See the full 2022 CCCC Convention Program below! (Use ctrl-f to search for names or keywords.)
We welcome all 2024 CCCC Annual Convention attendees to join us for these special events during the Convention! Please note that all events will be held in person only except for the CCCC Annual Business Meeting.
In addition to the events noted below, we hope you will also spend some time in the #4C24 Exhibit Hall and Action Hub visiting the various organizations, events, and activities throughout the Convention, including works of local Indigenous Artists and Spokane-Based Artists of Color in the vendor space. See the Convention Schedule for hours of the hall.
Find information about Spokane on the #4C24 Hospitality Site. Visit the Visit Spokane Digital Passport to gain access to collection of discounts that you can use around the downtown core area (you will be asked to provide your name and email address). The discount list includes restaurants, retail shops, and attractions. See a calendar of local events happening during the Convention dates as well as Digitally Guided Experiences in Spokane.
Newcomers’ Coffee Hour, 7:30–8:15 a.m.
Birch Ballroom (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
The CCCC Newcomers’ Welcoming Committee looks forward to meeting you at the Newcomers’ Coffee Hour, a congenial start to the first full day of activities, where you can begin the kinds of professional conversations that have made this conference one of the high points of the year for each of us.
Opening General Session featuring the 2024 CCCC Chair’s Address with Frankie Condon, 8:30 a.m.–10:15 a.m.
Ballroom A/B/C (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Cross-Caucus Event, 10:15–11:45 a.m.
Spilling Tea: Grad Students Only
Room 201 C (Upper Level, Spokane Convention Center)
A.28 Social Justice in the Classroom: Local Abundant Approaches, 10:30–11:45 a.m.
Room 303 A/B (Lower Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Sponsored by the Social Justice at the Convention Committee
This roundtable will celebrate the social justice work of local Spokane-based and PacNW-based two-year college faculty and high school English instructors. Participants will share their approaches to teaching about local social justice issues in their classrooms. Attendees and participants will engage in an informal table discussion about the strategies shared, social justice work in Spokane, and ideas for how to approach the local issues that impact our own communities. Overall, this roundtable is designed to celebrate the important work writing instructors are doing in the Spokane area while those interacting at each table could get ideas for how to design courses inspired by their own location.
Cross-Caucus Event, 12:00–1:30 p.m.
Standing Lunch Hour
Room 304 (Lower Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Cross-Caucus Event, 12:15–1:30 p.m.
Spilling Tea: Early Career Scholars
Room 201 C (Upper Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Cross-Caucus Event, 1:45–3:00 p.m.
Speed Research / Job Talk
Room 205 (Upper Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Creative Reading and Open Mic, 2:00–3:30 p.m.
Conference Theater (Lower Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Sponsored by the Social Justice at the Convention Committee
The Creative Reading and Open Mic event at CCCC 2024 invites local social justice poets to help us make meaning. This year, we have collaborated with local Spokane poets! An open mic for interested Convention attendees to perform creative work from multiple genres will follow.
Office Hours with SWR Editor Stephanie Kerschbaum, 3:00–4:30 p.m.
Exhibit Hall, near NCTE Central (Ballroom 100B, Lower Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Chat with the editor of the CCCC Studies in Writing & Rhetoric (SWR) book series. Learn about her vision for the series and find out how to submit a proposal.
Cross-Caucus Event, 3:15–4:30 p.m.
Sit Down and Write!
Room 203 (Upper Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Scholars for the Dream Reception, 6:00–7:00 p.m.
Cedar Ballroom (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Come celebrate and network with the 2023 CCCC Scholars for the Dream recipients!
Anzaldúa Award Reception, 7:00–8:00 p.m.
Maple Ballroom (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Come celebrate and network with the 2023 CCCC Gloria Anzaldúa Award recipients!
Cross-Caucus Engagement Event, 8:00–9:00 p.m.
Cedar Ballroom (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Facilitated by Temptaous Mckoy, Cross-Caucus Events Coordinator
This social event aims to foster dialogue among identity-based Caucus members.
Cross-Caucus Event, 9:30–10:45 a.m.
Continuing the Conversation: Minority Serving Institutions
Room 301 (Lower Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Keynote with Mira Shimabukuro, 11:00–12:15 p.m.
Ballroom A/B/C (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Mira Shimabukuro is a poet, writer, and Teaching Professor in the School of Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences at the University of Washington Bothell. Born and raised in the Pacific NW, Shimabukuro’s poetry and writing has appeared in such publications as CALYX, Raven Chronicles, Bamboo Ridge Quarterly, and the International Examiner. Her Writing Studies contributions focus on the ways Japanese Americans used writing in the so-called “internment” camps during World War II to respond to their imprisonment. This work can be found in both Representations: Doing Asian American Rhetoric and College English, as well as in her 2015 book, Relocating Authority: Japanese Americans Writing to Redress Mass Incarceration.
Cross-Caucus Event, 12:30–1:45 p.m.
Standing Lunch Hour – Book Signing / Book Talk
Room 304 (Lower Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Cross-Caucus Event, 12:30–1:45 p.m.
Workshopping Teaching & Job Materials
Ballroom A/B/C (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Cross-Caucus Event, 2:00–3:15 p.m.
Collaborating Across Caucus Groups
Ballroom A/B/C (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Office Hours with SWR Editor Stephanie Kerschbaum, 3:30–4:30 p.m.
Exhibit Hall, near NCTE Central (Ballroom 100B, Lower Level, Spokane Convention Center)
Chat with the editor of the CCCC Studies in Writing & Rhetoric (SWR) book series. Learn about her vision for the series and find out how to submit a proposal.
CCCC Annual Business Meeting, 4:45–6:00 p.m. (Hybrid Meeting)
In-Person Attendees: Ballroom A/B/C (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Register to Attend Virtually (registrants must be members of CCCC)
CCCC Awards Presentation, 6:00–7:15 p.m.
Ballroom A/B/C (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
During this presentation we announce the recipients of the 2024 CCCC Awards. Past CCCC Chairs, distinguished guests, and international participants will be recognized. Please take the time to come celebrate with your colleagues.
All-Attendee Event: Pau Hana with Karaoke, a 75th CCCC Anniversary Celebration, 7:30–9:30 p.m.
Room 100C (Lower Level, Spokane Convention Center)
All registered #4C24 attendees are invited to spend time sharing and celebrating with colleagues in a supportive, fun, and relaxing evening, including karaoke. Heavy appetizers and sponsored refreshments and bar will be provided. We hope you will join us with an open heart and mind!
Teacher 2 Teacher, 9:00–11:30 a.m.
Maple Ballroom (Ground Floor Lobby, Davenport Grand)
Teacher 2 Teacher (T2T) offers CCCC Convention participants a dynamic professional development and networking opportunity. All CCCC 2024 attendees are welcome to join.
Earlier this fall, we sent notifications to accepted presenters for the 2022 CCCC Annual Convention and shared that a decision on an in-person event would be made as soon as possible. After over a year and a half spent living and working in a global pandemic, we looked forward to being together this March in Chicago, Illinois. Unfortunately, despite our diligent efforts to plan and hold an in-person gathering, COVID-19’s continuing developments have created a situation that prevents us from having the original event as planned. This is not where we wanted to be this winter.
In 2022, we will once again need to hold the annual gathering online. We share the disappointment of CCCC and TYCA members across the country who look forward to an in-person event for the networking and community it offers. In 2023, we look forward to gathering in Chicago in person, as originally envisioned, February 15–18, 2023.
The CCCC Executive Committee voted to transition to an entirely virtual event. The 2022 TYCA Conference will be fully virtual as well. Registration information is available on the CCCC Convention website. We plan to open registration in January.
Because our vision for this year’s event includes an engaging online experience, CCCC has already been building upon the success of last year’s Convention experience. Of specific note is that all concurrent sessions, workshops, engaged learning experiences, posters, and individual presentations that are accepted to the program will be given a session on the program. The NCTE events team will be reaching out soon requesting presenters to accept their position on the program. This communication will include the presentation format assigned to each session (Live, Prerecorded, or On-Demand). Please watch for this message, as it will request quick response with the Convention less than three months away.
In the coming weeks, we will provide further details for Special Interest Group and Standing Group business meetings, following a similar format to last year’s Convention. Additionally, we are extending registration until March 30, 2022, to allow for post-event registration, and we will provide access to most archived #CCCC22 and #TYCA22 sessions for 90 days after the event. Notifications to 2022 TYCA Conference proposers will be sent soon.
If you have any questions at all regarding the 2022 CCCC Annual Convention or 2022 TYCA Conference, please contact our staff team at CCCCevents@ncte.org.
Executive Summary
White language supremacy (WLS) is an implement to white supremacy, particularly within educational institutions. Contextualized within present exigencies, antiracist educators must work alongside students, communities, and institutions to push for the dismantling of WLS because of its deleterious effects on Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), domination and dehumanization of all people, and its detrimental effects to our environment and its resources. This statement provides a working definition of WLS as an apparatus of white supremacy and a general description of its ideological characteristics and manifestations with regard to language and literacy instruction. The statement provides a brief background on the field’s work for social change and recommended critical theoretical frames for praxis.
Part One: General Statement
Purpose
This statement on white language supremacy (WLS) reflects our field’s commitment to linguistic justice for our BIPOC students and their communities, and our dedication to work as coconspirators against white supremacist practices. Our goal as critical anti-WLS educators is to dismantle WLS in our field and in ourselves. The work involves advocating for the defunding of deficit-based racist research, and of racist ideologies of learning, teaching, testing, and evaluation of teachers and students. Historically, the WLS industrial complex has contributed to the lucrative enrichment of individual scholars and fields of language and literacy studies (e.g., sociolinguistics; see Rickford, 1999) while the so-called racial achievement exploitation gap has remained (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
Definition
WLS is a tool of white supremacy. Because white supremacy is obscured and often misunderstood as applying only to white radical groups, we provide an extended definition to illuminate and address this vast system and the role of WLS. White supremacy is
a sociopolitical economic system of domination based on racial categories that benefits those defined and perceived as white. This system of structural power privileges, centralizes, and elevates white people as a group (DiAngelo, 2018, 30).
Further,
…[The] United States is a global power, and through movies and mass media, corporate culture, advertising, US-owned manufacturing, military presence, historical colonial relations, missionary work, and other means [including education], white supremacy is circulated globally. This powerful ideology promotes the idea of whiteness as the ideal for humanity well beyond the West (DiAngelo, 2018, 29).
WLS assists white supremacy by using language to control reality and resources by defining and evaluating people, places, things, reading, writing, rhetoric, pedagogies, and processes in multiple ways that damage our students and our democracy. It imposes a worldview that is simultaneously pro-white, cisgender, male, heteronormative, patriarchal, ableist, racist, and capitalist (Inoue, 2019b; Pritchard, 2017). This worldview structures WLS as the default condition in schools, academic disciplines, professions, media, and society at large. WLS is, thus, structural and usually a part of the standard operating procedures of classrooms, disciplines, and professions. This means that WLS is a condition that assumes its worldview as the normative one that allegedly everyone has access to regardless of their cultural, social, or language histories (Inoue, 2021). WLS perpetuates many forms of systemic and structural violence.
Characteristics
A major characteristic of WLS is its seemingly colorblind nature, however tacit, that shapes aesthetics, epistemologies, attitudes, ideologies, and discourses that structure social arrangements, relations, practices, and policies that reinforce white power structures to the detriment of BIPOC and minoritized people.
Characteristics of the ideology of white supremacist capitalistic-based [language and] literacy include consumption, consent, obedience, fragmentation, singularity (as opposed to multiplicity), [binary logic], and positivism. The educational practices associated with this [white formation] of [language and] literacy are naturalized in the system and taught to students as a set of isolated skills divorced from social context, politics, culture, and power (Street, 1993). Teaching standardized English, a narrowly conceived academic discourse, and their cousin, the “academic essay,” are examples of the “neutral skills” needed to succeed in the corporate educational system and the market driven capitalistic society (J. Berlin, 1996). The viewpoint of official educational sites and institutions is that students/good citizens need these skills to function in society. (Richardson, 2003, p. 9)
Colorblindness is akin to another major characteristic of WLS, the ideology of individualism as it works with meritocracy to disguise the role of language in racial capitalism and legitimize the failure of whole groups of BIPOC by pointing to exceptional individuals who, for example, learned to be “articulate while Black” (Alim & Smitherman, 2012), or who transcended their “cultural handicaps” to acquire white middle-class social goods. Those who espouse liberal, individualistic, and white supremacist politics are not involved in a project of critical social justice movement or critical socially just language and literacy education. “Living passively with the status quo, maintaining what those with political and economic power deem acceptable is a survival tactic for many. Others use the status quo actively, to seek to gain from oppression of others” (Carruthers, 2018, p. 8). It is important that educators develop ideological clarity and understand the urgent need for social change and their role in it.
There are at least six habits of white language that often create the conditions of WLS. The first habit is always present in WLS and is required. It works with one or more of the other five habits to create conditions that are WLS. These habits of white language (HOWL) are:
Brief Selected Background on CCCC’s Work for Language and Social Equality and Ways Forward
Largely, BIPOC have battled WLS in their struggle for self-definition, self-determination, and social transformation (e.g., Kynard, 2007; Mao & Young, 2008; King et al., 2015; Baca et al., 2019; Inoue 2015). Antiracist and anti-WLS coconspirator educators have sought to facilitate students’ right to their own language and critical literacy awareness approaches (e.g., CCCC Students’ Right to Their Own Language [SRTOL], 1974; CCCC National Language Policy, 1988, 1992, 2015; Smitherman, 1999; Richardson, 2003; Smitherman & Villanueva, 2003; Kynard, 2008; Winn & Behizadeh, 2011; Hoang, 2015). SRTOL was forged in the political backdrop of the Civil Rights, Black Power, and other liberation movements worldwide to provide “open access” for racially and linguistically oppressed groups. SRTOL has served as a cornerstone of some of the most critical language policy moments, from the 1977 Ann Arbor “Black English” case, the creation of the National Language Policy (1988), the 1996 Oakland Ebonics Resolution, and various movements against “English First” or the “English Only” movements that limit access to bilingual education. To be sure, even though Latinx populations were the target in Arizona in outlawing Chicano Studies as well as bilingual education, English-Only has massively harmed American Indians there. The CCCC’s Language Policy Committee (LPC) also initiated the 1986 “Resolution on English and ‘English Only,’” with the LPC joining the English-Plus Movement and its Information Clearinghouse in 1987 (Villanueva, 2014). In today’s climate of neo-lynching in the form of “stand your ground” and police brutality, continued desecration of Native Americans’ sacred lands, and hatred of African Americans, Latinx, Asians, Native Americans, and Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, antiracist language and literacy educators must be vigilant and aware.
Educators, at the middle school level, should be wary of colorblind approaches to youth (language) development at the expense of evading issues of power. As Caldera & Babino (2019) admonish, teaching about WLS is moving toward culturally sustaining instruction. At the college level, Institutional Freshman English (Kynard, 2008), basic writing (Gilyard & Richardson, 2001), Spoken English (for those deemed nonnative speakers), and other social arrangements are part of institutional practices that reproduce “advantages and benefits for some, and discrimination, oppression, and disadvantages for others” (Lyiscott, 2019). Labeling BIPOC students’ languages, lives, and identities as lifelong English learners, heritage language learners, and Standard English learners points to the raciolinguistic othering of US Latinx, Native Americans [labeled semilingual], World English speakers [labeled second-language learners], and Ebonics speakers [labeled as nonstandard] whose dynamic language practices do not fit monolingual white ideologies (Flores & Rosa, 2015). We must be attuned to the workings of linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992) and how labels indicate power differentials and hierarchies and oppressive [educational] practices that must be interrogated and challenged: remedial readers, developmental writers, nonnative English speakers, ESL learners, limited English proficient (LEP) [aka LEPERS], low-income, first generation, undocumented, international students, immigrant students, historically underserved. As the authors of “This Ain’t Another Statement: This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice!” express, our field has produced many important statements expressing legitimacy of diverse students’ languages and lives. Most forcefully in the wake of the George Floyd murder by Minneapolis police, our field cannot ignore the decades of research legitimizing Black language, and must continue to produce statements of solidarity stating that Black lives and Black languages matter; we must DEMAND and work to implement Black Linguistic Justice (Baker-Bell, 2020). Similarly, we must DEMAND the same for Indigenous, Brown, and all people of color.
Approaches for Social Change
Critical language awareness (CLA) approaches assist the profession and students in interrogating and challenging the sociopolitical arrangement of WLS and “[foregrounds] … the examination of interconnectedness of identities, ideologies, histories/herstories, and the hierarchical nature of power relations between groups” (Alim, 2005, p. 28). As anti-WLS educators, we strive to collaborate with communities through our teaching “for sweeping social change” (Sledd, 1969, p. 1315). Linguistic change is the effect and not the cause of social change.
Tenets of Black Lives Matter, critical race theory–informed, decolonial, culturally responsive, antiracist, and race-radical literacies urge us to name and label the structural violence of the institutions that are working against BIPOC students (Kynard, 2018; Ruiz & Sanchez, 2019; Saeedi & Richardson, 2020; Baker-Bell, 2020). As Pritchard’s (2017, pp. 245–246) work in Black queer literacies teaches us, we are all complicit in the harms of normativity by our institutions and the human condition. Yet, Pritchard points us toward hope in language and literate acts “of self- and communal love that contributes to broader quests for social and political change to disrupt normativity.”
Largely, our profession’s pedagogies and assessment practices of linguistic diversity and inclusion have tried to fit students and faculty of all backgrounds into existing oppressive structures. Instead, we must push to dismantle all systems rooted in WLS and advocate for investment in BIPOC communities as we work toward liberatory languages and systems that honor the full humanity and equality of all people.
Resolution
We reaffirm our commitments to linguistic diversity and to the multiple languages and linguistic histories of our students and communities and, further, affirm a commitment to the dismantling of all systems of oppression, with the understanding of the central role of WLS in the formation of unconscious and conscious biases. We recognize the role of WLS as a tool of oppression and resolve that as coconspirators in one another’s multiple struggles, including those of our students, we are responsible for challenging and uprooting WLS and pursuing and practicing a present and future that places liberatory languages and systems as central to our collective work.
References
Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting the issues and revising pedagogies in a resegregated society. Educational Researcher, 34(7), 24–31.
Alim, H. S., & Smitherman, G. (2012). Articulate while Black: Barack Obama, language, and race in the U. S. Oxford University Press.
Baca, I., Hinojosa, Y., & Murphy, S. (Eds.). (2019). Bordered writers: Latinx identities and literacy practices at Hispanic-serving institutions. SUNY Press.
Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy. Routledge and NCTE.
Caldera, A., & Babino, A. (2019). Moving toward culturally sustaining instruction that resists white language supremacy. National Journal of Middle Grades Reform, 5, 9–15.
Carruthers, C. A. (2018). Unapologetic: A Black, queer, and feminist mandate for radical movements. Beacon Press.
CCCC Special Committee on Composing a CCCC Statement on Anti-Black Racism and Black Linguistic Justice, Or, Why We Cain’t Breathe! (2020). This Ain’t Another Statement! This is a DEMAND for Black Linguistic Justice! Conference on College Composition and Communication. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/demand-for-black-linguistic-justice
Committee on CCCC Language Statement. (1974). Students’ right to their own language [Special issue]. CCC 25(3).
Conference on College Composition and Communication. (1988; updated 1992; revised 2015). CCCC Guideline on the National Language Policy. https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/nationallangpolicy
DiAngelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.
Flores, N., & Rosa, J. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171.
Gilyard, K., & Richardson, E. (2001). Students’ right to possibility: Basic writing and African American rhetoric. In A. Greenbaum (Ed.), Insurrections: Approaches to resistance in composition studies (pp. 37–51). SUNY Press.
Hoang, H. (2015). Writing against racial injury: The politics of Asian American student rhetoric. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Inoue, A. (2015). Antiracist writing assessment ecologies: Teaching and assessing writing for a socially just future. WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Inoue, A. (2019a). Classroom writing assessment as an antiracist practice: Confronting white supremacy in the judgments of language. Pedagogy, 9(3), 373–404.
Inoue, A. (2019b). How do we language so people stop killing each other, or What do we do about white language supremacy? CCC, 71(2), 352–369.
Inoue, A. (2019c). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado.
Inoue, A. (2021). Above the well: An antiracist argument from a boy of color. WAC Clearinghouse and University Press of Colorado.
King, L., Gubele, R., & Rain Anderson, J. (Eds.). (2015). Survivance, sovereignty and story: Teaching American Indian rhetorics. Utah State University Press.
Kynard, C. (2007). “I want to be African”: In search of a Black radical tradition/African-American-vernacularized paradigm for “Students’ Right to Their Own Language,” critical literacy, and “Class Politics.” College English, 69(4), 360–390.
Kynard, C. (2008). Writing while Black: The colour line, Black discourses and assessment in the institutionalization of writing instruction. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 7(2), 4–34.
Kynard, C. (2018). Stayin’ woke: Race radical literacies in the makings of a higher education. CCC, 69(3), 519–529.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.
Lyiscott, J. (2019). Black appetite. White food. Issues of race, voice, and justice within and beyond the classroom. Routledge.
Mao, L., & Young, M. (Eds.). (2008). Representations: Doing Asian American rhetoric. University of Colorado Press.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Pritchard, E. (2017). Fashioning lives: Black queers and the politics of literacy. Southern Illinois University Press.
Richardson, E. (2003). African American literacies. Routledge.
Rickford, J. R. (1999). African American vernacular English: Features, evolution, educational implications. Blackwell Publishers.
Ruiz, I., & Sanchez, R. (2019). Decolonial rhetoric and composition studies: New Latinx keywords for theory and pedagogy. Palgrave MacMillan.
Saeedi, S., & Richardson, E. (2020). A Black Lives Matter and critical race theory–informed critique of code-switching pedagogy. In V. Kinloch, C. Penn, & T. Burghart (Eds.), Race, justice, and activism in literacy instruction. Teachers College Press.
Sledd, J. (1969). Bi-dialectalism: The linguistics of white supremacy. English Journal, 58(9), 1307–1315+1329.
Smitherman, G. (1999). CCCC’s role in the struggle for language rights. CCC, 50(3), 349–376.
Smitherman, G., & Villanueva, V. (Eds.). (2003). Language diversity in the classroom: From intention to practice. Southern Illinois University Press.
Villanueva, V. (2014). The effect of Arizona’s ethnic studies ban [Conference session]. Conference on College Composition and Communication Annual Convention, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Winn, M. T., & Behizadeh, N. (2011). The right to be literate: Literacy, education, and the school-to-prison pipeline. Review of Research in Education, 35, 147–173.
This statement was generously created by the following contributors:
Elaine Richardson
Asao Inoue
Denise Troutman
Qwo-Li Driskill
Bonnie Williams
Austin Jackson
Isabel Baca
Ana Celia Zentella
Victor Villanueva
Rashidah Muhammad
Kim B. Lovejoy
David F. Green
Geneva Smitherman
This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.
The 4CWebinar Group is accepting panel and individual proposals for our AY 2021–2022 webinar series, which will present 3–4 webinars (with 5 per year in the years to follow). In keeping with our mission, we are calling for proposals that engage the theory, pedagogy, and praxis of the 2021 CCCC Annual Convention theme, “We Are All Writing Teachers: Returning to a Common Place,” (see the CCCC 2021 Program) in particular the focus on the teacher-scholar-activist.
Guidelines for Submitted Proposals
Who Can Submit a Proposal: While not all participants in the proposed webinar need to be CCCC members, the primary point of contact must be a member.
Panel Proposal: Groups of 3–5 presenters may collaborate on a panel proposal.
Individual Proposals: The 4CWebinar Group accepts individual proposals that will be grouped together around a similar theme or focus area.
Application Submission: Please submit all applications to Trixie Smith at smit1254@msu.edu with the subject heading “4CWebinar Proposal.” SUBMISSION DEADLINE: August 18, 2021, 11:59 p.m. ET. Decisions made by mid-September.
Criteria for Inclusion/Selection Process
The 4CWebinar Group will use the following criteria when determining which proposals to accept.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction to the 2019–2020 Annual
Clancy Ratliff
10 T-Shirt Bots and the Independent Artist: The Fight Against Automated Intellectual Property Theft
Devon Fitzgerald Ralston
16 The Case Act Redivivus
Kim D. Gainer
29 Irresponsible Authorship: A Growing Typology
Steven Engel and April Johnson
41 China’s Road Ahead for Intellectual Property: How Ongoing Talks and Legislation Seek to Shift from Shanzhai to Bona Fide
Wendy Warren Austin
44 Elsevier Seeks New Forms of Revenue as Universities Resist Prohibitive Contracts
Mike Edwards
51 Learning from the Past?: A Review of the Creative Commons’ 2021-2025 Strategic Plan in Light of the Past Ten Years
Alex C. Nielsen
57 Contributors
Join us for an evening celebration to recognize the 2021 CCCC and TYCA award recipients for outstanding service, programs, publications, scholarship, and research. This event is open to anyone to attend!
Learn more about the CCCC awards programs and TYCA awards programs. Many programs are already accepting nominations and applications for the 2022 awards.
2022 CCCC Annual Convention
March 9–12, 2022
Online
Program Chair: Staci M. Perryman-Clark, Western Michigan University
Why are you here?
“Why are you here” was the name of the first college writing assignment I ever assigned as I began my career as a graduate teaching assistant and writing teacher. As I continue to assign personal narratives in first-year writing, I often think about that first assignment. I think about and remember some of the responses students have submitted over the years, ranging from suicide attempts to coming out to stories of racism and implicit/explicit biases about writing abilities based on broad strokes and simplistic assumptions about race, class, and gender.
Given that it has been a while since we have been able to gather in person, and given that the COVID-19 pandemic has forever changed what it means to gather for a convention and what it means to have a conference for the dissemination of research, scholarship, and the widest range of creative activities, I now ask the question, “Why are we here?”
To answer this question, we have to be honest about what we mean by “here.” The location of “here” suggests a sense of belonging. It suggests access. It suggests invitations: Some people will be invited; some will not. Others will accept the invitation; others will decline. With the suggestion of invitations, I recognize that systems of power and privilege enable certain folks to send the invitations and vet guest lists, determining who is worth inviting and who is not. And even for those worthy enough to make the guest list, not all guests will necessarily appreciate one another’s presence. In 2011, with my ride-or-die colleague Collin Craig, I wrote “Troubling the Boundaries: (De)constructing WPA Identities at the Intersections of Race and Gender,” in which we grappled with our first experience attending the Council of Writing Program Administrators (CWPA) conference. While we were invited to present our work, which ironically focused on the intersections of race and gender in writing program administration, we were perceived as being out of place because very few Black people attended this conference. In short, our invitation and sense of belonging were questioned.
Fast forward to more than a decade later. Despite being an active member of a scholarly community as well as an academic administrator, my sense of belonging continues to be questioned. I could share the many times I’ve been excluded from key meetings with leaders or the microaggressions I experienced just by my mere existence as juxtaposed with leadership and the authority to make decisions. But I won’t. Not here. Instead, I will simply state that as representatives of a discipline, we bear tremendous responsibility for the gatekeeping practices we employ and who we decide to and decide not to invite to our disciplinary conversations. Now is the time for us to hold ourselves accountable for the gate entry and gatekeeping we practice with our students and each other. For if we don’t, not only will our ethical reputation be at stake but we also risk being so exclusive that our relevance becomes extinct and shifting demographics may potentially lead to a decline in the membership we once treasured, protected, and justified the exclusivity of in the spirit of protecting rigor and the academic integrity of writing studies.
Now it’s time to flip the script, and it just so happens that we got da time today.
Consider the invitation our students receive when they apply for admission to the institutions where we teach. Instead of considering the admissions team as the gatekeepers for postsecondary entrance and instead of considering our introductory writing courses as gatekeepers to advanced writing courses, however, let’s position students as the gatekeepers to higher education enrollment. Let’s consider the following facts: (1) There are fewer high school graduates, and the rate of high school graduation continues to decline (Nadworny 2019); (2) postsecondary enrollment has continued to decline since 2011 (Nadworny 2019; Nietzel 2019); (3) in 2017–2018, whites comprised the minority of college enrollment for the first time; and (4) despite the fact that the pool of Black and Latinx 18-year-olds in the US is not shrinking at the same rate as the pool of white 18-year-olds, especially in regions like the Midwest and Northeast, Black enrollment has fallen sharply since 2017 (Miller 2020). Given these sobering statistics, students are now making choices about whether or not they want to enroll in a postsecondary institution, making competition among postsecondary institutions keen with more pressure being put on chief marketing and recruitment/enrollment officers to sell the optimal college experience to prospective students.
Given enrollment challenges, as a discipline that is committed to the teaching of postsecondary instruction, we can no longer be exclusive about what writing belongs and which writings belong in our classrooms. In making this claim, I acknowledge the 2020 Annual Convention call proposed by Holly Hassel that asked us to consider access and its relationship to what we do as writing teachers; however, I would like to think more about the relationship between access, enrollment, and relevance. As a discipline, how do we remain relevant? How do we use the work that we have done with access to make the case for postsecondary enrollment to prospective students? What does college writing instruction promise to do for students who have the choice to attend/not to attend college? And what are the perils of not making our case?
When we think of inclusive spaces, Julie Lindquist reminded us in her 2020 call that “teaching inclusively is (only) a matter of teaching ‘about’ diversity, rather than a matter of creating storied learning experiences, or making good on the ones students have. That our primary activity is ‘teaching’ rather than creating learning opportunities for students. That ‘learning’ is an experience that entails only gains, and never losses.” Given this, we must think about the promises and perils of what higher education offers by rethinking how we examine “inclusive” spaces, particularly when we think about student access, teaching, and learning—all commonplace themes in higher education discourse. In the spirit of inclusivity, how do we practice diversity in our teaching—I mean, how do we really practice diversity as opposed to simply teaching about it? And how do our practices afford opportunities to both teach and model inclusivity as well as offer spaces to learn from the wide and diverse range of experiences that students bring with them when they enroll in higher education more broadly and in our writing courses more specifically.
It is clear that given the shifting demographics of college students who enroll in higher education, we can no longer think about diversity and inclusion as abstract concepts or as buzzwords strategically placed in writing program descriptions or on university webpages. Nor can we rely only on the language of our CCCC mission statement, particularly its first sentence that marks CCCC as “committed to supporting the agency, power, and potential of diverse communicators inside and outside of postsecondary classrooms” (emphasis added). While eloquently stated, our mission must critically examine the material and physical realities of those whom we invite to our community. While we have always had ethical obligations to consider access and equity in whom we invite to partake in our disciplinary conversations, we no longer have the fortune of relying on language alone to send the message of an organization that purports to be welcoming, inviting, and hence, inclusive. Even if sincere and genuine in our language, there is no guarantee that students will accept our lip service—let alone our invitation to higher education or our discipline.
Therefore, it is time to think beyond diversity by also revisiting what our discipline historically and presently means about equity and inclusion. Beyond the invitation, how do we really know our pedagogical practices are equitable? How do we really know that our disciplinary practices are equitable? As a field, what evidence have we produced up until this point, what evidence do we need to present, and what evidence might we already have concerning areas for equitable improvement? Put simply, given our historical past, present, and future, where do we go from here? How do we make CCCC a more equitable organization, and how do we take our understanding (old and new) of equity to shape enrollment, teaching, and learning in higher education?
As Julie Lindquist also reminded us in her 2020 Annual Convention call, “What is going well, of course, is the strength and resolve of our organization as a countervailing force in national and local conversations about educational access, adult literacy, rhetorical ethics, and cultural and social diversity. We know that our work as members of CCCC has a renewed exigency and a new urgency.” Given this, I second the exigency and urgency to use what we know about diversity and equity in the pursuit of social justice. Social justice, though, is not a term I use lightly. For me, social justice has life or death consequences. For instance, at my home institution, Western Michigan University, an African American student recently died after contracting coronavirus. Even more recently, a former African American student was shot to death by a security guard in a mental health facility. Placed in relation to recent statistics that acknowledge racial inequities associated with healthcare and coronavirus death (Center for Disease Control 2020; Godoy and Wood, 2020) in addition to the many, many examples of unarmed killings of Black and Brown citizens (far too many to list in this space), I submit that as writing teachers and educators we have a deeper responsibility to commit to social justice.
Perhaps one might see the connections from the examples I just shared in relation to higher education enrollment; however, we must also begin and continue to take a more active role as a discipline in our commitment to social justice: It really is a life and death issue. As Asao B. Inoue (2019) reminded us in his coda, “Assessing English So That People Stop Killing Each Other,” labor-based contract grading practices enable us to critique and resist dominant power and discourses. More specifically, in terms of survival, labor-based contract grading allows opportunities to resist white language supremacy, and, in essence, resist white supremacy in the pursuit of social justice because “they create sustainable and liveable [sic] conditions for locally diverse students and teachers to do antiracist, anti-White supremacist, and other social justice language work, conditions that are much harder to have when writing is graded on so-called quality or by some single standard, and when students’ labors are not fully recognized and valued” (p. 306). Anticipating readers’ potential responses that social justice in writing assessment might be an extreme and far-fetched leap from survival, Inoue further proposes that we rethink survival and killing in the following way:
Do standards in English writing classrooms kill people? Hmm. Maybe a better question is this: In a world of police brutality against Black and Brown people in the US, of border walls and regressive and harmful immigration policies, of increasing violence against Muslims, of women losing their rights to the control their own bodies, of overt White supremacy, of mass shootings in schools, of blatant refusals to be compassionate to the hundreds of thousands of refugees around the world, where do we really think this violence, discord, and killing starts? (p. 306)
When reframing the question in the way Inoue suggests, we can understand how those who judge language from a white-supremacist framework are also and often the same folks who make gatekeeping decisions about justice, decisions that have life and death consequences. Even more recently, April Baker-Bell reminds us that peaking mainstream white English has not enabled a single unarmed Black body to be spared from being murdered by police. In fact, as Baker-Bell (2020) tells it,
If y’all actually believe that using “standard English” will dismantle white supremacy, then you not paying attention! If we, as teachers, truly believe that code-switching will dismantle white supremacy, we have a problem. If we honestly believe that code-switching will save Black people’s lives, then we really ain’t paying attention to what’s happening in the world. Eric Garner was choked to death by a police officer while saying “I cannot breathe.” Wouldn’t you consider “I cannot breathe” “standard English” syntax? (p. 5)
Earlier in this call, I suggested that it is time to flip the script, meaning that it is time to consider the ways in which students are the arbiters of their fates and are the ones positioned as decision makers. Inoue’s discussion of labor-based contract grading affords us one of many ways we might flip the script to afford students decision-granting authority over their futures and lives. Baker-Bell’s ethnographic research on how Black students offer “counterstories” that position their voices as central to dismantling “Anti-Black Linguistic Racism” offers us another example of a way in which students flip the script, reclaim their time, and make decisions about the education for which they are willing and/or unwilling to pay. Given these historical moments in time and higher education, we have no choice but to see students as decision makers over their lives and futures. Granting that authority, then, is one of many ways that we can use our roles as higher education educators to pursue social justice.
Therefore, I invite you to consider how you promise to educate students in the pursuit of social justice. What are the perils for not doing so? How might our physical location and space of the conference in the city of Chicago provide us with a unique opportunity to consider diversity, equity, and social justice as essential and foundational to what we do as writing teachers? What specifically can we learn from the demographics of Chicago about social justice that we can bring back to our own local campuses? And how does the city itself become an invitation for writing teachers to consider the implications of our work as connected to the greater work of higher education? As we consider this invitation and our willingness to accept it, given the higher education landscape, we must also ask not only, “Why are we here?” but also, “Given that we are now here, how does higher education survive? How do we as a discipline survive?
Perhaps our survival might take the form of resistance; Malea Powell (2002) has long argued through rhetorics of survivance a survival that “imagines resistance and survival in the face of violent assimilation strategies” (p. 404). As a field, then, we must resist assimilationist tropes of access including the violence imposed on acquiring edited American English as a life skill. Further, we must also understand that our ability to advocate for resistance in pursuit of social justices also rests on our own survival, for if we do not create welcoming spaces for inclusion, our students will resist our invitations. Without students, not only do our institutions not survive, but we also risk survival as a field.
But, really, it ain’t enough for us to just survive. As much as I am interested in survival, I am also interested in establishing a high quality of life. Put simply, I want us to thrive! I want us to innovate. Vershawn Ashanti Young’s 2019 CCCC CFP identifies our field as a living body by asking us what might happen if we “think of rhetoric and composition as live, as embodied actions, as behaviors, yes, as performances inside of one pod—our discipline—that lead to the creation of texts, to presentations, that invite mo performances and certainly mo co-performances.” Echoing Young, I ask us to think of our work as a living entity that impacts and shapes the future of education for students across a wide range of institutional contexts. And I want us to create hope and promise for how our work impacts higher education’s future in the most innovative and exciting of ways. I want to us to dream and reimagine what we might become.
Proposals for CCCC 2022
Regardless of role or session type, proposals will be judged based on the following criteria:
In essence, I want an institution, an organization, and a convention that is all the way live, an “event that is extremely lively, exciting, dynamic. Also live” (Smitherman, 2006, p. 21).
As you consider this call, I leave you with a final word from my academic mother, Geneva Smitherman, a word that builds on past wisdom of our elders as we reimagine the future: “As I have learned from the elders and sacrifices of many thousands gone, the role of the linguist—indeed the role of all scholars and intellectuals—is not just to understand the world, but to change it” (p. 145).
I very much look forward to gathering with you all together in person in Chicago in 2022!
Staci M. Perryman-Clark
2022 Program Chair
Program Clusters
| 2018
1. Pedagogy (#Pedagogy) |
2019
1. First-Year and Advanced Composition |
2020
1. First-Year and Basic Writing |
2021
1. First-Year Writing |
2022
1. First-Year Writing |
Works Cited
Baker-Bell, April. Linguistic Justice: Black Language, Literacy, Identity and Pedagogy. Routledge, 2020.
Center for Disease Control. “Health Equity Considerations and Racial and Ethnic Groups.” www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html.
Craig, Collin Lamont, and Staci Maree Perryman-Clark. “Troubling the Boundaries: (De)Constructing WPA Identities at the Intersections of Race and Gender.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 34, no. 2, 2011, pp. 37–58.
Godoy, Maria, and Daniel Wood. “What Do Coronavirus Racial Disparities Look Like State by State?” NPR, 2020, www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/30/865413079/what-do-coronavirus-racial-disparities-look-like-state-by-state.
Inoue, Asao B. Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. WAC Clearinghouse, 2019.
Miller, Ben. “It’s Time to Worry About College Enrollment Declines Among Black Students.” Center for American Progress, 2020, www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-postsecondary/reports/2020/09/28/490838/time-worry-college-enrollment-declines-among-black-students/.
Nadworny, Lisa. “Fewer Students Are Going to College. Here’s Why That Matters.” NPR, 2019, www.npr.org/2019/12/16/787909495/fewer-students-are-going-to-college-heres-why-that-matters.
Nietzel, Michael. “College Enrollment Declines Again. It’s Down More Than Two Million Students in This Decade.” Forbes, 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2019/12/16/college-enrollment-declines-again-its-down-more-than-two-million-students-in-this-decade/?sh=3b9d012b3d95.
Powell, Malea. “Rhetorics of Survivance: How American Indians Use Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 53, no. 3, Feb. 2002, 396–434.
Smitherman, Geneva. Word from the Mother: Language and African Americans. Routledge, 2006.
Conference on College Composition and Communication
March 2021
This position statement affirms the need to develop accessible and effective reading pedagogies in college writing classrooms so that students can engage more deeply in all of their courses and develop the reading abilities that will be essential to their success in college, in their careers, and for their participation in a democratic society. This statement assumes that, like instruction in writing, instruction in reading is most ethical and effective when it engages students’ diverse experiences, needs, and capacities and when it works from an asset-based (rather than a deficit-based) theory of learning. The statement outlines principles and best practices for developing reading-centered pedagogies and curricula and identifies resources and sites at postsecondary institutions that can support this work.
Horning et al. define college-level reading as “a complex, recursive process in which readers actively and critically understand and create meaning through connections to texts” (7). Research that assesses the alignment between new college students’ prior reading experience and the expectations of college reading tasks suggests that many students are likely to encounter different and challenging reading tasks upon entering college (Jolliffe and Harl; Rodrigue; Jamieson; Stanford History Education Group; Ihara and Del Principe; Wineburg and McGrew). Students are also reading in increasingly diverse modes and for distinct purposes as reading moves increasingly to screens rather than paper.
This statement acknowledges that students are regularly reading (Jolliffe and Harl), that they have reading skills, and that they are using a range of technologies to support their reading. Technology has allowed students to engage with readings by listening to texts, seeing texts in various font sizes, and copying and making notes on texts. Use of synchronous technology, such as digital annotation programs, allows students to practice deep reading strategies while gaining almost immediate access to their peers’ approaches to reading. Moreover, the web provides digital examples of cultural knowledge formation (such as rhetorical reading) that communities of color, LGBTQ communities, and disability communities have cultivated offline for years. Instructors can mobilize these technologies to support students’ development of deeper reading habits.
For decades, community college curricula have directly addressed students’ reading habits, and community college instructors have researched and published on best practices for integrating instruction in reading and writing (Goen-Salter; Raufman and Barrow; Bickerstaff and Raufman; Boylan and Bonham). Only recently, however, have those who teach at four-year institutions begun to argue for the importance of reconnecting the act of reading to writing. Not since the 1980s and early 1990s have those outside of community colleges paid sustained attention to reading as the counterpart of writing in the construction and negotiation of meaning.
College-level reading varies depending on the reader’s primary purpose, and different reading approaches each have their own emphasis: “rhetorical reading” and “reading like a writer” suggest reading texts for the purposes of understanding the impact of writerly choices, “close reading” is focused primarily on textual interpretation, and “active reading” and “mindful reading” suggest a type of mindset or orientation toward a text.
Reading, then, goes well beyond mere comprehension of words and texts, and instructors need to realize that students may be more or less familiar with different types of reading. Indeed, individual students may be proficient with multiple reading approaches or may struggle with basic comprehension. This position statement marks CCCC members’ commitment to recognizing all college-level reading as a “complex, recursive process in which readers actively and critically understand and create meaning through connections to texts” (Horning et al., 7).
The strategies that follow are proven effective. They are suggestions for those who wish to integrate reading more deliberately into their teaching practices.
Principle 1: Teach Reading Comprehension
Strategies:
Principle 2: Teach Reading Approaches That Move Beyond Basic Comprehension
Strategies:
Principle 3: Foster Mindful Reading to Encourage Students to Think Metacognitively about Their Reading in Preparation for a Variety of Reading in Different Contexts
Strategies:
Principle 4: Teach Students How to Read Texts Closely and Focus on Significant Details and Patterns
Strategies:
Given the tremendous variety in new instructor training programs, it is important for facilitators to prioritize what they want students to know and do with regard to reading. Some programs may be limited to a single session devoted to reading, whereas a more ideal approach would be to integrate the discussion of reading throughout an entire training program. Additionally, as the representations and needs of students constantly shift, it is also important to consider how to integrate accessible and culturally relevant approaches to reading instruction into the overall fabric of writing programs. Doing so encourages writing teachers—from senior faculty to first-time teachers—to develop reading pedagogies that serve ever-changing student populations and are responsive to the contemporary moment.
Strategies for training instructors to teach reading include the following:
This section notes important stakeholders on campuses that can contribute to building a culture of support surrounding reading development. This statement encourages communication and collaboration among writing program administrators, writing instructors, and the various members of these units—libraries, writing centers, and centers for teaching and learning—so that all stakeholders are working together to support students’ reading development throughout their academic careers.
Libraries
Librarians have long been at the forefront of information literacy education. Although campus librarians are often used for one-shot presentations about how to access and search their institution’s databases, they can work consistently with faculty across the disciplines to help faculty identify information literacy concepts relevant to specific disciplines (Anderson et al. 16). They can also support students as they develop the capabilities that inform strong reading practices, including paying attention to a source’s relevance, biases, and credibility.
Writing Centers
As Muriel Harris, G. Travis Adams, and Gary Griswold have pointed out, writing centers are always already reading centers because most college-level writing assignments also involve reading. Therefore, it is important that writing center directors are educated on reading pedagogy so they can deliberately incorporate attention to reading in the training given to writing center tutors. Doing so will allow tutors to support students’ literacy development in more comprehensive ways by preparing them to address reading-related writing issues.
Centers for Teaching and Learning
Often given a name such as Center for Teaching Excellence, centers for teaching and learning are seen as hubs of pedagogical innovation and faculty development, and, according to Mary Wright, are supposed “to be responsive to institutional goals and priorities, and to work in collaboration with faculty and academic units, guided by their learning goals” (qtd. in Lieberman). These centers need to be prepared to support faculty as they integrate reading instruction into their courses.
Adams, G. Travis. “The Line That Shouldn’t Be Drawn: Writing Centers as Reading Centered.” Pedagogy, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016, pp. 73–90.
Anderson, Jennifer, et al. “Collaboration as Conversations: When Writing Studies and the Library Use the Same Conceptual Lenses.” Teaching Information Literacy and Writing Studies: Volume 1, First-Year Composition Courses, edited by Grace Veach, Purdue UP, 2018, pp. 3–18.
Bickerstaff, Susan, and Julia Raufman. From “Additive” to “Integrative”: Experiences of Faculty Teaching Developmental Integrated Reading and Writing Courses (CCRC Working Paper No. 96). Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2017, https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/faculty-experiences-teaching-developmental-reading-writing.pdf.
Boylan, Hunter R., and Barbara S. Bonham, editors. Developmental Education: Readings on Its Past, Present, and Future. Bedford/St. Martins, 2014.
Goen-Salter, Sugie. “Critiquing the Need to Eliminate Remediation: Lessons from San Francisco State.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 27, no. 2, 2008, pp. 81–105.
Griswold, Gary. “Postsecondary Reading: What Writing Center Tutors Need to Know.” Journal of College Reading and Learning, vol. 37, no. 1, 2006, pp. 59–70.
Harris, Muriel. “Writing Centers Are Also Reading Centers: How Could They Not Be?” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, edited by Patrick Sullivan et al., National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, pp. 227–43.
Horning, Alice S., Deborah-Lee Gollnitz, and Cynthia R. Haller, editors. What Is College Reading? WAC Clearinghouse/UP of Colorado, 2017.
Ihara, Rachel, and Annie Del Principe. “What We Mean When We Talk about Reading: Rethinking the Purposes and Contexts of College Reading.” Across the Disciplines, vol. 15, no. 2, 2018, pp. 1–14, https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/atd/articles/ihara-delprincipe2018.pdf.
Jamieson, Sandra. “Reading and Engaging Sources: What Students’ Use of Sources Reveals about Advanced Reading Skills.” Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum, special issue of Across the Disciplines, vol.10, no. 4, 2013, http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/reading/jamieson.cfm.
Jolliffe, David, and Allison Harl. “Texts of Our Institutional Lives: Studying the “Reading Transition” from High School to College: What Are Our Students Reading and Why?” College English, vol. 70, no. 6, 2008, pp. 599-617.
Lieberman, Mark. “Centers of the Pedagogical Universe.” Inside Higher Ed, 28 Feb. 2018, https://www.insidehighered.com/digital-learning/article/2018/02/28/centers-teaching-and-learning-serve-hub-improving-teaching.
Raufman, Julia, and Hilda Barrow. “Learning to Teach Integrated Reading and Writing: Evidence from Research and Practice.” NADE, 26 Feb. 2015, https://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/nade-2015-integrated-reading-writing.pdf.
Rodrigue, Tanya K. “The Digital Reader, the Alphabetic Writer, and the Space Between: A Study in Digital Reading and Source-based Writing.” Computers and Composition, vol. 46, 2017, pp. 4–20.
Stanford History Education Group. Evaluating Information: The Cornerstone of Civic Online Reasoning. 2016, https://sheg.stanford.edu/upload/V3LessonPlans/Executive%20Summary%2011.21.16.pdf.
Wineburg, Sam, and Sarah McGrew. “Lateral Reading and the Nature of Expertise: Reading Less and Learning More When Evaluating Digital Information.” Teachers College Record, vol. 121, no. 11, 2019, pp. 1–40.
“The Act of Reading: Instructional Foundations and Policy Guidelines.” Position Statements, National Council of Teachers of English, 5 Dec. 2019, https://ncte.org/statement/the-act-of-reading/.
Baron, Naomi S. Words Onscreen: The Fate of Reading in a Digital World. Oxford UP, 2015.
Bunn, Michael. “Motivation and Connection: Teaching Reading (and Writing) in the Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 64, no. 3, 2013, pp. 496–516.
Carillo, Ellen C. Securing a Place for Reading in Composition: The Importance of Teaching for Transfer. Utah State UP, 2014.
Dehaene, Stanislas. Reading in the Brain. Penguin Random House, 2009.
Del Principe, Annie, and Rachel Ihara. “A Long Look at Reading in the Community College: A Longitudinal Analysis of Student Reading Experiences.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 45, no. 2, 2017, pp.183–206.
—. “‘I Bought the Book and I Didn’t Need It’: What Reading Looks Like at an Urban Community College.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 43, no.3, 2016, pp. 229–44.
Flippo, Rona F., and Thomas W. Bean, editors. Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research. Routledge, 2018.
Grayson, Mara Lee. “Race Talk in the Composition Classroom: Narrative Song Lyrics as Texts for Racial Literacy.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 45, no. 2, 2017, pp. 47–68.
Inoue, Asao B. “Teaching Antiracist Reading.” Journal of College Reading and Learning, vol. 50, no. 3, 2020, pp. 134–56.
Kamil, Michael L., et al., editors. Handbook of Reading Research: Volume IV. Routledge, 2011.
Kareem, Jamila. “A Critical Race Analysis of Transition-Level Writing Curriculum to Support the Racially Diverse Two-Year College.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 46, no. 4, 2019, pp. 271–96.
Keller, Daniel. Chasing Literacy: Reading and Writing in an Age of Acceleration. Utah State UP, 2014.
Morrow, Nancy. “The Role of Reading in the Composition Classroom.” JAC, vol. 17, no. 3, 1997, pp. 453–72.
Seidenberg, Mark. Language at the Speed of Sight: How We Read, Why So Many Can’t, and What Can Be Done About It. Basic Books, 2017.
Smith, Cheryl Hogue. “Fractured Reading: Experiencing Students’ Thinking Habits.” Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 47, no. 1, 2019, pp. 22–35.
—. “Interrogating Texts: From Deferent to Efferent and Aesthetic Reading Practices.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 31, no. 1, 2012, pp. 59–79.
Sullivan, Patrick. “‘Deep Reading’ as a Threshold Concept in Composition Studies.” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, edited by Patrick Sullivan et al., National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, pp. 143–171.
Sullivan, Patrick, et al., editors. Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom. National Council of Teachers of English, 2017.
Sullivan, Patrick, and Christie Toth, editors. Teaching Composition at the Two-Year College, Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2017.
Tinberg, Howard. “When Writers Encounter Reading in a Community College First-Year Composition Course.” Deep Reading: Teaching Reading in the Writing Classroom, edited by Patrick Sullivan et al., National Council of Teachers of English, 2017, pp. 244–64.
“What Does it Really Mean to Be College and Work Ready? The English Literacy Required of Community College Students.” National Center on Education and the Economy, 2013, https://ncee.org/college-and-work-ready/.
Willingham, Daniel. The Reading Mind: A Cognitive Approach to Understanding How the Mind Reads. Jossey-Bass, 2017.
Wolf, Maryanne. Reader Come Home: The Reading Brain in a Digital World. Harper, 2018.
This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.
Copyright © 1998 - 2024 National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved in all media.
1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801-1096 Phone: 217-328-3870 or 877-369-6283
Looking for information? Browse our FAQs, tour our sitemap and store sitemap, or contact NCTE
Read our Privacy Policy Statement and Links Policy. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use
