Conference on College Composition and Communication Logo

This Is What We Did In Our Class

 Daniel Anderson, Jackclyn Ngo, Sydney Stegall,

and Kyle Stevens

 

Abstract:

This piece uses screencast videos to discuss digital composing. Additional videos argue that performance brings new voices to scholarly conversations and can inform learning portfolios. Videos use the screen as a composing space through which theoretical issues and reflections on composing are performed to create a new mode of scholarship.

 

Full Text

 

Authors:

Daniel Anderson is Professor of English at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His interests include fostering creativity and engagement in education, digital poetics, and alternative forms of scholarship.

Jacklyn Ngo is a native of Charlotte, NC, and is an undergraduate student of Environmental Sciences and Mathematics at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has particular interest in secondary education reform, interactive multimedia learning, and creative expression as a medium for interdisciplinary learning.

Sydney Stegall is a junior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is currently pursuing a degree in English, a minor in Art History, and a minor in Rhetoric, Composition, and Digital Literacy. She plans to attend graduate school to study rhetoric and composition.

Kyle Stevens is currently a junior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill studying Chemistry and Mathematics.

Return to Table of Contents

Write for CCC

Contact the Editors

Matthew Davis, University of Massachusetts Boston
Kara Taczak, University of Central Florida
ccceditorialteam@gmail.com

Submission Guidelines

Scope

The editorial staff of College Composition and Communication (CCC) invites submission of research and scholarship in composition studies that supports scholars and instructors in reflecting on and improving their practices in the teaching of writing. The field of composition studies draws on research and theories from a broad range of humanistic disciplines:

  • English studies
  • Linguistics
  • Literacy studies
  • Rhetoric
  • Cultural studies
  • LGBTQIA+ studies
  • Gender studies
  • Critical theory
  • Education
  • Technology studies
  • Race studies
  • Communication
  • Philosophy of language
  • Anthropology
  • Sociology
  • And others

Articles submitted to CCC may draw from discussions in various fields, but the research and scholarship published in CCC is primarily focused on the practice and teaching of writing in higher education. Successful submissions will have clear arguments, be relevant to the work of writing scholars and teachers, and engage with recent scholarship in composition studies.

We welcome research on writing and the teaching of writing that will interest the broad CCC readership and recommend directing work focused on specific subfields (e.g., technical communication, writing program administration, writing center scholarship) to journals dedicated to those areas.

Readership

When writing for CCC, consider a diverse readership that includes not only teachers of college-level writing at various institutions but also scholars, administrators, undergraduate and graduate students, and legislators. You need not avoid difficult theories or complex discussions of research and pedagogy; rather, you should engage with the interests and perspectives of the various readers who are affected by these theories, pedagogies, and policies.

Genres

CCC’s primary genre is the peer-reviewed research article, but we publish several shorter genres, as outlined below. Please ensure that your submission fits the genre criteria before submitting.

Research Article

Research articles should generally follow the field’s conventions for the genre. However, we welcome variations of these conventions that serve the purpose of the article’s argument. Article submissions should be no more than 8,000 words long and should follow the current edition of the MLA Handbook. Further, articles should follow NCTE’s Statement on Gender and Language and equitable citation practices.

To submit an article, please register as an author at our online submission system, Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/cccj). After logging in, follow the instructions to upload your submission. You will receive an automatic email confirming receipt. Since articles are reviewed anonymously, please ensure your submission is anonymized—do not include your name on the title page, in the text, or in the works cited. For questions, contact the editors at ccceditorialteam@gmail.com.

If your article reports the results of empirical or observational research, you need to be attentive to the ethics and the validity of your research methods. Before submitting your work for consideration, please be aware that, if you use, quote, or otherwise reproduce unpublished writing by students or teachers or others, you should have any required clearance from your local IRB as well as required permission in writing from the writers to do so, even if you use their writing anonymously (if you have further questions about this, please email). Click here to read/download a copy of the CCC consent form needed to include previously unpublished work of others in your submission (especially student work). For material (e.g., figure, table, poem) that has been previously published, permission to reprint may be necessary.

The Profile

The CCC Profile offers a snapshot of a specific term, person, genre, object, practice, or event related to rhetoric and composition. It provides a concise and critical overview of its historical and contemporary significance in the discipline. The Profile should define the topic, trace its history, and explain its impact on composition today. While the structure is flexible, it should present an engaging narrative that piques readers’ curiosity. Ultimately, the Profile should be relevant for instructors in their teaching, administrators in their program work, and scholars in their research.

For instance, a Profile might take as its subject a genre—such as the podcast—and trace how it emerged as a genre, increased in popularity, and impacted the discipline (e.g., Pedagogue, Rhetoricity, or The Big Rhetorical Podcast). Or it might focus on an event—such as the Dartmouth Conference—highlighting not only the historical importance of it but also its significance in the contemporary moment. Or a Profile might focus on a term—such as remix—tracing how that concept has impacted the cultural and social practices of writing in the discipline and, thereby, its publications, conferences, classrooms, and the like. Whatever its topic, the Profile should be between 1,500 and 2,000 words long. We welcome images that can accompany Profiles, though they are not required.

If you’re interested in writing a Profile, please query the editors at ccceditorialteam@gmail.com. Include a brief 150-word proposal and a current, shortened CV with your email.

Research Brief

The CCC Research Brief makes disciplinary research accessible and useful for both researchers and practitioners in rhetoric and composition. Its goal is to create a concise resource—either written or visual—that synthesizes current ideas on a specific subtopic in a forward-looking, evidence-based manner. Unlike a traditional literature review, the Research Brief outlines what we know about the subtopic and explains the methods and methodologies that have shaped this knowledge, such as theoretical, empirical, narrative, ethnographic, pedagogical, historical, discourse analysis, or mixed methods approaches.

Additionally, it should suggest implications for future research, teaching, administration, and public engagement. A Research Brief should help readers feel more grounded in an unfamiliar area of the discipline while directing them to further resources and potential actions. In summary, it presents evidence-based ideas that encourage new actions and/or raise pressing questions. Research Briefs should be between 1,500 and 2,500 words long and may include graphics or visualizations. Each brief should (1) provide a synthesized overview of current research and key scholarly conversations, (2) address methods and methodologies in the subfield, and (3) pose questions and speculate on future research directions.

If you’re interested in writing a Research Brief, please query the editors at ccceditorialteam@gmail.com. Include a brief 150-word proposal and a current, shortened CV with your email.

Book Review Essay

A book review essay is a critical analysis that reads across three or more books looking for connections or overlaps between them. It orients the audience to key arguments, theories, people, and ideas as a way to gain insights and understandings about the books’ topics.

If you’re interested in writing a book review essay, please query the editors at ccceditorialteam@gmail.com. Include a brief 150-word proposal, a list of three to five books you intend to review, and a current, shortened CV with your email.

Interchanges

Responses to articles that raise important issues or different perspectives will be considered for publication in the Interchanges section, which is published intermittently. Responses usually run between 500 and 2,000 words (approximately two to eight double-spaced pages) and should be written in a tone respectful of the original writer and the profession. Responses to sets of related articles may also be submitted to or solicited by the editors for the Interchanges section.

Helpful Tips and Information

  • Our average time from submission to first decision is seventy-five to ninety days. This timeframe relies on peer reviewers in the field agreeing to review and completing their reviews on time, after which we draft and send authors a decision letter via email.
  • The most common reasons for desk rejections are (1) the submission is not anonymized, (2) the submission’s word count is too high, and (3) the manuscript is not situated within the current conversation in the field (often identified by a lack of recent citations from CCC or from composition studies more broadly). Attending to these three matters with care can avoid delay in the peer-review process.
  • The overall acceptance rate for the journal is 10 to 15 percent. Manuscripts submitted for initial review have close to a 75 percent rejection rate (either by peer reviewers or as desk rejections), and around 25 percent receive a Revise and Resubmit decision from reviewers.
  • We are not currently operating with a backlog; at present, accepted submissions are typically published within the next two issues.

CCC Podcasts–Jacqueline Preston

Jacqueline Preston
A conversation with Jacqueline Preston, author of “Project(ing) Literacy: Writing to Assemble in a Postcomposition FYW Classroom.”  (8:45)

Jacqueline Preston is an assistant professor in the Department of Basic Composition at Utah Valley University. Her work has been published in Community Literacy Journal and College Composition and Communication. She is a contributor to the forthcoming collections, Class in Composition: Working Class and Pedagogy and Working Writing Programs: A Reference of Innovations, Issues, and Opportunities. Most recently, with Joshua C. Hilst, she has coauthored The Write Project: A Concise Rhetoric for the Writing Classroom.
 

 

Top Intellectual Property Development Annual Series

Since 2005, the NCTE-CCCC’s Intellectual Property Committee and the Intellectual Property (IP) Caucus have been sponsoring a wonderful annual resource, “Top Intellectual Property Developments” for each respective year. The 2008 Top Intellectual Property Developments have been just recently published and can be viewed here:

/cccc/committees/ip/2008developments

Links to the 2005, 2006, and 2007 Top Intellectual Property Developments are located on the main IP Committee Webpage:

/cccc/committees/ip

The top developments for 2008 were assembled and edited by Clancy Ratliff. Clancy has also edited the 2007 top developments, while John Logie, past-Chair of the IP Committee, began the first set of publications, and assembled and edited both the 2006 and 2005 top stories.

In her introduction to the 2008 articles covering top developments in IP for teachers of writing, Clancy states: “I hope that you, the readers, will find that the articles help to achieve our committee’s first charge, to keep the rhetoric and composition community informed about developments related to intellectual property that affect our work as teachers and scholars.”

Top Developments for 2008 were written by contributors Kim Dian Gainer, Radford University, Laurie Cubbison, Radford University, Clancy Ratliff, and Traci A. Zimmerman, James Madison University and covered such topic as the Google Book Settlement, the case of J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books, Open Access in 2008, and “The Plight of Orphan Works and the Possibility of Reform.”

For more information about the top developments annual collection, or how you can be a contributor, please contact Clancy Ratliff.

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

Report of the Meeting of the Annual CCCC Intellectual Property Caucus

Meeting Date: Weds. April 6, 2011
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

In April, the Intellectual Property Caucus met in Atlanta, GA at the annual Conference on College Composition and Communication. Open to all registrants at the conference, the yearly meeting of the caucus provides an opportunity for participants to learn about intellectual property (IP)-related developments during the previous twelve months as well as to join in roundtable discussions about continuing or pending IP issues likely to affect instructors and students.

Summary of Roundtable Discussions

Among the roundtables this year was one at which participants discussed the implications of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for teaching and learning. Participants at this roundtable agreed that it is necessary to advocate for the extension of current exemptions that allow university and college instructors, as well as and film and media studies students, to bypass encryption in order to make fair use of video clips. They also resolved to advocate for the extensions of those exemptions to K-12 students and teachers, as well as to all college and university students regardless of whether they are enrolled in film or media studies courses. To these ends, caucus members will need to respond to upcoming calls for comments and testimony on the DMCA and to encourage their colleagues to do likewise.

In terms of reaching out to their colleagues, caucus participants set two additional goals: to inform educators and administrators of their current rights under the DMCA and to legally point them in the direction of tools that allow users to bypass digital protection in order to make fair use of videos for educational purposes. Finally, DMCA roundtable participants set a long-term goal: to advocate for a change in the law that restricts the dissemination of information about how to defeat encryption. This is an important goal since the current law is rather paradoxical: while current exemptions allow users to break digital codes (in order to make fair use of video clips for educational purposes), there is no clearly stated exemption for the dissemination of information about how to defeat encryption. As a result, instructors and students may desire to make fair use of video clips but lack the necessary tools. Roundtable participants agreed that the right to make fair use of resources is meaningless without the means to do so.

Another roundtable discussed the relationship between students’ rights to their own writing and to the writing of others.  In questioning how new media technologies (listservs, blogs, wikis, social networking sites) complicate traditional conceptualizations and definitions of IP, the participants of this roundtable found themselves looking carefully at the ways in which plagiarism policies are articulated institutionally and nationally.  Participants agreed that there may be a need to revisit and revise such plagiarism policies and statements so that they are responsive to new media technology.  Participants were also interested in how best to respond to institutional pressures to use plagiarism detection software as well as the general trend toward “surveillance mechanisms” in course management tools.  In thinking about the recent conflict over access to a university professor’s emails in Wisconsin, these kinds of questions are not only relevant but of great importance to our profession.

Among the issues discussed by other roundtables were how best to teach IP issues to our students, to understand the implications of current open access/fair use court cases to our work in the classroom, and to identify and utilize the current research and publications on IP issues.  Each of these tables addressed the need for educators to advocate for and implement open source software solutions, as well as to address the fact that plagiarism, fair use, and “remix” are often introduced as restrictions in the writing classroom, rather than as concepts to be explored and understood.  In particular, the participants at the “Teaching IP with RiP!” roundtable looked at the ways in which Brett Gaylor’s documentary RiP: A Remix Manifesto can be used to help students understand the landscape of IP and the corresponding ways in which they can compose and create in that “contested” space.  Those participants tracking the open access/fair use court cases were most interested in the Cambridge University Press et al. v. Georgia State court case as its ruling will have far reaching implications in terms of the form (print/online) and amount of material that teachers can use (fairly) in their courses.  Caucus participants reiterated the need for educators to provide unrestricted access to data through the creation of open access archives where both scholarship and student work could be deposited.   To that end, participants suggested a number of specific IP resources that could be created, such as a “web style guide” written specifically for student use.  Members of the caucus will continue to follow the process by which the federal government develops its intellectual property enforcement strategy in hopes of keeping the needs of students and educators in the forefront.  This will become especially important in the coming months, as the DMCA tri-annual rulemaking hearings are just around the corner (2012).

Next Year’s CCCC-IP Caucus – St. Louis, Missouri 2012

Caucus members are in the process of preparing proposals for roundtables for the 2012 caucus, which will take place in St. Louis, Missouri .  Coordinating the proposals is the new senior chair of the caucus, Martine Courant Rife, a professor of writing in the English Department at Lansing Community College, Michigan, who has been teaching online, face-to-face, and hybrid freshman composition, argumentation, technical and business writing, and advanced writing for over ten years.  In addition to chairing the caucus, Martine has served for the past two years as Editor of the NCTE- IP Committee/Caucus Inbox Project.  Anyone with questions about the caucus and/or the plans for its annual meeting in 2012 can contact Martine at martinerife@gmail.com

Submitted for the CCCC-IP CaucusTraci A. Zimmerman Ph.D., Senior Chair of the IP Caucus
Associate Professor
School of Writing, Rhetoric & Technical Communication
James Madison University

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

The 2014 CCCC Intellectual Property Annual: An Opportunity to Contribute

This year is the tenth anniversary of the CCCC-IP Annual, a publication created to fulfill the CCCC Intellectual Property Committee’s charge to keep the Conference on College Composition and Communication’s membership informed on key events and developments in intellectual property that took place over the previous year. Archives can be found at /cccc/committees/ip.

As 2014 nears its end, we are looking back on what happened over the course of the year in copyright legislation, fair use cases, open access publishing, and notable high-profile plagiarism cases. Developments regularly challenge our notions of what these terms mean, and we engage these developments in a timely manner each year in the CCCC-IP Annual. Typically, each article explains a particular development in intellectual property and analyzes its implications for teachers and scholars of rhetoric and composition. For example, the 2012 Annual contains an analysis of the rise of MOOCs written by James Porter.

Starting this year, we are encouraging multiple genres, such as short (1000-1500 words) scholarly articles, listicles (“7 Things Rhetoricians Need to Know about the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology (FIRST) Act”), and infographics.

Some articles for the 2014 Annual have already been planned and are in progress (a working table of contents appears below this CFP). Ideas for additional submissions are listed immediately below, but we welcome additional ideas.

  • review of Electronic Frontier Foundation white paper published October 27, 2014: “Who Has Your Back: When Copyright and Trademark Bullies Threaten Free Speech, available at ” https://www.eff.org/press/releases/which-service-providers-side-users-ip-disputes
  • review of EFF white paper “Unintended Consequences: 16 Years Under the DMCA”; available at https://www.eff.org/files/2014/09/16/unintendedconsequences2014.pdf
  • review of EFF white paper “Open Wi-Fi and Copyright: A Primer for Network Operators”; see https://www.eff.org/wp/open-wi-fi-and-copyright-primer-network-operators and  https://www.eff.org/files/2014/06/03/open-wifi-copyright.pdf
  • report on Internet Slowdown campaign; see  https://www.battleforthenet.com/sept10th/ and https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/43692
  • report on FIRST Act (open access),; see  https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/42765
  • report on Open Source Seed Initiative:; see https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/42771

Please write to Clancy Ratliff if you are interested in contributing to this year’s Annual by writing about one of the above topics or other current events in copyright, authorship, and intellectual property. Manuscripts will be due February 28, 2015, for publication about one week before the CCCC convention.

Working Table of Contents, 2014 CCCC-IP Annual:

  • Kim Gainer, Georgia State University fair use case update
  • Wendy Warren Austin, Slavoj Žižek book review plagiarism case
  • Laurie Cubbison, Nic Pizzolatto “True Detective” plagiarism accusation
  • Karen Lunsford, California open access law on publicly funded research
  • Steven Engel, Montana senator John Walsh plagiarism case
  • Mike Edwards, review of EFF white paper “Collateral Damages: Why Congress Needs to Fix Copyright Law’s Civil Penalties”
  • Traci Zimmerman, review of documentary film “The Internet’s Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz”

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2016

Downloadable PDF of the full report.

Introduction to the 2016 Annual
Clancy Ratliff

Needless to say, 2016 was a humdinger of a year. We will remember it primarily as the year that Donald Trump shockingly received more electoral votes than Hillary Clinton in the
presidential election, and the year we lost many talented artists, including David Bowie,
Prince, George Michael, Carrie Fisher, and the very next day her mother, Debbie Reynolds.
It was also the year that the largest number of Indigenous tribes in a century gathered for
months at the Standing Rock reservation to protest the construction of the Dakota Access
Pipeline, a struggle that continues in the courts. Intellectual property developments
continued as always, as the eight excellent articles in this year’s CCCC-IP Annual show. Read on (full report).

 Table of Contents
 1 Introduction to the 2016 Annual
Clancy Ratliff
 3 Plagiarism in the Age of Trump
Camryn Washington, Joseph Myrick III, and Steven Engel
 11 Corruption, Higher Ed, and Russians (Oh My!)
Craig A. Meyer
 16 What’s in a Meme?
Cristina Hanganu-Bresch
 24 Snaps Without Props: Snapchat’s Blatant (Mis)Appropriation of Makeup Artistry
Devon Fitzgerald Ralston
 30 Fair Use and Feminist Critique: That’swhatshesaid’s (Copyright) Commentary
Chris Gerben
 34 A Case of Cruciverbal Coincidence, Carelessness, or the Great #Gridgate Scandal?
Wendy Warren Austin 
 40 Cultural Property versus Intellectual Property: The Cultural Appropriation Debate
Kim Gainer
 48 Shades of Things to Come? Apple Patents Technology to Remotely Disable iPhone Cameras
Traci A. Zimmerman
 52  Contributors

Copyright

Copyright © 1998 - 2025 National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved in all media.

1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096 Phone: 217-328-3870 or 877-369-6283

Looking for information? Browse our FAQs, tour our sitemap and store sitemap, or contact NCTE

Read our Privacy Policy Statement and Links Policy. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use