Category: Uncategorized

As e-portfolios assume a greater role in institutional assessment, First-Year Composition (FYC) will most likely serve as the course that introduces them to students. Therefore, FYC faculty may have a particular, invested interest in identifying the principles and practices of e-portfolio development that prioritize student learning. Such principles and best practices, based on the theoretical knowledge that classroom evidence substantiates, enable composition faculty to provide students with experiences that help them expand and specialize their writing skills for a variety of cross-disciplinary programs and professional contexts beyond FYC.

Read the full statement, Principles and Practices in Electronic Portfolios (November 2007, Revised March 2015)

Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), March 1988, Updated 1992, Revised March 2015

Background

The National Language Policy is a response to efforts to make English the “official” language of the United States. This policy recognizes the historical reality that, even though English has become the language of wider communication, we are a multilingual society. All people in a democratic society have the right to education, to employment, to social services, and to equal protection under the law. No one should be denied these or any civil rights because of linguistic differences. This policy enables everyone to participate in the life of this multicultural nation by ensuring continued respect both for English, our common language, and for the many other languages that contribute to our rich cultural heritage.

CCCC National Language Policy

Be it resolved that CCCC members promote the National Language Policy adopted at the Executive Committee meeting on March 16, 1988. This policy has three inseparable parts:

1. To provide resources to enable native and nonnative speakers to achieve oral and literate competence in English, the language of wider communication.
2. To support programs that assert the legitimacy of native languages and dialects and ensure that proficiency in one’s mother tongue will not be lost.
3. To foster the teaching of languages other than English so that native speakers of English can rediscover the language of their heritage or learn a second language.

Passed unanimously by both the Executive Committee and the membership at the CCCC Annual Meeting in March 1988, the National Language Policy is now the official policy of the CCCC.

Why Do We Need a National Language Policy?

Debates about declaring English the official language of the United States are centuries old. Those who established this nation opposed attempts to designate an official language in order to accommodate diverse colonizers and to maintain their declaration of freedom. However, in the nineteenth century, the government established off-reservation “boarding schools” for Native American children, forcibly removing them from their families and communities, and routinely inflicting severe abuse on Native children for speaking their languages. The explicit mission of the boarding schools was to eradicate Native cultures through forced assimilation. As a result of this U.S. educational policy, Native American languages in the United States are endangered; many are dormant.

Efforts to make English the official language surface during economic downturns or when the threat of war and/or increased immigration triggers widespread fears. During the World War I era, Nebraska passed an “English-Only” law at the height of European immigration. The most recent attempts surfaced in response to the influx of Asian and Latin American immigrants in the late twentieth century. In 1981, the late Senator S.I. Hayakawa sponsored a Constitutional amendment to make English the official language of the United States, which did not pass. In 1983, he founded “U.S. English” to promote national and statewide efforts. (Some accounts also cite John Tanton as a co-founder and driving force in that movement, which was a spinoff from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, also founded by him.) The latest federal proposal, which has been re-introduced in several sessions of Congress, is the English Language Unity Act (H.R. 997). In declaring English the official language of the U.S., this bill would remove the requirement for federal agencies to operate in languages other than English. H.R. 997 is currently before the House Judiciary Committee.

As of January 2015, twenty-eight states have declared English their sole official language. These laws declare that official government business must be conducted only in the English language; some include other restrictions, e.g., against bilingual education. Many Americans mistakenly believe that these laws give citizens the right to insist on “English-Only” everywhere. There has been an increase in the number of court cases in which parents who are not raising their child(ren) in English are threatened with loss of custody; in the re-assignment of teachers who speak accented English; and in the firing of workers who speak a language other than English on the job—including those who were hired to speak Spanish to customers and then ironically fired for speaking Spanish to each other.

Furthermore, throughout the U.S., the belief that “real” Americans speak only English has contributed to increased violence against speakers of other languages. More than 1,000 hate groups now exist in the U.S.; in 2010, the FBI reported that 67 percent of the victims of reported hate crimes were targeted because they were Latinas and Latinos.

In contrast, several states have taken stands against English language protectionism. In 1989, New Mexico, Washington, and Oregon passed “English-Plus” laws that protect the use of languages other than English and encourage the study of foreign languages. In Hawai`i and Alaska, Native languages are co-official with English, and French has special status in Louisiana.  Indigenous languages under United States occupation have a particular legal status at the federal level, in part because federally-recognized Native nations have a nation-to-nation legal relationship with the United States government. In addition, in 1990 the Native American Languages Act was signed. It includes Native Hawaiians as well as other Indigenous people of the Pacific under U.S. control.

Many civic, religious and professional organizations also have passed resolutions and issued statements opposing the English-Only movement. These include the American Civil Liberties Union, Linguistic Society of America, National Education Association, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Modern Language Association, National Council for Black Studies, American Council of Teachers of Foreign Languages, Center for Applied Linguistics, American Anthropological Association and American Psychological Association.

While the CCCC National Language Policy supports English as the language of wider communication, it protects the civil rights of speakers of all languages and language varieties, in the hope of contributing to greater linguistic, ethnic, and racial respect and justice in our multiethnic multicultural society.

What’s Wrong with English Only?

• It’s unnecessary.

  English, the global lingua franca and the language of wider communication in this country, is not threatened. For two centuries, most immigrants learned English within a generation without any laws compelling them. Current immigrants are doing the same. The 2013 American Community Survey, a national survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau every year, found that 79% of the U.S. population speaks only English at home. And the majority of the 21% that speak a language other than English at home also speak English “well” or “very well.”

• It’s dangerous and unfair.

  When we pass laws that forbid health and safety information, street signs, court trials, and marriage ceremonies in languages people can understand, we deny them legal protection and social services. Further, it can deny individuals employment opportunities. U.S. workers should not be denied employment if they speak languages other than English on the job while competently performing their job duties, especially considering that approximately 61 million people in the U.S. speak a language other than English in the home.

• It’s ineffective.

  Laws making English the official language do nothing to increase the number of English classes, nor do they teach a single person English. Instead of promoting English-Only policies, Congress needs to focus on expanding adult literacy and English as a Second Language classes nationwide, since millions of non-English speakers are eager to learn English.

• It’s educationally unsound.

  English-Only opposes bilingual and similar programs that help students build on their linguistic skills.  When students cannot use their strengths, they experience alienation and failure. Prohibiting or discouraging linguistic diversity limits rather than expands learning opportunities.

• It’s counterproductive.

  As members of the global community, we need more, not fewer speakers of different languages. It’s shortsighted, anti-immigrant, and racist to demean and destroy the competencies of multilingual people.

• It’s oppressive and dehumanizing.

  English-Only policies both reflect and promote language prejudice. This dehumanizes people and creates a hostile climate that can, in turn, promote further violence. In a recent example, police in Alabama accosted a non-English-speaking grandfather visiting from India, scoffing at his inability to speak English and manhandling him, causing the man to become partially paralyzed and involving the FBI and Embassy of India.

• It’s unconstitutional.

  The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. The Fourteenth Amendment forbids abridging the privileges and immunities of naturalized citizens. English-Only policies violate these Constitutional rights, especially when the public mistakenly believes that an official English law requires that English be spoken at all times. When Filipino hospital employees are told that they cannot speak Tagalog in the lounge, or when a college employee is told he must not speak Spanish during his lunch break, they are denied freedom of speech.

Support the National Language Policy: What You Can Do

• Strive to include all citizens of all language communities in the positive development of our daily activities.
• Teach children and others—in schools, communities, and workplaces—that language differences are opportunities to learn and benefit from each other in a global society.
• Advocate education, social services, legal services, medical services, and protective signing for linguistic minorities in their own languages so that basic human rights are preserved.
• Emphasize the importance of all Americans learning second and third languages so that we can participate more effectively in worldwide activities, unify diverse U.S. communities, and enlarge our view of what is human.
• Recognize that people learning English need time and encouragement to learn, and that their ability to prosper over the long term requires facility in the dominant American language.
• Encourage immigrants to retain their first languages, to pass them on to their children, and to celebrate the life-supporting customs of their parents in the company of other Americans of differing backgrounds.
• Remain vigilant and united to protect the civil rights of all language minorities in the United States.

Selected References

Adams, K. L., & Brink, D. T. (Eds). (1990). Perspectives on Official English: The Campaign for English as the Official Language in the USA. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Alim, H. S. (2013). “What if We Occupied Language?” IN Grusky, D. et al. (Eds.), Occupy the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pps. 222–242.

Bailey, R. (2004). American English: Its Origins and History. IN Finegan, C. & Rickford, J. (Eds.) Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pps. 3–38.

Baron, D. E. (1990). The English Only Question. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Baugh, J. (2003). “Linguistic Profiling.” IN Makoni, S., Smitherman, G., Ball, A. F., Spears, A. K. (Eds.) Black Linguistics: Language, Politics and Society in Africa and the Americas. New York & London: Routledge. pps. 155–168.

Bayley, R., & Bonnici, L. (2009). “Recent Research on Latinos in the USA & Canada, Part I: Language Maintenance and Shift and English Varieties.” Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(5), pps. 1300–1313.

Butler, M. A., chair, and the Committee on CCCC Language Statement. (1974). “Students’ Right to Their Own Language.” Special Issue of College Composition and Communication 25 (Fall): pps. 1–32.

Crawford, J. (2008). Advocating for English Learners: Selected Essays. Clevedon, UK & Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.

Crawford, J. (2008). Language Legislation in the U. S. A. Available at: http://www.languagepolicy.net

Crawford, J. (Ed.) (1992). Language Loyalties: A Source Book on the Official English Controversy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Daniels, H. A. (Ed.) (1990). Not Only English: Affirming America’s Multicultural Heritage. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Fasold, R. (2006). The Politics of Language. IN Fasold, R. W., & Connor-Linton, J. (Eds.) An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.  pps. 373–400.

Fishman, J. (2004). “Multilingualism and Non-English Mother Tongues.” IN Finegan, C. & Rickford, J. (Eds.) Language in the USA: Themes for the Twenty-first Century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pps. 116–132.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2004). Essential Linguistics: What You Need to Know to Teach Reading, ESL, Spelling, Phonics, Grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Grant, R. et al. (2007). “Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners: Critique from a

Heteroglossic, Sociocultural, and Multidimensional Framework.” Reading Research Quarterly 42(4): pps. 598–609.

Gunderson, L. (2007). English-Only Instruction and Immigrant Students in Secondary Schools: A Critical Examination. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hinton, L. et al. (2013). The Green Book of Language Revitalization in Practice. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill.

Hinton, L. (2001). How to Keep Your Language Alive: A Commonsense Approach to One-On-One Language Learning. Berkley, CA: Heyday.

Horner, B. et al. (Eds.) (2010). Cross-Language Relations in Composition. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Klug, K.  (2012). Native American Languages Act: Twenty Years Later, Has It Made a Difference?  Available at http://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/native-american-languages-act-twenty-years-later-has-it-made-difference

Kroskrity, P. et al. (2009). Native American Language Ideologies: Beliefs, Practices, and Struggles in Indian Country. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

Lomawaima, Tsianina K. et al. (2006). To Remain an Indian: Lessons in Democracy from a Century of Native American Education. New York, NY: Teachers College.

Linguistic Society of America (1996). Statement on Language Rights.  Available at http://www.linguisticsociety.org/files/lsa-stmt-language-rights.pdf

Linguistic Society of America (1987). Resolution: English Only. Available at http:www.linguisticsociety.org/resource/resolution-english-only

Lippi-Green, R. (2011). English with an Accent: Language, Ideology and Discrimination in the United States. New York & London: Routledge. 2nd Edition.

Lipski, J. (2008). Varieties of Spanish in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

Matsuda, P. K. (2006). “The Myth of Linguistic Homogeneity in U.S. College Composition.” College English, 68(6), pps. 637–651.

Mizumura, M. (2015). The Fall of Language in the Age of English. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Padilla, A. et al. (1991). “The English Only Movement: Myths, Reality, and Implications for Psychology.” American Psychologist, 46(2), pps. 120–130. Available at http://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/english-only.aspx

Pavlenko, A. (2002). “‘We Have Room for but One Language Here’: Language and National Identity in The U.S. at the Turn of The 20th Century.” Multilingua 21, pps. 163–196.

Piatt, B. (1990). Only English? Law and Language Policy in the United States. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Reyner, J. (1993). “American Indian Language Policy and School Success.” Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 12(Special Issue III), Summer pps. 35–59. Available at Teaching Indigenous Languages http://www2.nau.edu/~jar/BOISE.html

Richardson, E. (1998). “The Anti-Ebonics Movement: ‘Standard’ English Only.” Journal of English Linguistics, 26(2), pps. 156–169.

Rosa, J. D. (2012). “Contesting Representations of Immigration: Drop the I-Word Campaign from the Perspective of Linguistic Anthropology.” Anthropology News, 53(8).

Smitherman, G., & Baugh, J. (2002). “The Shot Heard from Ann Arbor: Language Research and Public Policy in African America.” Howard Journal of Communication, Jan–Mar, 2002, 13(1), pps. 5–24.

Smitherman­Donaldson, G. (1987). “Toward a National Public Policy on Language.” College English, 49.1, pps. 29–36.

Southern Poverty Law Center, 2011: 12 EL LATINO, 25 Feb. 2011.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) (2005). Position Paper on English-Only Legislation in the United States. Available at http://www/tesol.org

Teaching Indigenous Languages (list of resources/books). Available at http://www2.nau.edu/~jar/books.html

Trasvina, J. (1988). Official English/English Only: More than Meets the Eye. Prepared for the National Education Association. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Trimbur, H. (2010). “Linguistic Memory and the Uneasy Settlement of U. S. English.” IN Horner, B. et al (Eds.), Cross Language Relations in Composition. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP. pps. 21–41.

Zentella, A.C. (2014). “TWB (Talking while Bilingual): Linguistic Profiling of Latin@s, and other Linguistic Torquemadas.” LATINO STUDIES, 12 (4): pps. 620–635.

Zentella, A. C. (Ed.) 2005. Building on Strength: Language and Literacy in Latino Families and Communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/23/splc.hate.groups/index.html?_s=PM:US

http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpps/news/national/tbi-hate-crimes-against-hispanics-on-the-rise-11-15-2011_15967596#ixzzlm837P5mJ

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.

The editorial staff of several CCCC/NCTE journals and the Studies in Writing & Rhetoric book series will be holding “office hours” during the CCCC Annual Convention in Houston. Got an idea for an article or book proposal? Stop by booth #108 in the Exhibit Hall during the following times:

Thursday, 4/7

 
10:00 am–Noon: Amy Lynch-Biniek, FORUM: Issues about Part-Time and Contingent Faculty

 

 

 

 

 

Noon–1:00 pm and 3:00-4:00 pm: Steve Parks, Studies in Writing & Rhetoric book series

 

 

 

 

 

Friday, 4/8

 
12:30–3:15 pm: Holly Hassel, Teaching English in the Two-Year College

 

 

 

 

 

3:30–5:00 pm: Jonathan Alexander and Jasmine Lee, College Composition and Communication

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations on your acceptance onto the 2017 CCCC Annual Convention program!

 

To ensure your place on the program, you will need to do the following:

1. Log into the Program Proposal System and click “Accept” to accept your invitation to present. Please accept or decline your speaking role(s) by Dec. 1, 2016.

2. Check your personal information, including your affiliation, to ensure accuracy.

3. If you need to make edits to your session title or annotation, please email that information to cccc2017@ncte.org. All updates to personal information and session information need to be completed by Dec. 1, 2016.

4. Pay the appropriate convention registration fee by Dec. 31, 2016, to ensure that you are listed in the program. Click here to register online for the 2017 CCCC Convention.

 

Considerations As You Prepare

Accessibility

Regardless of session type, please prepare your presentation with accessibility in mind; for instance, bring a transcript of prepared remarks (to aid transcription and interpretive services), create materials in accessible formats (e.g., html), ensure text and images are large and easy-to-read from a distance, and include captioning for audio and video materials.

Additional Resources:

Creating Accessible Presentations by the Disability Studies SIG and the Committee on Disability Issues in College Composition

Composing Access by the Committee on Disability Issues in College Composition and the Computers & Composition Digital Press

 

Room Set-Up

All Sessions will take place in the Oregon Convention Center.  Session rooms will be equipped with:

• microphone
• LCD projector
• screen
• sound capabilities

Presenters are responsible for supplying their one laptop for device, as well as their own dongle to connect to the LCD.

 

Considerations by Session Type

Roundtable Sessions

Please keep in mind that speakers should limit their remarks to approximately 5 minutes to allow ample time for audience participation.

Individual Proposals Accepted As Constructed Panels

Please limit your total speaking time to 15 minutes per proposal to enable all panelists sufficient speaking time as well as to allow time for audience interaction.

Concurrent Sessions

Please plan to include at least 30 minutes of audience interaction or participation.

Cultivate Sessions

Please prepare your presentation with audience engagement in mind; the goal of the new Cultivate sessions is to provide a participatory space in which members can develop their capacity in particular areas.

Poster Sessions

Please design your printed poster with a viewing audience in mind, considering content and design choices that will make information clear, easy-to-follow, and accessible to viewers/readers without additional commentary.  You will have a scheduled time to present your poster to any poster session attendees, but your poster will be on display during the entire Convention.

Workshops

Workshop enrollment is typically capped at 50; all attendees must register and pay workshop registration fees in advance to be admitted. Because participation in preconvention workshops requires preregistration and additional fees, workshops should be designed in ways that maximize audience engagement and interaction and offer clear and tangible take-aways for attendees.

Conference on College Composition and Communication, November 2007, Revised March 2015

[Submitted by the CCCC Taskforce on Best Practices in Electronic Portfolios and adopted by the CCCC Executive Committee on November 19, 2007. Revised in March 2015]

Introductory Premises

Composition professionals in post-secondary institutions—composition faculty, writing program administrators, and technology staff—share concern and responsibility for helping students learn to write at a college level, using the most effective communication technologies. Disciplinary practice and research suggest that portfolio assessment has become an important part of the learning-to-write process.

In turn, electronic portfolios (e-portfolios) have become a viable institutional tool to facilitate student learning and its assessment. E-portfolios can be “web-sensible”—a thoughtfully arranged collection of multimedia-rich, interlinked, hypertextual documents that students compose, own, maintain, and archive on the Internet or in other formats. Web applications designed to support e-portfolio composition can offer additional opportunities for providing structure, guidance, and feedback to students, and can provide students with opportunities to connect selectively with multiple audiences.

E-portfolios communicate various kinds of information for the purposes of assessment. For example, e-portfolios can:

• Identify connections among academic and extra-curricular learning for admission to higher education and vocational opportunities
• Demonstrate applications of knowledge and critical literacies for course or programmatic assessment
• Provide evidence of meeting standards for professional certification
• Display qualifications for employment
• Showcase job-related accomplishments beyond schooling, for evaluation or promotion
• Represent lifelong learning for participation in public service

However, these purposes do not capture important kinds of student learning in composition courses that should carry over to writing tasks in other courses and contexts, such as students understanding different writing processes or learning styles or students setting their own goals for future learning.

As e-portfolios assume a greater role in institutional assessment, First-Year Composition (FYC) will most likely serve as the course that introduces them to students. Therefore, FYC faculty may have a particular, vested interest in identifying the principles and practices of e-portfolio development that prioritize student learning. Such principles and best practices, based on the theoretical knowledge that classroom evidence substantiates, enable composition faculty to provide students with experiences that help them expand and specialize their writing skills for a variety of cross-disciplinary programs and professional contexts beyond FYC.

Suggested Principles and Best Practices

E-portfolios develop over time, taking many forms that are unique to the missions of different programs and institutions. No list of principles and practices can describe such assessment in toto. Neither can any list suggest an ideal path of development or endpoint, because e-portfolio projects are dynamic, in-progress projects that necessarily undergo changes that are influenced by institutional exigencies and available resources.

Nonetheless, this document proposes that successful uses of e-portfolios share in common certain principles and best practices. The following suggested principles—accompanied by supportive practices in the teaching of writing—can inform the use of e-portfolios in writing programs. These principles and best practices can also inform cross-disciplinary faculty, program directors, technology staff, and university administrators, as e-portfolios are adapted on a wider institutional scale.

It may be most useful to consider these principles and practices in conjunction with the National Council of Writing Program Administrators’ “Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition,” since that document provides a sound foundation upon which successful writing instruction and assessment rests.

Principle #1: Learning Outcomes

Students are guided by clearly articulated individual, course, programmatic, or institutional outcomes in their collection, selection, reflection upon, and presentation of “artifacts” (various electronic documents) in the e-portfolio.

At the same time, students structure portfolios around their own learning goals.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Familiarize students with programmatic learning outcomes
  • Share the rubric that will be used in e-portfolio assessment
  • Provide students with models of e-portfolios that illustrate different ways of meeting programmatic outcomes and satisfying rubric criteria
  • Help students identify personal learning goals and adapt programmatic outcomes to those goals
  • Design e-portfolios that demonstrate their own learning goals in teaching
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Familiarize faculty with learning outcomes that the profession values nationally
  • Collaborate with faculty to establish local programmatic learning outcomes based on actual classroom activities and assignments
  • Collaborate with faculty in designing rubrics that consistently facilitate a valid and reliable process of measuring programmatic learning outcomes
  • Collaborate with faculty to cull various models of successful e-portfolios
  • Participate in the selection of software that will help faculty and students meet the program or course learning objectives
  • Observe protocols of permission and confidentiality in obtaining model e-portfolios for instructional purposes
  • Design e-portfolios that demonstrate their own learning goals in writing program direction
• Technology staff:
  • Maintain an archive of student and faculty e-portfolios that successfully illustrate programmatic learning outcomes in various ways
  • Make the archive easily accessible for instructional purposes
  • Collaborate with faculty and program directors to determine how technology facilitates programmatic learning outcomes
• University Administrators:
  • Encourage authentic assessment driven by locally-designed programmatic objectives and outcomes
  • Select e-portfolio platforms that best support the teaching and assessment of those locally-designed programmatic objectives and outcomes
  • Provide resources for writing programs to develop and share learning outcomes with other programs
  • Highlight how e-portfolios demonstrate student learning outcomes in annual institutional reports and accreditation cycles
  • Factor faculty and director e-portfolios in reviews for promotion and tenure

Principle #2: Digital Environments

Students develop digital literacies in composing, collaboration, and records-keeping, and consider the rhetorical implications of circulating e-portfolios to both public and private audiences.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Introduce students to the affordances of different digital media
  • Teach students to attend to web design in rhetorically effective and ethical ways, e.g., linking, choosing images, creating webpage formats
  • Discuss the ethical use of digital sources (e.g., fair use, copyright, Creative Commons licenses) and protocols for obtaining permission and documenting digital sources
  • Provide classroom experiences that allow students to practice multimodal composing
  • Encourage students to collaborate when composing and designing multimodal texts
  • Prompt student reflection and discussion on the potentials and limitations of creating e-portfolios with institution-supported e-portfolio platforms or with other outside platforms and tools
  • Facilitate critical discussions on the benefits and disadvantages of students allowing public access to their documents
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Train faculty how to create and teach e-portfolios well in advance of initial attempts to implement programmatic assessment
  • Show faculty how to implement web design for e-portfolios in easy-to-teach steps
  • Give faculty a clear rationale and explanation of how e-portfolios enhance digital learning and assessment, so faculty can explain the same to students
• Technology staff:
  • Develop and test templates for constructing e-portfolios, to assure consistencies in design, layout, and usability
  • Train technology mentors to work individually or in class with students and faculty
  • Provide ongoing, drop-in workshops and studios to support students and faculty
  • Oversee development of online manuals to assist students and faculty with the use of e-portfolio platforms
• University Administrators:
  • Establish budget lines to ensure on-campus technological support and training for students and faculty
  • Show long term commitment to e-portfolios (e.g., purchase equipment, maintain equipment replacement cycles, engage software consultants, provide central electronic sites where students may access their e-portfolios at any time from any location)

Principle #3: Virtual Identities

Students represent themselves through personalized information that conveys a web-savvy and deliberately constructed ethos for various uses of the e-portfolio. Students manage those identities by having control over artifacts and who sees them through privacy and access tools.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Facilitate critical discussions of how writers represent themselves in online resumes, profiles, etc.
  • Help students recognize what information, digital forms, and specific artifacts can best represent them as learners
  • Acquaint students with how they construct professional ethos in their own e-portfolios and how they represent themselves professionally, academically, civically, or culturally
  • Encourage students to represent their multicultural backgrounds effectively
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Acquaint faculty with any institutional policies or protocols relevant to Internet publishing, student confidentiality, and personal information
• Technology staff:
  • Set up access protocols that protect student confidentiality and control over who may read e-portfolios, allowing them selectively to deliver and circulate their work in different forms to a variety of audiences
• University Administrators:
  • Provide guidelines for maintaining student confidentiality and use of e-portfolios as an assessment tool

Principle #4: Authentic Audiences

Students engage in audience analysis of who they intend to read their e-portfolios, not only to accommodate faculty, but also employers, issuers of credentials, family, friends, and other readers. Students coordinate access to their e-portfolios with faculty, programs, the institution, and other readers.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Facilitate critical discussions of different readers’ expectations about grammatical usage and digital styles (e.g., font, layout, colors, text-image balance)
  • Teach conventions and principles of user-friendly design and functionality
  • Identify the readers who will assess students’ programmatic e-portfolios, and familiarize students with those readers’ expectations
  • Help students identify and cultivate appropriate outside readers to respond to their e-portfolios (e.g., former teachers or employers)
  • Teach rhetorical knowledge and dexterity by asking students to analyze how e-portfolios might be written and designed for different readers (e.g., program directors in their major, prospective employers, evaluators of transferable course credits)
  • Encourage students to understand that e-portfolios are dynamic, not static, collections that they will continue to change as they encounter new readers in various contexts
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Invite students to present their e-portfolios in faculty training sessions
  • Develop protocols to inform students and faculty about expectations for e-portfolio assessment (e.g., required minimal content, elements of format, reflective artifacts)
• Technology staff:
  • Design websites that showcase programmatic uses of e-portfolios for purposes of recruiting students, informing administrators, attracting employers, and educating legislators or the public (while maintaining the technology that allows students to continue to choose and change whatever artifacts are put on public display)
• University Administrators:
  • Encourage involvement of students in campus-wide workshops to acquaint cross-curricular faculty and program directors in all disciplines with various uses of e-portfolio assessment
  • Include student representation in university assessment committees
  • Provide recognition and awards for excellence in student e-portfolios

Principle #5: Reflection and E-portfolio Pedagogy

Students create “reflective artifacts” in which they identify and evaluate the different kinds of learning that their e-portfolios represent. In particular, students may explain how various forms of instructive feedback (from faculty, Writing Centers, peers, and other readers) have influenced the composition and revision of their various e-portfolio artifacts, making teaching methods and learning contexts more transparent to their readers.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Teach students different formats and forms that facilitate reflection on their learning at various stages of drafting and web-design (e.g., reflective cover letters that introduce and link readers to various artifacts; concept maps)
  • Teach students that ongoing, rigorous reflection is a crucial part of the process of creating e-portfolios that are dynamic, not static collections
  • Provide opportunities for students to give each other feedback on e-portfolio artifacts, including reflective artifacts
  • Give students clear, constructive feedback that encourages revision and offers tips for improvement in design and communication modalities
  • Encourage students to consult with Writing Center tutors or other institutional support services
  • Collaborate regularly with other faculty, technology staff, and program directors to share the most effective ways to provide feedback and teach reflection
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Acquaint faculty with exemplary e-portfolio formats and forms that show how students can effectively link reflective artifacts with their selected written work (e.g., cover letters, concept maps)
  • Collaborate with teachers to craft effective writing prompts that lead to intellectually rigorous reflective thinking
  • Give faculty feedback on their own e-portfolios and encourage them to incorporate it in their annual self-evaluations
• Technology staff:
  • Coordinate closely with writing program directors and faculty to develop technologies that can help track or display the “feedback loop” between writers and responders/evaluators
  • Keep faculty aware of new technologies that have potential for creating reflective artifacts
• University Administrators:
  • Understand reflection as a critical thinking skill that reinforces student learning outcomes and yields valuable insights about programmatic effectiveness
  • Oversee campus events that introduce or advance knowledge about reflection and e-portfolio pedagogy (e.g., invite national speakers, sponsor regional conferences)

Principle #6: Integration and Curriculum Connections

Students link artifacts in a flexible structure that (1) synthesizes diverse evidence and ideas, (2) invites linear or non-linear ways to read and evaluate e-portfolios, and (3) makes connections to portfolio-related evidence and relationships distributed across the Internet. Students may therefore use linking to represent how e-portfolio artifacts inter-relate with other courses in the larger context of whole-curriculum learning.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Encourage students to show learning outcomes by linking artifacts to earlier drafts, or even to artifacts from earlier, relevant courses
  • Encourage students to show transferability of learning outcomes by linking artifacts developed in writing courses to cross-curricular courses
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Facilitate discussions with faculty on how e-portfolios can encourage articulation among related courses (e.g., first and second-semester FYC, or FYC and advanced composition courses)
  • Collaborate with other program directors to stimulate cross-curricular articulation among courses and address shared assessment goals
• Technology staff:
  • Develop e-portfolio systems that feature compatibility with other programmatic or institutional e-portfolio systems
• University Administrators:
  • Encourage faculty, program directors, departments, and colleges to identify and agree upon where in the overall scheme of institutional accountability e-portfolios can play a well-defined, cross-curricular role in student learning and assessment
  • Embrace flexibility in software/technology to accommodate various institutional and programmatic  assessment needs
  • Endorse and provide resources for writing across the curriculum

Principle #7: Stakeholders’ Responsibilities

Students receive the necessary support from faculty, program directors, and university administrators who not only use e-portfolios for assessment purposes and program improvement, but also keep informed about what resources are essential for implementing, maintaining, and accessing e-portfolios.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Familiarize themselves with relevant theory and e-portfolio research
  • Participate in ongoing programmatic assessment of student e-portfolios
  • Use findings of e-portfolio assessment to improve approaches to teaching
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Acquaint faculty with the most relevant sources available in portfolio learning, research, and assessment
  • Set up and train a small cohort of faculty to participate in a pilot program when first implementing e-portfolios
  • Expand e-portfolio assessment gradually
  • Conduct faculty scoring of e-portfolios, involving mixes of teachers who are experienced and inexperienced with programmatic assessment
    Invite teachers to suggest ways to improve training in e-portfolios, and use findings of e-portfolio assessment to improve the program
  • Report assessment data promptly and provide university administrators with examples of actual student- and teacher-designed e-portfolios that help interpret what the data means
  • Collaborate with directors who are using e-portfolios at their own and other institutions
• Technology staff:
  • Contribute to the development of open-source software and standards that support e-portfolio implementation and maintenance
  • Adapt portfolio rubrics to electronic formats that collect and process data efficiently
• University Administrators:
  • Provide start-up funds for writing directors, technology staff, and interested teachers to engage in professional development related to e-portfolios (e.g., conferences, national workshops)
  • Use e-portfolio assessment findings to help inform further decisions about allocating resources

Principle # 8: Lifelong Learning

Students are able to adapt their e-portfolios to various purposes/ uses beyond their academic careers, enabling their various readers, in turn, to track their learning longitudinally.

Supportive best practices:

• Composition Faculty:
  • Introduce students to a range of uses for which e-portfolios are used beyond programmatic or institutional goals
  • Provide students with models of e-portfolios that have been adapted for different purposes, to show development of learning over time
  • Demonstrate how their own e-portfolios are examples of lifelong learning
• Writing Program Directors:
  • Coordinate with other program directors and university administrators to develop institutional e-portfolio systems that accommodate longitudinal tracking
• Technology staff:
  • Collaborate with other institutions and organizations, to develop e-portfolio systems that are compatible and interoperable, accommodating “open standards” so that students can easily transfer their e-portfolios to other institutions or sites
• University Administrators:
  • Collaborate with other institutions, state boards of education, and organizations that could provide space and support for e-portfolios that demonstrate lifelong learning

Current Examples

Current examples of well-conceived e-portfolio projects include:

1. Alverno Diagnostic Digital Portfolio— http://ddp.alverno.edu/
2. E-Folio Minnesota— http://efoliominnesota.com/
3. Elon University Student Portfolios—http://www.elon.edu/e-web/academics/elon_college/english/pwr/portfolios.xhtml
4. Indiana University Purdue University at Indianapolis, Institutional Portfolio— http://www.iport.iupui.edu/about/
5. John Hopkins Digital Portfolio—http://olms1.cte.jhu.edu/2845
6. Kapi’olani Community College—http://www2.hawaii.edu/~kirkpatr/kite/kiteloa/
7. La Guardia Community College— http://eportfolio.lagcc.cuny.edu/
8. Louisiana State University Communication Across the Curriculum Digital Portfolio Examples— http://sites01.lsu.edu/wp/cxc/digital-portfolio-examples/
9. Michigan State University, Professional Writing Alumni Portfolios—http://wrac.msu.edu/professional-writing/portfolio/
10. New York City College of Technology ePortfolio— http://websupport1.citytech.cuny.edu/eportfolio.html
11. Portland State University University Studies Portfolios—http://www.pdx.edu/unst/our-portfolios
12. Portfolios at Penn State—http://portfolio.psu.edu/
13. St. Olaf College Web Portfolios— http://wp.stolaf.edu/cis/individual-majors-web-portfolios/
14. University of British Columbia ePortfolios— http://elearning.ubc.ca/toolkit/eportfolios/
15. University of Denver DU Portfolio— https://portfolio.du.edu/
16. University of Washington Bothell ePortfolios http://www.uwb.edu/learningtech/elearning/eportfolios
17. Virginia Tech ePortfolio— https://atel.tlos.vt.edu/eportfolios

Interested teachers, writing program administrators, technology professionals, and university administrators interested in learning more about e-portfolio programs at particular universities should also consult the ePortfolio case studies (Section II, Chapters 23–51) in Handbook of Research on ePortfolios, edited by Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman (Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006, 248–575).

This shorter list presents examples of professional e-portfolios created by scholars and teachers in composition studies. All e-portfolios are shared with permission from the authors.??

1. Dr. Daniel Anderson, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, “LitCasting: Sharing Engagement with Literature”—http://www.teachmix.com/litcast/node/155

2. Dr. Steven J. Corbett, Visiting Assistant Professor, George Mason University, “Poetics, Rhetorics, and Relationships”—http://writing.colostate.edu/community/portfolios/portfolio.cfm?portfolioid=2870

3. Dr. Michael Day, Professor, Northern Illinois University, “Assignment for Reflective Teaching Portfolio.” http://www.engl.niu.edu/mday/600eportf.html
These sample professional portfolios were generated by teaching assistants at Northern Illinois University in response to Dr. Michael Day’s reflective teaching e-portfolio assignment:

• Jeff Gard, “Teaching Portfolio”—http://jgard2.wix.com/teaching-portfolio
• Tim Koppang, “Teach” http://www.deskandmind.com/teach/
• Andy Bero, “Teaching Portfolio”—https://sites.google.com/a/students.niu.edu/abero_engl103m28/

Bibliography

This bibliography of current sources on e-portfolios includes important research in composition studies and other disciplines:

Abrami, Philip, and Helen Barrett. “Directions for Research and Development on Electronic Portfolios.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web 5 Mar. 2015.

Acker, Stephen, and Kay Halasek. “Preparing High School Students for College-Level Writing: Using ePortfolio to Support a Successful Transition.” Journal of General Education 57.1 (2008): 1–14. Print.

Acosta, Teresa, and Youmei Liu. “ePortfolios: Beyond Assessment.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 15–23. Print.

Al Kahtani, Saad. “Electronic Portfolios in ESL Writing: An Alternative Approach.” Computer Assisted Language Learning 12.3 (1999): 261–68. Print.

Alverno College. “The Diagnostic Digital Portfolio.” Nov. 2003. Web. 1 Mar. 2015. http://www.ddp.alverno.edu/.

Anderson, Dan, Jacklyn Ngo, Sydney Stegall, and Kyle Stevens. “This is What We Did in Our Class.” CCC Online 1.1 (2012). Web. 3 Mar 2015. http://bit.ly/castinglearning.

Ash, Linda. Electronic Student Portfolios. Arlington Heights, IL: Skylight Professional Development, 2000. Print.

Avraamidou, Lucy, and Carla Zembal-Saul. “Exploring the Influence of Web-based Portfolio Development on Learning to Teach Elementary Science.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 11.3 (2003): 415–42. Print.

Bacabac, Florence Elizabeth. “Creating Professional ePortfolios in Technical Writing.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication 27.1 (2013): 91–110. Print.

Barkley, Elizabeth. “From Bach to Tupac: Using an Electronic Course Portfolio to Analyze a Curricular Transformation.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 117–23. Print.

Barrett, Helen C. “Electronic Portfolios = Multimedia Development = Portfolio Development: The Electronic Development Process.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.110–116. Print.

_____. “Researching Electronic Portfolios and Learner Engagement: The REFLECT Initiative.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 50.6 (2007): 436–49. Print.

Batson, Trent. “The Electronic Portfolio Boom: What’s it All About?” Campus Technology (Dec. 2002). Web. 1 Mar. 2015.

Bauer, William, and Robert Dunn. “Digital Reflection: The Electronic Portfolio in Music Teacher Education.” Journal of Music Teacher Education 13.1 (2003): 7–20. Print.

Beck, Robert, Nava Livne, and Sharon Bear. “Teachers’ Self-Assessment of the Effects of Formative and Summative Electronic Portfolios on Professional Development.” European Journal of Teacher Education 28.3 (2005): 221–44. Print.

Blair, Kristine L. “Digital Ideologies and Electronic Portfolios: Toward a Rhetoric of Hybridity.” Digital Tools in Composition Studies. Ed. Ollie O. Oviedo, Joyce R. Walker, and Byron Hawk. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2010. 253–70. Print.

_____. “Technological Labor and Tenure Decisions: Making a Virtual Case via Electronic Portfolios.” Labor, Writing Technologies, and the Shaping of Composition in the Academy. Ed. Pamela Takayoshi and Patricia Sullivan. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2007. 59–74. Print.

Blom, Diana, Jennifer Rowley, Dawn Bennett, Matthew Hitchcock, and Peter Dunbar-Hall. “Knowledge Sharing: Exploring Institutional Policy and Educator Practice through ePortfolios in Music and Writing.” Electronic Journal of e-Learning 12.2 (2014): 138–48. Print.

Borden, Victor. “The Role of Institutional Research and Data in Institutional Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 192–202. Print.

Brammer, Charlotte. “Eportfolios and Cognitive Storytelling: Making the Journey Personal.” Business Communication Quarterly 74.3 (2011): 352–55. Print.

Cambridge, Barbara. “Electronic Portfolios as Knowledge Builders.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 1–11. Print.

Cambridge, Barbara L., Susan Kahn, Daniel P. Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey, eds. Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. Print.

Cambridge, Darren. “Integral ePortfolio Interoperability with the IMS ePortfolio Specification.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 234–47. Print.

_____, ed. E-Portfolios and Global Diffusion: Solutions for Collaborative Education. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2012. Print.

Cambridge, Darren, Barbara Cambridge, and Kathleen Yancey. Electronic Portfolios 2.0: Emergent Research on Implementation and Impact. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2009. Print.

Campbell, Jo. “Electronic Portfolios: A Five-Year History.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 185–94. Print.

Carliner, Saul. “Commentary: Assessing the Current Status of Electronic Portfolios.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Carmean, Colleen, and Alice Christie. “ePortfolios: Constructing Meaning Across Time, Space, and Curriculum.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 33–43. Print.

Carney, Joanne. “Setting an Agenda for Electronic Portfolio Research: A Framework for Evaluating Portfolio Literature.” Presentation at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Diego, April 14, 2004. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/IT/Research/Eportfolios/AERAresearchlit.pdf.

Chalfen, Richard. “Electronic Demonstration Portfolios for Visual Anthropology Majors.” Journal of Educational Media 29.1 (2004): 37–48. Print.

Challis, Diana. “Towards the Mature ePortfolio: Some Implications for Higher Education.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Chang, Chi-Cheng. “A Study on the Evaluation and Effectiveness Analysis of Web-based Learning Portfolio.” British Journal of Educational Technology 32.4 (2001): 435–58. Print.

Chappell, David, and John Schermerhorn Jr. “Using Electronic Student Portfolios in Management Education: A Stakeholder Perspective.” Journal of Management Education 23.6 (1999): 651–62. Print.

Chen, Helen L., and Thomas Black. “Using E-Portfolios to Support an Undergraduate Learning Career: An Experiment with Academic Advising.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly Magazine 15 Dec. 2010. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

Chen, Helen, David Cannon, Jonathan Gabrio, Larry Leifer, George Toye, and Tori Bailey. “Using Wikis and Weblogs to Support Reflective Learning in an Introductory Engineering Design Course.” Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. American Society for Engineering Education, 2005. Print.

Clark, J. Elizabeth. “The Digital Imperative: Making the Case for a 21st Century Pedagogy.” Computers and Composition 27.1 (2010): 27–35. Print.

Click, Ben A., and Sarah C. Magruder. “Implementing Electronic Portfolios for Performance Assessment: A Pilot Program Involving a College Writing Center.” Assessment Update 16.4 (2004): 13–5. Print.

Cohn, Ellen, and Bernard Hibbits. “Beyond the Electronic Portfolio: A Lifetime Personal Web Space.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 27.4 (2004): 7–10. Print.

Colby, Richard. “Digital Portfolio Sensibility: An Interview with Kathleen Blake Yancey.” Computers and Composition Online. Spring 2005. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/yancey/index.htm

Condon, William, Fiona Glade, Richard Haswell, Lisa Johnson-Shull, Diane Kelly-Riley, Galen Leonhardy, Jennie Nelson, Susan McLeod, and Susan Wyche. “Whither? Some Questions, Some Answers.” Beyond Outcomes: Assessment and Instruction Within a University Writing Program. Ed. Richard Haswell. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing, 2001. 191–205. Print.

Corwin, Terry. “Electronic Portfolios.” Campus-Wide Publications 20.1 (Jan. 2003): 32–8. Print.

Crandall, Bryan Ripley. “Senior Boards: Multimedia Presentations from Yearlong Research and Community-Based Culminating Projects.” Teaching the New Writing: Technology, Change, and Assessment in the 21st Century. Ed. Anne Herrington, Kevin Hodgson, Charles Moran, and Elyse Eidman-Aadahl. New York: Teachers College Press, 2009. 107–23. Print.

Dagley, Valerie, and Bob Berrington. “Learning from an Evaluation of an Electronic Portfolio to Support General Practitioners’ Personal Development Planning, Appraisal, and Revalidation.” Education for Primary Care 16.5 (Sept. 2005): 567–74. Print.

Desmet, Christy, Deborah Church Miller, June Griffin, Ron Balthazor, and Robert E. Cummings. “Reflection, Revision, and Assessment in First-Year Composition ePortfolios.” Journal of General Education 57.1 (2008): 15–30. Print.

DiMarco, John. Portfolio Design and Applications. Hershey, PA: Idea Group, 2006. Print.

Dorn, Dean. “Electronic Department Portfolios: A New Tool for Department Learning and Improvement.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 203–8. Print.

Dornan, Tim, Carmen Carroll, and John Parboosingh. “An Electronic Learning Portfolio for Reflective Continuing Professional Development.” Medical Education 36.8 (2002): 767–69. Print.

Ehrmann, Stephen C. “Electronic Portfolio Initiatives: A Flashlight Guide to Planning and Formative Evaluation.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 180–93. Print.

Ellertson, Anthony. “Information Appliances and Electronic Portfolios: Rearticulating the Institutional Author.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 10.1 (2005). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Feng, Franc. “Toward a Framework/Data Model: From ePortfolio Thinking to Folio Culture.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 217–33. Print.

Fischer, Kathleen M. “Down the Yellow-Chip Road: Hypertext Portfolios in Oz.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 169–83. Print.

Flanigan, Eleanor J., and Susan Amirian. “ePortfolios: Pathway from Classroom to Career.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 102–11. Print.

Forbes, Cheryl. “Cowriting, Overwriting, and Overriding in Portfolio Land Online.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 195–205. Print.

Gathercoal, Paul, Douglas Love, Beverly Bryde, and Gerry McKean. “On Implementing Web-Based Electronic Portfolios.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 2 (2002): 29–37. Print.

Getis, Victoria, Catherine Gynn, and Susan E. Metros. “New Partnerships: Engaging Undergraduates in Research through Technology.” EDUCAUSE. 2006. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Gibson, David. “ePortfolio Decisions and Dilemmas.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 135–45. Print.

Grant, Simon, Adam Marshall, Janet Strivens, and Roger Clark. “Development Issues for PDP with ePortfolios: Web Services and Skills.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 146–57.

Graves, Nikki, and Molly Epstein. “Eportfolio: A Tool for Constructing a Narrative Professional Identity.” Business Communication Quarterly 74.3 (2011): 342–46. Print.

Greenberg, Gary. “Extending the Portfolio Model.” Educause Review (July/Aug. 2004): 28–36. Print.

Hamilton, Sharon. “Snakepit in Cyberspace: The IUPUI Institutional Portfolio.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.159–177. Print.

Hamp-Lyons, Liz, and William Condon. Assessing the Portfolio: Principles for Practice, Theory, and Research. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 2000. Print.

Hartnell-Young, Elizabeth. “ePortfolios for Knowledge and Learning.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 125–34. Print.

Hawisher, Gail E., and Cynthia L. Selfe. “Wedding the Technologies of Writing Portfolios and Computers: The Challenges of Electronic Classrooms.” Eds. Kathleen Blake Yancey and Irwin Weiser. Situating Portfolios: Four Perspectives. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 1997. 305–21. Print.

Henry, Ronald J. “ePortfolio Thinking: A Provost Perspective.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 54–61. Print.

Herner, Leah, Silva Karayan, Gerry McKean, and Douglas Love. “Special Education Teacher Preparation and the Electronic Portfolio.” Journal of Special Education Technology 18.1 (2003): 44–49. Print.

Hicks, Troy, Anne Russo, Tara Autrey, Rebecca Gardner, Aram Kabodian, and Cathy Edington. “Rethinking the Purposes and Processes for Designing Digital Portfolios.” Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 50.6 (2007): 450–58. Print.

Howard, Rebecca M. “Memoranda to Myself: Maxims for the Online Portfolio.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 155–67. Print.

Hult, Christine. “Using On-line Portfolios to Assess English Majors at Utah State University.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 60–70. Print.

Huot, Brian. “Computers and Assessment: Understanding Two Technologies.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 231–43. Print.

Irvin, Lennie. “Reflection in the Electronic Writing Classroom.” Computers and Composition Online. 2005. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/irvin/Introduction.htm

Jafari, Ali. The ‘Sticky’ ePortfolio System: Tackling Challenges and Identifying Attributes.” EDUCAUSE Review (July/Aug. 2004): 38–48. Print.

Jafari, Ali, and Catherine Kaufman. Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. Print.

Johnson, Carol Siri. “The Analytic Assessment of Online Portfolios in Undergraduate Technical Communication: A Model.” Journal of Engineering Education 95.4 (2006): 279–87. Print.

Johnson, Glenn, and David DiBiase. “Keeping the Horse Before the Cart: Penn State’s E-Portfolio Initiative.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 4 (2004): 18–26. Print.

Kahn, Susan. “Linking Learning, Improvement, and Accountability: An Introduction to Electronic Institutional Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.135–58. Print.

_____. “Recommendations.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 217. Print.

Kaplan, Matthew. Using Reflection and Metacognition to Improve Student Learning: Across the Disciplines, Across the Academy. Sterling, VA: Stylus, 2013. Print.

Kelly, T. Mills. “Wired for Trouble? Creating a Hypermedia Course Portfolio.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.124–29. Print.

Ketcheson, Kathi. “Portland State University’s Electronic Institutional Portfolio: Strategy, Planning, and Assessment.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001.178–91. Print.

_____. “Hands and Minds: Collaboration among Faculty and Institutional Researchers in Portland State University’s Portfolio Project.” Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 13.3 (2002): 22–9. Print.

Kim, Paul. “Perspectives on a Visual Map-Based Electronic Portfolio System.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 44–53. Print.

Kimball, Miles. “Database E-Portfolio Systems: A Critical Appraisal.” Computers and Composition. 22.4 (2005): 434–58. Print.

_____. The Web Portfolio Guide: Creating Electronic Portfolios for the Web. NY: Longman, 2003. Print.

Klages, Marisa A., and J. Elizabeth Clark. “New Worlds of Errors and Expectations: Basic Writers and Digital Assumptions.” Journal of Basic Writing 28.1 (2009): 32–49. Print.

Knadler, Stephen. “E-Racing Difference in E-Space: Black Female Subjectivity and the Web-Based Portfolio.” Computers and Composition 18.3 (2001): 235–55. Print.

Kryder, LeeAnne. “Eportfolios: Proving Competency and Building a Network.” Business Communication Quarterly 74.3 (2011): 333–41. Print.

Lorenzo, George, and John C. Ittelson. “An Overview of E-Portfolios.” EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. 1 Jan. 2005. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

_____. “An Overview of Institutional E-Portfolios.” EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. 1 Jan. 2005. Web. 6 Mar. 2015.

_____. “Demonstrating and Assessing Student Learning with E-Portfolios.” EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative. 2005. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Love, Douglas, Gerry McKean, and Paul Gathercoal. “Portfolios to Webfolios and Beyond: Levels of Maturation. EDUCAUSE Quarterly 2 (2004): 24–37. Print.

Lynch, Linda, and Pupung Purnawarman. “Electronic Portfolio Assessments In U.S. Educational and Instructional Technology Programs: Are They Supporting Teacher Education?” TechTrends 48 (2004): 50–56. Print.

Marcoul-Burlinson, Isabelle. “ePortfolio: Constructing Learning.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 168–79. Print.

Mason, Robin, Chris Pegler, and Martin Weller. “E-Portfolios: An Assessment Tool for Online Courses.” British Journal of Educational Technology 35.6 (Nov. 2004): 717–27. Print.

Mayers, Tim. “From Page to Screen (And Back): Portfolios, Daedalus, and the ‘Transitional Classroom.’”Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 147–54. Print.

McIntire-Strasburg, Janice. “The Flash or the Trash: Web Portfolios and Writing Assessment.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 6.2 (2001). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

McKee, Heidi A., and Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, eds. Digital Writing: Assessment and Evaluation. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press, 2013. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Milman, Natalie B., and Clare R. Kilbane. “Digital Teaching Portfolios: Catalysts for Fostering Authentic Professional Development.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Mullen, Laurie, William Bauer, and W. Webster Newbold. “Developing a University-Wide Electronic Portfolio System for Teacher Education.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 6.2 (2001). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

National Writing Project, with Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, Elese Eidman-Aadahl, and Troy Hicks. Because Digital Writing Matters: Improving Student Writing in Online and Multimedia Environments. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2010. Print.

O’Brien, Kathleen. “ePortfolios as Learning Construction Zones: Provost’s Perspective.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 74–82. Print.

Olds, Barbara M. and Ronald L. Miller. “Portfolio Assessment: Measuring Moving Targets at an Engineering School.” NCA Quarterly 71.4 (1997): 462–67. Print.

Pelliccione, Lina and Glenda Raison. “Promoting the Scholarship of Teaching Through Reflective E-Portfolios in Teacher Education.” Journal of Education for Teaching 35.3 (2009): 271–81. Print.

Peters, Martine, Jacques Chevrier, Raymond Leblanc, Gilles Fortin, and Judith Malette. Compétence réflexive, carte conceptuelle et webfolio à la formation des maîtres.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Plaisir, Jean, Alyse Hachey, and Rachel Theilheimer. “Their Portfolios, Our Role: Examining a Community College Teacher Education Digital Portfolio Program from the Students’ Perspective.” Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 32.2 (2011): 159–75. Print.

Plater, William M. “The Promise of the Student Electronic Portfolio: A Provost’s Perspective.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 62–73. Print.

Pullman, George. “Electronic Portfolios Revisited: The eFolios Project.” Computers and Composition 19.2 (2002): 151–69. Print.

Purves, Alan C. “Electronic Portfolios.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 135–46. Print.

Reiss, Donna. “Reflective Webfolios in a Humanities Course.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 31-36. Print.

Rice, Richard. “Composing the Intranet-Based Electronic Portfolio Using ‘Common’ Tools.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 37–43. Print.

_____. Rev. of The Web Portfolio Guide: Creating Electronic Portfolios for the Web, by Miles A. Kimball. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 7.3 (2002). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

_____. Teaching and Learning First-Year Composition with Digital Portfolios. Diss. Ball State University, 2002. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://richrice.com/dissertation.pdf

Ryan, Tricia. “A Portrait of Academic Life: Creating an Outline Research Portfolio.” TechTrends 46.4 (2002): 44–48. Print.

Sandars, John. “Commentary: Electronic Portfolios for General Practitioners: The Beginning of an Exciting Future.” Education for Primary Care 16.5 (2005): 535–39. Print.

Selber, Stuart. “Institutional Dimensions of Academic Computing.” College Composition and Communication 61.1 (2009): 10–34. Print.

Shafrir, Uri, Masha Etkind, and Jutta Treviranus. “eLearning Tools for ePortfolios.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 206–16. Print.

Sherman, Greg. “Instructional Roles of Electronic Portfolios.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 1–14. Print.

Sherman, Greg, and Al Byers. “Electronic Portfolios in the Professional Development of Educators.” Adaptation, Resistance and Access to Instructional Technologies: Assessing Future Trends in Education. Ed. Steven D’Agustino. Hershey, PA:  IGI Global, 2010. 429–449. Print.

Smits, Han, HsingChi Wang, Jo Towers, Susan Crichton, Jim Field, and Pat Tarr. “Deepening Understanding of Inquiry Teaching and Learning with E-Portfolios in a Teacher Preparation Program.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Springfield, Emily. “A Major Redesign of the Kalamazoo Portfolio.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 53–59. Print.

_____. “Comparing Electronic and Paper Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 76–82. Print.

Stevenson, Heidi J. “Using ePortfolios to Foster Peer Assessment, Critical Thinking, and Collaboration.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 112–24. Print.

Sunal, Cynthia, Theresa McCormick, and Dennis Sunal. “Elementary Teacher Candidates’ Construction of Criteria for Selecting Social Studies Lesson Plans for Electronic Portfolios.” Journal of Social Studies Research 29.1 (2005): 7–17. Print.

Syverson, M.A. “Beyond Portfolios: The Learning Record Online.” 7 Jan. 2003. Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www.learningrecord.org/

Takayoshi, Pamela. “The Shape of Electronic Writing: Evaluating and Assessing Computer-Assisted Writing Processes and Products.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 245–57. Print.

Tetreault, Mary Kathryn, and Kathi A. Ketcheson. “Creating a Shared Understanding of Institutional Knowledge through an Electronic Institutional Portfolio.” Metropolitan Universities: An International Forum 13.3 (2002): 40–49. Print.

Tompkins, Daniel. “Ambassadors with Portfolios: Electronic Portfolios and the Improvement of Teaching.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 91–105. Print.

_____. “Ambassadors with Portfolios: Recommendations.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 130–31. Print.

Tosh, David, Tracy Penny Light, Kele Fleming, and Jeff Haywood. “Engagement with Electronic Portfolios: Challenges from the Student Perspective.” Canadian Journal of Learning & Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Tosh, David, and Ben Werdmuller. “Creation of a Learning Landscape: Weblogging and Social Networking in the Context of E-Portfolios.” Working paper. 15 July 2004. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Tosh, David, Ben Werdmuller, Helen L. Chen, Tracy Penny Light, and Jeff Haywood. “The Learning Landscape: A Conceptual Framework for ePortfolios.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. A. Jafari and C.W. Kaufman Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 24–32.

Treuer, Paul, and Jill Jenson. “Electronic Portfolios Need Standards to Thrive.” EDUCAUSE Quarterly 2 (2003): 34–42. Print.

Tulley, Christine. “Migration Patterns: A Status Report on the Transition from Paper to Eportfolios and the Effect on Multimodal Composition Initiatives.” Computers and Composition 30.2 (2013): 101–14. Print.

van Wesel, Maarten, and Anouk Prop. “The Influence of Portfolio Media on Student Perceptions and Learning Outcomes.” Symposium on Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-LEARNING overcome barriers of Life-Long learning? Masstrict, The Netherlands. 19–20 Nov. 2008. Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Wade, Anne, Phillip Abrami, and Jennifer Sclater. “An Electronic Portfolio to Support Learning.” Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology 31.3 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Wall, Beverly C., and Robert F. Peltier. “‘Going Public’ with Electronic Portfolios: Audience, Community, and the Terms of Student Ownership.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 207–17. Print.

Walz, Phil. “An Overview of Student ePortfolio Functions.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 194–205. Print.

Watson, Steve. “World Wide Web Authoring in the Portfolio-Assessed, (Inter)Networked Composition Course.” Computers and Composition 10.2 (1996): 219–30. Print.

Werner, Courtney. “Dear Professor X: This is Not My Best Work. Multimodal Composition Meets e-Portfolio.” Computers and Composition Online (2013). Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/WernerPortfolios/HomePort.html

Wexler, Judie. “The Role of Institutional Portfolios in the Revised WASC Accreditation Process.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 209–16. Print.

Williams, Julia M. “Evaluating What Students Know: Using the RosE Portfolio System for Institutional and Program Outcomes Assessment Tutorial.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 53.1 (2010): 46–57. Print.

Wills, Katherine V., and Richard Aaron Rice. ePortfolio Performance Support Systems: Constructing, Presenting, and Assessing Portfolios. Anderson, SC: Parlor Press, 2013. Print.

Whithaus, Carl. “A Review of Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 7.1 (Spring 2002). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

_____. “Green Squiggly Lines: Evaluating Student Writing in Computer Mediated Environments.” Academic.Writing: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Writing Across the Curriculum (2002). Web. 4 Mar. 2015. http://wac.colostate.edu/aw/articles/whithaus2002/.

Whithaus, Carl, and Mary Beth Lakin. “Working (on) Electronic Portfolios: Connections between Work and Study.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 9.2 (2005). Web. 5 Mar. 2015.

Wilferth, Joseph. “Private Literacies, Popular Culture, and Going Public: Teachers and Students as Authors of the Electronic Portfolio.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 7.2 (Summer 2002). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Wilson, Elizabeth, Vivian Wright, and Joyce Stallworth. “Secondary Preservice Teachers’ Development of Electronic Portfolios: An Examination of Perceptions.” Journal of Technology and Teacher Education 11.4 (2003): 515–27. Print.

Worley, Rebecca B. “Eportfolios Examined: Tools for Exhibit and Evaluation.” Business Communication Quarterly 74.3 (2011): 330–32. Print.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. “Digitalized Student Portfolios.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 15–30. Print.

_____. “Electronic Portfolios and Writing Assessment: A Work in Progress.” Assessment in Writing (Assessment in the Disciplines, Vol. 4). Ed. Marie C. Paretti and Katrina M. Powell. Tallahassee, TN: Association of Institutional Researchers, 2009. 182–206. Print.

_____. “General Patterns and the Future.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 83–87. Print.

_____. “Portfolio, Electronic, and the Links Between.” Computers and Composition 13.2 (1996): 129–33. Print.

_____. “Postmodernism, Palimpsest, and Portfolios: Theoretical Issues in the Representation of Student Work.” College Composition and Communication. 55.4 (2004): 738–61. Print.

_____. “The Rhetorical Situation of Writing Assessment: Exigence, Location, and the Making of Knowledge.” Writing Assessment in the 21st Century: Essays in Honor of Edward M. White. Ed. Norbert Elliot and Les Perelman. New York: Hampton Press, 2012. 475–92. Print.

Young, Jeffrey. “Creating Online Portfolios Can Help Students See ‘Big Picture,’ Colleges Say.” The Chronicle of Higher Education 21 Feb. 2002. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Zalatan, Katrina. “Electronic Portfolios in a Management Major Curriculum.” Electronic Portfolios: Emerging Practices in Student, Faculty, and Institutional Learning. Ed. Barbara Cambridge, Susan Kahn, Daniel Tompkins, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. Washington, DC: American Association of Higher Education, 2001. 44–52. Print.

Zembal-Saul, Carle, Leigh Haefner, Lucy Avraamidou, Mary Severs, and Tom Dana. “Web-Based Portfolios: A Vehicle for Examining Prospective Elementary Teachers’ Developing Understandings of Teaching Science.” Journal of Science Teacher Education 13.4 (2002): 283–302. Print.

Zubizarreta, John. The Learning Portfolio: Reflective Practice for Improving Student Learning. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2009. Print.

Some Relevant Sources on Reflection

Blackburn, Jessica L., and Milton D. Hakel. “Enhancing Self-Regulation and Goal Orientation with ePortfolios.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 83–89. Print.

Brookfield, Stephen. Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995. Print.

Doig, Bob, Barbara Illsley, Joseph McLuckie, and Richard Parsons. “Using ePortfolios to Enhance Reflective Learning and Development.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 158–67. Print.

Granville, Stella, and Laura Dison. “Making Connections Through Reflection: Writing and Feedback in an Academic Literacy Programme.” Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 27.1 (2009): 53–63. Print.

Journet, Debra, Tabetha Adkins, Chris Alexander, Patrick Corbett, Ryan Trauman. “Digital Mirrors: Multimodal Reflection in the Composition Classroom.” Computers and Composition Online (Spring 2008). Web. 5 Mar. 2015. http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/ed_welcome/spring2008.html

Jung, Julie. “Reflective Writing’s Synecdochic Imperative: Process Descriptions Redescribed.” College English 73.6 (2011): 628–47. Print.

Mills, Roxanne. “‘It’s Just a Nuisance’: Improving College Student Reflective Journal Writing.” College Student Journal 42.2 (2008): 684–90. Print.

Riedinger, Bonnie. “Mining for Meaning: Teaching Students How to Reflect.” Handbook of Research on ePortfolios. Eds. Ali Jafari and Catherine Kaufman. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2006. 90–101. Print.

Robertson, Liane, Kara Taczak, and Kathleen Blake Yancey. “Notes toward a Theory of Prior Knowledge and Its Role in College Composers’ Transfer of Knowledge and Practice.” Composition Forum 26 (Fall 2012). Web. 4 Mar. 2015.

Rodgers, Carol. “Defining Reflection: Another Look at John Dewey and Reflective Thinking.” Teachers College Record 104.4 (2002): 842–66. Print.

Schon, Donald. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1987. Print.

_____. “Causality and Causal Inference in the Study of Organizations.” Rethinking Knowledge: Reflections Across the Disciplines. Ed. Robert Goodman and Walter Fisher. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995. 69–103. Print.

Scott, Tony. “Creating the Subject of Portfolios: Reflective Writing and the Conveyance of Institutional Prerogatives.” Written Communication 22.1 (2005): 3–35. Print.

Yancey, Kathleen. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1998. Print.

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.

CCCC Convention Siting and Hostile Legislation: Guiding Principles (November 2013, revised March 2019)

2025

April 9–12, 2025, Baltimore, MD
“Computer Love”: Extended Play, B-sides, Remix, Collaboration, and Creativity

2026

March 4–7, 2026, Cleveland, OH

2027

April 14–17, 2027, Milwaukee, WI

To encourage and support local outreach during CCCC conventions, three Standing Groups have received funding from CCCC to host local outreach activities during the 2018 CCCC Annual Convention in Kansas City Please see the details of these events below.

W.11 – Isolated Languages and Out of Sync Labors: A Transformative Exchange between Military and Civilian Higher Education Faculty at the Army Command and General Staff College in Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 – 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m.

The US military and higher education have a long history of deeply influencing each other. The end of World War II and the first GI Bill drove innovation and change across higher education, and led to a significant transformation of composition praxis and pedagogy. The social unrest of the 1960s and ‘70s caused a schism between the two institutions. One byproduct of this schism was the isolating of Professional Military Education (PME) from higher education. (The term PME describes the entirety of the military education and training system that includes vocational training, undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate instruction.) This division hobbled collaborative research and limited exchanges between the two academic communities, butmost important,it constrained opportunities to prepare students for transitioning into or out of the military. Just as the aftermath of World War II and the GI Bill triggered an influx of students into higher education, however, the 9/11 attacks, conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and post-9/11 GI Bill have renewed an interest in working with student veterans and students on active duty. Faculty in higher education and PME have begun to reexamine their areas of mutual interest and initiate the building of institutional relationships reflective of the vital role both higher education and PME play in shaping students and national culture.

This workshop aims to facilitate and hasten the transformative development of more systematic relationships between civilian specialists in writing studies and PME faculty by promoting an immersive exchange. The leadership of the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) has agreed to host the workshop and believes that the immersion of workshop participants in an academic military environment willpresent opportunities to find deeper, mutual connections, and allow participants of 4C18 to gain a more complete understanding of the goals and practices of the PME system. The need for this understanding is particularly urgent, given that most specialists in writing studies have little knowledge of, and even less access to, the PME system and its stakeholders despite a rise in students aspiring to join the military or veterans matriculating into civilian higher education. This workshop will serve as the initial scaffolding for greater future interaction and collaborative research by civilian specialists in writing sudies and PME faculty.

Visit the CCCC all-day workshop descriptions for further details. You can register for this workshop online via the CCCC Convention registration form.

 

Activist or Educator: Rethinking the Transformative Potential of Education in Prison
Wednesday, March 14, 2018 – 3:30-5:30 p.m.
Teaching in Prison: Pedagogy, Research, and Literacies Collective, a CCCC Standing Group, will facilitate a symposium at a Kansas City correctional facility with Leigh Lynch, executive director of Arts in Prison. Arts in Prison provides opportunities for inmates to prove that they are more than the sum of their crimes. By providing arts education and experiences—including a wide range of writing and literacy based activities—for inmates in Kansas state prisons and detention centers, these members of society, who have been locked away and often forgotten, are given a chance for self-reflection and an opportunity to create a range of writing for themselves and the public.

Approximately 5-6 Standing Group members will join Lynch and students in the Arts in Prison writing and poetry program for a dialogical symposium/workshop on the power of writing to build connections between writers behind bars and communities on the outside.
 
The goal is to create a space for incarcerated students to share and discuss their work. Students’ work will be  featured on the CCCC Standing Group’s website, Prison Writing Networks. Such publications can be useful to educators and activists in cultivating connections both inside and outside of prison and might also prove useful in college classrooms as well as in secondary schools.
 
Each of the incarcerated students who participates in the workshop will receive books and writing materials.

 

Writing with Current, Former, and Future Members of the Military and Caregivers on the Homefront Workshop
Saturday, March 17, 2018  – 5:30-8:30 p.m. – The Kansas City, MO Police Academy

 

Members of the Writing with Current, Former, and Future Members of the Military, a CCCC Standing Group, will work with a nonprofit in Kansas City, Missouri, Caregivers on the Homefront, to offer a three-hour workshop for 20 military, veteran, and first responder caregivers focusing on building individual capacity for storytelling with applications to five areas:

 

• Admittance and scholarship essays/interviews for postsecondary or graduate programs;
• Employment cover letters and interviews;
• Media, fundraising, resources;
• Grant writing; and
• Blogs, vlogs, and social media.

Nearly 5.5 million people in the United States care for an injured, ill, or disabled military service member or veteran, and no study has calculated the number of those caring for injured, ill, or disabled first responders (Ramchand et al., 2014). Caregivers provide daily living support for care recipients, often in sacrifice of their own goals. Caregivers face distinct challenges in their pursuit of a postsecondary education, suitable employment, and adequate health care. Additionally, many caregivers suffer from caregiver fatigue and elevated stress levels, and they frequently lack supportive social and employment networks (Ramchand et al., 2014). To combat these concerns, most caregivers rely on the services and programs of veteran and caregiver nonprofit organizations. As they seek out resources or employment, caregivers face the daunting task of telling potential employers, media outlets, higher education administrators, or even the public their stories. The work of a caregiver is difficult, isolating, stressful, and nearly indescribable to those who haven’t experience it; however, caregivers can learn to leverage their stories to reach their goals.

Caregivers on the Homefront is a nonprofit organization founded by Shawn Moore (a military caregiver, Elizabeth Dole Foundation fellow, and Kansas City police officer) and her husband, Bryan Moore – an Army veteran. Uniquely, the organization brings together veteran and first responder caregivers. Caregivers on the Homefront is one of the few nonprofit organizations to support veteran families from any military service era.

CCCC has developed position statements on a variety of education issues vital to the teaching and learning of writing.  Characteristically, a position statement is a short summary of what is currently known about an issue and the organizational beliefs about that issue.  Generally, in addition, the statements include the history and background of the issue, the exigency for the statement, supporting information, and a short reference list.  Statements also often include implied suggestions for putting recommendations to practice.

Position statements result from the work of a CCCC Executive Committee- commissioned task force that researches a proposed issue, drafts and revises a position statement, and presents the revised position statement to the Executive Committee for its approval in order to represent the organization at large.

Because policy statements are documents of the entire CCCC organization, they cannot be originated by one individual. CCCC member groups who have an issue about which they would like to propose a statement should first check with the CCCC Chair or Administrative Liaison for suggestions, support, and information about whether the issue is already addressed elsewhere (NCTE position statements, for example).

Issues that are addressed by position statements come to the forefront of CCCC concern in a variety of ways:

1. A position can stem from a resolution or sense of the house motion passed at an Annual Business Meeting.
2. A position could be the result of a Strategic Governance motion passed by the CCCC EC (i.e. they’ve researched an issue for a year and decided CCCC’s best course of action is a position statement on that issue).
3. A position could come out of an already existing committee that suggests the need for a statement to the CCCC EC.  
4. A position could be written if there is a feeling among the Officers and/or the EC that there is some exigency for such a statement.  An example of this is the Statement on the Multiple Uses of Writing.  Sometimes the exigency is presented to an Officer or EC member by a CCCC member, an NCTE staff member, or simply through the natural course of information sharing within the organization.

Return to the main CCCC Position Statement page.

by the Conference on College Composition and Communication
(May 1998, revised May 2016, revised June 2021)

The Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC), composed of 5,100 scholars who teach at colleges and universities across the nation, is deeply committed to the development of literacy for all students. The “Students’ Right to Their Own Language” resolution and the “National Language Policy,” passed by CCCC in 1974 and 1988 respectively, continue to be strong organizational statements for appropriate pedagogies to ensure that all students are afforded the same opportunities to realize their potential as learners and citizens. Given continuing myths and misconceptions in the media and in the nation’s schools about the language many African American students use, the public deserves a statement reflective of the viewpoints of language and literacy scholars on Ebonics.

Ebonics is a superordinate term for a category of Black Language forms that derive from common historical, social, cultural, and material conditions. It refers to language forms such as African American Language, Jamaican Creole, Gullah Creole, West African Pidgin English, and Haitian Creole, as well as Afro-Euro language varieties spoken in European countries. The term “Ebonics” was created by Black psychologist Dr. Robert Williams in 1973 to identify the various languages created by Africans forced to adapt to colonization and enslavement (Williams, 1975).

The variety of Ebonics spoken by African Americans in the United States—known as Black English Vernacular, African American English, U. S. Ebonics, African American Language, among other names—reflects a distinctive language system that many African American students use in daily conversation and in the performance of academic tasks. Like every other linguistic system, the Ebonics of African American students is systematic and rule governed, and it is not an obstacle to learning. The obstacle lies in negative attitudes toward the language, lack of information about the language, inefficient techniques for teaching language and literacy skills, and an unwillingness to adapt teaching styles to the needs of Ebonics speakers.

Brief, Selective Historical Walk through Ebonics

We offer the following summary for readers interested in the issue of U. S. Ebonics over the centuries, including attendant language education issues. In 1554, William Towerson, an Englishman, took five Africans to England to learn English and serve as interpreters in the slave trade and in Britain’s colonization campaign on the west coast of Africa. Three of them returned to the African Gold Coast in 1557. “It is reasonable to accept this as the date from which the African use of English began” (Dalby, 1970, pp. 11–12). During the centuries of enslavement and colonization, “Negro English” (and other Ebonic language forms) was primarily of interest to historians and folklore scholars, the former principally concerned with the linguistic origins of the language (e.g., Harrison, 1884; Krapp, 1924; Mencken, 1936), the latter with what was perceived as its exotic appeal (e.g., Bennett, 1909; Gonzales, 1922). Although these early scholars acknowledged the African language origin of the U. S. variety of Ebonics, most considered the Africanness pathological, inferior, and “baby talk” (Harrison). Gullah Blacks were considered “slovenly and careless of speech” with “clumsy tongues, flat noses and thick lips” (Gonzales). A critical exception in the early twentieth century was Black linguist Lorenzo Dow Turner, born in North Carolina in 1895. Turner’s lifelong study of the Gullah language was motivated by a chance encounter with two Gullah women students in his class at South Carolina State College in Orangesburg (Holloway and Vass, “Lorenzo Dow Turner: A Biographical Dedication,” 1993, p. ix).  Believed to be the first U. S. Black linguist, Turner mastered several African languages to help him in his quest to uncover the origin and system of Gullah and other varieties of U. S. Ebonics. His decades of research on Ebonics, which included making his own phonograph recordings of speech in Gullah communities, was published in his Africanisms in the Gullah Dialect in 1949. Countering the “baby talk” and intellectual inferiority myths about Black Language and its speakers, he described linguistic processes such as sound substitutions of Africanizing English, which resulted under conditions of foreign language acquisition and the experience of enslavement and neo-enslavement. He thus demonstrated the African language background of Gullah and its connection to other varieties of U. S. Ebonics.

The legacy of Beryl Bailey, believed to be the first Black woman linguist, is critical to this twentieth-century historical account of Ebonics. Bailey was the first linguist to apply Chomsky’s new syntactic theory paradigm (known in those years as “Transformational-Generative Grammar”) to an analysis of Ebonics, in this case to her native Jamaican Creole. She published her work in Jamaican Creole Syntax: A Transformational Approach in 1966. Professor and Chair in the Black and Puerto Rican Studies Department at Hunter College in New York, Bailey theorized and was beginning to validate the conception of a Black linguistic continuum from the Caribbean to the United States (“Toward a New Perspective in Negro English Dialectology,” 1965). However, this line of research was cut short by her untimely death.

In Colonial America and after 1776 in the United States of America, there was no concern about the denial of education to Africans. Education was not essential to the performance of slave labor; in fact, there were laws making it illegal to teach the enslaved to read and write. Then, in the post-Emancipation era, Jim Crow emerged and with it the establishment of “separate but equal” education. Hence, the relationship between U. S. Ebonics and the education of U. S. slave descendants only began to be addressed in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board of Education, and the subsequent push for school desegregation and equality of education for African Americans. Further, it was not until the emergence of the Black Freedom Struggle of this era that White scholars began to publish scientific, linguistic studies of the rule-governed system of U. S. Ebonics (e.g., Stewart, 1967; Dillard, 1967; Labov, 1970).

The pedagogical issue in the latter half of the twentieth century and continuing into this second decade of the twenty-first century continues to be how to achieve maximum language and literacy skills for African American students who use U. S. Ebonics, in speech and in writing, and in and outside of the classroom—and at the same time, enhance their sociocultural, intellectual self-esteem and community rootedness. This challenge was addressed in the King v. Ann Arbor federal court case (1977–79) and in the Oakland, California School Board’s Ebonics Resolution (1996), available here: https://www.linguistlist.org/topics/ebonics/ebonics-res1.html.

From King v. Ann Arbor to the Oakland Ebonics Resolution

The King ruling established the legitimacy of African American Language/ “Black English” within a legal framework and mandated the Ann Arbor School District to take “appropriate action” to teach the Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary school children to read in the [standardized English] of the school, the commercial world, the arts, science, and the professions.”

—Smitherman, 2006, p.12

The parents of the children in the Martin Luther King Jr. Elementary School who brought a federal lawsuit against the Ann Arbor School District were a small group of single female heads of households. While there were some other Black children at King School, they were middle class, like the White children at King School. The children from the Green Road housing project, being both Black and poor, were thus a minority within a minority at King School. Their U.S. Ebonics presented a variety of English that King School teachers had negative attitudes toward, and these teachers had not been trained to teach the “three R’s”—and reading was crucial for the mothers of these children—to young children who did not use Standardized English in the classroom. Because of their language—“Black English”/U. S. Ebonics—the children were classified as learning disabled and assigned to speech correction classes. Judge Charles Joiner ruled in the parents’ favor, finding that the Ann Arbor School District had failed to provide equal educational opportunity to the children by not “taking into account” the language barrier presented by their “Black English.” The mandated remedy was ongoing training for the teachers at King School.

In the case of the Oakland, California Unified School District, Blacks were not a minority. Rather, they comprised 53% of the school district population. Students K–12 were all adversely affected by Oakland’s lack of a language education policy around the issue of Ebonics. The Resolution sought to address the problem by providing education in Ebonics, using the students’ primary/home language as a bridge to teaching them “Standard English.” This is the situation of twenty-first-century African American students in urban districts nationwide. (See United States Senate Hearing on Ebonics, available here: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-105shrg39641/pdf/CHRG-105shrg39641.pdf.)

Despite the national uproar and negative, distorted media treatment around Oakland’s Ebonics Resolution, the District was on the right track, according to UNESCO, for example—that is, using the students’ home/mother tongue to teach them language and literacy skills.

The Way Forward

Teachers, administrators, counselors, supervisors, and curriculum developers must undergo training to provide them with adequate knowledge about Ebonics and help them overcome the prevailing stereotypes about the language and learning potential of African American students (and others) who speak Ebonics. CCCC thus strongly advocates new research and teaching that will build on existing knowledge about Ebonics to help students value their linguistic-cultural heritage, maintain Black identity, and to read, write, speak, and listen with critical discernment and power.

Ebonics reflects the Black experience and conveys Black traditions and socially real truths. Black Languages are crucial to Black identity. Black Language sayings, such as “What goes around comes around,” are crucial to Black ways of being in the world. Black Languages, like Black lives, matter.

Bailey, B. (1965). Toward a new perspective in Negro English dialectology. American Speech, 40(3), 171–77.

Bailey, B. (1966). Jamaican Creole syntax: A transformational approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Bennett, J. (1909). Gullah: A Negro patois. South Atlantic Quarterly, 8, 39–52.

Dalby, D. (1970). Black through white: Patterns of communication. Bloomington, IN:  Indiana University Press.

Dillard, J. L. (1967). Negro children’s dialect in the inner city. The Florida FL Reporter, Fall, 2–4.

Gonzales, A. (1922). The Black border: Gullah stories of the Carolina Coast. Columbia, SC: The State Company.

Harrison, J. A. (1884). Negro English. Anglia, 7, 232–79.

Holloway, J. E., & Vass, W. K. (1993). Lorenzo Dow Turner: A biographical dedication. The African heritage of American English. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Krapp, G. (1924). The English of the Negro. The American Mercury, 2, 190–95.

Labov, W. (1970). The logic of non-standard English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Mencken, H. L. (1936 [1919]). The American language. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Smitherman, G. (2006). Word from the mother: Language and African Americans. New York, NY: Routledge.

Stewart, W. A. (1967). Sociolinguistic factors in the history of American Negro dialects. Florida FL Reporter, Spring, 2–4.

Turner, L. D. (1949). Africanisms in the Gullah dialect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Williams, R. L. (ed.) (1975). Ebonics: The true language of Black folks. St. Louis, MO: Institute of Black Studies; reissued, 1997, by Robert L. Williams and Associates.

Suggested Work on African American Language and Literacy Pedagogy

Alim, H. S. (2005). Critical language awareness in the United States: Revisiting 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. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Baker-Bell, A. (2013). “I never really knew the history behind African American language”: Critical language pedagogy in an Advanced Placement English language arts class. In K. C. Turner & D. Ives (Eds.), Social justice approaches to African American language and literacy practices [Special issue]. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 355–370.

Carpenter Ford, A. (2013). “Verbal ping pong” as culturally congruent communication: Maximizing African American students’ access and engagement as socially just teaching. In K. C. Turner & D. Ives (Eds.), Social justice approaches to African American language and literacy practices [Special issue]. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 371–386.

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). Albany, NY: SUNY University Press.

Haddix, M. (2015). Cultivating racial and linguistic diversity in literacy teacher education: Teachers like me. New York, NY, & Urbana, IL: Routledge & National Council of Teachers of English.

Jackson, A., Michel, T., Sheridan, D., & Stumpf, B. (2001). Making connections in the contact zones: Towards a critical praxis of rap music and hip hop culture. In H. S. Alim (Ed.), Hip hop culture: Language, literature, literacy and the lives of Black youth [Special issue]. Black Arts Quarterly, 21–26.

Kinloch, V. (2015). Urban literacies. In J. Rowsell & K. Pahl (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of literacy studies (pp. 140–156). London, England: Routledge.

Kinloch, V. (2010). Harlem on our minds: Place, race, and the literacies of Urban youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Kirkland, D. E. (2013). A search past silence: The literacy of young Black men. New York, NY, & London, England: Teachers College Press.

Kirkland, D., & Jackson, A. (2009). “We real cool”: Toward a theory of Black masculine literacies. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 278–297.

Kynard, C. (2013). Vernacular insurrections: Race, Black protest, and the new century in composition-literacies studies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84.

Morrell, E., & Duncan-Andrade, J. (2002). Promoting academic literacy with urban youth through engaging hip-hop culture. English Journal, 91(6), 88–92.

Muhammad, G. E. (2015). Searching for full vision: Writing representations of African American adolescent girls. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(3), 224–247.

Paris, D. (2012). Language across difference: Ethnicity, communication, and youth identities in changing urban schools. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Perryman-Clark, S. (2012). Ebonics and composition: Extending disciplinary conversations to first-year writing students. Journal of Teaching Writing, 27(2), 47–70.

Rickford, J., Sweetland, J., Rickford, A., & Grano, T. (2012). African American, Creole, and other vernacular Englishes in education: A bibliographic resource. New York, NY, & Urbana, IL: Routledge & National Council of Teachers of English.

Rickford, J., Sweetland, J., & Rickford, A. (2004). African American English and other vernaculars in education: A topic-coded bibliography. Journal of English Linguistics, 32(3), 230–320.

Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that talk: Language and education in Black America. New York, NY: Routledge.

Smitherman, G., & Baugh, J. (2002). The shot heard from Ann Arbor: Language research and public policy in African America. Howard Journal of Communication, 13(1), 5–24.

Williams, B. (2013). Students’ “write” to their own language: Teaching the African American verbal tradition as a rhetorically effective writing skill. In K. C. Turner & D. Ives (Eds.), Social justice approaches to African American language and literacy practices [Special issue]. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46(3), 411–427.

Young, V., Barrett, R., Young-Rivera, Y., & Lovejoy, K. B. (2014). Other people’s English: Code-meshing, code-switching, and African American literacy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

This position statement may be printed, copied, and disseminated without permission from NCTE.

Email Questions

1. A call for Resolutions will appear in the February issue of College Composition and Communication. Proposed resolutions received by the chair of the Resolutions Committee two weeks before the conference require the signature of only five conference members; however, additional signatures are welcome as a means of indicating the base of support for the resolution.
       
2. The function of the Resolutions Committee is to review all resolutions presented and to prepare resolutions of its own in areas in which it or the Executive Committee believes conference action is needed. Special attention will be given to including areas covered in sense-of-the-house motions passed at the last Annual Business Meeting. In reviewing resolutions, the Resolutions Committee is responsible for combining all resolutions that duplicate one another in substance and for editing all resolutions.  

   The Resolutions committee will report all properly submitted resolutions to the Annual Business Meeting with a recommendation for action.  

   Resolutions that call for conference action in the areas in which the CCCC Constitution assigns authority to the officers or the Executive Committee will be clearly labeled as advisory to the officers or the Executive Committee.

   Resolutions of appreciation may be prepared by the CCCC officers and may be presented by the Resolutions Committee.

   The Resolutions Committee will hold an open meeting during the Special Interest Group time period to clarify and discuss these resolutions with concerned conference members. It is especially urgent that the authors of resolutions or their delegates come to this meeting. Although no new resolutions may be added at this time, members suggesting additional resolutions will be informed that they may introduce sense-of-the-house motions at the Annual Business Meeting in accordance with the rule give in item 4 below. The Resolutions Committee will also have a closed meeting after the open meeting to make such editorial and substantive changes as the deliberations of the open meeting may suggest.
       

3. As necessary, resolutions will be retyped so that complex changes will be incorporated into the copies of the resolutions distributed at the Annual Business Meeting.

   During the report of the Resolutions Committee at the Annual Business Meeting, one member of the committee will read the “resolved” portion of each resolution and move its adoption. Adoption will require only a simple majority of members present. Action will be taken on each resolution before the next resolution is presented.

   The CCCC officers at their post-convention session will determine the dissemination of, and the action to be taken on, all resolutions adopted.
       

4. Members may offer sense-of-the-house motions for discussion and action. Such motions, if passed, will be announced to CCCC members, not as official CCCC statements, but as the will of the majority of members at the Annual Business Meeting. Sense-of-the-house motions can affect action by the Executive committee, or by another appropriate CCCC body, as well as become the substance of a resolution at the next annual convention. In order to be considered, sense-of-the-house motions of no more than 50 words must be presented in writing (three copies) to the chair of the Annual Business Meeting before the adoption of the agenda.

Email Questions