Category: Uncategorized

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v41-2

Pickett, Nell Ann. Rev. of The American Community College by Arthur M. Cohen and Florence B. Brawer. CCC 41.2 (1990): 226-227.

Harris, Joseph. Rev. of Rescuing the Subject: A Critical Introduction to Rhetoric and the Writer by Susan Miller; The Written World: Reading and Writing in Social Contexts by Susan Miller. CCC 41.2 (1990): 227-229.

Brandt, Deborah. Rev. of Writing as Social Action by Marilyn M. Cooper and Michael Holzman. CCC 41.2 (1990): 229-231.

Middleton, Joyce Irene. Rev. of The Double Perspective: Language, Literacy, and Social Relations by David Bleich. CCC 41.2 (1990): 231-233.

Gere, Anne Ruggles. Rev. of Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research by Chris M. Anson. CCC 41.2 (1990): 233-234.

Philbin, Alice. Rev. of Technical and Business Communication: Bibliographic Essays for Teachers and Corporate Trainers by Charles H. Sides. CCC 41.2 (1990): 234-235.

Holdstein, Deborah H. Rev. of Writing and Technique by David Dobrin. CCC 41.2 (1990): 235-237.

Bernhardt, Stephen A. Rev. of Worlds of Writing: Teaching and Learning in Discourse Communities at Work by Carolyn B. Matelene. CCC 41.2 (1990): 237-239.

Fenza, D. W. Rev. of Creative Writing in America: Theory and Pedagogy by Joseph M. Moxley. CCC 41.2 (1990): 239-240.

Cook, Albert B. “Response to Donald C. Stewart, ‘What Is an English Major, and What Should It Be?'” CCC 41.2 (1990): 223-224.

Stewart, Donald C. “Reply by Donald C. Stewart.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 224-225.

Fulwiler, Toby. “Looking and Listening for My Voice.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 214-220.

Brueggemann, Brenda Jo. “Signs and Numbers of the Times: Harper’s ‘Index’ as an Essay Prompt.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 220-222.

Huot, Brian. “Reliability, Validity, and Holistic Scoring: What We Know and What We Need to Know.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 201-213.

Abstract:

The author’s purpose in this essay is “to outline the present state of holistic writing evaluation, the inflated position of reliability and the neglected status of validity, and to consider what we know and what we need to know in order to establish the theoretic soundness of holistic scoring procedures.” Holistic, rubric-based scoring emphasizes the reliability of scores, but the author warns that these holistic scoring procedures change the natural relationship between the reader and the text, forcing the scorer to look narrowly at a piece of writing instead of valuing a personal, subjective reaction to the text. The author argues that the field needs to further develop holistic scoring procedures that will be more accurate and valid in assessing the effectiveness of student writing.

Keywords:

ccc41.2 Holistic Writing Validity Reliability Raters Score Testing Students Evaluation Quality Research EWhite

Works Cited

Anastasi, Anne. Psychological Testing. 4th ed. New York: Macmillan, 1976.

Anderson, Richard c., and P. David Pearson. “A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading Comprehension.” Handbook of Reading Research. Ed. P. David Pearson. New York: Longman, 1984. 225-92.

Baurer, Barbara A. A Study of the Reliabilities and Cost Efficiencies of Three Methods of Assessment for Writing Ability. ERIC, 1981. ED 216 357.

Bleich, David. Readings and Feelings: An Introduction to Subjective Criticism. Urbana: NCTE, 1975.

—. Subjective Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.

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

Breland, Hunter M. “Can Multiple-Choice Tests Measure Writing Skills?” College Board Review 103 (Spring 1977): 11-13, 23-33.

Breland, Hunter M., and Robert J. Jones. “Perceptions of Writing Skills.” Written Communication 1 (Jan. 1984): 10 1-09.

Charney, Davida A. “The Validity of Using Holistic Scoring to Evaluate Writing: A Critical Overview.” Research in the Teaching of English 18 (Feb. 1984): 65-81.

Collins, James L., and Michael M. Williamson. “Spoken Language and Semantic Abbreviation in Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (February 1981): 23-35.

Cooper, Charles R. “Holistic Evaluation of Writing.” Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Ed. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1977. 3-32.

Crowhurst, Marion. “Syntactic Complexity and Teachers’ Ratings of Narratives and Arguments.” Research in the Teaching of English 14 (Oct. 1980): 223-32.

Davis, Barbara G., Michael Scriven, and Susan Thomas. The Evaluation of Composition Instruction. Inverness: Edgepress, 1981.

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

Diederich, Paul B., John W. French, and Sydell T. Carlton. Factors in the judgment of Writing Quality. Princeton: Educational Testing Service, 1961. ETS RB NO 61-15.

Faigley, Lester, Roger D. Cherry, David A. Jolliffe, and Anna M. Skinner. Assessing Writers’ Knowledge and Processes of Composing. Norwood: Ablex, 1985.

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

Freedman, Sarah W. “How Characteristics of Students’ Essays Influence Teachers’ Evaluation.” Journal of Educational Psychology 71 (June 1979): 328-38.

—. “Influences of Evaluation of Expository Essays: Beyond the Text.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (Oct. 1981): 245-55.

—. “Influences on the Evaluators of Student Writing.” DAI 37 (1977): 5306A. Stanford U.

—. “Why Do Teachers Give the Grades They Do?” CCC30 (May 1979): 161-64.

Freedman, Sarah W., and Robert C. Calfee. “Holistic Assessment of Writing: Experimental Design and Cognitive Theory.” Research on Writing. Ed. Peter Mosenthal, Lynne Tamor, and Sean A. Walmsley. New York: Longman, 1983. 75-98.

Gebhard, Anne O. “Writing Quality and Syntax: A Transformational Analysis of Three Prose Samples.” Research in the Teaching of English 12 (Oct. 1978): 211-31.

Gere, Anne R. “Written Composition: Toward a Theory of Evaluation.” College English 42 (Sept. 1980): 44-48.

Godshalk, Fred I., Frances Swineford, and William E. Coffman. The Measurement of Writing Ability. Research Monograph 6. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1966.

Goodman, Kenneth S. Language and Literacy: The Selected Writings of Kenneth S. Goodman. London: Rouc1edge and Kegan Paul, 1982.

Greenberg, Karen. The Effects of Variations in Essay Questions on the Writing Performance of CUNY Freshmen. New York: CUNY Instructional Resource Center, 1981.

Grobe, Cary. “Syntactic Maturity., Mechanics and Vocabulary as Predictors of Quality Ratings.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (Feb. 1981): 75-88.

Harris, Winfred H. “Teacher Response to Student Writing: A Study of the Response Patterns of High School English Teachers to Determine the Basis for Teacher Judgment of Student Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 11 (May 1977): 175-85.

Hoetker, James. “Essay Examination Topics and Student Writing.” CCC 33 (Dec. 1982): 377-92.

Holland, Norman N. The Dynamics of Literary Response. New York: Oxford UP, 1968.

Huot, Brian. “The Validity of Holistic Scoring: A Comparison of the Talk-Aloud Protocols of Novice and Expert Holistic Raters.” Diss. Indiana U of Pennsylvania, 1988.

Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1978.

Jones, Bennie E. “Marking of Student Writing by High School Teachers in Virginia During 1976.” DAI 38 (1978): 3911A. U of Virginia.

Lyman, Howard B. Test Scores and What They Mean. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice, 1978.

Markham, Lynda R. “Influences of Handwriting Quality on Teacher Evaluation of Student Work.” American Educational Research Journal 13 (Fall 1976): 277-83.

McColly, William. “What Does Educational Research Say About the Judging of Writing?” Journal of Educational Research 64 (December 1970): 148-56.

Myers, Miles. A Procedure for Writing Assessment and Holistic Scoring. Urbana: NCTE, 1980.

Neilsen, Lorraine, and Gene Piche. “The Influence of Headed Nominal Complexity and Lexical Choice on Teachers’ Evaluation of Writing.” Research. in the Teaching of English 15 (Feb. 1981): 65-74.

Nold, Ellen W. The Basics of Research: The Evaluation of Writing. ERIC, 1978. ED 166 713.

Nold, Ellen W., and Sarah W. Freedman. “An Analysis of Readers’ Responses to Essays.” Research in the Teaching of English 11 (May 1977): 164-74.

Odell, Lee, and Charles R. Cooper. “Procedures for Evaluating Writing: Assumptions and Research.” College English 42 (Sept. 1980): 35-43.

Popham, James W. Modern Educational Measurement. Englewood: Prentice, 1981.

Puma, Vincent D. “The Effects of the Degree of Audience Intimacy on Linguistic Features and Quality in the Audience Specified Essays of First Year College Students.” Diss. Indiana U of Pennsylvania, 1986.

Scherer, Darlene L. Measuring the Measurements: A Study of the Evaluation of Writing-An Annotated Bibliography. ERIC, 1985. ED 260 455.

Sloan, Charles A., and Iris McGinnis. The Effects of Handwriting on Teachers’ Grading of High School Essays. ERIC, 1978. ED 220 836.

Smith, Frank. Understanding Reading. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, 1983.

—. “The Writer as Reader.” Language Arts 60 (1983): 558-67.

Smith, William L. Personal Correspondence. U of Pittsburgh, 1988.

Spandel, Vicki, and Richard J. Stiggins. Direct Measures of Writing Skill: Issues and Applications. Portland: Northwest Regional Laboratory, 1980.

Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1974.

Stewart, Murray F., and Cary H. Grobe. “Syntactic Maturity, Mechanics, Vocabulary and Teachers’ Quality Ratings.” Research in the Teaching of English 13 (Oct. 1979): 207-15.

Stock, Patricia L., and Jay L. Robinson. “Taking on Testing.” English Education 19 (May 1987): 93-121.

Tierney, Robert J., and P. David Pearson. “Toward a Composing Model of Reading.” Language Arts 60 (May 1983): 568-80.

Vaughan, Carolyn. “What Affects Raters’ Judgments)” CCCC Convention. Atlanta, Mar. 1987.

Veal, L. Ramon, and Sally A. Hudson. “Direct and Indirect Measures for Large-Scale Evaluation of Writing.” Research in the Teaching of English 17 (Oct. 1983): 290-96.

White, Edward M. Teaching and Assessing Writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

White, Edward M., and Linda G. Polin. Research in Effective Teaching of Writing: Volumes I and II. Final Project Report to California State U Foundation. ERIC, 1986. ED 275007.

White, Edward M. “Language and Reality in Writing Assessment.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 187-200.

Abstract:

This article investigates the difference between how compositionists assess writing and how those outside the field, such as administration, assess writing performance, citing that the difference comes from a conflict between discourse communities. This spells trouble for writing programs, who are evaluated by measurement specialists who come from other fields that have a different set of assumptions, definitions, and beliefs about writing. The author argues that writing teachers are right to be vocal against measurement techniques that reduce writing to a mechanical skill, but to dismiss all assessment is unwise, for there is value in measurement practices that take into account the complex nature of writing. Above all, the author argues, compositionists interested in assessment should broaden their reading in order to understand, appreciate, and use knowledge on writing evaluation produced by other fields.

Keywords:

ccc41.2 Language Writing Measurement Assessment Value World Community Score Discourse Students Data Testing Reality

Works Cited

Bloom, Benjamin, et al. Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw, 1971.

Cronbach, 1. J., M. Rajaratnam, and G. Gleser. “Theory of Generalizability: A Liberation of Reliability Theory.” British Journal of Statistical Psychology 16.2 (963): 137-63.

Hillocks, George, J r. Research on Written Composition: New Directions for Teaching. Urbana: NCTE, 1986.

Leitch, Vincent. “Deconstruction and Pedagogy.” Writing and Reading Differently. Ed. G. Douglas Atkins and Michael Johnson. Lawrence: UP of Kansas, 1985. 1-26.

Sapir, Edward. “The Status of Linguistics as a Science.” Selected Writings in Language. Culture and Personality. Ed. David G. Mandelbaum. Berkeley: U of California P, 1963. 160-66.

Skinner, B. F. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. New York: Knopf, 1972.

White, Edward M. Teaching and Assessing Writing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

White, Edward M., and Leon Thomas. “Racial Minorities and Writing Skills Assessment in The California State University and Colleges.” College English 43 (Mar. 1981): 276-83.

Whorf, Benjamin L. “Science and Linguistics'” Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings. Ed. John B. Carroll. Cambridge: MIT P, 1956. 207-19.

Tirrell, Mary Kay. “James Britton: An Impressionistic Sketch.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 166-171.

Pradl, Gordon M. “Collaborating with Jimmy Britton.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 171-175.

Warnock, John. “Rejoicing in the Margins.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 176-181.

Britton, James. “James Britton: An Impressionistic Sketch: A Response.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 181-186.

Keywords:

ccc41.2 JBritton Language Teaching Writing Research Theory Development Discourse Field English Knowledge

Works Cited

Bernstein, Richard J. Praxis and Action. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1971.

Bloom, Harold. The Anxiety of Influence: A Theory of Poetry. New York: Oxford UP, 1973.

Boomer, Garth. “The Helping Hand Strikes Again.”‘ English Education 21 (Oct. 1989): 132-51.

Britton, James. “Attempting to Clarify Our Objectives for Teaching English.” English Education 18 (Oct. 1986): 153-58.

—. “English Teaching: Prospect and Retrospect.” Prospect and Retrospect 201-15.

—. Language and Learning. Harmondsworth, Eng.: Penguin, 1970.

—. “Language and the Nature of Learning: An Individual Perspective.” The Teaching of English. Ed. James Squire. The 76th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1977. 1-38.

—. “A Note on Teaching, Research and ‘Development.'” Prospect and Retrospect 149-52.

—-. “Notes on a Working Hypothesis about Writing.” Prospect and Retrospect 123-39.

—. Prospect and Retrospect: Selected Essays of James Britton. Ed. Gordon M. Pradl. Upper Montclair: Boynton, 1982.

—. “Second Thoughts on Learning.” Language Arts 62 (Jan. 1985): 72-77.

—. “The Spectator as Theorist: A Reply.” English Education 21 (Feb. 1989): 5.)-60.

—. “Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing.” Prospect and Retrospect 46-67.

—. “Writing and the Story World.”‘ Exploration of Children’s Writing Development. Ed. Gordon Wells and Barry Kroll. Chichester: Wiley, 1983. 3-30.

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

Burke, Kenneth. “In Response to Booth: Dancing with Tears in My Eyes.” Critical Inquiry 1. 1 (Sept. 1974): 23-31.

Coles, William E. The Plural I: The Teaching of Writing. New York: Holt, 1978.

Emig, Janet. The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders. Urbana: NCTE, 1971.

Gill, Margaret. “And Gladly Learn.”‘ Lightfoot and Martin 271-72.

Halliday, M. A. K. Explorations in the Function of Language. London: Edward Arnold, 1973.

Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse. New York: Prentice, 1971.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1970.

Lightfoot, Martin, and Nancy Martin. The Word for Teaching Is Learning: Essays for James Britton. London: Heinemann, 1988.

Macrorie, Ken. Twenty Teachers. New York: Oxford UP, 1984.

Moffett, James. Teaching the Universe of Discourse. Boston: Houghton, 1968.

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

Oakeshott, Michael. The Voice of Poetry in the Conversation of Mankind. London: Bowes, 1959.

Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. Composition as a Human Science. New York: Oxford UP, 1988.

Pradl, Gordon. “Learning Listening.”‘ Lightfoot and Martin 33-48.

Pringle, Ian. “Jimmy Britton and Linguistics.” Lightfoot and Martin 264-66.

Rosenblatt, Louise. Literature as Exploration. 1938. 3rd ed. New York: Barnes, 1976.

Schon, Donald A. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey, 1987.

Tirrell, Mary Kay. “A Study of Two Scholar/Practitioners in Composition: Developmental Themes in the Work of James Moffett and James Britton.” Diss. U of Southern California, 1988.

Tompkins, Jane. “Fighting Words: Unlearning to Write the Critical Essay.” Georgia Review 42 (Fall 1988): 585-90.

Volosinov, V. N. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar, 1973.

Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1978.

Warnock, John. “Brittonism.” Rev. of The Development of Writing Abilities (11-18). Rhetoric Society Quarterly 9 (Winter 1979): 7-15.

Young, Richard. “Paradigms and Problems: Needed Research in Rhetorical Invention.” Research on Composing: Points of Departure. Ed. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana: NCTE, 1978. 29-47.

Young, Richard, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. New York: Harcourt, 1970.

Raines, Helon Howell. “Is There a Writing Program in This College? Two Hundred and Thirty-Six Two-Year Schools Respond.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 151-165.

Abstract:

This article, based on a survey of 236 community college writing programs and eight telephone interviews of chairs of two-year college writing departments, argues that “two year schools are…as different from one another as they are alike.” The survey asked questions about the schools’ institutional structure for writing and English departments, the curriculum, the conceived purpose of writing courses, the faculty, the students, the teaching loads, and support services, such as WAC and writing centers, at the college. The challenges of teaching at two-year institutions – given its much more socially and economically diverse student population – are not often heard because two-year college writing instructors are too busy with large teaching loads and do not have the financial assistance to do research and travel to national composition conferences to share their experiences.

Keywords:

ccc41.2 Writing WritingProgram Colleges Schools Students Faculty Survey Questions English

Works Cited

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges. Membership Directory 1988. Ed. Jim Palmer. Washington: National Center for Higher Education, 1988.

American Association of Community and Junior Colleges Commission on the Future of Community Colleges. Building Communities: A Vision for a New Century. Washington: Center for Higher Education, 1988.

Bartholomae, David. ” Freshman English, Composition, and CCCC .” CCC 40 (February 1989); 38-50.

English in the Two-Year College. Report of a Joint Committee of the National Council of Teachers of English and the Conference on College Composition and Communication. Urbana: NCTE, 1965.

“Facts in Brief.” Higher Education and National Affairs 6 Oct. 1986: 3.

Fish, Stanley. Is There a Text in this Class? The Authority of Interpretative Communities. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1980.

Hairston, Maxine. “Breaking Our Bonds and Reaffirming Our Connections.” CCC 36 (Oct. 1985); 272-82.

Lunsford, Andrea. ” Composing Ourselves: Politics, Commitment, and the Teaching of Writing .” CCC 41 (Feb. 1990): 71-82.

National Association of College and University Business Officers. 1987 Comparative Financial Statistics. Washington; Financial Management Center, 1987.

North, Stephen M. The Making of Knowledge in Composition: Portrait of an Emerging Field. Montclair: Boynton, 1988.

Raines, Helon. “Teaching Writing in the Two-Year College.” Writing Program Administration 12.1-2 (Fall/Winter 1988): 29-37.

United States Department of Education. Center for Education Statistics. Institutional Characteristics of Colleges and Universities. Washington: Dept. of Education, 1986.

McPherson. Elisabeth. “Remembering, Regretting, and Rejoicing: The Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of the Two-Year College Regionals.” CCC 41.2 (1990): 137-150.

Abstract:

This article is a history and a reflection of the two-year college regional conventions, which were sponsored by NCTE and CCCC and established in 1965 for the purpose of providing professional development and recognition for the teachers of English at junior community colleges. Beginning in the 1970s, community college writing instructors, through the collective voice of the National Junior College Committee, issued statements about the training and the workload of writing teachers at community colleges. Over the past twenty-five years, two-year college writing instructors have been subject to trends and fads in writing instruction and pressure from government and corporate interests. The author insists that teachers cut through these distractions and influences and instead focus on the purpose of college writing – “helping students think more clearly” – by constantly reevaluating their courses through asking “What is this class for?”

Keywords:

ccc41.2 College Students Teachers NCTE CommunityColleges JuniorColleges CCCC Community Conferences Regionals Meetings

Works Cited

An Annotated List of Training Programs for Community College English Teachers: A CCCC Report. Urbana: ERIC Clearing House for Junior Colleges, 1977.

Barton, Thomas L., and Anna M. Beachner, eds. Teaching English in the Two- Year College. Menlo Park: Cummings, 1970.

English in the Two-Year College. Champaign: NCTE, 1965.

Guidelines for the Workload of the College English Teacher. Urbana: NCTE, 1987.

Research and the Development of English Programs in the Junior College. Champaign: NCTE, 1965.

Stewart, Donald C. ” What is an English Major, and What Should It Be? ” CCC 40 (May 1989): 188-202.

Students’ Right to Their Own Language. CCC [Special Issue] 25 (Fall 1974): 1-32.

Subscribe to CCC
Purchase a print copy of this issue

CCCC is seeking the next editor of College Composition and Communication. The term of current editor Malea Powell will end in December 2024. Interested persons should send a letter of application to be received no later than Monday, February 13, 2023 (the deadline has been extended).

Letters should be accompanied by (1) a CV, noting any editorial experience, (2) one published writing sample (article or chapter), and (3) a statement of vision, to include any suggestions for changing the journal as well as features of the journal to be continued. Applicants are urged to consult with administrators on the question of time, resources, and other services that may be required. NCTE staff members are available to provide advice and assistance to all potential applicants in approaching administrators about institutional support and in explaining NCTE’s support for editors.

Finalists will be interviewed virtually during the winter/spring of 2023. The applicant appointed by the CCCC Executive Committee in spring 2023 will effect a transition in 2023–24, preparing for their first issue in February 2025. The appointment term is five years.

Applications should be submitted via email in PDF form to jsitar@ncte.org; please include “CCC Editor Application” in the subject line by Monday, February 13, 2023. Direct queries to Jim Sitar, NCTE journals managing editor, at the email address above.

 

CCC homepage

Click here to view the individual articles in this issue at http://www.ncte.org/cccc/ccc/issues/v39-1

Schuster, Charles I. Rev. of The Structure of Written Communication: Studies in Reciprocity between Writers and Readers by Martin Nystrand pp. 89-91.

Stotsky, Sandra. Rev. of The Dynamics of Language Learning: Research in Reading and English by James R. Squire pp. 91-93.

Kneupper, Charles. Rev. of Actual Minds, Possible World by Jerome Bruner pp. 93-95.

Clark, Beverly Lyon. Rev. of Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications by Anne Ruggles Gere pp. 95-96.

Sudol, Ronald A. Rev. of Composition and the Academy: A Study of Writing Program Administration by Carol P. Hartzog pp. 97-98.

Sides, Charles H. Rev. of How to Teach Technical Editing by David K. Farkas pp. 98-99.

Clifford, John. Rev. of Write to Learn by Donald M. Murray pp. 99-101.

Weltzien, O. Alan. Rev. of Generating Prose: Relations, Patterns, Structures by Willis L. Pitkin, Jr. pp. 101-102.

Brent, Harry. Rev. of Literature and the Writing Process by Elizabeth McMahan, Susan Day, and Robert Funk pp. 102-103.

Schwartz, Helen J. “Writing with the Carbon Copy Audience in Mind.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 63-65.

McLeod, Susan H., and Laura Emery. “When Faculty Write: A Workshop for Colleagues.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 65-67.

Devet, Bonnie. “Stressing Figures of Speech in Freshman Composition.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 67-69.

Raymond, Richard C. “Reading and Writing on the ‘Nuclear Predicament.'” CCC 39.1 (1988): 69-74.

Madigan, Chris. “Applying Donald Murray’s ‘Responsive Teaching.'” CCC 39.1 (1988): 74-77.

Sommers, Jeffrey. “Behind the Paper: Using the Student-Teacher Memo.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 77-80.

Reynolds, Mark. “Make Free Writing More Productive.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 81-82.

Gordon, Helen H. “Clustering: Generating Ideas for Original Sentences.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 83-84.

Haviland, Carol Peterson, and Adele Pittendrigh. “Writing Discovery Journals: Helping Students Take Charge.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 84-85.

Veglahn, Nancy J. “Searching: A Better Way to Teach Technical Writing.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 85-87. </ph2

Swaim, Kathleen M. “Making a Virtue of Necessity.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 87-88.

Chaplin, Miriam T. “Issues, Perspectives and Possibilities.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 52-62.

Abstract:

This, a revision of the author’s 1987 CCCC Chair’s address, discusses how larger and complex social and economic problems are affecting the field of composition. The economic strain of recession has led students, who are increasingly independent and non-traditional, to demand serious, real-world applicable writing courses. Concerns about recruiting and retaining students in an era of dwindling enrollments has prompted national reports on the status of higher education, which have placed university curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher training under scrutiny. The push for accountability has led to the creation of objective, standardized tests to measure student progress, which many in composition argue do not effectively judge student writing development. The author argues that composition needs to change in various ways to accommodate and combat these larger social and political movements affecting the university, including expanding the types of writing taught, recognizing the diversity of student experiences in a given class, insisting on relevant assignments, not merely ones that fulfill a standard requirement, and opening up connections between the university and secondary schools.

Keywords:

ccc39.1 ChairsAddress Students Composition Teachers Education HigherEducation Writing Testing Experience Institutions Language Diversity Faculty

Works Cited

Association of American Colleges. Integrity in the College Curriculum: A Report to the Academic Community. 1985.

Britton, James. Language and Learning. Baltimore: Penguin, 1972.

Buber, Martin. Between Man and Man. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1947.

Kelly, George. “Man’s Construction of His Alternatives.” Clinical Psychology and Personality: The Selected Papers of George Kelly. Ed. Brandon Maher. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1969.

Odell, Lee. “A Maturing Discipline.” Chair’s Address. CCCC Convention. New Orleans, 13 March 1986.

Tuman, Myron C. “Class, Codes, and Composition: Basil Bernstein and the Critique of Pedagogy.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 42-51.

Abstract:

The author argues that composition scholars who are critiquing the process movement and raising questions about the connections between language, class, and academic success would be wise to consider the later essays of educational sociologist Byron Bernstein. Bernstein’s essays show that the freedom students are given in student-centered, process-oriented composition classrooms favor middle and upper-class students who possess cultural capital – the educational and social preparation needed to succeed in an environment without much explicit direction. Educational reform movements that don’t address the wider power and class structure of society do not help disadvantaged students succeed, and composition teachers need to reflect on how their pedagogical strategies may help and hurt all the students in their classes. The author argues that some pedagogical practices deemed too traditional and reactionary might better serve students from lower-income or disadvantaged homes.

Keywords:

ccc39.1 Writing BBernstein Curriculum Students Classrooms Pedagogy Process School Children Work Parents Family Education World Communication Power Critique Society LFaigley

Works Cited

Bartholomae, David. “Inventing the University.” When a Writer Can’t Write. Ed. Mike Rose. New York: Guilford, 1985. 134-65.

Bernstein, Basil. “Aspects of the Relations Between Education and Production.” Class, Codes and Control Vol. 3. 174-200.

—. “Class and Pedagogies: Visible and Invisible.” Class, Codes and Control Vol. 3. 116- 56.

—. Class, Codes and Control: Towards a Theory of Educational Transmissions. Vol. 3. 2nd ed. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1977.

—. “Codes, Modalities, and the Process of Cultural Reproduction: A Model.” Language in Society 10 (1981): 327-63.

—. Introduction. Class, Codes and Control Vol. 3. 1-33.

—. “Language and Social Class.” Class, Codes and Control: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language. 2nd ed. New York: Shocken, 1974. 61-67.

—. “The Role of Speech in the Development and Transmission of Culture.” Perspectives on Learning. Ed. C. L. Klept and W. A. Hohman. New York: Mental Material Center, 1967. 15-45.

Bizzell, Patricia. “College Composition: Initiation into the Academic Discourse Community.” Curriculum Inquiry 12 (1982): 191-207.

Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Economics of Linguistic Exchanges.” Social Science Information 16 (1977): 645-68.

Brannon, Lil, and C. H. Knoblauch. “On Students’ Rights to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response.” CCC 33 (1982): 157-66.

Chomsky, Noam. Language and Responsibility. New York: Pantheon, 1979.

Faigley, Lester. “Competing Theories of Process: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English 48 (1986): 527-42.

Giroux, Henry A. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey, 1983.

Gramsci, Antonio. Prison Notebook. Trans. Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Smith. New York: International, 1971.

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

—. “What No Bedtime Story Means: Narrative Skills at Home and School.” Language in Society 11 (1982): 49-76.

Lasch, Christopher. Haven in a Heartless World. New York: Basic, 1977.

Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne B. K. Scollon. “Cooking It Up and Boiling It Down: Abtrabaskan Children’s Story Retellings.” Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse. Ed. Deborah Tannen. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 17.3-97.

Brooke, Robert. “Modeling a Writer’s Identity: Reading and Imitation in the Writing Classroom.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 23-41.

Abstract:

This article uses student writing from a semester-long freshman reading and composition course and theoretical understandings of identity construction to argue for a new way of understanding the connection between reading, imitation, and writing. Students, the author argues, form their identity as a writer through imitation of specific, individual authors that they admire and respect, not through dry imitation exercises that focus on generic forms or patterns. The author goes on to argue that composition courses should be primarily concerned with developing writer identities, and the process of forming these identities is complex, drawing from the attitudes towards writing that a teacher models, students’ past histories and experiences, their stance towards reading and writing, and their interpretation of individual authors’ styles.

Keywords:

ccc39.1 Identity Students Writing Courses Experience Reading Imitation Models Writers

Works Cited

Applebee, Arthur. Tradition and Reform in the Teaching of English. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1974.

Aristotle. Rhetoric. Trans. W. R. Roberts. New York: Modern Library, 1954.

Berthoff, Ann. Forming/Thinking/Writing. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden, 1978.

Calkins, Lucy. Lessons from a Child. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1983.

Comley, Nancy, and Robert Scholes. “Literature, Composition, and the Structure of English.” Horner 96-109.

Elbow, Peter. Writing Without Teachers. New York: Oxford UP, 1973.

Erikson, Erik. Childhood and Society. New York: Norton, 1950.

—. Identity, Youth and Crisis. New York: Norton, 1968.

Goffman, Erving. Asylums. New York: Anchor, 1961.

—. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoil Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Graves, Donald. A Researcher Learns to Write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1984.

Heath, Shirley Brice. “Ethnography in Education: Toward Defining the Essentials.” Ethnography and Education: Children in and out of School. Ed. P. Gilmore and A. Glatthorn. Washington: Center for Applied Linguistics, 1982. 33-55.

—. “Ethnography and Education.” Seminar given at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, March 1986.

—. Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge UP, 1983.

Holland, Norman. 5 Readers Reading. New Haven: Yale UP, 1975.

—. The I. New Haven: Yale UP, 1985.

—. “UNITY IDENTITY TEXT SELF.” PMLA 90 (1975): 813-22. Rpt. in Reader Response Criticism. Ed. Jane Tompkins. Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1980. 118-33.

Horner, Winifred, ed. Composition and Literature: Bridging the Gap. Chicago: Chicago UP, 1983.

Kantor, Ken. “Classroom Contexts and the Development of Writing Intentions.”‘ New Directions in Composition Research. Ed. Richard Beach and Lillian Bridwell. New York: Guilford, 1984. 72-94.

Kantor, Ken, Dan Kirby, and Judith Goetz. “Research in Context: Ethnographic Studies in English Education.” Research in the Teaching of English 15 (1981): 293-309.

Kennedy, George. Classical Rhetoric and its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times, Chapel Hill: North Carolina UP, 1980.

Knoblauch, C. H., and Lil Brannon. Rhetorical Traditions and the Teaching of Writing. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1984.

Laing, R. D. The Divided Self. London: Tavistock, 1960.

—. Self and Others, 2nd ed. New York: Penguin, 1969.

—. The Voice of Experience. New York: Pantheon, 1982.

Laurence, Margaret. A Bird in the House. Toronto: Seal, 1978.

Miller, J. Hillis. “Composition and Decomposition: Deconstruction and the Teaching of Writing.” Horner 38-56.

Plato. “Gorgias.” Trans. W. D. Woodhead. The Collected Dialogues of Plato. Ed. Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Bollington, 1961. 229-307.

Reither, James. “Writing and Knowing: Toward Redefining the Writing Process.” College English 47 (1985): 620-28.

Rose, Mike. “The Language of Exclusion.” College English 47 (1985): 341-59.

Young, Richard, Alton Becker, and Kenneth Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change, New York: Harcourt, 1970.

Chase, Geoffrey. “Accommodation, Resistance and the Politics of Student Writing.” CCC 39.1 (1988): 13-22.

Abstract:

This article uses case studies of extended writing projects of three college seniors to show how students practice what Giroux terms accommodation, opposition, and resistance strategies when they are asked to adopt established academic discourse conventions in their writing. Through analyzing the students’ writing, the author argues that when instructors teach different discourse conventions, they need to allow students to both problematize the conventions themselves and understand the conventions within a greater social and historical context. This means broadening what teachers deem as “good” or “correct” writing and giving students the opportunity to compose purposeful texts that work towards a larger social goal instead of merely fulfilling an academic assignment.

Keywords:

ccc39.1 Conventions Project Students Discourse Writing Resistance Audiece History Discourse Communities HGiroux Forms Accommodation Community

Works Cited

Batsleer, Janet, et al. Rewriting English: Cultural Politics of Gender and Class. London: Methuen, 1985.

Bizzel1, Patricia. “College Composition: Initiation into the Academic Discourse Community.” Curriculum Inquiry 12 (1982): 191-207.

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Trans. Richard Nice. London: Sage, 1977.

Faigley, Lester, and Kristine Hansen. “Learning to Write in the Social Sciences.” CCC 36 (1985): 140-49.

Freire, Paulo. The Politics of Education. Trans. Donaldo Macedo. South Hadley, MA: Bergin Garvey, 1985.

Giroux, Henry A. Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy for the Opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin Garvey, 1983.

LeSueur, Meridel. The Girl. Minneapolis: West End, 1978.

Lusted, David. “Why Pedagogy?” Screen 27 (1986).

What is CCCC?

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) supports and promotes the teaching and study of college composition and communication. CCCC is one of four conferences of the National Council of Teachers of English, which promotes access, power, agency, and affiliation for all invested in literacy, pre-K through graduate school.¹

Organizational Structure of CCCC

CCCC is governed by its Constitution and Bylaws. It is through the groups and roles specified in these documents that the work of the organization takes place. Leadership of the organization is charged to the CCCC Executive Committee (EC). The EC consists of 25 voting members (who are themselves elected by CCCC members) and five ex officio members who sit on the EC by virtue of their offices. These include, for instance, the editor of College Composition and Communication, CCCC’s journal, and the chair of the Two-Year College English Association (an NCTE association and close ally of CCCC). These ex officio members provide necessary information about the operations of the organization to the larger leadership body.

The CCCC EC is led by six officers (included in the count above): five elected and one who sits on the Officers’ Committee by virtue of their office. These officers include the Chair, Associate Chair, Assistant Chair, Past Chair, Secretary, and the Executive Secretary-Treasurer (non-elected), who form an Officers’ Committee as specified by the Constitution. Along with the EC, the officers have responsibility for policymaking, fiduciary matters, and organizational decision-making.

Also charged with undertaking projects is a series of Special Committees. These are appointed by the EC. They have a set of discrete tasks around a common interest defined by the Executive Committee to achieve purposes associated with the organization (for example, updating or revising a position statement). Organizationally, the other entities included in the structure of CCCC are membership-driven entities such as Special Interest Groups and Standing Groups, which emerge from the body of the organization. These groups are defined on this webpage and can request formal status within the organization in order to pursue goals, projects, or tasks around an area of common interest.

Organizational Structures within CCCC

Committees
Article IV of the CCCC Constitution names four kinds of committees within CCCC: the Executive Committee, Nominating Committee, Officers’ Committee, and Special Committees. The first three committees (Executive, Nominating, and Officers’) consist of elected and ex-officio members, so are necessarily limited in membership. The fourth, Special Committees, covers a range of topics and has more open membership.

• Executive Committee: comprised of 20 elected plus a number of ex-officio members, the EC is CCCC’s policymaking body.
• Nominating Committee: comprised of seven elected members, the NC identifies and encourages a diverse group of potential candidates to run for leadership positions within the organization.
• Officers’ Committee: the officers of the EC make up the OC, which is charged with carrying out the business of the EC.
• Special Committees: At any given time, CCCC will have a number of special committees, each appointed by the CCCC Chair.  While certain committees are ongoing because their charge renews itself each year (e.g., Newcomers’ Orientation Committee and Awards Committees), most are chartered for three years and have specific deliverables. (The EC may renew the charter if provided with evidence that the organization would benefit from doing so.) A list of current Special Committees, along with information on how to join a committee, can be found on the CCCC Committee webpage.

Task Forces
Task forces are convened, charged, and appointed by the CCCC Executive Committee with the Officers’ Committee taking responsibility for charging the group. A Task Force tends to have a short activity span (typically no more than one year) around a very focused goal or outcome.

Member Groups: Special Interest Groups and Standing Groups
Committee membership is relatively limited because committees have specific and focused charges that are defined by the Executive Committee via the Chair. CCCC members who seek to define more ongoing work that is driven by member interests can participate in Member Groups of two types: Special Interest Groups (SIGs) or Standing Groups (SGs).

Currently, the more than fifty Special Interest Groups (SIGs) meet at the CCCC Annual Convention in the spring. They are relatively informal and provide an opportunity for people with common professional interests to meet and talk. Longstanding SIGs can apply to become a Standing Group, resulting in a more formal relationship with CCCC. While SIGs are not accountable to the organization with specific deliverables, Standing Groups are required to submit an annual report of activities and membership.

Who Does What in the Groups?

• Committees are convened by the CCCC Executive Committee, with charges determined by the EC or Officers’ Committee. All committee members (including the chair) are named/appointed rather than elected. The exceptions to this description are the Nominating Committee, the Officers’ Committee, and the Executive Committee.
• Task Forces are convened by the Executive Committee, with charges determined by the EC or Officers’ Committee. The chair is named or appointed rather than elected, as is the membership.
• Standing Groups are membership-driven groups focused around a common interest. They may start as SIGs and apply for Standing Group status. Chairs or co-chairs are elected from the membership rather than appointed. They have organizational status as an ongoing group, presuming they provide necessary annual updates to the CCCC leadership and abide by their bylaws.
• Special Interest Groups (SIGs) are groups assembled by members with a common interest that meet annually at the Convention. SIGs can apply for Standing Group status–recognition by the organization for longstanding activity.

How do I get involved?

• Committees: Because committee membership is named by the Officers/EC, members interested in committee involvement should contact the CCCC liaison and/or respond to the biennial survey circulated to members, which seeks to solicit interest.
• Task Forces: If there is an area of special expertise that a member wants to contribute to the organization, s/he can contact the Officers’ Committee to indicate a willingness to serve on a committee or task force should a task/goal falling under that member’s area of specialization be necessary.
• Standing Groups: Standing Groups are open to all members. Any member is invited to attend the standing group meeting at the annual convention.
• Special Interest Groups: SIGs are open to all members. Any member is invited to attend the special interest group meeting at the annual convention. SIGs and Standing Groups determine their own leadership opportunities and can be great ways to connect to other leadership positions within CCCC.

Statements

• Position Statements: CCCC Position Statements—formal statements approved by the CCCC Executive Committee—have a long history in the organization, with Students’ Right to Their Own Language dating back to 1974. Position statements cover a range of ethical and professional issues. More detailed information can be found at the following sites:
  • /cccc/resources/positions/creation
  • /cccc/resources/positions/guidelines
• Resolutions: Members of CCCC are encouraged to propose and/or support resolutions in order to “facilitate our collective efforts” on issues “that bear on the teaching of writing and communication.” While some resolutions are intended to make a statement, others are meant to spur action. The Resolutions Committee compiles resolutions and then puts them to a vote by the membership at the business meeting on Saturday morning at CCCC.

¹The other three conferences are the English Language Arts Teacher Educators (ELATE), Conference on English Leadership (CEL), and Literacies and Languages for All (LLA). NCTE also has affiliates (NCTE regional affiliates and TYCA regional affiliates) and assemblies.

Aim of the CCCC Studies in Writing & Rhetoric Series

The aim of the CCCC Studies in Writing & Rhetoric Series is to influence how we think about language in action and especially how writing gets taught at the college level. The methods of studies vary from the critical to historical to linguistic to ethnographic, and their authors draw on work in various fields that inform composition—including rhetoric, communication, education, discourse analysis, psychology, cultural studies, and literature. Their focuses are similarly diverse—ranging from individual writers and teachers, to work on classrooms and communities and curricula, to analyses of the social, political, and material contexts of writing and its teaching. Still, all SWR volumes try in some way to inform the practice of writing teachers, students, or administrators. Their approach is synthetic, their style concise and pointed. Complete manuscripts run from 40,000–50,000 words, or about 150–200 pages. Authors should imagine their work in the hands of writing teachers and all who are interested in how we make our ways with language.

SWR was one of the first scholarly book series to focus primarily on the teaching of writing. It was established in 1980 by the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) in order to promote research in the emerging field of writing studies. As our field has grown, the research and scholarship sponsored by SWR has continued to articulate the commitment of CCCC to supporting the work of writing teachers as reflective practitioners and intellectuals. Click here for a list of current books in the SWR series.

New Editor and Publisher of SWR

On July 1, 2012, Professor Victor Villanueva (Auburn University) will become the next SWR series editor. He and the current series editor, Joseph Harris, are working closely together to ensure a seamless transition. The series will continue to seek out the very best work in writing studies.

Submissions

We are eager to identify influential work in writing and rhetoric as it emerges. We thus ask authors to send us project proposals that clearly situate their work in the field and show how they aim to redirect our ongoing conversations about writing and its teaching. Proposals should include an overview of the project, a brief annotated table of contents, and a sample chapter. They should not exceed 10,000 words.

To submit a proposal, please visit www.editorialmanager.com/nctebp.
Good luck!

 

Problems or questions? Please email Victor Villanueva, SWR Editor, at victorv [at] auburn [dot] edu

 

SWR Editorial Advisory BoardVictor Villanueva, SWR Editor, Auburn University
Robin Gosser, Associate Editor, Auburn University

Linda Adler-Kassner, University of California, Santa Barbara
Adam Banks, University of Kentucky
Anis Bawarshi, University of Washington
Patricia Bizzell, Holy Cross College
Ellen Cushman, Michigan State University
Eli Goldblatt, Temple University
Juan Guerra, University of Washington
Krista Ratcliffe, Marquette University
Raúl Sánchez, University of Florida
Mary Soliday, San Francisco State University
Lucille Schultz, University of Cincinnati
Betsy Verhoeven, Susquehanna University

Series: Studies in Writing and Rhetoric
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press / CCCC & NCTE
xi, 171 p.
ISBN-13: 978-0-8093-2924-3 (Paperback); ISBN-10: 0-8093-2924-7 (Paperback)

Listen to the Podcast with author Kelly Ritter and SWR Editor Joe Harris:

Author Information

Kelly Ritter is chair of the School of Literature, Media, and Communication and professor of writing and communication in the Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts at Georgia Tech. Her scholarship focuses on archival histories of US writing programs and pedagogies, and cultural-historical conceptions of social class and literacy education. Her books are Before Shaughnessy: Basic Writing at Yale and Harvard, 1920-1960 (NCTE/SIU Press, 2009), Who Owns School? Authority, Students, and Online Discourse (Hampton Press, 2010), To Know Her Own History: Writing at the Woman’s College, 1943-1963 (U of Pittsburgh Press, 2012) and Reframing the Subject: Postwar Instructional Film and Class-Conscious Literacies (U of Pittsburgh Press, 2015). She is also the author of numerous articles and chapters, and editor or coeditor of four collections, including  Beyond Fitting In: Rethinking First-Generation Writing and Literacy Education (Modern Language Association, 2023). She is past editor (2012-2017) of College English, a flagship journal of the National Council of Teachers of English.

Tags:

Basic writing; basic writers; history of composition; ability testing; first-year writing; archival research; placement; literacy; remediation; Mina Shaughnessy; Yale University; Harvard University; Ivy League institutions

Reviews:

Reviewed by Gregory R. Glau in WPA: Writing Program Administration 33.1/2 (Fall/Winter 2009) (PDF format)

Reviewed by Composition Forum 22 (2010) http://compositionforum.com/issue/22/before-shaughnessy-review.php

Purchasing Information

Purchase this book from Southern Illinois University Press.

The CCCC Studies in Writing and Rhetoric Series (SWR), established in 1984, supports research that explores how writing, rhetoric, and literacy are currently and have been historically taught, learned practiced, and circulated within communities, whether in colleges, workplaces, or neighborhoods, local, national, digital, or international contexts. The series also focuses on supporting a broad range of projects that accurately represent the diverse identities of teachers, learners, administrators, and researchers involved in writing, rhetoric and literacy, addressing the cultural, social, political, and material realities that define their work. Work published in SWR seeks to identify and resist the inequities and forces of oppression that shape the teaching of writing, rhetoric, and literacy as well as to intervene in them. The series aspires to be global both in scope and reach, and is dedicated to the use of digital technologies that ensure its publications are accessible and available to a national and international audience.

All SWR volumes try in some way to inform the practice of writing teachers, students, or administrators. Their approach is synthetic, their style concise and pointed. Complete manuscripts run 50,000–60,000 words, or about 150–200 pages. Authors should imagine their work in the hands of writing teachers, including those at two- and four-year colleges and universities, in dual enrollment programs, and in a wide range of extra-institutional and/or non-US-centered pedagogical contexts. While writing teachers may be a primary audience, the series aims to be accessible and engaging to broad audiences of those who are interested in how we make our ways with language and literacy.

SWR was one of the first scholarly book series to focus on the teaching of writing. It was established in 1980 by the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) in order to promote research in the emerging field of writing studies. As our field has grown, the research sponsored by SWR has continued to articulate the commitment of CCCC to supporting the work of writing teachers as reflective practitioners and intellectuals.

Submissions

We are eager to identify influential work in writing and rhetoric as it emerges. Authors are encouraged to submit proposal queries to share questions and project concepts ahead of submitting a formal proposal. Project proposals should clearly situate the work in the field, showing how the research being developed and shared intervenes in and engages conversations hosted by the series and/or in writing, rhetoric, and literacy studies. Prospective authors are asked to indicate how the project extends, redirects, and/or reshapes ongoing conversations about writing, rhetoric, literacy and their teaching. Proposals should include an overview of the project and its stakes, a brief annotated table of contents, a market analysis of comparable/related work published in the last 5–7 years, and a sample chapter. They should convey the project’s conceptual and/or empirical archive/data set and how the text’s arguments emerge from the archive/data. If the project involves human subjects please indicate IRB approval. We welcome work that originates outside of the academy and collaborations among authors who experiment with form and knowledge-making practices.

NOTE: We do not accept unrevised dissertations.

To submit a proposal, please register as an author on the Editorial Manager site for the NCTE Books Program. Once registered, follow the steps to submit a proposal (be sure to choose SWR Book Proposal from the drop-down list of article submission types).

Questions?
Contact SWR Editor Stephanie Kerschbaum at kersch@uw.edu.

SWR Editorial Advisory Board

Stephanie Kerschbaum, SWR Editor, University of Washington
Taiko Aoki-Marcial, SWR Associate Editor, University of Washington

Jonathan Alexander, University of California, Irvine (2027)
Damián Baca, Arizona State University (2027)
Suresh Canagarajah, Penn State University (2027)
Charissa Che, Queensborough Community College (2027)
Jo Hsu, The University of Texas at Austin (2027)
Vivette Milson-Whyte, University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica (2027)
Federico Navarro, Universidad de O’Higgins, Chile (2027)
Cassandra (Cassie) Phillips, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (2027)
Patti Poblete, South Puget Sound Community College (2027)
Lauren Rosenberg, The University of Texas at El Paso (2027)
Emily Suh, Texas State University (2027)
Amy Wan, Queens College (2027)

SWR Editor Search Procedures