Category: Uncategorized

Postconvention workshops at CCCC 2017 take place from 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. and are open to all CCCC registrants.

 

SW.01 “A Bridge across Our Fears:” Teaching Aspiring Teachers and Tutors through Story

As educators tasked with preparing aspiring teachers and tutors for working effectively—and justly—with student writers, we understand the power of stories to shape how teachers and tutors think about who students are, what they need, and why they make the choices they do as they compose. In this half-day workshop, we will lead participants in an exploration of the role progressive and alternative young adult literature might play in teacher/tutor education and will help participants create exercises and assignments designed to help aspiring teachers and tutors develop nuanced and compassionate storytelling practices about and for their students.

SW.02 Hey Teacher, Lead Them Kids in Song: A Workshop on Music and Performance for Compositionists

In its fourth consecutive year at the CCCC Convention, this half-day workshop infuses music and performance powerfully into composition pedagogy and professional development to enhance writing instruction and build community connections. This workshop introduces and explores a variety of performative exercises and embodied rhetorics derived from participants’ own interpersonal, bodily-kinesthetic, and musical intelligences, culminating in a reflective discussion and planning of performative strategies.

SW.03 Cultivating Strategic Action in Teaching against Plagiarism: Using Plagiarism as an Educational Opportunity

Too often, teachers seek to address plagiarism through policing tactics. However, plagiarism can be a learning and writing strategy, a feature of the transition from outsider to insider in the development of a writer. This interactive workshop is intended to help writing instructors develop a repertoire of practical teaching strategies to help students learn how to engage in conversation with previous texts effectively and appropriately.

SW.04 Bridging Expectations: A Workshop on the Alignment of High School English and First-Year Composition

Sponsored by the Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee

This collegial workshop will center on the intersection, as well as the divergences, of the Common Core State Standards with the OWEAC outcomes. We will refine our understanding of terminology and explore productive curricular design for our revised writing outcomes, which have an increased focus on students’ facility with rhetorical concepts and vocabulary, as well as our expectation that students will  develop metacognitive awareness.

SW.05 Writing Studio Pedagogy: Cultivating Student Voice and Capacity for Change

Writing Studio describes an alternative approach to teaching, supporting, and conducting inquiry into writing alongside student writers in a variety of higher education sites. This year’s half-day workshop focuses on Writing Studio curriculum and pedagogy. Workshop facilitators will provide insight into how to design studio activities for different student populations or courses and will share a wealth of curricular approaches for scaffolding student growth and transfer of learning.

SW.06 Writing and Publishing Op-Eds: Cultivating Public Voices

This interactive workshop is part of what Paula Mathieu calls a “public turn” in composition studies, particularly how teaching writing connects with our lives outside the classroom. Writing op-eds is one way that faculty, students, and other writers can advocate for social change. With a goal of cultivating voices of diversity in mainstream print, online, and mobile newspapers, workshop participants will learn how to write op-eds, publish them, and integrate op-ed writing into writing courses.

 

 

This is a preliminary schedule for the CCCC Annual Convention and TYCA Conference and is subject to change. 

Wednesday, April 9

7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. Registration

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. TYCA Conference

8:30 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Research Network Forum

9:00 a.m.–12:30 p.m. Morning Workshops (additional registration required)

9:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. All-Day Workshops (additional registration required)

1:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Afternoon Workshops (additional registration required)

5:00 p.m.–10:00 p.m. Meetings and Events for Select Special Interest and Standing Groups, Committees, and Other Groups

5:15 p.m.–6:15 p.m. Newcomer’s Orientation

Thursday, April 10

7:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m. Registration

7:30 a.m.–8:15 a.m. Newcomers’ Coffee Hour

8:30 a.m.–10:15 a.m. Opening General Session

10:15 a.m.–6:00 p.m. Action Hub

10:15 a.m.–6:00 p.m. Exhibit Hall Open

10:30 a.m.–11:45 a.m. A Sessions

12:15 p.m.–1:30 p.m. B Sessions

1:45 p.m.–3:00 p.m. C Sessions

3:15 p.m.–4:30 p.m. D Sessions

4:45 p.m.–6:00 p.m. E Sessions

5:30 p.m.–6:30 p.m. Resolutions Committee Open Meeting

6:00 p.m.–7:00 p.m. Scholars for the Dream Reception

6:30 p.m.–7:30 p.m. Special Interest and Standing Group Meetings

7:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m. Anzalduá Awards Reception

Friday, April 11

7:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Registration

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Action Hub

8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. Exhibit Hall

8:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m.  F Sessions

9:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m. G Sessions

11:00 a.m.–12:15 p.m. All-Attendee Session

12:30 p.m.–1:45 p.m. H Sessions

2:00 p.m.–3:15 p.m. I Sessions

3:30 p.m.–4:30 p.m. Special Interest and Standing Group Meetings

4:45 p.m.–7:15 p.m. Annual Business Meeting and Awards Presentation

7:30 p.m.–9:30 p.m. Evening All-Attendee Event

Saturday, April 12

7:30 a.m.–2:00 p.m. Registration

8:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. Action Hub

8:00 a.m.–1:00 p.m. Exhibit Hall

8:00 a.m.–9:15 a.m. J Sessions

9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. Teacher to Teacher

9:30 a.m.–10:45 a.m. K Sessions

11:00 a.m.–12:15 p.m. L Sessions

12:30 p.m.–1:45 p.m. M Sessions

2:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m. Afternoon Workshops (registration required with no fee)

The Conference on College Composition and Communication Convention is coming to Portland, and this event is not just for four-year college faculty!

Special Saturday programming at CCCC 2017 is available to you for an unbeatable one-day rate. Saturday’s line-up includes a keynote presentation, two blocks of concurrent sessions, and a selection of half-day afternoon workshops, all for $85!

• Listen to an address by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and immigration rights advocate, Jose Antonio Vargas.

• Choose from 89 concurrent sessions, many catering to high school and two-year-college concerns.

• Spend the afternoon engaged in one of six workshops related to teaching and learning, including a workshop sponsored by the Oregon Writing and English Advisory Committee that centers on the intersections of the Common Core State Standards and the new OWEAC writing outcomes.

To register at the one-day rate (available Saturday only), contact NCTE Customer Service at 877-369-6283. Onsite registration will also be available in Portland.

 

Following the Saturday Keynote Session, join us for concurrent sessions in the L and M time blocks.

Featured sessions for secondary and two-year college educators include:

High School and College Connections

• L.06, Thirteen Ways of Looking at Dual Credit: Navigating Change, Capacity, and Community in Dual-Credit Programs
• L.43, Bridging the Gap: Cultivating the Capacity to Create Transfer between High School Writing and FYW
• L.31, Cultivating Change across Student Contexts: Transfer across Secondary and Postsecondary Composition Classrooms
• M.18, Collaboration across “Borders”: Willamette Promise

Library Partnerships/Integrated Academic Literacies

• L.42, Cultivating Library/FYC Partnerships: Assessment, Information Literacy Instruction, and Beyond
• M.06, Cultivating Cross-Disciplinarity: Academic Discourse and Threshold Concepts In Writing Studies and the Library
• M.27, Connecting across Academic Literacies: Writing, Reading, and Researching

Teaching Writing/Literacy (K–16)

• L.18, Rethinking the Nature of Writing Practices through the Development of Writing Process Maps
• L.21, Navigating Transitions and Transformations: Cultivating Critical Digital Literacy in Home, Classroom, and Institution
• M.45, Rhizomatic Improvement Communities: Three Models of K–16 Professional Development
• M.04, Courageous Conversations and Sensitive Situations: Proactive and Responsive Methods for Inclusive Classrooms
• M.05, Catching Up the Children Left Behind: Critical Thinking for a Tested Generation
• M.12, Cultivating Partnerships for More Effective Teaching and Research

Two-Year College

• L.35, Becoming an Advocate: From Pedagogy to Advocacy in the Inter-Mountain West
• L.10, Creating Change Does Not Mean One Size Fits All: Considering Institutional Capacities in Curriculum Redesign
• L.17, We Changed Everything—Now What? Assessing Writing-Program Reforms to Cultivate New Directions and New Leadership
• L.08, Interrogating Reliability in ELL Assessment
• M.28, The Inver Hills Model: When Change Begins with Student Needs
• M.40, Cultivating Writing Programs and Curricula: The Promises and Limitations of Open Educational Resources at Two-Year Colleges

Writing Teacher Preparation

• L.33, Collaborating and Cross-Training: Cultivating and Sustaining Writing Teachers

 

 

 

 

 

 

Much of the work of CCCC is done by administrative committees, special committees, and task forces.  This document recommends effective ways to organize and conduct the work of these groups. It is intended for the chairs of committees and task forces, and also describes the roles of CCCC Chair and NCTE staff as related to the work of committees and task forces. If you have any questions or concerns about these guidelines or any matters not addressed by the guidelines, please contact the CCCC Chair.  If you need copies of committee charges, committee report forms, or other materials, please contact the CCCC Administrative Liaison at cccc@ncte.org or 800-369-6283.

TYPES OF COMMITTEES

An Administrative Committee, such as the Nominating Committee, has routine functions which are described in the CCCC Constitution and Bylaws.

A Special Committee, according to Article IV, Section 5 of the CCCC Constitution, “may be appointed by the chair for a period not to exceed three years; they may be renewed by action of the Executive Committee.” Special committees are not permanent. In cases that a committee decides it is necessary to continue its work beyond three years, it should submit a written request and rationale in its final report. That request will be considered by the Executive Committee and, if approved, the committee will be reconstituted with revised charges.

A Task Force is similar to a special committee, but works on more specific projects outside those of current committees, and under a one-year timeline.

CCCC COMMITTEE CHAIRS

CCCC Committee Chairs carry the core responsibility of seeing committee work through and communicating with the CCCC Leadership. The CCCC Officers and Executive Committee strive to support these objectives without micro-managing the process. Here are ways committee chairs can lead a committee and seek support when needed:

The CCCC Bylaws provide general instructions about committee operations in Section VII, which reads:

A. Except where otherwise provided by the Constitution and Bylaws, committee members are appointed by the CCCC Chair after consultation with the officers and the Executive Committee.

B. Committee budgets are adopted by the Officers’ Committee after discussion with the Executive Committee.

C. General plans for committees are approved by the officers.

D. Committees report their actions orally or in writing to the Executive Committee at each of its regular scheduled meetings, and in writing at the end of their tenure.

Communication, Meetings, and Support

Most of a committee’s work will likely take place via email, with occasional face-to-face meetings at the CCCC or NCTE Conventions. NCTE staff will provide a listserv if desired, to facilitate communication among committee members.

Part of the responsibility as Committee Chair is to engage committee members by encouraging and facilitating conversation. In most cases, doing so will be easy – committee members will be responsive and work will progress smoothly. But the experience and service of chairing a committee promises to be very rewarding even if a committee requires a little more encouragement to get underway. Past experience with such situations leads us to offer the following support, advice, and suggestions: Don’t become discouraged if committee members are not immediately responsive. Sometimes they will need repeated nudging to join in the conversation or to undertake the work of the committee. It is very natural, and not a negative reflection on the leadership, if committee members are initially reluctant to correspond. Keep trying.

Experience with committee communications reveals that chairs should:

• initiate correspondence with committee members as soon as possible after they are welcomed to the committee. Members generally feel heightened enthusiasm just after accepting positions on committees.
• be goal-oriented and encourage members to accept specific responsibilities on the committee. Gear conversation toward the charges and specific projects the committee will undertake to meet them.  Gear individuals toward specific goals within each project – engage members in specific work with specific timeframes/deadlines.  Be positive in tone.
• write to individual members that are non-responsive or ask the CCCC Administrative Liaison to do so just to be sure they are receiving committee communications.
• recognize that in general, most committee work will be done close to committee reporting time – either close to the convention or close to when web reports are due (see the “Reporting” section below for further information).

Sometimes, despite all efforts, committee communication will stall. Two factors that seem to help are:

• Planning a face-to-face meeting at a convention (generally the CCCC Convention).
• Encouraging committee feedback on drafts of web reports or reports to the CCCC Executive Committee.

If these ideas don’t work, or if the timeframe for a committee’s work does not accommodate these time-locked ideas, there are additional resources:

• Contact the CCCC Administrative Liaison to ensure there are no communication problems.
• Share concerns/experiences with other CCCC committee chairs to get feedback/ideas (*every* committee chair has had this experience at some point).
• Contact the CCCC Chair directly if there are concerns about the ability of the committee to see goals through and for options about re-organizing or disbanding the committee.
• Do not be afraid to seek support from the CCCC Executive Committee in reports.

The CCCC Leadership and Staff will be responsive to requests for support. If there are questions about anything from charges to budget requests, the CCCC Administrative Liaison or the CCCC Chair directly should be asked for help. In general, the CCCC leadership and staff will assume that committee work is going fine unless they are contacted and they will not seek communication or updates unless there is a specific reason to do so.

Additional information about means/methods of communication and support are presented below:

1. CCCC Committees will utilize a web-based forum for committee work using executive software. Committees will have areas for non-public committee discussions and to post public informational reports. The CCCC Chair and Administrative Liaison will have access to all discussions. This web forum will also be used by CCCC Committee Chairs to exchange information. CCCC Executive Committee members will be encouraged to read and respond to public areas of the web.
2. Each CCCC Committee is invited to submit content for a committee website, published and updated by the CCCC Administrative Liaison. Website content is the responsibility of the sponsoring committee.
3. Committee Chairs will be afforded the opportunity to meet with the CCCC Chair in person once annually as time allows. This meeting may take place as a part of another meeting, such as during the Executive Committee meeting or an Officers’ meeting.
4. Three months prior to the CCCC Convention and the NCTE Conventions, the CCCC Administrative Liaison will contact Committee Chairs to make arrangements for space for your committee meeting and/or announcements to be printed in the program. All requests must be made in writing as early as possible to ensure space for a meeting.
5. Policies on Per Diems: Committees will only receive one day’s per diem for meetings held outside the time frame of the CCCC Convention (Wednesday through Sunday) and this must be pre-approved by the CCCC leadership. CCCC policy does not allow reimbursement for expenses related to travel or accommodations.

Membership, Responsibilities, and Charges

1. The CCCC Chair has the ultimate responsibility of seating and charging CCCC Committees. Note: the CCCC Chair’s guidelines are included in this document for your reference.
2. Committee chair and members should be familiar with the committee’s charge, which serves as a statement of the committee’s functions. The chair is particularly responsible for guiding the group to work within the charge toward reaching the stated goals.
3. If the committee feels it necessary to change or revise its charge, the committee should recommend such changes to the CCCC Chair, who will consult with the Executive Committee and inform the committee of any changes. Otherwise, progress toward stated charges is assumed.
4. All CCCC Committees are “charged” with demonstrating effort and progress toward completion of their charges in a timely fashion. Dysfunctional or non-functioning committees will be re-organized or disbanded.
5. Assuming either a leadership or membership position on a CCCC committee is a substantial responsibility. The voluntary contribution made to both the committee and to CCCC is appreciated. If the decision is made that an individual can no longer serve on the committee, the CCCC Chair or the CCCC Administrative Liaison should be notified so that someone else may be appointed. While Committee Chairs themselves cannot appoint new members, they can ask individuals to help the committee in an outside consulting role without prior approval needed; however, it is good practice to inform the CCCC Chair (and the EC in bi-annual reports).
6. Committee members should plan to attend as many committee meetings as possible and arrange any absences with the committee chair. Often, committees are able to conduct much of their business on-line, via conference calls, or through a combination of these means, and members who are unable to attend every meeting are still able to participate. The input and participation of members are valuable and vital to the committee’s work.

Reporting

All committee chairs should prepare a semiannual written report, which will be given to Executive Committee members for discussion and approval at its meetings during the CCCC Annual Convention and the NCTE Annual Convention. The reports should be filed via e-mail to the CCCC Administrative Liaison. Committee chairs will receive a request to make a report for distribution in the Executive Committee Agenda. The semiannual reports are a good way to keep the Executive Committee abreast of committees’ activities.

The narrative of a committee report should speak directly to the work of the committee on committee charges. It should be specific, if possible including examples of work completed or specifics about planned approaches. If the committee has encountered setbacks, the report is an appropriate place to present them, as well as suggesting alternative approaches or charges if desired.

The report form provides space to request the Executive Committee’s approval for action on a committee’s projects. Please make requests as specific as possible, including deadline dates, rationales, etc. It also allows for committees to request funds over and above the $50.00 that will be routinely provided for expenses such as postage, phone expenses, photocopying, etc.

If a report includes requests/recommendations for the Executive Committee to consider, the Executive Committee will discuss and if necessary vote on committee requests when they meet. Following the convention, the CCCC Chair and/or Administrative Liaison will be in touch to explain the Executive Committee’s responses to committee requests.

If a committee report does not include any requests/recommendations, the committee will not be contacted following the convention unless the Executive Committee has questions or recommendations for the committee. The Executive Committee is likely to consider only the work of reporting committees at any one meeting, so if a report is not submitted to the Executive Committee, there will not be any post-convention follow up.

Special Requests and Projects

1. Budgets for special projects to be undertaken by a committee should be prepared and forwarded to Headquarters at least six weeks before the November or March Executive Committee meetings so that requests can be included in the agenda and, if necessary, so that the Executive Committee can consider monetary requests beforehand.
2. Early assistance from the CCCC officers and/or NCTE Headquarters should be sought if a committee is contemplating a survey of CCCC members, NCTE members, or others. The officers must approve all questionnaires in order to be sure that legal and technical requirements of such instruments are met and that the studies are consistent with the functions of the committee. The officers and staff may be able to help by providing mailing lists, suggesting sampling techniques and offering other technical assistance.
   As with any project requiring funding, the CCCC Executive Committee must authorize any expenditures for surveys. Committees could consider submitting a proposal to the NCTE Research Foundation for funds (in lieu of or in addition to what the CCCC Executive Committee might approve). Surveys tend to be complicated and expensive undertakings. In some cases, information a committee wishes to collect may be available from other sources, or the committee may wish to collaborate with other committees on a survey (to reduce the cost and the inconvenience to members who participate in surveys).
3. If an official CCCC sanction of a report/paper/guidelines, etc. intended for publication is needed, a copy of the publication and a budget request should be sent 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, the committee chair will be notified of the Executive Committee’s decision on clearing the material for publication.
4. If a committee plans to publish a book or monograph via CCCC or NCTE, the NCTE Senior Editor or the SWR Editor should be contacted for assistance in developing a prospectus. The prospectus will be judged, in most cases, by the NCTE Editorial Board, and the writers will be either encouraged to develop or discouraged from developing a full manuscript, depending on a variety of factors.
5. CCCC officers should be consulted before seeking grants outside CCCC for the work of a committee. Grants often create legal obligations in which the Conference and NCTE have an understandable interest.
6. CCCC officers should also be consulted before soliciting sponsorship from publishers independently of CCCC. Headquarters provides publishers with a list of options to support the convention activities.
7. When printing material intended to foster exchange of information (for example, in newsletters), 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 or its Executive Committee,” should be included.
8. Executive Committee approval should be sought before giving or implying a committee’s endorsement of material (e.g., a journal or book) that lies within the committee’s concerns. This guideline does not preclude praise for material in the course of an article, book, report, or bibliography the committee prepares.
9. Committees can recommend awards to the Executive Committee. No official CCCC awards can be given by a committee itself. However, a committee can give commendations (honoring a retiring committee chair, for example).
10. Contact the CCCC Chair to discuss collaborative efforts your committee would like to undertake with another committee. Such collaborations may require the approval of the Executive Committee and coordination with NCTE headquarters staff.
11. Committees are invited to submit proposals for CCCC and NCTE convention sessions and workshops. Such proposals will be evaluated by the Program Chair for the convention on the same basis as all other proposals.
12. After its three years of work, a committee can recommend its reconstitution to the CCCC Chair and Executive Committee. Such recommendations should contain a detailed rationale.

CCCC CHAIR

CCCC committees perform much of the work of the organization. As such, careful attention must be paid to the functionality of committees, size/makeup of committees, and scope of committee charges. Most of these elements ultimately fall to the CCCC Chair to balance and maintain, and the quality of committee function can be greatly influenced by a few key decisions on the part of the Chair:

A. Committee Rationale: Creating/Reconstituting and Disbanding Committees

1. The CCCC Chair will not permit the existence of more committees than can reasonably be overseen and managed by the CCCC Leadership and Staff, considering direct as well as time-costs.
2. Before seating a new committee or reconstituting an existing committee, the CCCC Chair will undertake a process of global committee review to ensure (a) managerial space for a new committee, and (b) need, including impossibility of addressing “new” charges with existing committees (see “Charges” below for additional information).
3. The output of committees and progress with committee charges/goals will undergo regular review via annual reports. “Consent Agenda” reports to the Executive Committee will nonetheless undergo careful review by the CCCC Officers with respect to progress and committee accomplishments. The CCCC Chair will follow-up with any questions/redirection for committee chairs.
4. Even if they request renewal, committees may be disbanded by a majority vote of the CCCC Executive Committee or by the Chair in consultation with the Executive Committee for a demonstrated failure to progress toward goals or inability to align the committee’s function behind stated charges. The CCCC leadership recognizes that effort may not always translate to accomplishment or to timely progress. All reasonable effort will be taken to support committee work; still, dysfunctional committees will be disbanded rather than “worked around.” The CCCC Executive Committee may disband committees that fail to request renewal/reconstitution by a stated deadline.
5. The CCCC Chair will exercise considerable selectivity in constituting new committees and reconstituting existing committees, utilizing the following criteria: (a) Has the proposed committee been requested by two or more individuals or units (e.g. the Executive Committee, a group that wishes a committee, Officers’ group etc.) and has that request been accompanied by a preliminary rationale, language for a charge, and suggested name for the committee?; (b) Does the proposal address a service not already provided by another committee or constituent group?; (c) Could any current committee take on the suggested charge or functions without over-burdening that group?; and (d) Is the proposal better suited to another entity within NCTE?

B.  Membership

1. The size of new or reconstituted CCCC committees should not exceed nine members, including the committee chair.
2. Committees will include representation of membership in line with general CCCC policies (e.g., representation by people of color, two-year-college members etc.).  Special considerations of representation may be required under specific circumstances at the CCCC Chair’s discretion (e.g., ensure an Executive Committee member is on the committee to create a needed link etc.).
3. The CCCC Chair will consider lists of suggested committee members from interested parties and will consult with the officers and Executive Committee in appointing members to committees.
4. There will be some turnover of membership each time a committee is reconstituted.

C.  Committee Naming and Charges

1. The CCCC Chair will name new committees, carefully evaluating existing committee names and seeking to discern their functions at this level. Naming can be done in consultation with others as needed.
2. The CCCC Chair will consider suggested charges from interested parties and may work closely with potential committee chairs and/or others to shape charges.
3. The CCCC Chair may request recommended language and/or sample charges.
   In charging committees, the CCCC Chair should note that charges should be:
   (a) Specific and goal-oriented
   (b) Attainable during the current term of the committee
   (c) Not in conflict with any CCCC policies or formal procedures
   (d) Not threatening to CCCC/NCTE’s status as a 501c3/charitable entity
   (e) Not overlapping with charges or requests of existing CCCC committees
   (f) Not in conflict with charges or requests of existing CCCC committees
4. CCCC Committees may request to collaborate on projects/charges or may be assigned to do so by the CCCC Chair.
5. The CCCC Chair may modify existing committee charges to better align them with standards presented here.

D.  Communication

1. The CCCC Chair will be available to support committee work as needed, including responding to requests from committee Chairs, via the Administrative Liaison, although committee work always continues at the Chair’s discretion and under the Chair’s direction.
2. The CCCC Chair will announce an annual meeting time with CCCC Committee Chairs as a group. This time may be during another meeting of the CCCC Officers or Executive Committee, or may be held online.
3. The CCCC Chair will stay current with the work of the CCCC Committees by reviewing the CCCC website committee communication area and responding as needed.

HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT

Committee chairs and committee members can depend on the following kinds of support from the CCCC Administrative Liaison:

1. Handle all administrative committee work, including inviting/thanking members, requesting, collecting and reformatting committee reports, and follow-up communications from the Officers’ and Executive Committees.
2. Update (with submitted content) and publish webpages for CCCC Committees as requested.
3. Keep Committee Chairs apprised of projects and opportunities that may be of interest.
4. Make available on the CCCC website a current list of CCCC Committees, Committee Chairs and members, and committee charges. S/he will specifically make this information available to the CCCC Chair as needed in referencing materials/members for new/reconstituted committees.
5. Stay apprised of the work of committees and draw the CCCC Chair’s attention to relevant or timely items that arise.
6. Act as liaison between CCCC committees, committee chairs, and the CCCC Chair as needed.

Committee Members

Charlie Lowe, Chair
H. Allen Brizee
Mike Edwards
Kim Gainer
Jeff Galin
TyAnna Herrington
Clancy Ratliff
Martine Courant Rife
Kyle Stedman
Annette Vee
Traci Zimmerman

March 2015 Update

The CCCC Committee on Intellectual Property monitors new intellectual property issues that may affect writing teachers, students, and researchers, and it advocates best intellectual property practices.

Committee Charge

This committee is charged with addressing and providing guidance on intellectual property issues that affect CCCC and NCTE and that impact writing instruction generally. More specifically, the committee will:

Charge 1:  Keep the CCCC and NCTE membership informed about intellectual property developments, through reports to the CCCC EC, other forums and new mediums, including the MemberWeb site.

Charge 2:  Maintain a close working relationship with the Caucus on Intellectual Property and Composition Studies and related NCTE groups and staff.

Charge 3: Develop and update CCCC position and policy statements to guide writing teachers’ and researchers’ uses of course packs, electronic materials, issues of plagiarism, etc.

Charge 4: Address issues of concern to the organizations, such as interpretations of fair use, copyright debates, and evolving Intellectual Property policies and continue to be a resource to the NCTE DC officer for their work with lawmakers.

CCCC-IP Annuals

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2019–2020

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2018

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2017

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2016

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2015

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2014

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2013

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2012

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2011

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2010

CCCC Letter to United States Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2009

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2008

Top Intellectual Property Developments of 2007 for Scholars of Composition, Rhetoric, and Communication

Major Intellectual Property Developments of 2006 for Scholars of Composition, Rhetoric, and Communication

Major Intellectual Property Developments of 2005 for Scholars of Composition and Communication

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

A private comprehensive University (i.e., we grant 3 Ph.D.s in science, lots of assorted Masters degrees, and M.D./D.D.S./ J.D. and professional doctorates in occupational and physical therapy, and Pharm.D.s).

Characterization of Department

M.A. in literature, composition and rhetoric, teaching of literature, and teaching of writing, and creative writing.
B.A. in English, with tracks in literature, creative writing, English Education., and Irish literature.

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

First, let me say that this poor guy’s been whipsawed around for 6 years–his problems are the product of bad choices and  bad or nonexistent advising.  If Spencer had been here, he would have had a faculty mentor to hopefully advice him against taking on so much service.  His service seems fine–actually half of this service would be fine–it’s good that he has University committee service, but he has too much of it. His teaching is more difficult to assess–he certainly would have been better to focus on undergraduate teaching–especially at our school–but the scenario given doesn’t give me 6 years of data to look at.  Therefore I do not know if he improved or not.  The graduate teaching is good, but isn’t as important here as undergraduate teaching.  The publication/scholarship–that’s tougher.  As I count it, he has a book, 4 reviews, 7 presentations, the software package, and an online article.  That might get tenure where I am, but I doubt that it would get promotion to Associate Professor as well.  He needs more single-authored stuff.  It’s not a matter of not valuing the software; it’s a matter of him having only 2, maybe 3, significant works in 6 years.  If he were my colleague, I would support his application, but I wouldn’t be sanguine about the prospects.  Here the “general” count is 6-8 articles in juried publications.  Even if he’s had the software package count as an article, it’s still a little weak.

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

It depends, really, on which department head.  The first department head failed in that he or she should have been very specific regarding the expectations for tenure and promotion in the depoartment and more specifically the College.   If there is an expectation –general, mythical, or explicit–the Chair should know it, and tell the junior faculty member of it when s/he walks through the gates.  I feel, too, that s/he did not emphasize enough in the first three years that the weaknesses were indeed weaknesses.  And “defending the use of computers to the literature faculty of the department?”  What is this?  Is this part of his job description?  I hope not.  Spencer’s’s there to promote use of technology, maybe, but it should not be the job of a brand-new junior faculty member to win over tenured faculty with different ideologies.  This is setting Spencer up for failure–the Department Head shouldn’t have let him get into this trap.  S/he’d have been better off getting someone else to help Spencer with the grant.  It’s the head’s job  to help the new faculty member with the existing “power relationships” in the department.

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

Our department does not have a personnel committee.  Oddly enough, the departments here don’t vote or decide tenure—it’s a matter of the Chair recommending to the Dean, then a college committee, auUniversity committeee, and then the President, who makes the final decision.

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

S/he should have given Spencer a 2/2 load for every year–directing a lab  is worth a course release.  I know this from hard experience.

What are Spenser’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

It’s very flattering to be asked on M.A. and Ph.D. committees—but junior faculty should watch this carefully.  Spencer grievously overcommitted himself.  This would not happen–or at least we’d take great steps not to let this happen—in our department.  I don’t mean to polish our apple, but we assign new faculty mentors from among the tenured faculty—and not just the handiest tenured faculty, but the ones who are on the ball, have good track records themselves, who made tenure and promotion (not always a given here) in good time and with good publication, teaching, and  service records.  If this person were in my department, the mentor would have told him to cut back.  All of the committees, the grant work–without a solid publication record already, worked together to suck up his remaining time. 

What went wrong?  What went right?

Most everything I can see went wrong; little went right in terms of Spencer’s position.

Committee Members

Jennifer Beech, Chair
Jacqueline Gray
William Macauley
Rita Malenczyk
Irvin Peckham
Heidi Rosenberg
Karen Thompson
Howard Tinberg
Jennifer Trainor

Committee Charge

The charge to the committee is to identify institutions that treat adjunct, contingent, and part-time faculty in exemplary fashion by November, 2006.  By March, 2007, the committee should distill a list of best practices by looking at those exemplary institutions.  Then the committee should draft a statement about those best practices for a general higher education audience which should be submitted to the executive committee by November 2007.

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

Research II

Characterization of Department

M.A. granted in Professional Communication
M.A. granted in English

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

Spenser certainly would have been tenured at this university.

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

Well, I think Harrison Spencer stepped into a trap. Here he is, a run of the mill academic who’s been scraping by with a series of one-night stands, and suddenly he finds himself saddled with responsibilities he has had meager preparation for. That is, he’s a student of medieval rhetoric hired for a new rhetoric and comp program but diverted by his dept chair into a taxing job requiring a combination of administrative and public relations skills. This would have worked out okay had he had more sympathetic overseers and not made the mistake of seeking rapport with the literature teachers by bringing two of them into his project.

This dept sounds like a pretty traditional one with a dept head eager for innovations, a tricky situation for Harrison, and I infer a lack of mutual regard between the comp/technology group and the literature faculty. The literature people have always thought of themselves as writing specialists, too, and they often regard the introduction of computers into freshman English classrooms as a preoccupation with gadgetry resorted to by teachers who deep down have little interest, really, in either reading closely or writing eloquently but who prattle about ‘communication’ and who may–or may not–have social goals in mind (e.g., huddling impressionable freshman together for some covert Gramscian war of positions).  But the fact is that most literature professors should drop their pose of mandarin haughtiness and accept that running through the Harbrace exercises on the comma splice is not the only path to a liberal education. The comp/technology people, on the other hand, should atone for their early arrogance in parading themselves as ‘writing specialists’ (I have been teaching college composition for forty-one years, even winning awards for it, and yet I was told recently that I wasn’t a ‘writing specialist’ because I didn’t belong to CCCC and read College English) by demonstrating that they have a great deal to offer (as they do) and getting on with their work without betraying any defensiveness around the mandarins. Volunteering to teach a sophomore literature course once in a while wouldn’t be a bad idea.

This is not an easy battlefield for a newcomer to prove his mettle on, and Harrison came naked to the fray. He was naïve to hope that he could “engage some of the literature faculty” by bringing them into his software project, where they sucked up resources reprehensibly, enjoyed their release time, and contributed little. Under a just chair, they would have suffered for their selfishness.

The chair bears a lot of blame for Harrison’s tenure defeat; knowing the P&T committee’s undue harassment of Harrison over publications (the committee were probably all literature mandarins devoted to Cardinal Newman’s The Idea of a University), the chair should have given him some breathing space. Even though Harrison was a dud with undergraduates, he seems to have had a real touch with graduate students, and a discerning chair should have capitalized on that, seeing Harrison as someone who if nursed along properly could play an important role in his vision of a technology-expanded program, both as an administrator and as a tutor/advisor to graduate students.

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

One suspects that the “fledgling rhetoric and composition program” was not really ready for its maiden flight in a conflicted department and that Harrison got caught with a P & T committee still dubious about the new program and not at all sympathetic to online publications.

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

And one wonders where the dean was while Harrison was running this gantlet of slings and arrows.

What are Spencer’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

Harrison seems to have done much good work, only to have been exploited for his “low key affability and willingness to take on what needed to be done.” The two literature professors sabotaged Harrison and left him without the software publication that with any decent collegial support he should have finished early and been credited with. It was all downhill for Harrison from that point on, with his being asked to do more and more while being harassed about research. (Clearly, he should have been given more credit for his book, even though it was complete by the time he accepted his position.) He deserved more recognition for his reviews for Kairos and for his papers for RSA Online and The Journal of Online Instruction, as well as for his presentations; and the contract with Tallman Publishers should have clinched his tenure.

What went wrong?  What went right?

Clearly, Harrison should have been given more credit for his book, even though it was complete by the time he accepted his position.  He deserved more recognition for his reviews for Kairos and for his papers for RSA Online and The Journal of Online Instruction, as well as for his presentations; and the contract with Tallman Publishers should have clinched his tenure.

Addtional Comments

This reviewer has taught over thirty years in a state university, done four years hard time as chair of the university’s largest department, and served on numerous Personnel Committees, often as chair. His department offers master’s degrees in both literature and professional communication (he was the chair who pushed through the latter degree).

Harrison Spenser: Case #5

Characterization of Institution

Research I University

Characterization of Department

Ph.D. granted in Composition/Rhetoric
Ph.D. in Tech Comm/Rhetoric
M.A.T.C. (M.A. in Technical Communication) undergraduate specialization in Technical Communication
Ph.D. granted in English,
M.A. granted in English
B.A. granted in English

How would Harrison Spenser’s case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

If Spencer were to come up for tenure here with one book (accepted for publication prior to his hire), a couple of articles, a software package, and several reviews, he would have trouble at tenure time.  Our current T&P document specifies that while research published prior to one’s hire is “commendable,” it will not count toward tenure.  The document also specifies that for tenure, a candidate is expected to produce “a published or accepted book, or articles that are equivalent to a book.”  The problem for Spencer would be that faculty couldn’t count his book; without that book, his research profile wouldn’t be equivalent to a book.  Faculty here would have no problems with the fact that much of Spencer’s work is on-line; that’s accepted.  They would have trouble, however, with the fact that most of his work is in the form of book reviews.  He needs more articles.

I would hope, however, that this case would have proceeded differently here, because I would hope Spencer would receive more practical advice and mentoring than he did at his university.  I see that advice/mentoring as being the responsibility of the chair and of members of the T&P committee.  I also see the candidate as bearing some responsibility for making him/herself as well-informed as possible about departmental and university policies.

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

1st: Who assigned administrative duties to Spencer (there’s a passive verb in the description above that hides responsibility; I’m assuming the chair made this assignment)?  As chair, I make every attempt possible to protect untenured faculty from administrative service.  As far as I know, most departments will NOT count administrative work toward tenure.  The candidate assigned such duties is caught in a terrible bind; as an untenured person, s/he has little power to enforce administrative decisions AND s/he is not getting credit for all this administrative work.  It’s simply not fair to put an untenured person in this bind.  The chair should have found someone else to assume primary responsibility for the lab, perhaps with Spencer as an associate to this person.

2nd: The chair should have notified Spencer that the department wasn’t going to count his book–and should have asked Spencer if Spencer wanted that chair to see if the department might be willing to make an exception to its policy.  Routinely, when I hire candidates who bring a strong research record to this institution, I encourage faculty to vote in favor of counting at least some of that pre-employment record when it comes time for tenure.  Faculty generally vote positively; we then have this vote on record.

3rd: Spencer has a 2/2 load.  What load do other new faculty carry?  Is Spencer carrying more than others because he has the computer lab administrative duties?

4th: The scenario notes that in Spencer’s first year review, the chair conveys his concerns about Spencer’s lack of publication but focuses on the benefits of Spencer’s grant-writing, etc.  Are these concerns on paper?   Are the benefits on paper?  I would hope the chair, and Spencer, put these comments on paper.  It’s important for both parties that they have a paper-trail, establishing what Spencer was told to expect.  How does the departmental policy statement on T&P value grantwriting?  Is this component important in tenure cases?

5th: During Spencer’s second year, the chair asks for volunteers to serve on Spencer’s committee, rather than appointing members.  While the call for volunteers may entice interested parties, it does not lend administrative strength to Spencer or to his committee.  Spencer has little public clout.

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

The Personnel Committee Chair should take a more active role in clarifying, for Spencer, what the department’s expectations are.  The committee chair and the department chair can work together to inform the candidate about the specifics of his candidacy.

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

Here, the Dean of the College reads the Chair’s Annual Assessment of each faculty member and meets with the Chair to discuss each faculty person (the assessment are in January; the Dean and Chair meet in February).  Assuming that the Chair reported Spencer’s slow progress toward publication to the Dean, she most likely would have urged the Chair to carry back her concerns to Spencer.  The Chair then would meet with Spencer and convey to him what the Dean had said.  The Dean might query the Chair about the department’s willingness to accept on-line and software publication and probably would encourage the chair to include guidelines about such publication in the department’s T& P policy statement.

What are Spenser’s responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

Spencer takes on too much–but can’t be expected to know that he is taking on too much.  Spencer should have clarified the status of his book before accepting the position; he should have clarified administrative duties; he should have gotten, in writing, some statement about how his admin. work would count toward tenure.  He should have focused more on developing his conference presentations into articles.  He should have left the book reviews until after tenure (at least here, book reviews count for next to nothing).

What went wrong?  What went right?

What went right: Spencer tries to figure out the situation, tries to adjust demands on his time (that is, he suggests a committee to help him in his work; publishes in the area of his teaching; completes his grant work).  Unfortunately, every time he tries to make adjustments, the system undermines him (the committee is volunteer rather than appointed; to publish in his teaching area requires development of new courses; to complete the grant he alienates the faculty member who becomes chair).   This case COULD have come out differently if Spencer had more support and attention from his chair and from members of the T&P committee.