Thursday, November 14, 2024 | 5:00 p.m. ET
Thursday, December 5, 2024 | 6:00 p.m. ET
Thursday, January 23, 2025 | 4:00 p.m. ET 

This series invites members to talk with their colleagues and gain support in the areas they identify as most salient right now. Here’s a brief overview of the agenda for each session. Please note that we’ve kept these sketches rather rough to ensure that you, our members, have the opportunity to direct the conversation to the areas of most immediate concern for you as teachers. 

Session 1—Thursday, November 14, 2024, 5:00 p.m. ET

REGISTER TO ATTEND

We’re here to hear from you: What’s going on right now in your teaching, in your classroom, with your students, or in relation to your program? What’s at the top of your mind? What kind of conversations do you want to have with your colleagues? What kind of support can we provide? We’ll use facilitated breakout rooms to hear your concerns and identify topics for future discussion. 

Session 2—Thursday, December 5, 2024, 6:00 p.m. ET

REGISTER TO ATTEND

Building on the patterns observed during Session 1, facilitators will host breakout discussions and mini-workshops in each identified area of interest. Attendees will receive readings, ideation activities, and additional resources in advance of the session, and will leave with clear takeaways and suggestions. 

Session 3—Thursday, January 23, 2025, 4:00 p.m. ET

REGISTER TO ATTEND

What next? This session looks forward to possibilities that can continue to support members around teaching. We’ll consider whether communities of practice should be formed, whether we can provide specific resources or support, and what kinds of conversations we may want to have in the future. 

Though these sessions build on one another, participants may attend one, two, or three sessions. To ensure productive conversation, we will treat these circles as safe and brave spaces wherein we honor each other’s identities, perspectives, and concerns and remain cognizant of our own. These sessions will not be recorded. 

These events are available exclusively to CCCC members. Not a member? Join today! 

Facilitators 

This teaching circle will be facilitated by CCCC members: 

Sweta Baniya, Virginia Tech
Joanne Baird Giordano, Salt Lake Community College
Mara Lee Grayson, Independent Scholar 

 

Information for Students

If you are not currently an NCTE or CCCC student member, please follow the steps below to access the $70 registration rate for the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention.

1. Log in to your My NCTE Profile. If you do not already have a login, you will need to create a free account.
2. Click Edit Profile in the left menu.
3. Set the Current Primary Professional Status to Student/Pre-Service Teacher and click Save at the bottom of the form.
4. Navigate to the CCCC 2025 registration page and proceed through the registration process.

Information for Part-Time Faculty, Retirees, and Veterans

Whether or not you are a current NCTE or CCCC member, please take the following steps to access the $115 registration rate for the 2025 CCCC Annual Convention if you are not already seeing this rate through the registration process.

1. Log in to your My NCTE Profile. If you do not already have a login, you will need to create a free account.
2. Click Edit Profile in the left menu.
3. For Part-Time or Retiree, set the Current Primary Professional Status to one of the options below.
   • Adjunct or Part-Time
   • Retired
4. For Veteran, set the Military Status to either “I am active duty” or “I am a veteran.”
5. Click Save at the bottom of the form.
6. Navigate to the CCCC 2025 registration page and proceed through the registration process.

Registration for the 2024 CCCC Fall Virtual Institute will close at 9:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, October 23.

All registrants will receive an email with connection information on the evening prior to the Institute (October 22) and a reminder email on the morning of the event (October 23).

Institute sessions will NOT be recorded.

2024 CCCC Fall Virtual Institute: Machine Writing and the Work of Rhetoric and Composition
Program
October 23, 2024 | 10:45 A.M.–8:00 P.M. ET

ALL-ATTENDEE OPENING — 10:45–11:00 A.M. ET

Institute Co-Chairs:

• Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri–Kansas City
• Timothy Oleksiak, University of Massachusetts Boston

CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE SESSION A — 11:00 A.M.– 1:00 P.M. ET

Option 1 — Administration
This roundtable will invite users to play an interactive adventure game in order to consider how writing program administrators facilitate real, low-stakes, complex conversations with layered audiences around AI. This gaming experience, directed and facilitated by the roundtable panelists, will ask participants to employ a concept-tactic approach of rhetorical listening. The virtual session aspires to disrupt the narrative(s) that generative AI has wreaked havoc on operations. Step outside of (or at least next to) the milieu, for a few minutes, in order to examine the roles, responsibilities, challenges, and opportunities in ways that open dialogue and sustain interest. In short, we will play and in doing so discover ways to engage with what may seem almost insurmountable.

11:00–11:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Sherry Rankins-Robertson, University of Central Florida
  • Aurora Matzke, Chapman University
  • Angela Clark-Oates, California State University, Sacramento
  • Kyle Jensen, Arizona State University
  • Priscila Santa Rosa, University of Central Florida
  • Anastasia Salter, University of Central Florida

11:45–12:15 — Focused Writing

12:15–12:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

12:35–12:45 — Large-Session Report Back

12:45–1:00 — Personal Break

Option 2 — Theory
This panel positions AI hype as an opportunity to develop grant proposals in writing studies with reproducible, aggregable, data-driven (RAD) designs. Panelists will share examples from their own research, such as corpus-driven analysis of AI prompts, and discuss how these projects can be adapted to collaborative RAD frameworks. The session will provide a collaborative space for participants to theorize and develop study designs aimed at fostering cross-institutional collaborations in the field while enabling researchers to evaluate those designs, thereby preventing confirmation bias.

11:00–11:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • John Gallagher, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
  • Anuj Gupta, University of Arizona
  • Shiva Mainaly, University of Memphis
  • Fatima Zohra, University of Waterloo

11:45–12:15 — Focused Writing

12:15–12:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

12:35–12:45 — Large-Session Report Back

12:45–1:00 — Personal Break

CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE SESSION B — 1:00–3:00 P.M. ET

Option 1 — Pedagogy
Our pedagogy roundtable will encourage discussions about the affective and emotional responses we have had to generative AI in university writing classrooms. Both undergraduate and graduate writing instructors alike must respond to the affordances and pitfalls of generative AI by first considering the various rhetorical situations and individual student challenges already present in their classrooms. Our roundtable will allow participants to take stock of their existing pedagogy and grapple with the need for critical AI literacy while examining its place alongside our time-tested pedagogical strategies like critical genre awareness, reflective writing, and experiential learning opportunities. 

1:00–1:45 — Roundtable Facilitators 

• • Marsha W. Rhee, Johnson C. Smith University
  • Stephen Kim, Cornell University
  • Quang Ly, University of Miami
  • Jessica Mattox, Radford University
  • Lydia Wilkes, Auburn University

1:45–2:15 — Focused Writing

2:15–2:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

2:35–2:45 — Large-Session Report Back

2:45–3:00 — Personal Break

Option 2 — Assessment
Join us in a Composition II Course Committee meeting where diverse views on AI in assessment are discussed with the goal of creating a program assessment rubric for the age of Machine Writing. Together, we’ll explore innovative ways to integrate AI into meaningful evaluation of student writing. #EdTech #AIinEducation

1:00–1:45 — Roundtable facilitators

• • Eugenia Novokshanova, Georgia State University
  • Michelle Kassorla, Georgia State University
  • Jennifer Duncan, Georgia State University
  • Jennifer Hall, Georgia State University

1:45–2:15 — Focused Writing

2:15–2:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

2:35–2:45 — Large-Session Report Back

2:45–3:00 — Personal Break

CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE SESSION C — 3:00–5:00 P.M. ET

Option 1 — Theory
This roundtable will feature the editors of College Composition & Communication, Computers & Composition, and Written Communication, who will consider several “live questions,” created by moderator Ira Allen, about the role that AI plays or might play in academic publishing. These editors will discuss how generative text technologies are and will inflect the processes and policies of their respective journals. The roundtable will also reserve time for attendees to consider those same questions, thus allowing editors and participants to collaborate on the future of academic journal publishing in rhetoric and composition.

3:00–3:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Matthew Davis, University of Massachusetts Boston
  • Ira Allen, Northern Arizona University
  • Jason Tham, Texas Tech University
  • Mya Poe, Northeastern University
  • Dylan Dryer, University of Maine
  • Kara Taczak, University of Central Florida

3:45–4:15 — Focused Writing

4:15–4:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

4:35–4:45 — Large-Session Report Back

4:45–5:00 — Personal Break

Option 2 — Pedagogy
As college students’ reading abilities decline (allegedly), educators face new challenges in teaching effective reading and composition skills. While much attention has been given to AI writing tools like ChatGPT, other emerging technologies are also transforming how students read and research, such as AI-powered PDF readers and advanced research applications. A working group from the University of Texas at Austin’s Digital Writing & Research Lab explores how these machine reading and research technologies reshape composition pedagogy and impact student learning. By combining established reading theories with a survey of new technologies, the group aims to provide insights into how machine reading may impact composition pedagogy, considering both its potential benefits and challenges. 

3:00–3:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Casey Boyle, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Ali Gunnells, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Maddie Bruegger, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Carlee Baker, The University of Texas at Austin
  • Samantha Turner, The University of Texas at Austin

3:45–4:15 — Focused Writing

4:15–4:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

4:35–4:45 — Large-Session Report Back

4:45–5:00 — Personal Break

CONCURRENT ROUNDTABLE SESSION D — 5:00–7:00 P.M. ET

Option 1 — Assessment
What do equitable and effective assessment practices look like in an era of artificial intelligence? This roundtable focuses on designing and revising writing assessments to integrate AI and learning objectives related to critical AI literacy. Exploring assessment in a variety of classroom and institutional contexts, we consider equitable assessments, ecological models, new rhetorics and rhetorical theories of assessment, and resistance of assessment-as-surveillance. Participants are invited to create or revise their own writing assessments informed by reflection on the roundtable discussion.

5:00–5:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Salena Anderson, Georgia Southern University
  • Xiao Tan, Utah State University
  • Rodrigo Gomez, San Diego Miramar College
  • Lynn Briggs, Eastern Washington University
  • Kate Crane, Eastern Washington University

5:45–6:15 — Focused Writing

6:15–6:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

6:35–6:45 — Large-Session Report Back

6:45–7:00 — Personal Break

Option 2 — Administration
How does AI challenge what we do in the classroom, department, and institution? Why do we need AI policies and statements? Our roundtable invites participants to join us in a charette-style experience, in which organizers and stakeholders work together to create solutions, to collectively work through the thornier issues involved in creating, administering, and enforcing equitable and just AI policies. We will take participants through three scenarios that embrace the complications that AI administrative genres—which include but are not limited to policy—create for students, staff, faculty, and other campus community stakeholders. Participants will draft actionable policy artifacts in real time to effectively respond to generative AI policy decisions across learning and administrative contexts.

5:00–5:45 — Roundtable Facilitators

• • Rebecca Hallman Martini, University of Georgia
  • Virginia Costello, University of Illinois Chicago
  • Lainie Pomerleau, College of Coastal Georgia
  • Franziska Tsufim, Wake Forest University

5:45–6:15 — Focused Writing

6:15–6:35 — Small-Group Breakouts

6:35–6:45 — Large-Session Report Back

6:45–7:00 — Personal Break

ALL-ATTENDEE OPEN TOWN HALL AND MOVING FORWARD FOR OUR MEMBERS — 7:00–8:00 P.M. ET 

Institute Co-Chairs:

• Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri–Kansas City
• Timothy Oleksiak, University of Massachusetts Boston

Registered Attendees

Both roundtable participants and attendees that participated in the 2024 CCCC Fall Virtual Institute are listed below.

Alaa Abdelghaffar
Anoud Abusalim
Heather Adamson
Jun Akiyoshi
Sam Alexander
Christine Alfano
Ira Allen
Abram Anders
David Anderson
Salena Anderson
Tracey Anderson
Jennifer Arena
Jean Arthur
Michael Avery
Adrianna Aviles
Maggie Ayala
Raegan Babb
Lana Baeumlisberger
Austin Bailey
Carlee Baker
Paige Banaji
Sarah Banting
Layla Barati
Benjamin Barckholtz
David Barndollar
Rodolfo Barrett
Mary Barry
Aryn Bartley
Nathan Bauer
Aaron Beasley
Stacey Beauregard
Erin Beaver
Estee Beck
Marne Benson
Sherrin Berezowsky
Catherine Berkenfield
Siddharth Bhogra
Michael Black
Kelly Blewett
Ann Bomberger
Melissa Borgia-Askey
Casey Boyle
Kate Bradley
Kirsten Bradley
Alicia Brienza
Lynn Briggs
Marilee Brooks-Gillies
Mary Brower
Maddie Bruegger
Beverly Burch
Melanie Burdick
Dolphia Butler
Antonio Byrd
Megan Callow
Adam Camarena
Kyndra Campbell
Lillian Campbell
Ellen Carillo
Brooke Carnwath
Maria Carvajal Regidor
Ruiming Cash
Christopher Castillo
Geneve Champoux
Erin Chandler
Laura Clapper
Angela Clark-Oates
Catherine Clifford
Rachel Cofield
DeSilver Cohen
Sarah Coletta-Flynn
Joanna Collins
Denise Comer
Frankie Condon
Katherine Condra
Thais Cons
Ana Contreras Charmelo
Janice Cool Stephens
Kris Cory
Virginia Costello
Katheryn Crane
Jamie Crosswhite
Christopher Davidson
Laura Davies
Matthew Davis
Jennifer Dawes
Ann Dean
Thomas Deans
Rachel Del Signore
Renee DeLong
Michael-John DePalma
Lorise Diamond
Lorrie DiGiampietro
Amy Dohm
Jayne Doneskey
Michael Donnelly
Dylan Dryer
Michael Dufresne
Jennifer Duncan
Michelle Eble
Michael Edwards
Nicole Emmelhainz
Diana Epelbaum
Jason Evans
Adam Fajardo
Robert Faunce
Maggie Fernandes
Jake Ferrington
Ann Fetterman
Jenn Fishman
Maureen Fitzpatrick
Laura Flint
Christopher Foree
Ashley Fortner
Jen Foster
Elle Fournier
Monica Fox
Kimberly Freeman
Susie Fries
Bridget Fullerton
John Gallagher
Jeff Gard
Sarah Garelik
Lindsey Gendke
Barbara George
Carolyn Geraci
Catherine Gillespie
Brian Gogan
Emma Gomez
Joanne Gonzalez
Michelle Graber
Valerie Gramling
Leslie Grant
Jillian Grauman
Meredith Gravett
Kindall Gray
Angela Green
Nicole Green
Brent Griffin
Charles Grimm
Rachael Groner
Allison Gross
Elliott Gruner
Eric Grunwald
Elisabeth Gumnior
Alexandra Gunnells
Anuj Gupta
Emiliano Gutierrez-Popoca
Pamela Haji
Jennifer Hall
Susanne Hall
LewEllyn Hallett
Rebecca Hallman Martini
Talisha Haltiwanger Morrison
J W Hammond
Cheryl Hampton
Barbara Handt
Susanmarie Harrington
Holly Hassel
Wendy Hayden
Ling He
Edwina Helton
Jill Heney
Joel Heng Hartse
Brandon Herring
Susan Hesemeier
Heather Hill
Matt Hill
Wendy Hinshaw
Corrine Hinton
Kelsey Hixson-Bowles
Titcha Ho
Deborah Hodgkins
Mara Holt
Lauren Hornberger
Analeigh Horton
Andrew Hudgins
Paul Huey-Burns
Rik Hunter
Zita Hüsing
Rossitza Ivanova
Lindsey Ives
Krista Jackman
Lubna Javeed
Kyle Jensen
Helen Jeoung
Chelsea Johnson
Maureen Johnson
Emily Johnston
Leigh Jones
Mikala Jones-Wall
Jay Jordan
Linda Jordan
Tyler Julian
Sean Kamperman
Martha Karnes
Adrienne Kaufmann
Tara Kazmark
Megan Keaton
Erin Kelly
Sara Kelm
Jack Kenigsberg
Stephanie Kerschbaum
Jessica Kester
Stephen Kim
Elizabeth Kimball
Ana King
Carie King
Kristen Kirkman
Amanda Knopf
Laura Kovick
Denise Krane
Maureen Kravec
Sarah Kruse
Joy Kwon
Sarah Lacy
Marisa Lamb
Brenda Lanphear
Ethna Lay
Lisa Lebduska
Meredith Lee
Soyeon Lee
Erica Leigh
Barbara Leplattenier
Ruth Li
Sasha Litzenberger
Andy Jiahao Liu
Janet Lively
Maria Perpetua Liwanag
Nick LoLordo
Nattaporn Luangpipat
Amy Lueck
Jennifer Lutman
Breanna Lutterbie
Quang Ly
Christina Lynch
Kathleen Lyons
Sasha Maceira
Yogita Maharaj
Shiva Mainaly
Shirley Manigault
christina Mar
Holly Marich
Farah Marklevits
Bruce Martin
Londie Martin
Cynthia Martinez
Christine Martorana
Carrie Matthews
Jessica Mattox
Tina Matuchniak
Aurora Matzke
Gabriella Mazal
William McCarter
Megan McIntyre
Adam McKee
Beatrice McKinsey
Cruz Medina
Kristi Melancon
Cynthia Miecznikowski
Benjamin Miller
Daisy Miller
Lynn Miller
Sandra Mills
Lilian Mina
Cynthia Mishlove
Jennifer Mitchell
Kendra Mitchell
Tiffany Mitchell
Jackie Mohan
Kathleen Mollick
Stephen Monroe
Jenna Morton-Aiken
Paul Muhlhauser
Colette Murphy
Brigitte Mussack
Melinda Myers
Nimmy Nair
Siskanna Naynaha
Heather Nelson
Alissa Nephew
lisa nienkark
Trishena Nieveen-Phegley
Matt Noonan
Krystia Nora
Euguenia Novokshanova
Ildi Olasz
Timothy Oleksiak
Adrienne Oliver
Matthew Osborn
Amanda Oswalt
Lana Oweidat
Grant Palmer
Donna Paparella
Courtney Parker
Jessica Parker
Joy Pasini
Kalani Pattison
Matthew Pavesich
Shanna Peeples
Vanessa Petroj
Kelly Peugh-Forte
Danielle Pieratti
Emily Plummer Catena
Mya Poe
Lainie Pomerleau
Kate Pond
Phatik Poudyal
Steven Price
Melody Pugh
Jill Quandt
Jill Quinn
Juval Racelis
Alma Ramirez
Sherry Rankins-Robertson
Diane Ransdell
Kyle Ratsch
Lynn Reid
Rhonda Reid
Brandi Reyes
Marsha Rhee
Tonya Rickman
Tanya Robertson
Glendal Robinson
Shelley Rodrigo
Christine Ross
Kacey Ross
Deborah Rossen-Knill
Jonathan Rovner
Kezia Ruiz
Larissa Runyan
Kate Ryan
Heidi Saenz
Consuelo Salas
Anastasia Salter
Catherine Savini
Sherri Sawicki
Martha Schaffer
Erika Scheurer
Priscila Schilaro Santa Rosa
Anne Schnarr
Amata Schneider-Ludorff
Jennifer Scott
Amanda Scukanec
John Seabloom-Dunne
Emily Sendin
Inês SIGNORINI
Jillian Skeffington
Heidi Skurat Harris
Jenn Sloggie
Alexander Slotkin
Elizabeth Smith
Jason Snart
Lingshan Song
Lauren Springer
Jess Stallings
Jadwiga Staniszewska-De Mott
Jessica Steele
Jennifer Stewart
Stephanie Stewart
Wendy Stewart
Jennifer Stumphy
Billie Tadros
Xiao Tan
Michelle Taransky
Kathleen Tarr
Gina Terry
Jason Tham
HoaiAnh Thanh
Jenny Thomas
Julie Thompson
Lizbett Tinoco
Tamara Toomey
Rachel Trnka
Mika Troutman
Mariya Tseptsura
Franziska Tsufim
Samantha Turner
Kimberly Turner-Shukis
David Tver
Onur Ural
Melissa Valerie
Marisol Varela
Molly Vasich
Elizabeth Vincelette
Beth Virtanen
Nicole Vogler
Jori Waldron
Dana Walker
Amy Wan
Tiffany Wang
Christine Watson
Daniel Weinstein
Rebecca West
Grace Wetzel
Sarah White
Kinlee Whitney
Lydia Wilkes
Mary Williams
Kelly Wilson
Natalie Wilson
Katie Winkelstein-Duveneck
Erica Wnek
Tara Wood
Allison Wright
Allison Wynhoff Olsen
Wei Xu
Ashley Yuckenberg
Grace Zanotti
James Matthew Zarnowiecki
Robert Zawatski
Jesseka Zeleike
Havva Zorluel Ozer
Damian Zurro

<Back to the Call for Proposals

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

We wanted to take a moment to share with you some of the questions members had during our information sessions on July 15 and 16 and our responses. We share because we understand that not all our members could attend. This FAQ page is the result of these conversations.

What makes a good topic for a proposal to this Institute?

You can propose any topic you’d like as a professional in rhetoric, composition, literacy, and writing studies. However, there are several cues for refinement that might increase your chances of being a roundtable speaker. We encourage you to ground your proposal with area, exigence, role, and context in mind.

1. What area—theory, pedagogy, administration, assessment—does your idea most closely align with?
   • There is a box for this on the submission form.
2. What is the exigence that your roundtable or individual proposal responds to?
3. What role do you imagine playing during the roundtable?
   • There is a box for this on the submission form.
4. What context or situation do you imagine you and your roundtable partners performing in?
   • Given the openness of the experience we have created, thinking about where you will be playing your roundtable can help ground your work. Consider the context of a public school board meeting, a department curriculum meeting, a teacher training session, a university writing board. These contexts can shape the way you and your colleagues might structure your roundtable.
   • Even if you propose as an individual, it might be useful to name a context that you can bring to the discussion should you be selected as a speaker in a “chair-made” roundtable.
   • Describing the context is optional, but you can see how it would ground the way you are thinking about your roundtable. This kind of grounding will help us make decisions.
   • It is important to note that for individual proposals your context might not be the same as another’s context. Should two different contexts be placed in the same roundtable, you have a rich opportunity to work it out among yourselves.

How citational do I have to be in the proposal?

Please be as citational as you need to be in order to articulate the need for your contribution.

How might I best think about roles?

Think about the role as a disposition toward the exigence animating your roundtable and toward your fellow roundtable speakers. You may also choose to think about your role as demonstrating a way knowledge gets made.

We want to honor the various ways we make knowledge in this field. At some point we need a rhetorical gadfly to test our claims. At some point we need to be an empiricist to ground our theories in what writers might actually be doing. At some point we want to listen deeply and pose questions. Sometimes we need to assert the full weight of our accumulated, expert knowledge. And so on. We have offered some roles in our CFP and encourage you to define other roles you might play if these are not to your liking or disposition.

What if I can imagine playing multiple roles? Should I state that somewhere?

Please select the one role you are both comfortable and excited to play during your roundtable.

Creating roundtables for the Institute will be a labor-intensive process. We need you to support this labor by being direct in how you imagine things playing out. Such directness will help us make our decisions more efficiently.

What if I don’t care what role I play? I just want to propose something; can I propose without a role?

Please pick a role. No, you cannot submit a proposal without selecting a role.

I got invited to be a roundtable speaker, now what?

All invited speakers will need to take the following steps once they receive an invitation to participate during the Institute as a roundtable speaker:

1. Confirm that you are committed to participate in this way.
2. Begin refining your roundtable experience with your members.
3. Attend one of the two roundtable Zoom sessions for support:
   • September 18, 2024, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ET
   • September 19, 2024, from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. ET
   • Registration links will be sent to invited speakers as soon as decisions are made.

Do I have to propose something to be a part of the Institute?

No. Please attend as an audience member and come with questions, concerns, and other ways for you to engage the day’s events.

We have created multiple experiences for our members. You can

• listen well during the roundtable presentations;
• write and reflect on what you have heard during the 30-minute writing session;
• offer your voice via the smaller breakout sessions; and you can continue to a larger session “all chat” that concludes each session.

Bring your whole self as a participant.

What advice do you have for someone not sure if they want to submit an individual proposal or a roundtable proposal?

Do what you have time and energy for or what you are able to do between now and the submission deadline of August 9, 2024, before 10:00 a.m. ET.

We note that the planning stages are different for those who submit as a roundtable and those who submit individually. Roundtable folks have already begun the planning stage together and can now move on to the play and revise stages.

Individual proposers will have the added complication of needing to work with folks they may not have met before. While this makes things more complicated, we hope that individual proposers engage this in the spirit of fun and possibility and have good stress in trying to make it work.

How can I share my ideas with others in order to find like-minded folks to create a roundtable proposal with?

We have created a Google Doc where you can post your ideas and ask for collaborators. We also encourage you to use your listserv connections and social media to gather colleagues. Access the following link to share your mini call: Mini Call for Roundtable Collaborators.

How does “institution type” play into your decision-making process?

It is important to our decision-making process.

We can say plainly that we want to make sure those institutions are honored with formal speaking roles to the best that we can permit.

We want folks from two-year colleges, tribal colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), small liberal arts colleges (SLAC), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISI), institutions that are part of the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, highest reach output universities (R1), teaching universities, and private and public universities and colleges to feel welcomed to propose.

If you have not been invited to speak as a roundtable participant, we need your knowledge during the other events that occur during the day.

When can I register for the Institute?

We will send an email announcing that registration is open sometime in early/mid-August.

Who will be reading the proposals?

We, Antonio Byrd and Timothy Oleksiak, will be reviewing all the proposals and making final decisions.

Making decisions on the final speakers’ list is our responsibility as co-chairs. We might ask CCCC leadership or members of the Executive Committee to help us make decisions. We don’t want you to “guess what the co-chairs want.” Rather, help us understand the importance and need of your ideas. When in doubt, explain yourself but trust us to be as generous in our readings of your work as we can be, given the constraints that we are working with.

How should I spend my time during the Institute if I am not a roundtable speaker?

To be maximally involved in the Institute, you will

• Listen with care to the four roundtables (1 from each concurrent session).
• Write, reflect, and revise during the 30-minute individual writing time.
  • Expand upon the ideas you’ve heard.
  • Integrate the ideas you’ve heard into a project you are currently working through.
  • Eat or drink as your body needs.
  • Use the WC (toilet) as needed.
  • Power nap.
  • Go outside briefly for some air.
  • Backchannel how cool everything is.
  • Prepare for the smaller session breakout rooms.
• Actively engage during the smaller breakout rooms.
• Actively engage during the session “all member” chat.
• Join us for the final all-attendee Town Hall Meeting.

Of course, you are welcome to simply attend one roundtable. However, we hope that you join us for the all-attendee Town Hall Meeting at the end of the Institute.

Read the Call for Proposals for the 2024 CCCC Fall Virtual Institute

The CCCC Executive Committee is seeking a volunteer to serve in the role of Graduate Student Representative on the CCCC Executive Committee. This position is a voting member of the CCCC Executive Committee and would serve a three-year term beginning December 23, 2024, and conclude in December 2027.

Application Deadline: September 16, 2024

Application Form

About the CCCC Executive Committee

The Executive Committee of CCCC is the primary governing body of the organization.

Responsibilities

• Reviews and approves the annual CCCC budget.
• Reviews, and either acts on or files reports presented to the Executive Committee by member groups, standing committees, or special committees.
• Responds to items of current or public interest to the organization and its members in the form of position statements or other documents.
• Contributes members to the committee reviewing the CCCC research initiative proposals.
• Nominates and/or approves nominees to Standing Committees, Special Committees, and/or Task Forces as they are convened and charged.
• Serves on one subcommittee of the Executive Committee as needed with priorities developed by the Officers’ Committee.
• Serves on working groups, special committees, task forces, or as a liaison to CCCC committees as needed.
• Reviews and recommends revisions as needed to CCCC position statements on a five-year cycle.
• Attends designated sessions or events at the Annual Convention, including the Annual Business Meeting, as communicated by the CCCC liaison and determined by the CCCC Leadership.

Required Time Commitments

• Make a commitment to serve on the CCCC Executive Committee through the length of the specified term.
• Attend an online orientation following election and prior to/at the start of the specified term.
• Attend two (2) annual meetings of the Executive Committee (required). Remote participation is available as necessary.
  • At CCCC Annual Convention, all day Wednesday before Convention starts
  • NCTE Annual Convention, (takes place the week before Thanksgiving)
    • CCCC Executive Committee retreat, Sunday afternoon
    • CCCC Executive Committee Meeting, all day Monday
• Attend 2–3 virtual meetings annually of the Executive Committee.
• Conduct business on email, including voting, which requires a timely response.
• Serve on subcommittees of Executive Committee, which are appointed by Chair of CCCC.

NOTE: As of April 2024, the CCCC Executive Committee voted to hold all meetings of the CCCC Executive Committee virtually for a three-year period. Therefore, the exact timing of the November and March/April CCCC EC meetings will be determined several weeks in advance of the meetings based on EC member availability.

To nominate yourself for this role, please complete the application form by September 16, 2024. Email cccc@ncte.org with questions. A final selection will be made by late October.

Institute Date: October 23, 2024
Call for Roundtable Proposals
Proposal Deadline: August 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET

Registration and Institute Information

Institute Format

The one-day event will feature eight roundtable sessions on machine writing, two on each of the four larger areas of interest that machine learning challenges: theory, pedagogy, assessment, and administration. The day will include four participant-created roundtables and four chair-created roundtables with no special distinction made between them. Each panel, whether participant-created or chair-created, will have opportunities to collaborate with each other and the co-chairs before the event. Those submitting proposals for individual roles will be placed in a chair-created roundtable.

The roundtables will activate further ideation among participants. After each roundtable, participants will have thirty minutes to process what they’ve heard by writing notes or fully thought-out responses. Then everyone will return for small breakout conversations, each led by at least one roundtable participant. Each small group will be assigned one prompt: from your thirty-minute processing, create a shared list of concerns, values, resources and tools, and/or future projects that should be explored as teaching, research, or service activities, either collaborative or individual.

July Informational Meetings

Given the newness of the format for this institute, the co-chairs, Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Timothy Oleksiak, University of Massachusetts Boston, held two informational meetings in July to clarify any expectations and confusions members might have. Please visit the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page resulting from the informational meetings.

Email cccc@ncte.org with questions.

Need-Based Waivers for Accepted Presenters

CCCC will offer up to 20 need-based registration waivers (valued at $60 each) for accepted presenters to the 2024 CCCC Fall Virtual Institute. Priority will be given to graduate students and contingent faculty accepted to the Institute program.

Proposal submitters should complete the application form by the deadline for institute proposals, which is August 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET.

Background

In the fall of 2023, the Conference on College Composition and Communication asked members to pick a topic of broad significance to them and the field for a CCCC one-day institute. An overwhelming majority of members selected machine learning and writing, which should not come as a surprise, given that generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) seems to represent a paradigm shift in composition and rhetoric. The discipline had generative AI on its radar before these tools came onto the scene of our social literacy histories (Burns; Hart-Davidson; McKee and Porter). However, the widespread availability of AI platforms to individual students and teachers, their adoption in the workplace and higher education, and their swift development in the last eighteen months, poses important questions about the impact these tools have on the teaching of writing, on writing research, and on the social activity of writing itself.

For example, how do we meet the expectations that we teach ethical use of AI (Flaherty), when we know that even one output activates environmental degradation (Luccioni et al; Crawford)? Or that the development of these tools relies on raw materials mined from the Earth by modern enslaved Black Congolese women and children (Noble; Sovacool)? When we move away from what’s behind the design of GenAI, we find our labor transformed as private industry sells affordable versions of GenAI to our universities under the auspices of “efficient” writing processes and grading (“Introducing ChatGPT Edu”; “HAI at Five”)? In that light, what responsibilities do humans and GenAI share in writing, research, and administration; what tasks might be off-loaded to GenAI; and what might that mean for teaching and learning AI? Finally, how might our commitment to rhetorical truth (Roberts-Miller; Mercieca; McComiskey) address bad actor’s deployment of GenAI for misinformation and troubling varieties of deepfakes, most recently middle school and high school students creating deepfake nudes of classmates (Singer).

However, recent scholarship on the latest GenAI tools have shown not hype, dismissing these technologies, or total disdain, but rather nuanced arguments on composing and GenAI using our existing research methods and rhetorical theories (Ranade and Eyman) and careful use case scenarios for our writing classrooms (Vee et al). Another unsurprise, then, is that we are equipped to interrogate utopian discourse about AI and how dominant groups may use these tools to perpetuate existing inequality to show up power and capital for themselves (Crawford; Preston).

Call for Roundtable Proposals

We wish to continue this dynamic conversation and state at the top that we discourage uncritical championing of machine-writing technologies or simple demonstrations of a particular technology. We’re excited to invite group (4–5 speakers) and individual roundtable proposals for the first-ever one-day CCCC Fall Virtual Institute, devoted to critical conversations on wicked problems challenging rhetoric and composition. This year, we seek roundtable discussions that build on current conversations about machine learning and writing.

We imagine this event differently than a virtual conference that replicates in-person CCCC. Rather, the CCCC Fall Virtual Institute is a space for provocative presentations of ideas, focused writing, and small-group interactions. Each roundtable session will work as a foundation of provocation that will inspire attendees to write, compose, reflect, and move new or existing projects forward. By the end of the conference, the results of the conversation will be distributed to CCCC members.

We consider this institute an opportunity to learn in the community. Thus, both roundtable participants and attendees will be listed in the final program. If you are included as a roundtable participant, you may place this item on your CV under national, peer-reviewed conference presentations as a roundtable speaker or discussant.

Form, Style, and Content of Roundtables

We imagine each roundtable as playing with creating a style and tone that is at once engaging, informative, and generous to the multiple values and member needs on the broad matter of machine writing. Roundtables might offer staged dialogues with archetypes such as European Medieval morality plays or Platonic dialogues. Perhaps participants are inspired by myths and stories from Indigenous peoples or shaped by their unique geo-cultural locations. A mock trial or curriculum meeting at a community college could offer structure. Participants might use these roles to provoke creative tensions that inspire those witnessing the roundtable discussions into new ideas.

Expectations for Roundtables

Each participant selected will be responsible for offering cohesive roundtable experience. Rather than seeking atomized presentations, we ask that each member collaborate with each other well in advance of the day’s events and consider taking one of the following roles:

• Listener/Synthesizer/Opener – In this role, you are processing information that is shared by others and contributing when you have a question, concern, or idea.
  • How will you bring ideas together during the roundtable? How will you prepare attendees for what they are about to experience with your roundtable?
• Empiricist/Researcher – You have come with a project in mind and are looking for development and refinement.
  • What kinds of empirical projects are important for the rhetoric and composition specialists to undertake in this larger area of interest? How might you use your individual empirical project as a way to broaden what can be possible for empirical, data-driven researchers?
• Curious Nonexpert – You are coming with an active interest in machine writing but have not had time to immerse yourself in the literature.
  • What curiosities do you bring to the area of interest that other, more knowing colleagues might respond to? What do you want to know? Why is learning important for you and your movement through the profession?
• Rhetorical Gadfly – You are incredulous and are eager to share your contrary and informed opinions.
  • What objections, frustrations, or killjoy experiences can you offer to productively engage the roundtable and create meaningful dissonances for attendees to consider?
• Knowing Scholar/Theorist – You have studied this stuff and have citations and scholarly conversations that you believe are important to share with our community. Rather than general gestures to the literature, you are able to recall the scholarly positions within the conversation.
  • What learned experience, critical conversations, or scholarly expertise can you offer during the roundtable discussion, either in support of colleagues’ ideas or as critical responses to what is being offered?
• Other, Named Role – If there is a role you imagine playing that is not included among the roles listed here, you are welcome to name it, describe its character, and list one or two questions this role is animated by in your proposal(s).

We encourage roundtable participants to identify speaking roles to encourage richer dialogues and to highlight the critical nature of these rhetorical dispositions in the creation of knowledge. We think the notion of taking a role rather than simply presenting your own research for others to listen to can bring us closer to collective learning experiences that have guided the format of this event.

Finally, feel free to use the questions associated with each role as a guide to developing your proposal.

Roundtable Participant Commitments

Should you be selected as a roundtable participant, we ask you to join the co-chairs, Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Timothy Oleksiak, University of Massachusetts Boston, for a short informational session on Zoom to ground expectations for roles, possible structure, and brief suggestions on leading breakout discussions so that “What do you think?” is not the first and only question used to generate discussion.

We strongly encourage invited roundtable speakers to attend one of two optional virtual sessions to share any issues or concerns about their roundtable with co-chairs before the CCCC Fall Virtual Institute.

These sessions will occur via Zoom on

• September 18, 2024, 11:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. ET
• September 19, 2024, 10:00–11:00 a.m. ET

Guidelines and Evaluation Criteria for Proposals

For Group (4–5 speakers) Roundtable Proposals

• Proposals should be no more than one thousand (1,000) words long.
• Proposal speaks directly to the area of interest – theory, pedagogy, assessment, or administration.
• Your proposal is grounded in a concept or series of concepts related to machine writing and your area of interest.
• Your proposal includes representatives from more than two of the following categories: community colleges, HBCUs, tribal colleges, colleagues from institutions outside the United States, teaching colleges, HSIs, and/or institutions that are part of the AANAPISI program.
  • While this is not a deal breaker for program acceptance, those with two or more of the aforementioned representatives will take priority.
• Proposal identifies the role each speaker is interested in playing on the roundtable.
• If applicable, name and describe a role not listed in this call.

For Individual Roundtable Proposals

• Proposal should be no more than one thousand (1,000) words long.
• Proposal speaks directly to the area of interest – theory, pedagogy, assessment, or administration.
• Proposal is grounded in a concept or series of concepts related to machine writing and your area of interest.
• Proposal identifies the role you are interested in playing on the roundtable.
• If applicable, name and describe a role not listed in this call.

In order to ensure maximum participation in the roundtables, individuals will be limited to one speaking role.

Proposal Deadline (Please place the following dates and times on your calendar.)

Proposals must be submitted by August 9, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. ET. We selected 10:00 a.m. ET to ensure that there are support staff available to assist with any submission problems. Email cccc@ncte.org with questions.

Decisions to Proposers with Rationale

All proposers can expect brief feedback about our decisions by 5:00 p.m. ET on August 16, 2024. If you are not selected as a featured roundtable speaker that does not mean you are excluded from participating during the many institute open town hall sessions. Bring all of your ideas to share in our learning community.

Tentative Schedule at a Glance

10:45–11:00 a.m. ET – All Attendees: Brief opening remarks as people connect to Zoom
11:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. ET – Two session choices: Administration Roundtable or Theory Roundtable
1:00–3:00 p.m. ET – Two session choices: Pedagogy Roundtable or Assessment Roundtable
3:00–5:00 p.m. ET – Two session choices: Theory Roundtable or Pedagogy Roundtable
5:00–7:00 p.m. ET – Two session choices: Assessment Roundtable or Administration Roundtable
7:00–8:00 p.m. ET – All Attendees: Open Townhall and Moving Forward for Our Members

Concurrent Session Breakdown

The roundtable dialogues will break down into the following schedule:

1. 45-minute roundtable dialogues relating to the area of interest
2. 30-minute individual writing or reflection period
3. 20-minute breakout session
   • Five or six different randomly assigned breakout rooms with a roundtable participant as leader
4. 10-minute report-back, speak-out session
5. 15-minute break between sessions

Rationale

We use four participant-created roundtables and four chair-created roundtables as an inclusive practice. In this model, we do not favor full group roundtable discussions over individual proposals. Some CCCC members may be better connected than others and more able to bring together colleagues to participate in a roundtable, while others may not. Not having access to networks, we believe, should not prevent individuals who wish to present as selected roundtable members. Thus, we encourage CCCC members across professional status and institutional type to submit a proposal: undergraduates with faculty mentors, graduate students, tenured and non-tenure-track faculty, adjunct instructors, independent scholars, writing program and writing center administrators, and writing center tutors.

Works Cited

Burns, Hugh. “A Note on Composition and Artificial Intelligence.” Computers and Composition, vol. 1, no.1, 1983, pp. 3-4.

Crawford, Kate. Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven, Yale UP, 2021.

Flaherty, Colleen. “Survey: How AI Is Impacting Students’ Career Choices.” Inside Higher Ed, 10 Jan. 2024, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/student-success/life-after-college/2024/01/10/survey-college-students-thoughts-ai-and-careers. Accessed 9 June 2024.

“HAI at Five: Celebrating 5 Years of Impact.” YouTube, uploaded by Stanford HAI, 5 June 2024, https://www.youtube.com/live/wVqNLaN7cJQ?si=GjzRD6qTSmuAp-mQ&t=23124.

Hart-Davidson, William. “Writing with Robots and Other Curiosities of the Age of Machine Rhetorics.” The Routledge Handbook of Digital Writing and Rhetoric, edited by Jonathan Alexander and Jacqueline Rhodes, Routledge, 2018, pp. 248-55.

“Introducing ChatGPT Edu.” OpenAI, 30 May 2024, https://openai.com/index/introducing-chatgpt-edu/. Accessed 9 June 2024.

Luccioni, Sasha, et al. “Power Hungry Processing: Watts Driving the Cost of AI Deployment?” FAccT ’24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Association for Computing Machinery, 2024.

McComiskey, Bruce. Post-Truth Rhetoric and Composition. UP of Colorado, 2017.

Mercieca, Jennifer R. “Dangerous Demagogues and Weaponized Communication.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly, vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 264-79.

McKee, Heidi A., and James E. Porter. Professional Communication and Network Interaction: A Rhetorical and Ethical Approach. Routledge, 2017.

Noble, Safiya Umoja. “A Future for Intersectional Black Feminist Technology Studies.” Transversing Technologies, special issue of S&F Online, vol. 13, no. 3, 2016. Barnard Center for Research on Women, https://sfonline.barnard.edu/safiya-umoja-noble-a-future-for-intersectional-black-feminist-technology-studies/.

Preston, John. Artificial Intelligence in the Capitalist University: Academic Labour, Commodification, and Value. Routledge, 2022.

Ranade, Nupoor, and Douglas Eyman. “ Introduction: Composing with Generative AI.” Computers and Composition, Vol. 71, 2024, 102834, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102834.

Roberts-Miller, Patricia. Rhetoric and Demagoguery. Southern Illinois UP, 2019.

Singer, Natasha. “Teen Girls Confront an Epidemic of Deepfake Nudes in Schools.” New York Times, 8 Apr. 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/08/technology/deepfake-ai-nudes-westfield-high-school.html.

Sovacool, Benjamin K. “When Subterranean Slavery Supports Sustainability Transitions? Power, Patriarchy, and Child Labor in Artisanal Congolese Cobalt Mining.” The Extractive Industries and Society, vol. 8, no. 1, 2021, pp. 271-93.

Vee, Annetee, Laquintano, Timothy, and Schnitzler, C. (Eds.) (2023). TextGenEd: Teaching with Text Generation Technologies. WAC Clearinghouse, 2023. https://doi.org/10.37514/TWR-J.2023.1.1.02.

 

 

Healing from This Academic Life CCCC Reading Circle

Monday, July 8, 2024 | 3:00 p.m. ET

REGISTER TO ATTEND

This CCCC reading circle will delve into Burnout: The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle by Emily Nagoski and Amelia Nagoski and focus on our labor as teachers, especially what embodiment means for our profession and our worldview. The following questions will guide this reading circle:

• As college education becomes more transactional, how does this affect our attitudes, ambitions, confidence, and place within the landscape, and what can we learn or do to resist or prevent “burnout” or despair?
• What does this changing landscape do to our bodies, minds, and spirit?
• What can be gleaned from the book to affirm, embolden, or revive our desire to keep teaching, leading, and/or fighting for our students’ minds?

Reading Circle Structure 

• The reading circle will meet three times during July and early August, and attendees will read two to three chapters in advance of each meeting.
• The first 30 to 45 minutes of each meeting will be time to share about “our feels,” and the second 30 to 45 minutes will be a discussion about “what we do.”

Schedule and Readings 

• Meeting 1: Monday, July 8, 3:00 p.m. ET, read Part 1: What You Take with You
• Meeting 2: Week of July 22, read Part 2: The Real Enemy
• Meeting 3: Week of August 5, read Part 3: Wax On, Wax Off

 Note: The second and third meetings will be scheduled in their respective weeks based on the availability of attendees at the first meeting.

REGISTER TO ATTEND

Don’t forget to purchase your copy of Burnout: The Secret to Unlocking the Stress Cycle in advance of the first meeting! (NCTE and independent bookstores receive a small commission from purchases made using the bookshop.org link provided.)

This event is available exclusively to CCCC members. Not a member? Join today!

Facilitators 

This reading circle will be facilitated by CCCC Executive Committee members:
Kofi J. Adisa, Howard Community College, Columbia, MD
Antonio Byrd, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Tiane Donahue, Dartmouth College, NH
Ashanka Kumari, Texas A&M University-Commerce
Bethany E. Sweeney, Des Moines Area Community College, IA