Category: Uncategorized

Committee Charge

This committee is charged to:

1. Support continuity in the annual Computers and Writing Conferences by coordinating the search for a sponsoring university each year and arranging for the transfer of conference materials from site to site. The committee also maintains mailing lists and other records, provides advice and logistical support for the conference planners, and assists in publicizing the conference.
2. Examine the historical repository of information heretofore gathered under the URL computersandwriting.org and a. evaluate this project’s effectiveness, b. identify steps needed to provide ongoing support for the initiative, and c. propose concrete technology, budget, and organizational steps that the CCCC EC might enact. If the investigation determines that a different organization should house and support this repository, that conclusion should also be fleshed out for the EC.
3. Manage the nomination and judging process for the annual CCCC Technology Innovator Award, and bestow that award at the Computers and Writing Conference.
4. The eras of handwriting and typewriting are long over, and the era of word processing seems to be on the wane as students and teachers increasingly use smart phone, tablets, cloud computing, voice recognition, auto-correct, and extra-textual tools like Snap and emogis as parts of the writing process. Handbooks, videos, and other textbook materials are being read on the same devices, possibly placing our students in the difficult position of reading, reflecting, writing, and revising in a small space. Further, student access may be uneven given the expense of connectivity and portable devices. Investigate the impact of portable and ubiquitous computing on writing and writing instruction with an eye to developing a position statement about the ethics and efficacy of these practices.
5. Organize and sponsor the Digital Praxis Posters at CCCC. In addition, continue to sponsor, propose, and present workshops, panels, and demonstrations at CCCC and NCTE sponsored conferences. Include in these activities attention to open source and community source projects and software, calling attention to best practices, when possible, and providing guidelines on issues and strategies.

Tenure and Promotion Cases for Composition Faculty Who Work with Technology

Computers and Writing Conference

• Call to Host the C&W Conference and Application Information
• Past and Future C&W Locations and Hosts

Update

The 7Cs supports composition teachers and scholars (and those in related fields) who work with digital technology. This CCCC committee is responsible for selecting the host for the annual Computers and Writing conference as well as for organizing the Digital Praxis Poster sessions at the annual CCCC conference. 7Cs is also responsible for coordinating the Technology Innovator Award, which is presented annually at the Computers and Writing conference. This committee of nine voting members works closely with its associated Technorhetorician Working Group, which is comprised of any constituents interested in promoting digital technology issues in writing studies. To receive updates about the committee or participate in the broader computers and writing community, please follow the CCCC Committee on Computers in Composition and Communication and the Technorhetorician Working Group on Facebook.

Jared Johns: Case #1

Characterization of Institution

Comprehensive I, State University

Characterization of Department

M.A. in English

How would Jared Johns’ case turn out in your department?  At your university/college?

At my current university, Johns would most likely be tenured, with little question at all about his scholarship.  There might be questions about his teaching, though, for we are a teaching institution, but I doubt that it would be overwhelming.  Of course, his course load is designed for a Research university, and it is quite light for the standards of our current university.

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

It appears that the Department Chair did give Johns some good advice after his early service, namely, to cut down on his committee work, to help students understand the technology (although his suggestion of a programmed tutorial seems a bit naïve), and to concentrate upon teaching the quantity of argumentation expected.  He also suggested that Johns have the director of their teaching center visit his classes.  The case does not specify whether Johns pursued that, so I assume he did not.

The Chair, though, has done very little to help Johns.  It appears that he only meets with him after his first semester.  If he met annually for annual reviews, the case does not specify that.  He could have asked a senior faculty member to mentor Johns on teaching.  He could have reviewed his syllabi and visited Johns’ classes (if the tenure and review guidelines allow that).  He could have more overtly prevented Johns from serving on so many graduate committees.

The Chair’s response to the complaint from the parent and the President was appropriate.  (But I am amazed that the President responded that way.  In no institution that I have ever served in—as chair, dean, associate provost or provost—would a president ever have acted in that manner.)

In short, given the characterization of the Chair’s actions in this case, I believe that the Chair bears much responsibility for having allowed Johns to commit himself to so much and clearly not have the time to address the promotion criteria.

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

I think the Personnel Committee acted appropriately in this circumstance.  In all the institutions I have worked in, Personnel Committees do not have to make their reasons as public as this Committee did.  Their review is mixed, which is appropriate in this case.  They have apparently allowed Johns to pick his own external reviewers, which is generous.

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

The Dean is barely present in this case, so I will have to assume that this is a passive dean.  Where was the dean (and the provost, too, for that matter) when the President complained about the parent complaint?

I do not have the retention, promotion, and tenure guidelines in front of me, so I do not know the role of the chair, personnel committee, and dean in the review, so I will assume that the personnel committee acts first, the chair writes the review of Johns from the chair’s perspective, and the dean does so as dean.  But we do not see those in this case.

Does the dean review the annual reviews of untenured faculty (assuming that there are annual reviews)?  This case seems to indicate that there is only a fourth year formal review prior to the tenure review.  If I were this dean, I would talk in detail with the Chair to gain his perspective.

What are Johns’ responsibilities?  Which did he fulfill?  Fail?

Johns may be enthusiastic, but naïve.  If he knew in his first year that his teaching of the argumentation course was being questioned, why did he not do something about it?  More and more research universities are beginning to value teaching more, but it appears Johns worked more at service than anything else.  Did he talk to other faculty about meeting the scholarship expectations?  It appears that he did not.  If he considers himself an expert in using technology for teaching, he does not show it, for a good teacher would immediately have begun adjusting the ways he or she teaches with technology once he or she knew that it was not working well with undergraduates.  That graduate students like him is not terribly surprising, for he is a freshly-minted Ph.D., probably with knowledge of current theory and practice.  That he did not seek help from the Director of the teaching center is his fault.

Johns fulfilled his service responsibilities admirably, too much so, in fact.  There was no reason for his serving on so many student committees.  He clearly saw his work with technology as something he cared about, so he worked hard at that.

He could have written articles about his experiences, articles that would be acceptable in the “first or second tier” publications.  But, it appears that there is a serious disconnect between what he writes and his work in the department.  That he writes poetry is fine, but he needs to realize that no one values it.  That he wants to publish a book based on his dissertation reflects the desire of many new Ph.D.s:  I’ve put so much work into my dissertation that it must be worth a book!  Well, that is simply a mistake.  The next thing you know, he’ll volunteer to teach a class on the cybercollaboration of faith healers!

What went wrong?  What went right?

The Department appears to value two things:  teaching well and publishing in the right journals.  They don’t know what to do to reinforce good teaching, but they were clear in their concerns at the very start of Johns’ career.  When warned, Johns did not seek help.  That is his fault.  My judgment would have been that he is not a good teacher.

The institution could have required that untenured faculty submit portfolios for review that include reflective essays on their scholarship of teaching.  It apparently did not.  It could have reviewed untenured faculty annually, if only by the Chair.  It did not.  It could have assigned mentors.  It did not.

I don’t know what advice he got on publishing, but I’ll assume he knew what the Department expected.  If he did not, then he truly is naïve.  So, he allowed his personal interests to take precedence over those of the Department.  He did not work at his teaching, so he is to be faulted for that.  He was interested in only publishing what he was interested in, in publications that the Department appears not to value.  That was his choice, so he appears to have made the wrong choices.  There’s nothing wrong with his pursuing the publishing that he values, as long as he also does what the Department values.

The Personnel Committee appears to have acted appropriately.  Their vote is split, but it falls on the favorable side, and they do give specific criticism that Johns should heed.  (They appear not to have counted his publications from before the time he was hired, but that sometimes happens.  Regardless of those, he should have been addressing the Department’s standards.)

What is the role of the dean?  What is the role of the provost?  Who knows?  They probably will agree with whatever the Chair and Personnel Committee recommend.  But both could exert more influence over the preparation and support of untenured faculty.

Abstract:

#inhabitation tracked the economic crisis through the foreclosure auction process, focusing on several abandoned houses once owned by women, who left their houses and belongings behind. #inhabitation is creative-critical, digital storytelling and tactical media, affectively composing these histories through remains, urban ruins, through the material rhetoric of these abandoned houses.

 

Full Text

Author:Jamie “Skye” Bianco is Assistant Professor of English and Director of DM@P, Digital Media at Pitt, at the University of Pittsburgh. She teaches and practices creative-critical and affective multimodal composition; collaborative DIY and maker-based pedagogies. Her work appears in FibreCulture, Women’s Studies Quarterly, and edited collections, including Debates in the Digital Humanities (Minnesota, 2012).

 

Return to Table of Contents

NOTE: The webtexts for this issue of CCC Online are currently unavailable. We are working to get them back online within the next few months.

 

Abstract:

Return to Table of Contents

Nathaniel A. Rivers
A conversation with Nathaniel A. Rivers, author of “Geocomposition in Public Rhetoric and Writing Pedagogy.” (24:12)

 

Nathaniel A. Rivers is associate professor of English at Saint Louis University. His current research addresses new materialism’s impact on public rhetorics such as environmentalism and accessibility.

 

 

 

 

Contact the Editor

EMAIL: Malea Powell, Editor, CCC, ccceditorialteam@gmail.com

MAIL: Malea Powell, Editor, College Composition and Communication, Michigan State University, 619 Red Cedar Road, B-382 Wells Hall, East Lansing MI 48824

Return to the main CCC page.

CCC Editorial Transition

The current editor’s term will end with the December 2024 issue, and they have finished reading submissions for their remaining time as editor. The incoming editors—Matthew Davis of the University of Massachusetts Boston and Kara Taczak of the University of Central Florida—have begun reading submissions and will publish their first issue in February 2025. We appreciate your interest in publishing your work in College Composition and Communication.

CCC Submission Guidelines

The editorial staff of College Composition and Communication (CCC) invites submission of research and scholarship in composition studies that supports college teachers in reflecting on and improving their practices in teaching writing. The field of composition studies draws on research and theories from a broad range of humanistic disciplines— English studies, linguistics, literacy studies, rhetoric, cultural studies, LGBT studies, gender studies, critical theory, education, technology studies, race studies, communication, philosophy of language, anthropology, sociology, and others—and within composition studies, a number of subfields have also developed, such as technical communication, computers and composition, writing across the curriculum, research practices, history of composition, assessment, and writing center work.

Articles for CCC may come out of the discussions within and among any of these fields, as long as the argument presented is clearly relevant to the work of college writing teachers and responsive to recent scholarship in composition studies. The usefulness of articles to writing teachers should be apparent in the discussion, but articles need not contain explicit sections detailing applications to teaching practices.

In writing for CCC, you should consider a diverse readership for your article, a readership that includes at least all teachers of college-level writing at diverse institutions and literacy centers, and may include administrators, undergraduate and graduate students, legislators, corporate employers, parents, and alumni. To address such an audience, you need not avoid difficult theories or complex discussions of research and issues or detailed discussions of pedagogy; rather you should consider the interests and perspectives of the variety of readers who are affected by your theories, pedagogies, and policies.

Genre, Format, Length, Documentation. You are encouraged to submit articles in whatever genre and format best fits your purposes, and to use alternate genres and formats if they best express your meanings; similarly, the use of endnotes and subheadings should align with your purposes and meanings. Most articles in CCC run between 4,000 and 7,000 words (or approximately 16–28 double-spaced pages), though articles may be shorter or longer in line with your purposes. Submissions should follow the current (9th) edition of the MLA Handbook. NCTE’s Statement on Gender and Language can be found here: http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/genderfairuseoflang.

Research Practices and Citing Unpublished Work. If your article reports the results of empirical or observational research, you need to be attentive to the ethics as well as the validity of your research methods. Before submitting your work for consideration, please be aware that, if you use, quote, or otherwise reproduce unpublished writing by students or teachers or others, you should either have clearance from your local IRB or permission in writing from the writers to do so, even if you use their writing anonymously. Click HERE to read/download a copy of the CCC permission form needed to include the work of others in your submission (especially student work).

Submission and Review of Articles. All manuscripts should be submitted electronically. Please register as an author at our Web-based manuscript submission and review system, Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/cccj). Once logged in to the system, follow the instructions to upload your submission. If you’re submitting work for a special issue, be sure to indicate in the comments section the issue date for which you are submitting (e.g., June 2020 issue). Receipt of submissions will be acknowledged by email. Articles will be read blind by outside reviewers, so please make sure that your submission is sufficiently anonymized. Your name should not appear on the title page or first page and you should not identify yourself in the text or in the list of works cited. Direct questions to editor Malea Powell at ccceditorialteam@gmail.com.

Interchanges. Responses to articles that raise important issues or different perspectives will be considered for publication in the Interchanges section. Please phrase any differences with the article you are responding to in a tone respectful to the writer and to the profession. Responses usually run between 500 and 2,000 words (approximately 2–8 double-spaced pages). Sets of short related articles may also be submitted to or solicited by the editor for the Interchanges section.

Book Reviews. CCC is not accepting book reviews at this time.

 

Kristopher M. Lotier
A conversation with Kristopher M. Lotier, author of “Around 1986: The Externalization of Cognition and the Emergence of Postprocess Invention.” (19:10).

 

 

 

Kristopher M. Lotier is assistant professor of writing studies and composition at Hofstra University.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jacqueline Preston
A conversation with Jacqueline Preston, author of “Project(ing) Literacy: Writing to Assemble in a Postcomposition FYW Classroom.”  (8:45)

Jacqueline Preston is an assistant professor in the Department of Basic Composition at Utah Valley University. Her work has been published in Community Literacy Journal and College Composition and Communication. She is a contributor to the forthcoming collections, Class in Composition: Working Class and Pedagogy and Working Writing Programs: A Reference of Innovations, Issues, and Opportunities. Most recently, with Joshua C. Hilst, she has coauthored The Write Project: A Concise Rhetoric for the Writing Classroom.
 

 

Since 2005, the NCTE-CCCC’s Intellectual Property Committee and the Intellectual Property (IP) Caucus have been sponsoring a wonderful annual resource, “Top Intellectual Property Developments” for each respective year. The 2008 Top Intellectual Property Developments have been just recently published and can be viewed here:

/cccc/committees/ip/2008developments

Links to the 2005, 2006, and 2007 Top Intellectual Property Developments are located on the main IP Committee Webpage:

/cccc/committees/ip

The top developments for 2008 were assembled and edited by Clancy Ratliff. Clancy has also edited the 2007 top developments, while John Logie, past-Chair of the IP Committee, began the first set of publications, and assembled and edited both the 2006 and 2005 top stories.

In her introduction to the 2008 articles covering top developments in IP for teachers of writing, Clancy states: “I hope that you, the readers, will find that the articles help to achieve our committee’s first charge, to keep the rhetoric and composition community informed about developments related to intellectual property that affect our work as teachers and scholars.”

Top Developments for 2008 were written by contributors Kim Dian Gainer, Radford University, Laurie Cubbison, Radford University, Clancy Ratliff, and Traci A. Zimmerman, James Madison University and covered such topic as the Google Book Settlement, the case of J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books, Open Access in 2008, and “The Plight of Orphan Works and the Possibility of Reform.”

For more information about the top developments annual collection, or how you can be a contributor, please contact Clancy Ratliff.

Intellectual Property Reports Main Page