availability of free or low-cost textbooks while simultaneously putting pressure on commercial publishers to reign in the costs of their products.

As a university professor, I found attending the meeting to be useful, and not only because I was able to contribute to a worthy cause. The event also allowed me to hear the opinions of some very engaged and articulate students about the costs of textbooks. It also forced me to compare and juxtapose what we, as faculty, value in a college textbook. To be sure, most of our students are interested in learning with high-quality resources, but in this time of economic uncertainty, the cost factor seems to trump a lot of other considerations. These other considerations may include things like textbook supplements (CDs, test compilations, and so on) that might seem very important or necessary to the instructor but that also significantly raise the cost of a textbook.

The student PIRGs and The Textbook Rebellion have certainly taken up a worthy cause. Textbook costs are a serious concern for both students and faculty, and high-quality free or low cost alternatives are becoming increasingly available in many disciplines.  In the early stages of educating the public about these issues, creating and spreading unified and simple messages about the cost of educational materials is important. However, as the movement matures and develops, it will be very important for its leaders to include such larger issues as intellectual property and maintaining high quality of free and low-cost educational resources in their campaigns.  If the goal of the movement is to bring about change by educating the public about this issue, then such education would be most effective and long-lasting if the problem is examined in all its complexity.

This column is sponsored by the Intellectual Property Committee of the CCCC and the CCCC-Intellectual Property Caucus. The IP Caucus maintains a mailing list. If you would like to receive notices of programs sponsored by the Caucus or of opportunities to submit articles to either this column or to an annual report on intellectual property issues, please contact kgainer@radford.edu.

 

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

Teresa Thomas: Case #2

Characterization of Institution

Private Liberal-Arts College [quite small!]

Characterization of Department

B.A. in English Literature

How would this case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever presented an on-line publication as a credit for tenure or promotion in my department. I believe that I have several colleagues who are techno-phobes, making minimal use of any electronic technology [we can’t assume that email memos reach everyone!], and there’s another contingent like me, who can manage email and a few other processes but do not routinely create course web pages or do a lot of work with students on line. There is a third group, probably 30-40% of the department, however, who are into instructional technology in a big way altho not [yet?] publishing on line. Most of those in this third group are untenured, however.

Nevertheless, I think Thomas would get tenure in our department. Some of my colleagues might be uneasy about the all-on-line publications, but I don’t think they could get away with the kind of response reported of the curmudgeons in your case scenario because the rest of us would not let them. I can’t imagine that we would direct a junior person to “publish properly,” meaning, in print, especially if we had hired him/her precisely for technological knowledge.

I do think we would be concerned about whether the on-line journals were referee’d, whether the presses doing on-line publication were reputable, etc., and since most of us would not feel competent to pass on those matters ourselves, I can imagine that we would solicit outside letters in this case, which we do not normally do. We would be very concerned that the work be professionally judged to be of top quality, regardless of the medium of publication.

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

At my own small, private Liberal Arrts school, department chairs have no formal responsibilities to tenure candidates other than to see to it that Statutory procedures [including observance of deadlines] are followed. If Thomas was going to get in trouble because of publishing only online, here the Department Chair would have no formal obligation to tell her.

Of course, the Chair would have a moral obligation to tell her.  It is considered very bad form to tell a pre-tenure person that everything is fine in his/her biennial evaluations, and then sock him/her with tenure-denying objections in the tenure report. However, though bad form, it is perfectly legal to do so according to our procedures [in fact, that is exactly what happened to me when I came up for tenure, but the suddenly objecting people were in the minority and I got tenure anyway].

Seems to me that the head in your example should have done more to defuse the curmudgeons’ response. Were I to meet with that response here, I would probably go to the academic dean seeking institutional guidelines for this type of publication and let the dean play the heavy in bringing the curmudgeons into line. Our dean is EXTREMELY  eager to get faculty onto the web for instructional technology; to approve on-line publication is a logical extension. The head should have addressed the opposition immediately after it surfaced.

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

We have no Personnel Committee.

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

[At my school (small, private, liberal arts college)], the Dean’s responsibilities to tenure candidates consist in little more than telling them [candidates] what the deadlines are and also telling them if any unsolicited  letters have turned up in their files [these you may see, solicited letters you may not see]. The Dean also deals with requests from people to alter the  tenure clock; department chairs are not empowered to make decisions on that.

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

[I]t sounds like both the head and Thomas, after discovering that this opposition existed, basically forgot about it and hoped it would go away. Thomas evidently did not attempt to obtain any print publications and the head did nothing to educate the curmudgeons.

Since Thomas knew the opposition existed, maybe she should have attempted to educate them once she realized the head was going to do nothing. At the very least, she might suggest to the head that outside letters be solicited when she came up for tenure.

Depending on how bold she is, Thomas might also have tried to build a bridge to a powerful dean herself. The case makes her sound like an invaluable teacher of both undergrads and graduate students, something deans generally can recognize and reward. Then, even if the curmudgeons succeeded in getting a minority negative report out on her at tenure time, she might sail through at the next level. If the curmudgeons managed to carry the day at the department level of course, that would make it more difficult.

What went wrong?  What went right?

See above.

Teresa Thomas: Case #2

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

Characterization of Department

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

How would this case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

I think that the department would grant tenure to Teresa.  (The College response may follow the same that you present in the scenario.)  She obviously is productive within her area of specialization.  Not only that, she has performed productively in the three key areas assessed: teaching, research, publication–even though online.  Whether some adminsitrative personnel and faculty are ready for online publications or not, they are fighting a losing battle.  That should be a very plain and clear message to academia; the world has already contracted Web-mania, including colleges and universities.  The Web is the present and the future! (Duh-h-h-h)  Even for the College of Arts and Letters here at MSU, we realize that money talks.  Teresa has done very well with the grant writing and funding, using students to help conduct research and bringing computers to the campus for a lab (even though I do not know how many computers she purchased for the research).  She gets “superior” teaching evaluations from both undergrads and grads, which some people still aspire to do!  She was a vehicle to bring distinction to the dept.’s electronic media, which she accomplished in part.

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

The dept. Head must remain abreast of the reasons Thomas was hired.  I think the Head failed to support Thomas the first-time around, standing up for the technological advancements that Thomas was to bring to the dept.

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

The Personnel Committee is responsible for ensuring that adequate and appropriate mentoring has occurred and must take additional steps to protect and help Thomas successfully get tenure, even though her case is unique.  The Committee fulfilled a portion of its responsibilities, yet seems reticent to explore and break new ground for publication possibilities, especially in the dawning of a new age of technology

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

The Dean must be abreast of situations such as this one that have actually taken place at other universities/colleges throughout the U.S.  She must explore the other cases (assuming they do exist) and observe resolutions/solutions taken.  After an extensive and thoughtful review,  the Dean should make an appropriate decision.  A full disclosure and understanding of the case at hand is requisite, of course.

What are Thomas’s responsibilities?  Which did she fulfill?  Fail?

Thomas must recognize that she will need to publish some work in print.  We have not become totally a Web-based society, especially as it pertains to academia.

What went wrong?  What went right?

See above.

 

Teresa Thomas, a new Ph.D. in rhetoric and composition, has just been hired by University X to assume the position of Assistant Professor of English. Her specialty in computers and writing was enormously appealing to a department that had so far failed to distinguish itself in electronic media. In hiring her, the head knew that the graduate students would be well served by her technological expertise, and she herself expected Thomas to be able to contribute substantively to the wider field of rhetoric and composition. Thomas had, after all, a fine background in classical rhetoric, and the head envisioned her as doing the same kind of exemplary scholarship, say,  as that of a Kathleen Welch or a Richard Lanham. The committee had been very impressed with her dissertation, although one or two had questioned its form. It was one of the first hypertextual theses to appear and was, of course, published entirely online. The Rhetoric of Online Scholarship was surely timely and the head found it very publishable. And she also knew that both the faculty and graduate students would really benefit from Teresa Thomas’s contributions to the department.  Her 2/2 teaching load should also provide her with the time to work on her research. Or so the reasoning went.

In her first years, Thomas published widely. There was an webtext (an article) that appeared in Kairos,a refereed online journal, as well as a multimedia piece which appeared in the Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (JALN), another refereed online journal.  Now her dissertation was also being considered by Athens University Press as one of their major online reference works. In addition, she had written two grants-one to the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) for $150,000. and another to the University Computer Funding Board for $75,000. Both grants were funded. The first allowed her and the graduate students to study how undergraduates adapt software such as FrontPage, Macromedia’s Dreamweaver,and Photoshop for their own Web creations; the second gave them the computers for the department’s first fully networked lab.  Two dissertations that Thomas directed based on the FIPSE grant were also underway, and graduate students flocked to her and her classes on a regular basis.

She was similarly impressive with the undergraduates. Her classes on writing and technology were consistently over-enrolled, and she was also a tremendous hit in teaching another course cross-listed with Women’s Studies on women and technology. And, in addition to her teaching, she had also organized a reading group on Online Rhetorical Bodies, which was contributing to her ongoing interest in all things rhetorical. By the time Thomas came up for her third-year review, she and her colleagues believed that they had all been right in their choices. Thomas was in all ways a superior colleague, teacher, and scholar, and the department was treating Thomas well.

In her third-year review papers, Thomas was praised by two internal referees. She had afterall stellar teaching evaluations, two online articles, a contract for an online book, and two grants. The third referee, however, wanted to know why none of the publications, forthcoming or otherwise, were print-based. Could one really expect to receive tenure at a premier research university with no print publications? And, yes, there were the grants—very nice, of course—(they mean a great deal in the sciences he guessed), but why was everything online?  A very difficult and contentious faculty meeting ensued in which several judged Thomas as having produced essentially no scholarship or at best scholarship of a spurious kind. The head was directed to speak sternly, but helpfully, to Teresa so that she might use the next few years to publish properly.

When the head apprised Thomas of some of the department’s worries, she was certain Thomas would understand.  A few well-placed articles to accompany the online publications was surely something Thomas could achieve. And Thomas could talk to Athens University Press about producing a print copy of the reference work based on her dissertation. They had a good talk, and Thomas seemed amenable to the head’s suggestions. Thomas continued to go happily about her day-to-day work, perhaps with a tad less enthusiasm, but she nevertheless continued to excel in teaching and good citizenship activities.

She also continued to publish. During the next two years, she was approached by Houghton Hall to do an online textbook. They offered her a lucrative contract for work that Thomas was essentially already doing online with her students. Teresa truly believed that in this 21st century the Web is every bit as critical a medium for literacy activities as books, paper, pens and pencils had been in the 20th century. She had a passion for experimenting with the new technologies. For the FIPSE grant, for example, she had created a Web site and database that served researchers around the country and broke new ground in demonstrating the potential of a living, flexible archive.

When Teresa Thomas came up for tenure three years later, she had all the requisite kinds of publications and her outside letters were extraordinary. She had yet, however, to publish anything in print. Even her syllabi were all online.

Tenure and Promotion Cases for Composition Faculty Who Work with Technology

Return to Table of Contents

Committee Charge

This committee is charged to:

1. Support continuity in the annual Computers and Writing Conferences by coordinating the search for a sponsoring university each year and arranging for the transfer of conference materials from site to site. The committee also maintains mailing lists and other records, provides advice and logistical support for the conference planners, and assists in publicizing the conference.
2. Examine the historical repository of information heretofore gathered under the URL computersandwriting.org and a. evaluate this project’s effectiveness, b. identify steps needed to provide ongoing support for the initiative, and c. propose concrete technology, budget, and organizational steps that the CCCC EC might enact. If the investigation determines that a different organization should house and support this repository, that conclusion should also be fleshed out for the EC.
3. Manage the nomination and judging process for the annual CCCC Technology Innovator Award, and bestow that award at the Computers and Writing Conference.
4. The eras of handwriting and typewriting are long over, and the era of word processing seems to be on the wane as students and teachers increasingly use smart phone, tablets, cloud computing, voice recognition, auto-correct, and extra-textual tools like Snap and emogis as parts of the writing process. Handbooks, videos, and other textbook materials are being read on the same devices, possibly placing our students in the difficult position of reading, reflecting, writing, and revising in a small space. Further, student access may be uneven given the expense of connectivity and portable devices. Investigate the impact of portable and ubiquitous computing on writing and writing instruction with an eye to developing a position statement about the ethics and efficacy of these practices.
5. Organize and sponsor the Digital Praxis Posters at CCCC. In addition, continue to sponsor, propose, and present workshops, panels, and demonstrations at CCCC and NCTE sponsored conferences. Include in these activities attention to open source and community source projects and software, calling attention to best practices, when possible, and providing guidelines on issues and strategies.

Tenure and Promotion Cases for Composition Faculty Who Work with Technology

Computers and Writing Conference

• Call to Host the C&W Conference and Application Information
• Past and Future C&W Locations and Hosts

Update

The 7Cs supports composition teachers and scholars (and those in related fields) who work with digital technology. This CCCC committee is responsible for selecting the host for the annual Computers and Writing conference as well as for organizing the Digital Praxis Poster sessions at the annual CCCC conference. 7Cs is also responsible for coordinating the Technology Innovator Award, which is presented annually at the Computers and Writing conference. This committee of nine voting members works closely with its associated Technorhetorician Working Group, which is comprised of any constituents interested in promoting digital technology issues in writing studies. To receive updates about the committee or participate in the broader computers and writing community, please follow the CCCC Committee on Computers in Composition and Communication and the Technorhetorician Working Group on Facebook.

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Comprehensive I, State University

Characterization of Department

M.A. in English

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

At my current university, Johns would most likely be tenured, with little question at all about his scholarship.  There might be questions about his teaching, though, for we are a teaching institution, but I doubt that it would be overwhelming.  Of course, his course load is designed for a Research university, and it is quite light for the standards of our current university.

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

It appears that the Department Chair did give Johns some good advice after his early service, namely, to cut down on his committee work, to help students understand the technology (although his suggestion of a programmed tutorial seems a bit naïve), and to concentrate upon teaching the quantity of argumentation expected.  He also suggested that Johns have the director of their teaching center visit his classes.  The case does not specify whether Johns pursued that, so I assume he did not.

The Chair, though, has done very little to help Johns.  It appears that he only meets with him after his first semester.  If he met annually for annual reviews, the case does not specify that.  He could have asked a senior faculty member to mentor Johns on teaching.  He could have reviewed his syllabi and visited Johns’ classes (if the tenure and review guidelines allow that).  He could have more overtly prevented Johns from serving on so many graduate committees.

The Chair’s response to the complaint from the parent and the President was appropriate.  (But I am amazed that the President responded that way.  In no institution that I have ever served in—as chair, dean, associate provost or provost—would a president ever have acted in that manner.)

In short, given the characterization of the Chair’s actions in this case, I believe that the Chair bears much responsibility for having allowed Johns to commit himself to so much and clearly not have the time to address the promotion criteria.

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

I think the Personnel Committee acted appropriately in this circumstance.  In all the institutions I have worked in, Personnel Committees do not have to make their reasons as public as this Committee did.  Their review is mixed, which is appropriate in this case.  They have apparently allowed Johns to pick his own external reviewers, which is generous.

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

The Dean is barely present in this case, so I will have to assume that this is a passive dean.  Where was the dean (and the provost, too, for that matter) when the President complained about the parent complaint?

I do not have the retention, promotion, and tenure guidelines in front of me, so I do not know the role of the chair, personnel committee, and dean in the review, so I will assume that the personnel committee acts first, the chair writes the review of Johns from the chair’s perspective, and the dean does so as dean.  But we do not see those in this case.

Does the dean review the annual reviews of untenured faculty (assuming that there are annual reviews)?  This case seems to indicate that there is only a fourth year formal review prior to the tenure review.  If I were this dean, I would talk in detail with the Chair to gain his perspective.

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

Johns may be enthusiastic, but naïve.  If he knew in his first year that his teaching of the argumentation course was being questioned, why did he not do something about it?  More and more research universities are beginning to value teaching more, but it appears Johns worked more at service than anything else.  Did he talk to other faculty about meeting the scholarship expectations?  It appears that he did not.  If he considers himself an expert in using technology for teaching, he does not show it, for a good teacher would immediately have begun adjusting the ways he or she teaches with technology once he or she knew that it was not working well with undergraduates.  That graduate students like him is not terribly surprising, for he is a freshly-minted Ph.D., probably with knowledge of current theory and practice.  That he did not seek help from the Director of the teaching center is his fault.

Johns fulfilled his service responsibilities admirably, too much so, in fact.  There was no reason for his serving on so many student committees.  He clearly saw his work with technology as something he cared about, so he worked hard at that.

He could have written articles about his experiences, articles that would be acceptable in the “first or second tier” publications.  But, it appears that there is a serious disconnect between what he writes and his work in the department.  That he writes poetry is fine, but he needs to realize that no one values it.  That he wants to publish a book based on his dissertation reflects the desire of many new Ph.D.s:  I’ve put so much work into my dissertation that it must be worth a book!  Well, that is simply a mistake.  The next thing you know, he’ll volunteer to teach a class on the cybercollaboration of faith healers!

What went wrong?  What went right?

The Department appears to value two things:  teaching well and publishing in the right journals.  They don’t know what to do to reinforce good teaching, but they were clear in their concerns at the very start of Johns’ career.  When warned, Johns did not seek help.  That is his fault.  My judgment would have been that he is not a good teacher.

The institution could have required that untenured faculty submit portfolios for review that include reflective essays on their scholarship of teaching.  It apparently did not.  It could have reviewed untenured faculty annually, if only by the Chair.  It did not.  It could have assigned mentors.  It did not.

I don’t know what advice he got on publishing, but I’ll assume he knew what the Department expected.  If he did not, then he truly is naïve.  So, he allowed his personal interests to take precedence over those of the Department.  He did not work at his teaching, so he is to be faulted for that.  He was interested in only publishing what he was interested in, in publications that the Department appears not to value.  That was his choice, so he appears to have made the wrong choices.  There’s nothing wrong with his pursuing the publishing that he values, as long as he also does what the Department values.

The Personnel Committee appears to have acted appropriately.  Their vote is split, but it falls on the favorable side, and they do give specific criticism that Johns should heed.  (They appear not to have counted his publications from before the time he was hired, but that sometimes happens.  Regardless of those, he should have been addressing the Department’s standards.)

What is the role of the dean?  What is the role of the provost?  Who knows?  They probably will agree with whatever the Chair and Personnel Committee recommend.  But both could exert more influence over the preparation and support of untenured faculty.

Abstract:

#inhabitation tracked the economic crisis through the foreclosure auction process, focusing on several abandoned houses once owned by women, who left their houses and belongings behind. #inhabitation is creative-critical, digital storytelling and tactical media, affectively composing these histories through remains, urban ruins, through the material rhetoric of these abandoned houses.

 

Full Text

Author:Jamie “Skye” Bianco is Assistant Professor of English and Director of DM@P, Digital Media at Pitt, at the University of Pittsburgh. She teaches and practices creative-critical and affective multimodal composition; collaborative DIY and maker-based pedagogies. Her work appears in FibreCulture, Women’s Studies Quarterly, and edited collections, including Debates in the Digital Humanities (Minnesota, 2012).

 

Return to Table of Contents

 

Abstract:

Return to Table of Contents