Category: Uncategorized

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v46-3

Hamp-Lyons, Liz. “Review Essay: Uncovering Possibilities for a Constructivist Paradigm for Writing Assessment.” Rev. of Assessing Writing by Brian Huot and Kathleen Blake Yancey; New Directions in Portfolio Assessment: Reflective Practice, Critical Theory, and Large Scale Scoring by Laurel Black, Donald Daiker, Jeffrey Sommers and Gail Stygall; Teaching and Assessing Writing by Edward M. White; Validating Holistic Scoring for Writing Assessment by Michael Williamson and Brian Huot. CCC 46.3 (1995): 446-455.

Myers, Miles and Lil Brannon. “Interchanges: The National Standards Movement and CCCC.” CCC 46.3 (1995): 438-445.

Nelson, Jennie. “Reading Classrooms as Text: Exploring Student Writers’ Interpretive Practices.” CCC 46.3 (1995): 411-429.

Abstract:

Nelson claims new college students are not as ignorant of academic discourse conventions as many assume. She claims that while students may not know certain disciplinary conventions, they have appropriated school culture and are literate about how classrooms work. Through case studies of four students, Nelson advocates that teachers position themselves as “outsiders to our students’ interpretive practices in order to explore the structure of assumptions that guides students’ choices when they write.”

Keywords:

ccc46.3 Students Writing Assignments Teacher Research Classrooms Interpretation Reading Authority Comments

Works Cited

Anderson, Worth, Cynthia Best, Alycia Black, John Hurst, Brandt Miller, and Susan Miller. ” Cross-Curricular Underlife: A Collaborative Report on Ways with Academic Words .” CCC 41 (1990): 11-36.

Applebee, Arthur N., et al. Contexts for Learning to Write: Studies of Secondary School Instruction. Norwood. NJ: Ablex. 1984.

Bartholomae. David. “Inventing the University.” When a Writer Can’t Write. Ed. Mike Rose. New York: Guilford. 1985. 13-65.

Brown, John Seely, Allan Collins, and Paul Duguid. “Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning.” Educational Researcher 18 (1989): 32-42.

Como, Lyn. “What it Means to be Literate about Classrooms.” Classrooms and Literacy. Ed. David Bloome. Norwood. NJ: Ablex. 1989.29-52.

Como, Lyn. and Ellen B. Mandinach. “The Role of Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Learning and Motivation.” Educational Psychologist 18 (1983): 88-108.

Doyle, Walter. “Academic Work.” Review of Educational Research 53 (1983): 159-99.

Dyson, Anne Haas. “Learning to Write/Learning to Do School: Emergent Writers’ Interpretations of School Literacy Tasks.” Research in the Teaching of English 18 (1984): 233-64.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in This Class? Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.

Flower, Linda, Victoria Stein, John Ackerman, Margaret Kantz, Kathleen McCormick, and Wayne Peck. Reading-To-Write: Exploring a Cognitive and Social Process. New York: Oxford UP, 1990

Flynn, Elizabeth A. ” Composing as a Woman .” CCC 39 (1988): 423-35.

Harris, Joseph. ” The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing .” CCC 40 (1989): 11-22.

Haswell, Janis Tedesco and Richard Haswell. “Gendership and the Miswriting of Students.” CCC 46 (1995). 223-54.

Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Hull, Glynda, and Mike Rose. ” ‘This Wooden Shack Place’: The Logic of an Unconventional Reading.” CCC 41 (1990): 287-98.

Kirsch, Gesa. “Students’ Interpretations of Writing Tasks: A Case Study.” Journal of Basic Writing 7.2 (1988): 81-90.

McCarthy, Lucille Parkinson. “A Stranger in Strange Lands: A College Student Writing Across the Disciplines.” Research in the Teaching of English 21 (1987): 233-65.

Marshall, James D. “Process and Product: Case Studies of Writing in Two Content Areas.” Contexts for Learning to Write: Studies of Secondary School Instruction. Arthur N. Applebee. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1984. 149-68.

Nelson, Jennie. “This Was an Easy Assignment: Examining How Students Interpret Academic Writing Tasks.” Research in the Teaching of English 24 (1990): 362-96.

Nystrand, Martin, and Adam Gamoran. “Instructional Discourse, Student Engagement, and Literature Achievement.” Research in the Teaching of English 25 (1991): 261-90.

Penrose, Ann M. “To Write or Not to Write.” Written Communication 9 (1992): 465-500.

Peterson, Linda H. ” Gender and the Autobiographical Essay .” CCC 42 (1991): 170-83.

Rose, Mike. Lives on the Boundary: The Struggles and Achievements of America’s Underprepared. New York: Free Press, 1989.

Walvoord, Barbara E., and Lucille P. McCarthy. Thinking and Writing in College: A Naturalistic Study of Students in Four Disciplines. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1990.

Mirskin, Jerry. “Writing as a Process of Valuing.” CCC 46.3 (1995): 387-410.

Abstract:

Mirskin proposes conceiving writing in terms of how writers value their subjects. Meaning occurs when “statements ‘press’ against shared contexts of attitude and value.” Through writing students signify values: they call out significant responses in their readers. Mirskin differentiates valuing from purpose. Purpose is the effect eh writer tries to achieve and is more concerned with an end product. Valuing is a gesture or activity of writing that calls upon an audience’s responses that reflect attitude. Mirskin suggests ways teachers might prompt valuing through comments and shares examples of his own interactions with students valuing within a text.

Keywords:

ccc46.3 Language Value Meaning Process World Terms Writing Response Attitude Understanding MMead Society MBakhtin Nature

Works Cited

Abrams. M. H. A Glossary of Literary Terms. 4th ed. New York: Holt. 1981.

Bakhtin. Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination. Ed. Michael Holquist. Trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: U of Texas P, 1981.

Bakhtin. Mikhail. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship. Trans. A. J. Wehrle. Cambridge. MA: Harvard UP, 1985.

Clark, K. and Michael Holquist. Mikhail Bakhtin. Cambridge. MA: Harvard Up, 1984. Mead, George Herbert. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1934.

Vygotsky. Lev. Thought and Language. Trans. Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar. Cambridge. MA: MIT P, 1962.

McLeod, Susan H. “Pygmalion or Golem? Teacher Affect and Efficacy.” CCC 46.3 (1995): 369-386.

Abstract:

McLeod defines the role of affect in teaching writing. She claims teacher’s expectations of students, their empathy, and own sense of self-efficacy greatly shape students’ writing. Parallels are drawn between affective teacher-student relationships and administrative-teacher relationships.

Keywords:

ccc46.3 Teachers Students Efficacy Sense Composition Teaching Writing Expectations Affect Empathy Class Faculty Research Achievement Classrooms

Works Cited

Ashton, Patricia. “Motivation and the Teacher’s Sense of Efficacy.” Research on Motivation in Education. Vol. 2. Ed. Carole Ames and Russell Ames. New York: Academic, 1985. 141-71.

Bandura, Albert. “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Psychological Review 84 (1977): 191-215.

—. “The Self System in Reciprocal Determinism.” American Psychologist 33 (1978): 344-58.

Belenky, Mary Field, et al. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic, 1986.

Bloom, Benjamin S. “New Views of the Learner: Implications for Instruction and Curriculum.” Educational Leadership 35 (1978): 563-76.

Brand, Alice Glarden. The Psychology of Writing: The Affective Experience. New York: Greenwood, 1989.

—. “Social Cognition, Emotions, and the Psychology of Writing.” Journal of Advanced Composition 11 (1991): 395-407.

—. ” The Why of Cognition: Emotion and the Writing Process .” CCC 38 (1987): 436-43.

Brofenbrenner, Uri. “The Experimental Ecology of Education.” Educational Researcher 5 (1976): 5-15.

Brophy, Jere. “Teachers’ Expectations, Motives, and Goals for Working with Problem Students.” Research on Motivation in Education. Vol. 2. Ed. Carole Ames and Russell Ames. New York: Academic, 1985. 175-214.

Bullock, Richard, and John Trimbur, eds. The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary. Portsmouth, NY: Boynton, 1991.

CCCC Committee on Professional Standards, “CCCC Initiatives on the Wyoming Conference Resolution: A Draft Report .” CCC 40 (1989): 61-72.

—. ” A Progress Report from the CCCC Committee on Professional Standards .” CCC 42 (1991): 330-49.

Connors, Robert J. “Rhetoric in the Modern University: The Creation of an Underclass.” Bullock and Trimbur, 55-84.

Cooper, Harris M. “Models of Teacher Expectation Communication.” Teacher Expectancies. Ed. Jerome Dusek. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. 135-58.

Cooper, Harris M., and Thomas L. Good. Pygmalion Grows Up: Studies in the Expectation Communication Process. New York: Longman, 1983.

Deutch, Francine, and Ronald A. Madle. “Empathy: Historic and Current Conceptualizations, Measurement, and a Cognitive Theoretical Perspective.” Human Development 18 (1975): 267-87.

Dusek, Jerome, ed. Teacher Expectancies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985.

Eccles, Jacquelynne S., and Allan Wigfield. “Teacher Expectations and Student Motivation.” Dusek, 185-226.

Eisenberg, Nancy, and Janet Strayer, eds. Empathy and Its Development. New York: Cambridge UP, 1988.

Elbow, Peter. Embracing Contraries: Explorations in Learning and Teaching. New York: Oxford UP, 1986.

—. “Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking.” College English 55 (1993): 187-206.

Flower, Linda. The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1994.

Flynn, Elizabeth A. “Composition Studies from a Feminist Perspective.” Bullock and Trimbur, 137-54.

Goldstein, Arnold P., and Gerald Y. Michaels. Empathy: Development. Training. and Consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985.

Gordon, Thomas. T. E. T: Teacher Effectiveness Training. New York: Wyden, 1974.

Hall, Vernon C., and Stephen P. Merkel. “Teacher Expectancy Effects and Educational Psychology.” Teacher Expectancies. Ed. Jerome Dusek. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. 67-92.

Holland, John. Making Vocational Choices: A Theory of Careers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Hornstein, Harvey A., et al. “Influence and Satisfaction in Organizations: A Replication.” Sociology of Education 41 (1968): 380-849.

Hull, Glynda, and Mike Rose. ” ‘This Wooden Shack Place’: The Logic of an Unconventional Reading.” CCC 41 (1990): 287-98.

Hull, Glynda, Mike Rose, Kay Losey Fraser, and Marisa Castellano. ” Remediation as Social Construct: Perspectives from an Analysis of Classroom Discourse .” CCC 42 (1991): 299-329.

Jackson, Philip W. Life in Classrooms. New York: Holt, 1968.

Katz, Robert L. Empathy: Its Nature and Uses. New York: Free P, 1963.

Leacock, Eleanor. Teaching and Learning in City Schools: A Comparative Study. New York: Basic, 1969.

Lewis, Michael. The Culture of Inequality. New York: NAL, 1978.

McCarthy, Patricia, Scott Meier, and Regina Rinderer. “Self-Efficacy and Writing: A Different View of Self-Evaluation.” CCC 36 (1985): 465-71.

McLeod, Susan H. “The Affective Domain and the Writing Process: Working Definitions.” Journal of Advanced Composition II (1991): 95-105.

—. ” Some Thoughts About Feelings: The Affective Domain and the Writing Process .” CCC 38 (1987): 426-35.

Meichenbaum, Donald H., and Ian Smart. “Use of Direct Expectancy to Modify Academic Performance and Attitudes of College Students.” Journal of Counseling Psychology 18 (1971): 531-35.

Merrill. Robert, et al. ” Symposium on the 1991 ‘Progress Report from the CCCC Committee on Professional Standards .”’ CCC 43 (1992): 154-75.

Mitman, Alexis L., and Richard E. Snow. “Logical and Methodological Problems in Teacher Expectancy Research.” Teacher Expectancies. Ed. Jerome Dusek. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. 93-131.

Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.

North, Stephen. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton, 1987.

Peterson, Penelope L., and Sharon A. Barger. “Attribution Theory and Teacher Expectancy.” Teacher Expectancies. Ed. Jerome Dusek. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. 159-84.

Rogers, Carl. “Empathic: An Unappreciated Way of Being.” The Counseling Psychologist 5 (1975): 2-10.

—. Freedom to Learn: A Vision of What Education Might Become. Columbus, OH: Merrill, 1969.

Rose, Mike. Lives on the Boundary. New York: Basic, 1989.

Rosenthal. Robert. “From Unconscious Experimenter Bias to Teacher Expectancy Effects.” Teacher Expectancies. Ed. Jerome Dusek. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1985. 37-65.

Rosenthal. Robert, and Kermit L. Fode. “The Effect of Experimenter Bias on the Performance of the Albino Rat.” Behavioral Science 8 (1963): 183-89.

Rosenthal. Robert, and Lenore Jacobson. Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York: Holt, 1968.

Russell, Bertrand. Philosophy. New York: Norton, 1927.

Sarason, Irwin G. “Experimental Approaches to Test Anxiety: Attention and the Uses of Information.” Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research. Ed. Charles D. Spielberger. Vol. 2. New York: Academic, 1972. 381-86.

Schniedewind, Nancy. “Feminist Values: Guidelines for Teaching Methodology in Women’s Studies.” Friere for the Classroom: A Sourcebook for Liberatory Teaching. Ed. Ira Shor. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton, 1987. 170-79.

Shaughnessy, Mina P. “Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing.” CCC 27 (1976): 234-39.

—. Errors and Expectations: A Guide for the Teacher of Basic Writing. New York: Oxford, 1977.

Slevin, James. “Depoliticizing and Politicizing Composition Studies.” The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary. Bullock and Trimbur, 1-21.

Teich, Nathaniel, ed. Rogerian Perspectives: Collaborative Rhetoric for Oral and Written Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1992.

Thomas, Dene, and Gordon Thomas. “The Use of Rogerian Reflection in Small Group Writing Conferences.” Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research. Ed. Chris M. Anson. Urbana: NCTE, 1989. 114-26.

Tolman, Edward C. Purposive Behavior in Animals and Men. New York: Appleton, 1932.

Wehling, Leslie J., and W. W. Charters, Jr. “Dimensions of Teacher Beliefs about the Teaching Process.” American Educational Research Journal 6 (1969): 7-30.

Weiner, Bernard. An Attributional Theory of Motivation and Emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.

Weston, Elizabeth. “On Part-Time College Teaching.” Thought and Action II (Winter 1986): 149-52.

Wise, Arthur. Legislated Learning: The Bureaucratization of the American Classroom. Berkeley: U of California P, 1979.

Flynn, Elizabeth A. “Feminism and Scientism.” CCC 46.3 (1995): 353-368.

Abstract:

Flynn argues that recent feminist analyses of gender and power can illuminate how composition studies has struggled for legitimacy and power within the academy. Specifically feminist critiques of scientific epistemologies can reveal how it may “endanger those in marginalized positions.” Flynn provides a brief overview of scientist tendencies within the field as a “defense in the struggle against its chief adversary, literary studies” and discusses ways of gaining authority outside “masculinized identifications” with science.

Keywords:

ccc46.3 Research Composition EmpiricalResearch Sciences Women Power Field Resistance Feminism Scientism Authority Gender Academy LFlower MHairston Identification Methods Writing SocialSciences

Works Cited

Berman, Ruth. “From Aristotle’s Dualism to Materialist Dialectics: Feminist Transformation of Science and Society.” Gender/Body/Knowledge: Feminist Reconstructions of Being and Knowing. Ed. Alison M. Jagger and Susan R. Bordo. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1989. 224-55.

Braddock, Richard, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer. Research in Written Composition. Urbana: NCTE, 1963.

Bridwell, Lillian and Richard Beach. New Directions in Composition Research. New York: Guilford, 1984.

Bullock, Richard and John Trimbur. Ed. The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1991.

Butler, Judith. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge, 1993.

Connors, Robert J. “Composition Studies and Science.” College English 45 (1983): 1-20.

Cooper, Charles and Lee Odell, eds. Research on Composing: Points of Departure. Urbana: NCTE, 1978.

Fetterley, Judith. The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1978.

Flax, Jane. “The End of Innocence.” Feminists Theorize the Political. Ed. Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott. New York: Routledge, 1992. 445-63.

Flower, Linda. ” Cognition, Context, and Theory Building .” CCC 40 (1989): 282-311.

Gilbert, Sandra M., and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. New Haven: Yale UP, 1979.

Giroux, Henry A. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. New York: Bergin, 1983.

Graham, Margaret Baker and Patricia Goubil-Gambrell. “Hearing Voices in English Studies.” Journal of Advanced Composition 15 (1995): 103-19.

Harding, Sandra. The Science Question in Feminism. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1986.

Hairston, Maxine. “The Winds of Change: Thomas Kuhn and the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing.” CCC 33 (1982): 7688.

—. “Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing.” CCC 43 (1992): 179-93.

Hillocks, George E., Jr. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana: Eric Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, 1986.

Holbrook, Sue Ellen. “Women’s Work: The Feminizing of Composition.” Rhetoric Review 9 (1991): 201-29.

hooks, bell. Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston: South End, 1989.

—. Yearning: Race, Gender; and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End, 1990.

Irigaray, Luce. “Writing as a Woman.” Je Tu Nous: Toward a Culture of Difference. New York: Routledge, 1993. 51-59.

Jayaratne, Toby, and Abigail J. Stewart. “Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences: Current Feminist Issues and Practical Strategies.” Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Ed. Mary Margaret Fonow and Judith A. Cook. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. 85-106.

Jardine, Alice, and Paul Smith. Men in Feminism. New York: Routledge, 1987.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale UP, 1985.

Kirsch, Gesa E. and Joy S. Ritchie. ” Beyond the Personal: Theorizing a Politics of Location in Composition Research .” CCC 46 (1995): 7-29.

Kristeva, Julia. “About Chinese Women.” The Kristeva Reader. Ed. Toril Mol. New York: Columbia UP, 1986. 138-59.

Laclau, Ernesto, and Chantal Mouffe. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Toward a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso, 1985.

Lauer, Janice M., and J. William Asher. Composition Research: Empirical Designs. New York: Oxford UP, 1988.

Miller, Susan. ‘Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

Modleski, Tania. Feminism Without Women: Culture and Criticism in a “Postfeminist” Age. New York: Routledge, 1991.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Upper Montclair: Boynton, 1987.

Quandah1. Ellen. “The Anthropological Sleep of Composition.” Journal of Advanced Composition 14 (1994): 413-29.

Rossiter, Margaret W. Women Scientists in America: Struggles and Strategies to 1940. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1982.

Shumway, David R. “Science, Theory, and the Politics of Empirical Studies in the English Department.” Writing Theory and Critical Theory. Ed. John Clifford and John Schilb. New York: MLA, 1994. 148-58.

Sommers, Nancy. ” Between the Drafts .” CCC 43 (1992): 23-31.

Weiler, Kathleen. Women Teaching for Change: Gender, Class and Power. New York: Bergin, 1988.

Simmons, Sue Carter. “Constructing Writers: Barrett Wendell’s Pedagogy at Harvard.” CCC 46.3 (1995): 327-352.

Abstract:

Simmons examines the pedagogy of Barrett Wendell, composition teacher at Harvard University in the late 19th century. She challenges historical views that tie him inextricably to current-traditional rhetoric. She cites his use of student peer editing, his conferences with students, and his allowance of students to choose their own subjects as evidence of a more nuanced pedagogy, one that complicates the relationship between current-traditional rhetoric and process pedagogies.

Keywords:

ccc46.3 BWendell Pedagogy Harvard Writing Students Themes English Teachers Composition Rhetoric EnglishA History

Works Cited

Abbott, Walter. Themes from English 12. 1886-1887. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

Adams, Charles Francis, E. L. Godkin, and Josiah Quincy. “Report of the Committee on Composition and Rhetoric.” Reports of the Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers of Harvard College. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1902. 117-67.

Adams, Katherine H. and John L. Adams. “The Paradox Within: Origins of the Current-Traditional Paradigm.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 17 (1987): 421-32.

Anderson, Larz. Larz Anderson: Letters and Journals of a Diplomat. Ed. Isabel Anderson. New York: Fleming Revell, 1940.

—. Themes from English 12. 18851887. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

Bail, Hamilton Vaughn. “Harvard Fiction: Some Critical and Bibliographical Notes.” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 68.2 (1958): 211-347.

Baldwin, William Woodward. “The Founding of the Harvard Monthly.” Harvard Monthly 21 (1895): 1-4.

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” When a Writer Can’t Write. Ed. Mike Rose. New York: Guilford, 1985. 143-65.

Behrman, S. N. “After Forty Years.” College in a Yard. Ed. Brooks Atkinson. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1958. 27-32.

Berlin, James. Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1984.

Briggs, LeBaron Russell. To College Teachers of English Composition. Boston: Houghton, 1928.

Briggs, LeBaron Russell, S. B. S. Clymer, Barrett Wendell, Josiah Royce, and Lewis E. Gates. Draft Letter to the Overseers. 29 May 1885. Barrett Wendell Papers. Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, and Harold Rosen. The Development of Writing Abilities, 11-18. London: Macmillan, 1975.

Bunker, Clarence. Lecture Notes for English 12. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

Burdett, C. H. Themes from English 12. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

Burlingame, Roger. “A Memory of Copey.” College in a Yard. Ed. Brooks Atkinson. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1958. 41-44.

Castle, William R. Jr. “Barrett Wendell Teacher.” Essays in Memory of Barrett Wendell. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1926. 1-10.

Cohen, Paul. “Barrett Wendell: A Study of Harvard Culture.” Diss. Northwestern U, 1974.

Copeland, C. T., and H. M. Rideout. Freshman English and Theme-Correcting in Harvard College. New York: Silver, Burdett, 1901.

Crowley, Sharon. The Methodical Memory: Invention in Current- Traditional Rhetoric. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1990.

—. “A Personal Essay on Freshman English.” Pre/Text 12 (1991): 156-76.

Douglas, Wallace. “Barrett Wendell.” Traditions of Inquiry. Ed. John Brereton. New York: Oxford UP, 1985. 3-25.

—. “Barrett Wendell and the Contradictions of Composition.” Arizona English Bulletin 16.2 (1974): 182-90.

Eaton, Walter Prichard. “Barrett Wendell.” The American Mercury 5 (1925): 448-55.

Graff, Gerald and Michael Warner, eds. The Origins of Literary Studies in America: A Documentary Anthology. New York: Routledge, 1989.

Greenough, James Jay. “The English Question.” Atlantic Monthly 71 (1893): 656-62.

Halloran, S. Michael. “From Rhetoric to Composition: The Teaching of Writing in America to 1900.” A Short History of Writing Instruction. Ed. James J. Murphy. Davis, CA: Hermagoras P, 1990. 151-82.

Harvard College Catalogs. Cambridge, MA. 1875-76 to 1904-05.

Hill, A. S. The Principles of Rhetoric and Their Application. New York: Harper, 1878; American, 1895.

Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End of the Eighteenth Century to the Present. Chicago: U of Chicago p, 1987.

Kitzhaber, Albert R. Rhetoric in American Colleges, 1850-1900. Dallas: Southern Methodist UP, 1990.

McAfee, French. Themes from English 12. Harvard University Archives, Pusey Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Miller, Susan. Textual Carnivals: The Politics of Composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

Newkirk, Thomas. “Barrett Wendell’s Theory of Discourse.” Rhetoric Review 19 (1991): 20-30.

Petraglia, Joseph. “Spinning Like a Kite: Pseudotransactionality in Writing Research.” Journal of Advanced Composition 15 (1995): 19-33.

Phelps, William Lyon. Autobiography with Letters. New York: Oxford UP, 1939.

Phillips, James D. Lecture Notes from English A. 1893-1894. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

Rampersad, Arnold. The Art and Imagination of W E. B. DuBois. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1976.

Russell, David. Writing in the Academic Disciplines, 1870-1990. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1991.

Self, Robert T. Barrett Wendell. Boston: Hall, 1975.

Simmons, Sue Carter. “Radcliffe Responses to Harvard Rhetoric: ‘An Absurdly Stiff Way of Thinking.”’ Nineteenth-Century Women Learn to Write. Ed. Catherine Hobbs. UP of Virginia, 1995. 264-292.

Snow, D. K. Lecture Notes for English 12. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

Trachsel. Mary. Institutionalizing Literacy: The Historical Role of College Entrance Examinations in English. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1992.

Walker, Franklin. Frank Norris: A Biography. New York: Doubleday, 1932.

Wendell Barrett. Correspondence to Charles Eliot. Eliot Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

—. “English at Harvard University.” English in American Universities. Ed. William Morton Payne. Boston: Heath, 1895. 44-48.

—. English Composition. New York: Scribners, 1891. 1894.

—. Gradebook for English A. 1889-1890. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

—. Gradebook for English 12. 1889. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

—. “The Harvard Undergraduate.” The Harvard Monthly 8 (1889): 1-11.

—. Journal. 1884–85. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

—. Lecture Notes for English 12. 18871888. Curriculum Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

—. Letter to George Pierce Baker. 11 February 1899. George Pierce Baker Papers. Harvard Theatre Collection, Harvard College Library, Cambridge, MA.

—. “The Study of English Composition.” Barrett Wendell Collection. Harvard U Archives, Pusey Library, Cambridge, MA.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v46-4

Fox, Tom. “Review Essay: Proceeding with Caution: Composition in the 90s.” Rev. of Writing Theory and Critical Theory by John Clifford and John Schilb; Pedagogy in the Age of Politics: Writing and Reading (In) the Academy by Patricia A. Sullivan and Donna J. Qualley. CCC 46.4 (1995): 566-578.

Purvis, Teresa M. “Review Essay: The Two-Year Community College: Into the 21st Century.” Rev. of The Invisible Faculty: Improving the Status of Part-Timers in Higher Education by Judith M. Gappa and David W. Leslie; Democracy’s Open Door: The Community College in America’s Future by Marlene Griffith and Ann Connor; Two-Year College English: Essays for a New Century by Mark Reynolds. CCC 46.4 (1995): 557-565.

Purves, Alan C., et al. “Interchanges.” CCC 46.4 (1995): 549-556.

Dawkins, John. “Teaching Punctuation as a Rhetorical Tool.” CCC 46.4 (1995): 533-548.

Abstract:

Claiming that handbooks problematically teach punctuation as grammatically wrong or right, Dawkins outlines how writers can be taught to use a hierarchy of punctuation marks: ones that mark degrees of separation between independent clauses and thereby fashion and enhance meaning.

Keywords:

ccc46.4 Punctuation Rhetoric Comma Clauses IndependentClauses Emphasis Sentence Grammar Writers Rules Meaning Separation Dash Handbooks CommaSplice

Works Cited

Dawkins, John. Rethinking Punctuation. ERIC ED 340 048. 1992.

Levinson, Joan Persily, Punctuation and the Orthographic Sentence. Diss. City U of New York, 1985.

—. “The Linguistic Status of the Orthographic (Text) Sentence.” CUNY Forum 14 (1989): 113-17.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvic. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman, 1985.

Summey. George. American Punctuation. New York: Ronald, 1949.

David, Denise, Barbara Gordon and Rita Pollard. “Seeking Common Ground: Guiding Assumptions for Writing Courses.” CCC 46.4 (1995): 522-532.

Abstract:

The authors contend the response to Maxine Hairston’s article, “Diversity, Ideology and Teaching Writing,” marks a critical debate about the purpose of the writing course. They claim the debate needs clear assumptions to demarcate what constitutes a writing course. They claim the assumptions should be: 1) the development of writing ability and metacognitive awareness as the primary objective of the writing course, 2) student’s writing as the privileged text in a writing course, and 3) writing as the subject of a writing course.

Keywords:

ccc46.4 Writing Courses Students Composition Assumptions WritingIntensive Subjects Voices Content Curriculum

Works Cited

Anson, Chris M. “Writing Intensive Courses and the Demise of Composition.” Annual Conference of SUNY Council on Writing. Sanborn, NY, April 1993.

Belenky, Mary Field, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule. Women’s Ways of Knowing. New York: Basic. 1986.

Brooke, Robert E. Writing and Sense of Self’ Identity Negotiation in Writing Workshops. Urbana: NCTE, 1991.

Brown, Ann L. “Metacognitive Development in Reading.” Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension. Ed. Bertram Bruce, Rand Spiro, and William Brewer. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 1980. 453-81.

Crowley, Sharon. “A Personal Essay on Freshman English.” Pre/Text (1991): 155-176.

Elbow, Peter. “The War between Reading and Writing-And How to End It.” Rhetoric Review 12 (1993): 5-24.

—. “Questioning Two Assumptions of the Profession.” What is English? Ed. Peter Elbow. Urbana: NCTE, 1990. 179-92.

Flavell, John H. “Metacognition and Cognitive Monitoring: A New Area of Cognitive Developmental Inquiry.” American Psychologist 34 (1979): 906-11.

Flower, Linda. “Talking Thought: The Role of Conscious Processing in Making Meaning.” Thinking, Reasoning, and Writing. Ed. Elaine P. Maimon, Barbara F. Nodine, and Finbarr W. O’Connor. New York: Longman, 1989. 185-212.

France, Alan W. “Assigning Places: Introductory Composition as a Cultural Discourse.” College English 55 (1993): 593-609.

Fulwiler, Toby. “The Quiet and Insistent Revolution: Writing Across the Curriculum.” The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary. Ed. Richard Bullock and John Trimbur. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1991. 179-87.

Gebhardt. Richard. “Editor’s Column: Theme Issue Feedback and Fallout.” CCC 43 (1992): 295-96.

Hairston, Maxine. ” Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing .” CCC 43 (1992): 179-93.

Lindemann, Erika. “Freshman Composition: No Place For Literature.” College English 55 (1993): 311-16.

Milton, Ohmer. Will That Be on the Final? Springfield: Thomas, 1982.

Milton, Ohmer, Howard R. Pollio, and James A. Eison. Making Sense of College Grades: Why the Grading System Does Not Work and What Can Be Done About It. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1986.

Newkirk. Thomas. “Locating Freshman English.” Nuts & Bolts: A Practical Guide to Teaching College Composition. Ed. Thomas Newkirk. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1993. 1-15.

Russell, David. “Romantics on Writing; Liberal Culture and the Abolition of Composition Courses.” Rhetoric Review 6 (1988): 132-46.

Scardamalia, Marlene, and Carl Bereiter. “Research on Written Composition.” Handbook of Research on Teaching. 3rd ed. Ed. Merlin C. Wittrock. New York: Macmillan, 1986. 778-803.

Stolarek, Elizabeth. “Prose Modeling and Metacognition: The Effect of Modeling on Developing a Metacognitive Stance Toward Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 28 (1994): 154-74.

Trimbur, John. “Responses to Maxine Hairston’s ‘Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing.'” CCC 44 (1993): 248-49.

White, Edward M. “Shallow Roots or Tap Roots for Writing across the Curriculum?” ADE Bulletin. 98 (Spring 1991): 29-33.

Wood, Robert. “Responses to Maxine Hairston’s ‘Diversity, Ideology, and Teaching Writing.'” CCC 44 (1993): 249-50.

Zamel, Vivian. “Strangers in Academia: The Experiences of Faculty and ESL Students across the Curriculum.” CCC 46.4 (1995): 506-521.

Abstract:

Zamel examines two divergent faculty responses to ESL as representative examples. He states his goal as wanting teachers to consider institutional contexts and assumptions about student writing. Many university teachers identify knowledge and language as separate entities. Such teachers believe that for students to acquire language, their deficit skills must be emphasized. Grammar must be taught as a necessary precursor to language acquisition. A solution to this problematic belief system is extensive dialogue across the university. Such discussion about problematic conceptions of language acquisition can help students and teachers reposition themselves and create healthy contact zones of contestation.

Keywords:

ccc46.4 Students Faculty Language Work ESL Writing Courses Classrooms Institutions Curriculum

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” Journal of Basic Writing 5 (Spring 1986): 4-23.

Benesch, Sarah. “ESL, Ideology, and the politics of Pragmatism.” TESOL Quarterly 27 (1993): 705-17.

Chiseri-Strater, Elizabeth. Academic Literacies: The Public and Private Discourse of University Students. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1991.

Clark, Gregory. ” Rescuing the Discourse of Community .” CCC 45 (1994): 61-74.

Fox, Tom. “Basic Writing as Cultural Conflict.” Journal of Education 172 (1990): 65-83.

—. “Standards and Access.” Journal of Basic Writing 12 (Spring 1993): 37-45.

Gay, Pamela. “Rereading Shaughnessy from a Postcolonial Perspective.” Journal of Basic Writing 12 (Fall 1993): 29-40.

Giroux, Henry. “Postmodernism as Border Pedagogy: Redefining the Boundaries of Race and Ethnicity.” Postmodernism, Feminism, and Cultural Politics: Redrawing Educational Boundaries. Ed. Henry Giroux. Albany: State U of New York P, 1991. 217-56.

Graff, Gerald. Beyond the Culture Wars. New York: Norton, 1992.

Horner, Bruce. “Mapping Errors and Expectations for Basic Writing: From ‘Frontier Field’ to ‘Border Country.’ ” English Education 26 (1994): 29-51.

Hull, Glynda, and Mike Rose. ” ‘This Wooden Shack Place’: The Logic of an Unconventional Reading.” CCC 41 (1990): 287-98.

Hull, Glynda, Mike Rose, Kay Losey Fraser, and Marisa Castellano. ” Remediation as Social Construct: Perspectives from an Analysis of Classroom Discourse .” CCC 42 (1991): 299-329.

Laurence, Patricia. “The Vanishing Site of Mina Shaughnessy’s Errors and Expectations.” Journal of Basic Writing 12 (Fall 1993): 18-28.

Lu, Min-Zhan. “Conflict and Struggle in Basic Writing.” College English 54 (1992): 887-913.

Mayher, John S. “Uncommon Sense in the Writing Center.” Journal of Basic Writing 11 (Spring 1992): 47-57.

McKay, Sandra Lee. “Examining L2 Composition Ideology: A Look at Literacy Education.” Journal of Second Language Writing 2 (1993): 65-81.

Neuleib, Janice. ” The Friendly Stranger: Twenty-Five Years as ‘Other.’ ” CCC 43 (1992): 231-43.

Pratt, Mary Louise. “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Profession 91 (1991): 33-40.

Raimes, Ann. “Out of the Woods: Emerging Traditions in the Teaching of Writing.” TESOL Quarterly 25 (1991): 407-30.

Ray, Ruth. “Language and Literacy from the Student Perspective: What We Can Learn from the Long-term Case Study.” The Writing Teacher as Researcher. Ed. Donald A. Daiker and Max Morenberg. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1990. 321-35.

Rose, Mike. Lives on the Boundary: The Struggles and Achievements of America’s Underprepared. New York: Free P, 1989.

—. “The Language of Exclusion: Writing Instruction at the University.” College English 47 (1985): 341-59.

Shaughnessy, Mina. “Diving In: An Introduction to Basic Writing.” CCC27 (1976): 234-39.

—. Errors and Expectations. New York: Oxford UP, 1977.

Spack, Ruth. Blair Resources for Teaching Writing: English as a Second Language. New York: Prentice, 1994.

Trimbur, John. “‘Really Useful Knowledge’ in the Writing Classroom.” Journal of Education 172 (1990): 21-23.

Villanueva, Victor. Bootstraps: From an American Academic of Color. Urbana: NCTE, 1993.

Walvoord, Barbara E., and Lucille B. McCarthy. Thinking and Writing in College: A Naturalistic Study of Students in Four Disciplines. Urbana: NCTE, 1990.

Zamel. Vivian. “Questioning Academic Discourse.” College ESL 3 (1993): 28-39.

Hjortshoj, Keith. “The Marginality of the Left-Hand Castes (A Parable for Writing Teachers).” CCC 46.4 (1995): 491-505.

Abstract:

Hjortshoj chronicles how writing programs have been consigned marginal status among university departments. Hjortshoj claims language should be central in a liberal arts curriculum The English Department should not necessarily house writing. In an extended metaphor, he compares possibilities for writing amidst university departments to a left-handed caste in India. The left-handed caste developed an alternative economy of status. Like the caste, an interdisciplinary writing program could create a collective center for various programs to converse about language acquisition and interactive learning.

Keywords:

ccc46.4 Writing Status Teachers Kammalans Language Castes Work English HigherEducation Scholars Knowledge Field Departments Disciplines Institutions

Works Cited

Basham, A. L. The Wonder That Was India. New York: Grove, 1959.

Berlin, James. Rhetoric and Reality. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

Blair, Catherine Pastore. “Only One of the Voices: Dialogic Writing Across the Curriculum.” College English 50 (1988): 383-89.

Bruffee, Kenneth. “Social Construction, Language, and the Authority of Knowledge: A Bibliographical Essay.” College English 48 (1986): 773-90.

CCCC. ” Statement of Principles and Standards for the Postsecondary Teaching of Writing .” CCC 40 (1989): 329-36.

Connors, Robert J. “Rhetoric in the Modern University: The Creation of an Underclass.” The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary. Ed. Richard Bullock and John Trimbur. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1991. 55-84.

Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.

Dumont, Louis. Homo Hierarchicus. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1966.

Eck, Diana L. Banaras: City of Light. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1982.

Elbow, Peter. “The Question of Writing.” What is English? Ed. Peter Elbow. New York: MLA, 1990.

Ghurye, G. S. Caste and Race in India. London: Kegan Paul. 1932.

Slevin, James. “Depoliticizing and Politicizing Composition Studies.” The Politics of Writing Instruction: Postsecondary. Ed. Richard Bullock and John Trimbur. Portsmouth: Boynton, 1991. 1-22.

Srinivas, M. N. “The Social System of a Mysore Village.” Village India. Ed. McKim Marriott. Chicago: U of Chicago Press, 1955.

—. Social Change in Modern India. Berkeley: U of California Press, 1971.

Thapar, Romila. A History of India. Vol. 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.

Thurston, Edgar. Castes and Tribes of Southern India. Madras: Government Press, 1909. Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Vol. 2. New York: Vintage, 1945.

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v46-1

Clark, Suzanne. “Women, Rhetoric, Teaching.” Rev. of Women Writing the Academy: Audience, Authority, and Transformation by Gesa E. Kirsch; An Ethic of Care: Feminist and Interdisciplinary Perspectives by Mary Jeanne Larrabee; Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy by Carmen Luke and Jennifer Gore; Feminine Principles and Women’s Experience in American Composition and Rhetoric by Louise Wetherbee Phelps and Janet Emig; Anxious Power: Reading, Writing, and Ambivalence in Narrative by Women by Carol J. Singley; Susan Elizabeth Sweeney. CCC 46.1 (1995): 108-122.

Bartholomae, David, et al. “Interchanges: Responses to Bartholomae and Elbow.” CCC 46.1 (1995): 84-107.

Elbow, Peter. “Being a Writer vs. Being an Academic: A Conflict in Goals.” CCC 46.1 (1995): 72-83.

Abstract:

This article is a published edition of Peter Elbow’s talk about the definitions and place of personal and academic writing given at the 1991 College Composition and Communication Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. Elbow advocates students be taught to be writers and academics; he defines the two in contradistinction to each other.

Keywords:

ccc46.1 Writers Students Writing Readers Academics Conflict Course Role Conversation DBartholomae Interests Texts

Bartholomae, David. “Writing with Teachers: A Conversation with Peter Elbow.” CCC 46.1 (1995): 62-71.

Abstract:

This article is a published edition of David Bartholomae’s talk about the definitions and place of personal and academic writing given at the 1991 College Composition and Communication Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. Bartholomae argues that academic writing is never “free” from institutional pressures and powers and that “free writing is the master trope” of such a fallacy.

Keywords:

ccc46.1 Writing Students AcademicWriting Classrooms Desire Power Work Argument PElbow Argument Conversation

Bridwell-Bowles, Lillian. “Freedom, Form, Function: Varieties of Academic Discourse,” CCC 46.1 (1995): 46-61.

Abstract:

Bridwell-Bowles calls teachers to teach writers not only academic discourse conventions but transformative language about complex politically charged subjects. Reviewing her own literacy history and recent composition history, she claims academic writing still needs the upset and complement of alternate writing: “writing that is not always about later, about jobs and careers, but writing that is about themselves as people, as individuals and citizens of various communities.”

Keywords:

ccc46.1 Writing Students Language World Discourse Form Dreams Education Profession Thinking Practices Literacy Freedom AcademicWriting

Works Cited

Baez, Joan. Baptism: A Journey through Our Time. Vanguard, VSD-79275, 1968.

Barber, Benjamin R. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” Atlantic, March 1992: 53-62.

Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston: Bedford, 1990.

Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind. New York: Simon, 1987.

Bridwell-Bowles, Lillian. “Discourse and Diversity: Experimental Writing Within the Academy.” CCC 43 (1992): 349-68.

Conley, Verena Andermatt. Helene Cixous: Writing the Feminine. 2nd Ed. Lincoln: U of Nebraska P, 1991.

Didion, Joan, Salvador. New York: Simon, 1983.

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss, and Robert Trapp. Contemporary Perspectives on Rhetoric. 2nd Ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland, 1991.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed:. Tr. Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Seabury, 1970.

Gates, Henry Louis, Jr. Loose Canons: Notes on the Culture Wars. New York: Oxford UP, 1992.

Gere, Anne Ruggles. ” Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extracurriculum of Composition .” CCC 45 (1994): 75-92.

Gilyard, Keith. Voices of the Self A Study of Language Competence. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1991.

Godzich, Wlad. “The Culture of Illiteracy.” Enclitic 8.1-2 (1984): 27-35.

Greene, Melissa Fay. Praying for Sheetrock. New York: Fawcett, 1991.

Hairston, Maxine. “Breaking Our Bonds and Reaffirming Our Connections.” CCC 36 (1985): 272-282.

Harred, Jane. Never a Copy: The Conflicting Claims of Narrative Discourse and Its Referent in the Literary Journalism of Truman Capote, Hunter S. Thompson, and Joan Didion. Diss. U of Minnesota, 1994.

Harris, Joseph. ” The Idea of Community in the Study of Writing .” CCC 40 (1989): 11-22.

Hughes, Langston. “Dreams.” Reflections on a Gift of Watermelon Pickle. Ed. Stephen Dunning, Edward Lueders, and Hugh Smith. Glenview, IL: Scott, 1966. 129.

Hurston, Zora Neale. Their Eyes Were Watching God. Urbana: U of Illinois P, 1978.

Kimball, Roger. Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Higher Education. New York: Harper, 1990.

Lloyd-Jones, Richard. “Who We Were, Who We Should Become.” CCC 43 (1992): 486-96.

Lunsford, Andrea A., and John J. Ruszkiewicz. The Presence of Others: Readings for Critical Thinking and Writing. New York: St. Martin’s, 1994.

Pilger, John. “Having Fun with Fear.” Rev. of Salvador by Joan Didion. New Statesman 6 (1983): 21.

Rich, Adrienne. On Lies, Secrets and Silences: Selected Prose 1966-78. New York, Norton, 1979.

Spender, Dale. Man Made Language. 2nd Ed. London: Routledge, 1985.

Thomas, Lewis, The Lives of a Cell: Notes of a Biology Watcher. New York: Viking, 1974.

Watson, James D. The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA. New York: Atheneum, 1968.

White, Edward M. “An Apologia for the Timed Impromptu Essay Test.” CCC 46.1 (1995): 30-45.

Abstract:

White calls that the college essay test be reevaluated with “attention to its virtues as well as its drawbacks.” He believes essay testing still plays a role in the development of portfolios and in the general arena of writing assessment. White particularly calls for a less reactive stance by the composition community against essay testing, noting that 70% of universities still use the form as a part of admissions and that colleagues outside the English Department might default to multiple-choice testing if no vigorously qualified standard of essay testing is recommended.

Keywords:

ccc46.1 Essay Writing Test Assessment Portfolios Testing Reliability Students Validity Students

Works Cited

Belanoff, Pat and Marcia Dickson. Portfolios: Process and Product. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton, 1991.

Black, Laurel. Donald A. Daiker, Jeffrey Sommers, and Gail Stygall. Handbook of Writing Portfolio Assessment: A Program for College Placement. Oxford, OH: Department of English, 1992.

Diederich, Paul. Measuring Growth in English. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1974.

Elbow, Peter. “Foreword.” Belanoff and Dickson ix-xvi.

Haswell, Richard H. Gaining Ground in College Writing: Tales of Development and Interpretation. Dallas, TX: Southern UP, 1991.

Koenig, Judith and Karen Mitchell. “An Interim Report on the MCAT Essay Pilot Project.” Journal of Medical Education 63 (1988): 21-29.

Koretz, Daniel. et al. The Reliability of Scores From the 1992 Vermont Portfolio Assessment Program. CSE Technical Report 355. Los Angeles: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation, 1993.

Mahala, Daniel, and Michael Vivion. “The Role of AP and the Composition Program.” WPA 17 (1993): 43-56.

Mitchell, Karen, and Judith Anderson. “Reliability of Essay Scoring for the MCAT Essay.” Educational and Psychological Measurement46 (1986): 771-75.

Murphy, Sandra, et al. “Survey of Postsecondary Writing Assessment Practices.” Report to the CCCC Executive Committee, 1993.

Roemer, Marjorie, Lucille M. Schultz, and Russell K. Durst. “Portfolios and the Process of Change.” CCC 42 (1991): 455-69.

White, Edward M. “Assessing Higher-Order Thinking and Communication Skills in College Graduates Through Writing.” Journal of General Education 42 (1993): 105-22.

—. “Holistic Scoring: Past Triumphs, Future Challenges.” Williamson and Huot 79-106.

—. Teaching and Assessing Writing. 2^nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1994.

White, Edward M. and Leon 1. Thomas. “Racial Minorities and Writing Skills Assessment in The California State University and Colleges.” College English 42 (1981): 276-283.

Williamson, Michael M. and Brian A. Huot. Validating Holistic Scoring for Writing Assessment: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 1993.

Kirsch, Gesa E. and Joy S. Ritchie. “Beyond the Personal: Theorizing a Politics of Location in Composition Research.” CCC 46.1 (1995): 7-29.

Abstract:

Given that feminist scholarship has informed composition studies and admitted the personal into public discourse, how might its emphasis on fronting personal, material politics of location inform and change research practices? Ritchie and Kirsch argue that it is not enough to claim the personal and locate oneself in one’s scholarship but that they also theorize their locations by “examining their experiences as reflections of ideology and culture, by interpreting their experiences through the eyes of others, and by recognizing their own split selves.” The authors further recommend changes in research practices that emphasize collaboration with participants, the writing of research reports and the raising of ethical questions relative to these research practices.

Keywords:

ccc46.1 Research Researchers Women Questions Composition Location Writing Politics Experience Feminism Scholars Work Personal Gender Ethics

Works Cited

Acker, Joan, Kate Barry, and Johanna Esseveld. “Objectivity and Truth: Problems in Doing Feminist Research.” Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Ed. Mary Fonow and Judith Cook. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991. 133-53.

Alcoff, Linda. “The Problem of Speaking for Others.” Cultural Critique 20 (1991-92): 5-32.

Anderson, Worth, Cynthia Best, Alycia Black. John Hurst, Brandt Miller, and Susan Miller. ” Cross-Curricular Ablex: A Collaborative Report on Ways with Academic Words .” CCC 41 (1990): 11-36.

Bizzell, Patricia. “Foundationalism and Anti­Foundationalism in Composition Studies.” Pre/Text 7 (1986): 37-56.

Bridwell-Bowles, Lillian. “Discourse and Diversity: Experimental Writing Within the Academy.” CCC 43 (1992): 349-68.

Card, Claudia, ed. Feminist Ethics. Lawrence: UP of Kansas. 1991.

Clark, Beverly Lyon, and Sonja Wiedenhaupt. “On Blocking and Unblocking Sonja: A Case Study in Two Voices.” CCC 43 (1992): 55-74.

Clark, Gregory. “Rescuing the Discourse of Community.” CCC 45 (1994): 61-74.

Collins, Patricia Hill. “Learning from the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought.” (En)Gendering Knowledge: Feminists in Academe. Ed. Joan Hartman and Ellen Messer Davidow. Knoxville: U of Tennessee P, 1991. 40-65.

Deletiner, Carole. “Crossing Lines.” College English 54 (1992): 809-17.

Ebert, Teresa. “The ‘Difference’ of Postmodern Feminism.” College English 53 (1991): 886-904.

Eichhorn, Jill, Sara Farris, Karen Hayes, Adriana Hernandez, Susan Jarratt, Karen Powers-Stubbs, and Marian Sciachitano. “A Symposium on Feminist Experiences in the Composition Classroom.” CCC 43 (1992): 297-322.

Fine, Michelle. “Working the Hyphens: Reinventing Self and Other in Qualitative Research.” Handbook of Qualitative Research. Ed. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. 70-82.

Flax, Jane. Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West. Berkeley: U of California P, 1990.

—. Disputed Subjects: Essays on Psychoanalysis, Politics, and Philosophy. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Fonow, Mary, M. and Judith Cook, eds. Beyond Methodology: Feminist Scholarship as Lived Research. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1991.

Friedman, Marilyn. “Beyond Caring: The De-Moralization of Gender.” Science, Morality, and Feminist Theory. Ed. Marsha Hanen and Kai Nielsen. Calgary: U of Calgary P, 1987. 87-110.

Frankenberg, Ruth. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1993.

Gilligan, Carol. In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1982.

Gorelick Sherry. “Contradictions of Feminist Methodology.” Gender and Society 4 (1991): 459-77.

Graves, Heather Brodie. “Regrinding the Lens of Gender: Problematizing ‘Writing as a Woman:” Written Communication 10 (1993): 139-63.

Grumet, Madeleine R. “The Politics of Personal Knowledge.” Stories Lives Tell: Narrative and Dialogue in Education. Ed. Carol Witherell and Nel Noddings. New York: Teachers College P, 1991. 67-77.

Gulyas, Carol. “Reflections on Telling Stories.” English Education 18(1994): 189-94.

Hale, Sondra. “Feminist Methods, Process, and Self-Criticism: Interviewing Sudanese Women.” Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. Ed. Sherna Gluck and Daphne Patai. New York: Routledge, 1991. 121-36.

Haraway, Donna. “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14 (1988): 575-99.

Harding, Sandra, ed. Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1987.

—. “Who Knows? Identities and Feminist Epistemology.” (En)Gendering Knowledge: Feminists in Academe. Ed. Joan Hartman and Ellen Messer-Davidow. Knoxville, TN: U of Tennessee P, 1991. 100-15.

—. Whose Science? Whose Knowledge? Thinking from Women’s Lives. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1991.

Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways With Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Hoagland, Sarah Lucia. “Some Thoughts about ‘Caring’.” Feminist Ethics. Ed. Claudia Card. Lawrence: UP of Kansas, 1991. 246-63.

hooks, bell. “Feminist Politicization: A Comment.” Talking Back: Thinking Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston: South End P, 1989. 105-11.

—. “Choosing the Margin as a Space of Radical Openness.” Yearning: Race, Gender, and Cultural Politics. Boston: South End P, 1990. 145-54.

Houston, Barbara. “Rescuing Womanly Virtues: Some Dangers of Moral Reclamation.” Science, Morality, and Feminist Theory. Ed. Marsha Hanen and Kai Nielsen. Calgary: U of Calgary P, 1987. 237-62.

Johnson, Cheryl. L. “Participatory Rhetoric and the Teacher as Racial/Gendered Subject.” College English 56 (1994): 409-19.

Keller, Evelyn Fox. “Dynamic Objectivity: Love, Power, and Knowledge.” Reflections on Gender and Science. New Haven: Yale UP, 1985. 115-26.

Kirsch, Gesa, E. Women Writing the Academy: Audience, Authority, and Transformation. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1993.

Kraemer, Don J. “Gender and the Autobiographical Essay: A Critical Extension of the Research.” CCC 43 (1992): 323-39.

Lather, Patti. Getting Smart: Feminist Research and Pedagogy With/In the postmodern. New York: Routledge, 1991.

McCarthy, Lucille, and Stephen Fishman. “A Text for Many Voices: Representing Diversity in Reports of Naturalistic Research.” Valuing Diversity: Race, Gender, and Class in Composition Research. Ed. Emily Jessup and Kathleen Geissler. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Forthcoming.

Miller, Richard, E. “Fault Lines in the Contact Zone.” College English 56 (1994): 389-408.

Minh-ha, Trinh T. Women, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1989.

Mortensen, Peter, and Gesa Kirsch. “On Authority in the Study of Writing.” CCC 44 (1993): 556-72.

Nielsen, Joyce McCarl. ed. Feminist Research Methods: Exemplary Readings in the Social Sciences. San Francisco: Westview, 1990.

Noddings, Nel. Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. Berkeley: U of California P, 1984.

Oakley, Ann. “Interviewing Women: A Contradiction in Terms?” Doing Feminist Research. Ed. Helen Roberts. New York: Routledge, 1981. 30-61.

Patal. Daphne. “U.S. Academics and Third World Women: Is Ethical Research Possible?” Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. Ed. Sherna Gluck and Daphne Patai. New York: Routledge, 1991. 137-53.

Peaden, Catherine Hobbs. Rev. of Gender Issues in the Teaching of English. Ed. Nancy McCracken and Bruce Appleby. Journal of Advanced Composition 13 (1993): 260-63.

Pratt, Bruce Minnie. “Identity: Skin Blood Heart.” Yours in Struggle: Three Feminist Perspectives on Anti-Semitism and Racism. Ed. Elly Bulkin, Minnie Bruce Pratt, and Barbara Smith. Ithaca, NY: Long Haul P, 1984. 11-63.

Punch, Maurice. “Politics and Ethics in Qualitative Research.” Handbook of Qualitative Research. Ed. Norman Denzin and Yvonna Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994. 83-97.

Reinharz, Shulamit. Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford UP, 1992.

Rich, Adrienne. “Notes on a Politics of Location.” Blood, Bread, and Poetry. New York: Norton, 1989.210-31.

Riddell, Sheila. “Exploiting the Exploited? The Ethics of Feminist Educational Research.” The Ethics of Educational Research. Ed. Robert Burgess. New York: Falmer, 1989. 77-99.

Ritchie, Joy, S. “Confronting the Essential Problem: Reconnecting Feminist Theory and Pedagogy.” Journal of Advanced Composition 10 (1990): 249-71.

Ritchie, Joy, S., Manjit Kaur, and BeeTin Choo Meyer. “Women Students’ Autobiographical Writing: The Rhetoric of Discovery and Defiance.” Valuing Diversity: Race, Gender, and Class in Composition Research. Ed. Emily Jessup and Kathleen Geissler. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Forthcoming.

Schweickart, Patrocinio. “In Defense of Femininity: Commentary on Sandra Bartky’s Femininity and Domination.” Hypatia 8 (1993): 178-91.

Smith, Sidonie. “Who’s Talking/Who’s Talking Back? The Subject of Personal Narrative.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 18 (1993): 392-407.

Stacey, Judith. “Can There Be a Feminist Ethnography?” Women’s Words: The Feminist Practice of Oral History. Ed. Sherna Gluck and Daphne Patai. New York: Routledge, 1991. 111-19.

Tronto, Joan. “Beyond Gender Difference to a Theory of Care.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (1987): 644-63.

—. Moral Boundaries: A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care. New York: Routledge, 1993.

Williams, Patricia J. The Alchemy of Race and Rights. Boston: Harvard UP, 1991.

Wilson, David, E., and Joy S. Ritchie. “Resistance, Revision, and Representation: Narrative in Teacher Education.” English Education 18 (1994): 177-88.

Young, Iris Marion. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton UP, 1990.

CCCC invites applications for a five-year appointment as Editor of Studies in Writing and Rhetoric (SWR). SWR supports the mission of CCCC in its publication of monograph-length works from a variety of theoretical and research perspectives on current topics or concerns within composition studies. Working with an editorial board appointed by the CCCC Officers, the SWR Editor solicits and reviews manuscripts, then works with authors to develop and prepare accepted projects into production-ready form for the publication staff. The current CCCC budget permits publishing two to three monographs a year. CCCC provides partial support for the office of editor; the amount of support will be negotiated with the finalist. In addition, the Editor is a member of the CCCC editor’s team, which meets face-to-face at the CCCC conference and, on occasion, virtually throughout the year.

The CCCC Officers request that a detailed application dossier be submitted by March 15, 2011 to Kristen Suchor, CCCC Liaison, at cccc@ncte.org, including

1. a CV;
2. a statement of interest and qualifications;
3. a statement of vision for the series; and
4. a preliminary description of possible support from the nominee’s home institution (for example, reassigned time, space, clerical or assistantship support, travel funding, or so on), to complement the support available from CCCC.

Applicants must be CCCC members.

Based on those materials, the Officers will interview a group of finalists at CCCC in Atlanta. The term of the current editor (Joseph Harris of Duke University) will expire in June, 2012. We anticipate that the new editor will be announced in the summer of 2011. This allows for a transitional year for the new editor to work with the current editor. The position formally begins July 1, 2012.

The Studies in Writing and Rhetoric (SWR) Series editor serves a term of five years. The editor can be invited to serve a second term, if the CCCC officers want to ask them to do so.

The editor is responsible for the entire preproduction process, including soliciting and evaluating manuscripts, getting field reviews, and submitting approved manuscripts to the NCTE publications staff. The editor is a member of the CCCC Editors team, which meets face-to-face at the CCCC Convention and, on occasion, virtually throughout the year. Three to four monographs are published per year.

CCCC provides partial support for the office of editor, including use of an online manuscript submission and review system; the amount of support is negotiated with the finalist’s institution.

About two years before the end of the current editor’s term, a call for applications is placed in journals, on the website, and in social media; mass emails are sent to CCCC members; the CCCC EC and Officers can also invite people to apply.

Applicants are asked to submit in PDF form the following materials: (1) a letter articulating the applicant’s vision for the SWR series, (2) a CV, (3) a statement of possible institutional support (including financial support, preferably), and (4) a sample of the applicant’s writing (article or chapter).

Applications are due about two months before the CCCC Convention. The search committee, consisting of the CCCC Officers, NCTE Executive Director, and the NCTE Publications Director, reviews the applications and selects 3-4 finalists, who are interviewed at the CCCC Convention or via teleconference.

The search committee meets as soon as possible after the final interview to choose the editor. Once a choice is made, the Publications Director negotiates the terms of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between CCCC/NCTE and the new editor’s institution. Upon successful completion of the MOU, the committee’s recommendation is submitted to the CCCC Executive Committee for approval.

Orientation for the new editor is conducted via teleconference.

Entire Convention Program

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

Program by section

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

 

   

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) has a number of Member Groups that hold meetings, sponsor panels and workshops at the Annual Convention, publish newsletters, and carry on other activities within the framework of the organization. CCCC is pleased to recognize such groups, encourages their existence and growth, and provides time, space, and appropriate publicity to foster their effective operation.

Member Groups vary considerably in their size, connection with CCCC, and range of activities. Some are relatively permanent groups governed by leaders and members of CCCC; others are substantially identified with other organizations and choose to meet at the CCCC Convention as a convenience to their members; still others are relatively casual groupings of persons drawn together by interests in common but having little or no governing structure.

CCCC provides the following framework to enable its members to form groups that best meet their specific needs:

Special Interest Groups (SIGs): CCCC continues to support interest groups within existing policies that allow individuals/organizations to request space “as available” at the CCCC Convention to discuss issues related to the profession.

Standing Groups: Standing Groups are membership-driven groups focused around a common interest that supports directly CCCC’s mission and bedrock beliefs. Standing Groups may start as SIGs and apply for Standing Group status. Chairs or co-chairs are elected from the membership rather than appointed. They have organizational status as an ongoing group, provide necessary annual updates to the CCCC leadership and abide by their bylaws. NOTE: The following caucuses, which meet at the CCCC convention, are exempt from the application, reporting, and review parameters required for Standing Groups: Black Caucus, Latinx Caucus, American Indian Caucus, Asian/Asian American Caucus, Queer Caucus, Jewish Caucus, and Arab/Muslim Caucus.

There is no requirement for current SIGs to apply for “Standing Group” status if they do not wish to formalize their relationship to CCCC in this way. They will retain their designation as SIGs.

Current CCCC Standing Groups

1. American Indian Caucus
2. Appalachian Rhetorics and Literacies Standing Group
3. Arab/Muslim Caucus
4. Asian/Asian American Caucus
5. Assembly for Expanded Perspectives on Learning (AEPL)
6. Black Caucus
7. Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition/Communication Studies
8. Cognition and Writing Standing Group
9. Consortium of Doctoral Programs in Rhetoric and Composition
10. Council for Play and Games Studies
11. Council on Basic Writing
12. Creative Nonfiction Standing Group
13. Creative Writing Standing Group
14. Dual Enrollment Collective
15. Environmental Rhetoric and Advocacy Standing Group
16. Feminist Caucus
17. Global & Non-Western Rhetorics (GNWR) Standing Group
18. Graduate Student Standing Group
19. Independent Writing Departments and Programs Association (IWDPA)
20. International Researchers’ Consortium
21. International Writing Centers Association (IWCA)
22. Jewish Caucus
23. Labor Caucus
24. Latinx Caucus
25. Legal Writing and Rhetoric Standing Group
26. Linguistics, Language, and Writing Group
27. Master’s Degree Consortium of Writing Studies Specialists
28. Medical Rhetoric Standing Group
29. Non-Native English-Speaking Writing Instructors (NNESWIs) Standing Group
30. Online Writing Instruction Standing Group
31. Prison Writing & Pedagogy Collective
32. Queer Caucus
33. Rhetoric and Religious Traditions
34. Second Language Writing Standing Group
35. Senior, Late-Career, and Retired Professionals in Rhet-Comp/Writing Studies Standing Group
36. Sound Studies and Writing Collective
37. Standing Group for Disability Studies
38. Teaching for Transfer Standing Group
39. Transnational Composition Standing Group
40. Undergraduate Research Standing Group
41. Untenured and Alternative-Academic WPA Standing Group
42. Working-Class Culture and Pedagogy Standing Group
43. Writing About Writing Development Group
44. Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) Standing Group
45. Writing and STEM Standing Group
46. Writing through the Lifespan Standing Group
47. Writing with Current, Former, and Future Members of the Military

Guidelines for Forming a Member Group

These guidelines are designed to encourage a diversity of member groups present at the CCCC Convention and to avoid creating new groups that duplicate existing efforts. To form a member organization, you must complete the following steps:

Forming Special Interest Groups

1. Check the current listing of organizations (in absence of a currently online listing, please refer to the most recent past CCCC Annual Convention program). If none exists on the topic of your interest, you may propose a new Special Interest Group. You may also wish to review “CCCC Guidelines for Leaders of Membership Groups.”
2. To propose a new Special Interest Group, you must submit a program proposal form for the next CCCC Convention by the published deadline. An official invitation to appear on the CCCC Convention Program is your confirmation that your Special Interest Group proposal was accepted.
3. If your proposal is accepted, please conduct your Special Interest Group in accordance with “CCCC Guidelines for Leaders of Membership Groups.”

Applying for Standing Group Status: Processes and Guidelines

Background

At its November, 2012 meeting, the CCCC Executive Committee approved recommendations

from the Task Force to Review Special Interest Group Guidelines for the creation of Standing

Groups, a new category of membership constituency. Standing Groups are formed from existing groups, typically but not exclusively SIGs,¹ that can demonstrate sustained organizational activity within CCCC for a period of at least five consecutive years, and want to solidify their relationship to the organization. Standing Groups are allotted one designated panel in addition to a business meeting at the Annual Convention, subject to the Program Chair’s approval. Standing Group business meetings are held during the regular slots that the Program Chair designates for those meetings. Standing Group panels are listed in the program and include the names of panelists. Taking part in a Standing Group–sponsored panel or workshop does not count as a speaking role.

It is important to realize that Standing Group status may change the nature of an existing member group:

• It significantly formalizes the group through the provision of a set of bylaws, a membership structure, and a process for the rotation of its leadership.
• It requires the submission of an annual report to the Executive Committee detailing the Standing Group’s activities.
• What are often informal, grass-roots meetings of the SIG or other group will become somewhat more formal business meetings with Standing Group status.

Before considering applying for Standing Group status, existing SIG or other group leaders or coordinators should consult widely across the group’s current membership to discuss whether these will be helpful changes in light of the group’s current purposes and goals.

The following guidelines are designed to help existing groups to develop a successful plan to request Standing Group status. Proposals are read and discussed by the CCCC Officers. Proposals may be rejected for several reasons, including too little documentation of sustained activity, significant overlap with existing groups, or not enough detail in the bylaws or membership structure; or they may be returned for further elaboration or revision. Existing Standing Groups may also be dissolved if there is insufficient evidence of activity documented in the annual reports, or if the group is no longer supporting the mission of the organization or following its bylaws and leadership rotations. In addition to the guidelines, we also provide a sample Standing Group proposal that was judged to be highly successful.

[¹At its meeting in March of 2013, the Executive Committee further clarified eligibility for Standing Group status, from SIGs only to any member group that can demonstrate at least five years of consecutive, organized activity (and meetings at CCCC conferences) involving an appropriate cohort of CCCC members.]

Guidelines for Standing Group Application

1. Criteria: to be eligible to apply for Standing Group status, an existing SIG or other member group must:

• have been organized and regularly meeting at the CCCC convention (and preferably corresponding, meeting, or otherwise engaged between conferences) for at least five consecutive years;
• be able to document activity among a reasonable number of members, which includes activities open to all CCCC members.
• fill a clear need for CCCC members and the organization and explain how it is  aligned with CCCC’s stated mission and bedrock beliefs

If a group has been recently formed and cannot meet the eligibility criteria, it can continue to organize itself (particularly as a SIG), document its activity, and, if desired, apply for Standing Group status when it has achieved sufficient longevity and activity to be eligible.

To this end, a SG application should include:

• a description of the organization
• an explanation of how it fills a clear need for CCCC members and the CCCC as an organization is aligned with CCCC’s stated mission and bedrock beliefs
• a set of bylaws indicating how officers are elected
• a list of members, who must also be members of CCCC (more detailed guidelines and criteria appear below).

In recognition for this level of responsibility to CCCC, each Standing Group will be allotted one designated panel in addition to a business meeting at the CCCC Annual Convention, subject to the Program Chair’s approval. Standing Group panels will be vetted in consultation with the Program Chair. Standing Group business meetings will be held during the regular slots made available for such meetings by the Program Chair.

2. Application requirements: Applications should be carefully conceptualized, detailed, and documented, and include all the required components:

• the name of the proposed Standing Group;
• a description of the current SIG or member group and its purpose(s), and a history of its activities over at least the previous five years (inclusive of five consecutive CCCC conferences);
• a set of explicit bylaws that can serve as a governing document;
• a set of policies related to the election of officers and their rotation; and
• a list of current members (all Standing Group members must be members of CCCC). Sample Successful Standing Group Application (PDF)

3. Application submission: Please submit all applications to cccc@ncte.org with the subject heading “CCCC Standing Group Application.” For a current timeline relative to the deadline for CCCC convention proposals, please visit /cccc/sigs. Currently, we are accepting applications at any time and these will be reviewed on a rolling basis. Standing Groups approved between now and April 2024 will be eligible for a sponsored panel for the 2025 Convention. The deadline to submit an application to be considered for the 2025 CCCC Convention is Wednesday, April 17, 2024 (you will be notified whether or not you have received Standing Group status in time to submit your program proposal).

Guidelines for Leaders of Member Groups

Guidelines for Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

1. If your SIG wishes to reserve a meeting time and room at the CCCC Convention, please notify the CCCC Program Chair about your particular needs at the Convention by completing the Convention Call for Proposals Form available online, identifying yourself as a Special Interest Group.
2. If given meeting space, please mention the Conference on College Composition and Communication in any promotional materials you send out announcing your meeting at the CCCC Convention.
3. SIGs are not allowed to use “CCCC” in the title of any award, policy statement, publication, or grant application sponsored by their membership. When printing any such material, please include a disclaimer, which might read something like this: “The opinions expressed are those of the writers [editors] and do not necessarily reflect the view of CCCC, its officers, or its Executive Committee.
4. If you wish official CCCC sanction of a report/paper/guidelines, etc., intended for publication, please send a copy of the manuscript to the CCCC Chair and to Headquarters at least six weeks before one of the Executive Committee’s scheduled meetings (mid-November and mid-March). Shortly after the meeting, we will notify the Chair of the Executive Committee’s decision.
5. Please consult the CCCC Officers before seeking grants outside CCCC for the work of your group. Grants often create legal obligations in which CCCC and NCTE have an understandable interest.
6. Seek approval-in-principle from the CCCC Officers for any surveys of the CCCC membership or the profession at large if the survey carries the name of CCCC. In responding, the Officers may advise on availability of funds to help in the survey, on technical improvements that might be made, and on access to Headquarters.
7. If your group is interested in publishing a book or monograph, please contact the NCTE Senior Developer or the SWR Editor for preliminary review of the project/idea.

Guidelines for Standing Groups

1. Standing Groups are guaranteed a business meeting slot in the program as well as one sponsored panel (subject to the Program Chair’s approval) at the Convention each year. The Standing Group is asked to submit both a proposal for a business meeting as well as a sponsored panel, if it wishes to hold these, through the regular proposal system (in the “Type of Session/Proposal” section on the proposal form, please check “Special Interest Group/Business Meeting” when submitting a business meeting proposal and “Standing Group Sponsored Panel” when submitting a sponsored panel proposal–in both cases, please indicate the name of the Standing Group somewhere in the submission). In addition, Standing Groups may request to host a sponsored workshop rather than a sponsored panel at the discretion of the Program Chair and as space permits. Standing Groups may request this exception with the understanding that proposers would need to both make the case and provide the proof of a likely audience at the sponsored workshop. Any Standing Group that requests and is granted a workshop must then document sufficient attendance to sustain that request in future years. Please mention the Conference on College Composition and Communication in any promotional materials you send out announcing your meeting at the CCCC Convention.
2. Members of Standing Groups must be members of CCCC. Standing Groups are expected to submit a copy of their bylaws and a brief annual report of their activities (with recommendations for future action) no later than 30 days after the conclusion of the CCCC Convention. The report should be addressed to the CCCC Officers and include a brief status report, including attendance and any other important information concerning (1) their business meeting, (2) other CCCC sponsored activities, such as a sponsored panel, and (3) recommendations/proposals for future action.
3. Recognizing the integral relationship between the contributions of Standing Groups and the mission of CCCC, each Standing Group is allotted one panel in addition to a regular business meeting at each Convention, subject to the Program Chair’s approval.
4. CCCC retains the right to review and approve the use of its name on any award, newsletter, publication, and grant application generated by Standing Groups. Standing Groups can apply to the CCCC Officers to use “CCCC” in their organizational materials. When a Standing Group creates materials that have not been reviewed by CCCC, those materials should include the disclaimer, “The opinions expressed are those of the writers [editors] and do not necessarily reflect the view of CCCC, its officers, or its Executive Committee.”
5. If you wish official CCCC sanction of a report/paper/guidelines, etc., intended for publication, please send a copy of the manuscript to the CCCC Chair and to Headquarters at least six weeks before one of the Executive Committee’s scheduled meetings (mid-November and mid-March). Shortly after the meeting, we will notify the Chair of the Executive Committee’s decision.
6. Please consult the CCCC Officers before seeking grants outside CCCC for the work of your group. Grants often create legal obligations in which CCCC and NCTE have an understandable interest.
7. Seek approval-in-principle from the Officers for any surveys of the CCCC membership or the profession at large if the survey carries the name of CCCC. In responding, the Officers may advise on availability of funds to help in the survey, on technical improvements that might be made, and on access to Headquarters.
8. If your group is interested in publishing a book or monograph, please contact the NCTE Senior Developer or the SWR Editor for preliminary review of the project/idea.

Proposal Deadline: Wednesday, September 28, 2022

CCCC Summer Conferences are intended to foster and support the developing and sharing of innovative activities related to literacy learning. We invite proposals to host one of these conferences between May and August 2023. Up to two summer conference proposals will be funded for 2023. We encourage proposals for virtual conferences or for conferences that include a virtual participation option to accompany an in-person meeting.

Conference themes should align the CCCC Mission Statement and themes associated with the CCCC 2022 Strategic Vision.

Within these broad areas of focus, conference proposers are free to define the types of sessions they think will attract participants to their gatherings: traditional panels, roundtables, think tanks, working-/workshop-oriented sessions, ignite-oriented gatherings, flash/TED Talk–inspired presentations, or anything else.

CCCC Summer Conferences should be designed with an eye toward inviting new voices and a diverse range of scholars and scholarship and should share opportunities for community-building and research-based resources.

Conferences are intended to bring existing CCCC members together with potential new audiences who may not be able to who may not be able to attend the national CCCC Annual Convention (e.g., adjunct and contingent faculty, two-year faculty, high school teachers, etc.). Successful proposals should discuss how organizers will reach out to new populations. The conferences are intended, in part, to help attendees learn more about how CCCC can provide resources for them to grow as professionals. Conferences may be held over one or two days, depending on the financial resources of the sponsors.

Attendance at CCCC Summer Conferences is limited to CCCC members. Those who are not current CCCC members are welcome to attend, but they are expected to join the organization or renew their membership as part of their conference registration. Registration costs for the summer conferences should be free or nearly free: a primary purpose of these conferences is to make CCCC and its benefits more accessible to new and existing members.

In order to support the summer conferences, CCCC will provide:

• Up to $6,000 apiece to support planning and organizational costs associated with mounting up to two summer conferences in different regions of North America. This dollar amount should be used to cover costs associated with organizing and staging the conference. These costs may include stipends of up to $500/ea for up to two conference organizers. Organizers must also be CCCC members. Stipends may also be used for A/V,  room rental or food, promotion, and so on. Proposers are encouraged to work with their home institutions to generate additional funding and/or minimize costs.
• Up to an additional $1,000 in travel and lodging expenses is allowed for a featured/keynote speaker who is a CCCC member.
• Resources for conference planning and periodic consultation with CCCC staff. Examples include hosting registration through the NCTE site, creating and implementing a conference communications plan, producing promotional materials, etc. Note that while consultation and hosting registration are available to conference organizers without charge, other items have costs associated with them that would need to be included in the conference’s $6,000 budget (e.g., creating and/or mailing promotional materials).
• Periodic and timely promotion of regional conferences via the CCCC website, general CCCC mass emails, and social media. This promotion will supplement, but should not be the major factor in, an overall communications plan for a conference.
• Organizers may submit a proposal for a session for the 2024 CCCC Annual Convention that grows out of the experience of the summer conference, whether a description of the event, a discussion of one or more issues extending from an experience, or another talk to help Convention attendees understand the experience of hosting the CCCC Summer Conference. These sessions will not count as “speaking roles” at the Convention, so summer conference organizers are free to also propose their own sessions to the Annual Convention. If such a session proposal is submitted and accepted to the program, registration costs for the following year’s CCCC Annual Convention for up to two conference organizers are available upon request.

Events are not intended to generate a profit. However, should there be a surplus with income exceeding expenses, surplus funds should be remitted to CCCC/NCTE after the conference.

Note for organizers: While organizers and presenters will own copyright to all materials associated with the conference (e.g., presentations, audio), CCCC would like to be the exclusive distributor of those videos, pictures, audio, etc., through its channels.

Proposals should include:

1. A completed application addressing all questions outlined below.
2. A communication plan describing how organizers will promote the conference in their region (see below).
3. A detailed budget explaining how funds will be used.

Application Information

Proposals for CCCC Summer Conferences should include the following information in a document of no more than 6 double-spaced (11- or 12-point font) pages. Conference organizers must be members of CCCC at the time of proposal and when the Summer Conference takes place. Please submit final proposals as a single document in PDF format to cccc@ncte.org by 5:00 p.m. EDT Wednesday, September 28, 2022.

A sample application can be requested from cccc@ncte.org.

Downloadable Word version of application form.

Section 1: Conference logistics and focus

Name/affiliation of conference organizer(s):

Location of proposed conference:

Proposed theme or foci, if any:

Proposed structure for presentations (e.g., panels/roundtables; think tanks; flash/TED-style talks; mix; etc.):

How will you use locally available infrastructure (e.g., institutionally located conference services, department/college/university colleagues or staff, on-campus registration services, etc.) for your conference?

Will your institution provide financial or other assistance for your conference? Y/N

If yes, please describe:

Who will constitute the local arrangements committee? If more than one institution and/or committee is involved, please explain the distribution of responsibilities:*

Please provide a description of the accommodations and proposed meeting spaces, either virtual or face to face. In your description, address how you will:

• secure suitable meeting locations/rooms for presentations (including size and capacity of available rooms) or hosting capacity online
• arrange for technology (e.g., computers, projectors, internet connections) and on-site technical support or technology support for the online platform
• secure housing options for all participants for face-to-face proposals
• provide a guide to local eateries, attractions, and transportation for face-to-face proposals
• provide a website with details about the conference
• staff the registration table or manage the online platform

How do you anticipate handling conference registration?

___My institution will process conference registration
___I will need CCCC/NCTE to process conference registration

Please also address whether you will provide food and, if so, what meals or breaks and how you will accommodate dietary requests:

Please describe accommodations currently available or that you can make available to ensure that the venue and event will be accessible to those with sensory, mobility, or communication impairments:

Are there state, local, or campus policies in place that may inhibit the expression or limit participation of constituencies, including members of the LGBTQ+ community? Y/N

If yes, please describe how you will ensure that these constituencies will not be inhibited by these policies:

Note that all proposals should be attentive to the CCCC Convention Siting Guiding Principles:

In principle, CCCC will work to change state or local policies in host convention cities that diverge from established CCCC positions or otherwise threaten the safety or well-being of our membership. We will do so by consulting closely with local groups who share our principles and arranging activities and opportunities for members to support those who are disadvantaged by offensive policies or otherwise to use their presence in the offending state as a vehicle for nonviolent protest. We will vigorously communicate the methods of support and/or protest to the media, convention and tourist bureaus, and local and state government officials, with the avowed purpose of provoking policy change or supporting current policies threatened by hostile change. In general, we will follow this strategy of engagement rather than abrogating or canceling contracts for future conventions as a method of protesting existing or future legislation.

*Note that regional organizers are responsible for coordinating housing registration if your conference is using on-site housing.

Section 2: Communications Plan

In your region, who is likely to be interested in presenting at/attending your conference, and why?

In what ways will the conference attract a diverse group of participants?

What kind of outreach activities will you use to attract a diverse group of participants?

Where will the webpage for your conference be hosted?

CCCC can provide a limited number of services to support your meeting. Please indicate which, if any, of the following you are likely to need:

___Regional mailing labels
___Emails to regional members. Please indicate the number of emails anticipated (1–3, 4–6, 7–9, 10 or more)
___Flier produced and mailed by CCCC/NCTE. Note that this will incur additional cost and will be deducted from the $6,000 support provided to the local site.
___Other (please describe)

What assistance do you most anticipate needing to mount a successful conference?

Entire Convention Program

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

Program by section

• Calendar
• Contents
• CCCC Officers
• Greetings from the Program Chair
• Information for Newcomers
• Local Arrangements, About the Convention
• General Information, Special Events
• Award Winners, Sessions Presented by Two Year College Faculty, Committee Meetings
• Index of Concurrent Sessions
• Wednesday
• Thursday
• Friday
• Saturday

Program Additions/Corrections (Word document)

Entire Convention Program

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

Program by section

• Calendar 
• Individual CCCC Program 
• Contents 
• CCCC Officers, Greetings from the Program Chair, Information for Newcomers, About the CCCC Convention, Technology Center Presentations 
• Special Events, Award Winners 
• General Information, Committee Meetings, Topic Index to Sessions 
• Preconvention Activities 
• Wednesday 
• Thursday 
• Friday 
• Saturday 
• Local Arrangements Committee, Maps 
• Index