(Re)Building the CCCC 2021 Program (update)

One of my core values is transparency. In my current role as a CCCC officer, that has been a guiding principle for me with the convention planning process (from making Stage 1 peer review feedback comments available to submitters to posting regular blog updates about the process as we’ve moved through from submission to final program content). Since the convention has moved to a virtual format, an additional layer of decisions has had to be made that wouldn’t typically be part of the process, reducing the total number of sessions that are able to be included on the program that have already been accepted through peer review. In this blog post, I’ll briefly describe the process used to make these difficult decisions, which included what amounts to a “Stage 3” review that used elements of the program review process that Stage 1 and 2 had required.  At those stages, of the sessions accepted through peer review, we used a proportional acceptance, where the number of final acceptances in any given cluster is proportional to the number of submissions in that category. Likewise, proposals are reviewed and ranked according to the criteria established by the program chair. 

To accommodate the new program capacity required for a virtual convention, I was asked to reduce the program from 562 to approximately 275 sessions (including TYCA). I started by asking presenters to confirm their continued interest in being on the program, and their preferred session types, as much as they could be accommodated.  They survey was used only to determine whether presenters were interested in remaining on the program (to account for changes in personal or professional circumstances, and the shift to a virtual context which some presenters may find unsuitable for their original vision).  Some presenters did choose to withdraw from the program. 

To make the next more difficult phase of  program reduction, I returned to the list of accepted sessions and recalculated the proportion of sessions that could be included relative to the total number in the program but reduced to the new target number.  I returned to the reviewer notes and prioritized those sessions for inclusion that had received the highest ratings by reviewers. In the case of relatively equal evaluation feedback, I erred as much as possible on the side of including as many presenters as possible, and sought ways to reconfigure or combine sessions in order to allow for maximum participation. 

Of course, program assembling is not just a quantitative exercise; I also sometimes made judgements about other issues like ensuring that there is a balanced and diverse set of sessions in each of the cluster areas for attendees within each of the session types (roundtables, panel presentations, workshops, etc).  I also took into consideration some of the pressing needs members have now including work on anti-racist pedagogy and assessment, online writing instruction, and engaging students in virtual learning environments, for example. 

In addition, the elements of the CCCC 2020 program, including the Engaged Learning Experience sessions, and the Documentarian role will continue. The ELEs revised acceptances were similarly made using the program criteria and the peer review feedback from Stage 1. 

I balanced other factors when making decisions about the program structure, too, in aiming to keep with some of the usual features of the convention. 

  • Sponsored panels and roundtables (proposals that are reserved a spot because they are submitted by member groups like our caucuses, Special Interest Groups, and other standing groups) were retained whenever possible.  These include established CCCC events like the Research Network Forum and the Teacher2Teacher Event held on the Saturday of the conference.  This is because prior convention follow-up surveys show that events that are focused around specific interest groups and standing group subjects are of high interest and high satisfaction among convention-goers who responded to the survey form circulated after each annual meeting.
  • Likewise, the sessions for our CCCC award winners were prioritized, and standing arrangements with partner professional organizations like the Modern Language Association, the Council of Writing Program Administrators, and the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and COmposition.  
  • To retain space on the program for our peer-reviewed proposals, CCCC member groups were asked to hold their business meetings separate from the program.  The CCCC site will have a central list of those meetings so that participants can attend those that are of interest to them. 

Last, a note about session types and assignments. Around 110 of the included sessions could be offered in a live, or prerecorded with live Q and A scheduled format. The other accepted sessions were assigned to one of the approximately 170  ‘on-demand’ formats. In making session type assignments, I’ve prioritized creating a convention program that is as interactive, inclusive, and engaged as possible. Engaged Learning Experience sessions, workshops, and roundtables–because of their interactive nature–are more likely to appear in the program as live and prerecorded with Q and A.  And because on-demand sessions can accommodate a greater number of presenters, I sometimes combined sessions or speakers to maximize the ability of as many people as possible on the program. On-demand session assignments were also more likely for those for sessions that had a more traditional delivery model. 

Finally, in the continued commitment to accessibility, I note here that presenters should plan to make their materials accessible.  Recorded videos must be accurately captioned and/or accompanied by a full transcript. If you have visual images/photos/graphics in your recording, they should be accompanied by textual or verbal description (an explanation of the image for individuals with vision impairment).  The CCCC is committed to accessibility for all conference attendees, and the ADA requires by law that digital materials be shared in accessible formats.

This Session Types and FAQ Info: https://cccc.ncte.org/cccc/cccc-2021-presentation-info provides important information about how the virtual platform and session types will work. 

If you have thoughts or questions, feel free to leave a “reply” to the comments, or to email me at 4csconvention2021@gmail.com.

More CCCC 2021 Program Updates

The goal of this blog post is to provide some updates about the transition from the original planning for CCCC in a face-to-face setting to a virtual setting, as well as to share new information available on the convention website. 

Continued Program Adjustments 

The primary and first step to program revisions started by determining what is possible for the organization and its members within the virtual platform.  Based on the scope of the platform (the same convention platform system that was used for the National Council of Teachers of English convention last November) and the number of sessions that can be hosted and coordinated, I was asked to reduce the total number of sessions to about 60% of what was originally accepted to the program (and the target number also included the number of sessions allocated for the TYCA National Conference on Wednesday, April 6).  This was a deeply unhappy task, given the incredible quality of the accepted proposals, and how important it is to CCCC professionals to have a place on the program for their personal and professional purposes. Our hope is that notifications of which accepted proposals are on the final list of program sessions (including type of session–live, prerecorded with Q and A, or on-demand) will be sent out by March 1. 

In order to be as transparent as possible about how I approached this difficult task, I’ll outline here what has been taking place since there was a formal decision to meet virtually rather than in-person in Spokane.

A few weeks ago, we circulated a survey asking accepted presenters to confirm whether they still intended to participate on the program, and for their preferences about formats. The survey closed formally about 10 days ago, and I used that information to return to our list of accepted sessions. Here is how I’ve been approaching this next stage:  

  • I returned to the list of accepted sessions and recalculated the proportion of sessions that could be included relative to the total number in the program by cluster category but reduced to the new target number.  
  • I returned to the feedback from the peer reviewers in Stage 1 and Stage 2 last year and prioritized those sessions for inclusion that had received the highest ratings by reviewers. 
  • In the case of relatively equal evaluation feedback, I erred as much as possible on the side of including as many presenters as possible, and sought ways to reconfigure or combine sessions in order to allow for maximum participation.  

Of course, program assembling is not just a quantitative exercise; I also sometimes made judgements about other issues like ensuring that there is a balanced and diverse set of sessions in each of the cluster areas for attendees within each of the session types (roundtables, panel presentations, workshops, etc).  I also took into consideration some of the pressing needs members have now including work on anti-racist pedagogy and assessment, online writing instruction, and engaging students in virtual learning environments, for example. 

Half day and full-day workshops needed to be reduced quite substantially (from 37 to 8)  because of constraints related to the online space, zoom licenses, and overall capacity.  My decision-making there followed similar logic as to above, with the desire to ensure there is at least one workshop in all the cluster areas for which workshop proposals were submitted.  I collaborated with Julie Lindquist (the 2020 program chair) on some components of these program decisions including the Engaged Learning Experience proposals.  

This is to say, now that this “third stage” of review has been completed,  NCTE and CCCC staff are in the midst of labor-intensive work to update the proposal database. I am now returning to the new list of sessions on the program to assign formats to the sessions, which will take into account the requests by presenters, the balance of available session types, and as varied as possible representation of area clusters. Once that work is done, the proposal system has to be updated by staff and notifications are generated.

I do want to note that Virtual CCCC 2021 will continue the use of the Documentarian Role  which will be coordinated by 2020 program chair Julie Lindquist. In her 2020 CFP, she described the documentarian in this way: “a new non-speaking role will be introduced: the Documentarian. The CCCC Documentarian role is an opportunity for attendees to participate in a new way, and to take part in a collaborative inquiry into what a conference is and does—and for whom—and to teach the rest of us.” After last year’s cancellation, the documentarians instead documented their non-conference/post-conference pandemic experiences. 

We see this as an exciting opportunity to gather real-time feedback about the convention experience and in particular this very first launch of an entirely virtual event. This year (see the section at the bottom of the 2021 CFP describing the documentarian role) the original vision of the documentarian–to gather a diverse, prismatic picture of how the CCCC convention is experienced by its participants, will be more fully realized. It’s hard to know what the impact of the documenting of the virtual convention will be, but one outcome, we hope, is that this textured picture of the conference experiences will be important data that can help shape our organizational future post-pandemic.  If you are interested in being a convention documentarian (and if you did NOT indicate interest when you submitted your proposal)  please reach out to Julie Lindquist lindqu11@msu.edu.

Also, as with 2020 Documentarian project, those who choose to participate in this role will complete morning and evening surveys each day of the convention, and will have an opportunity to publish an essay produced from their archived surveys in an edited collection of essays in the Studies in Writing Rhetoric series (NCTE). 

Additional Information Available

You can find some additional information now available on the CCCC website. First, I have consulted with the NCTE/CCCC staff along with review from other stakeholder groups like the TYCA conference planning community and members of CDICC to develop an FAQ document. I hope this gives you more information about how the virtual platform and session types will work. 

In addition, registration is now open and a preliminary schedule is available (for when convention events will be held. 

I am thankful for the hard work of the NCTE and CCCC staff members (Kristen Ritchie, Lori Bianchini, Stephanie Casad, and others) and to Julie Lindquist with whom I have been collaborating in the last year to create a 2021 convention experience that allows us to gather together in some way during this public health crisis. 

I know that this short timeline for planning session content and delivery is challenging and I thank you for the patience you have shown as we have worked to make CCCC 2021 happen virtually.

CCCC 2021: Virtual Convention April 7-10

Hello colleagues–I’m glad to be able to finally provide an update on CCCC 2021. A series of complex negotiations and decisions have had to take place over the last six months between NCTE’s leadership and the Spokane hospitality community. I am happy to be writing to confirm at last that the CCCC 2021 Convention will be exclusively virtual

It has been a long process to get to this point, and up until now, we’ve been following the usual convention planning process (See page 143 in the CCCC executive committee handbook if you are curious about that). Now the planning process has to shift gears somewhat to account for the online format but also for the material realities of people’s lives in the middle of a global pandemic. 

Typically, the conference program chair works over the period of 12-18 months to plan a local/onsite convention and to build a program that is constrained by space in a specific location. The program in a virtual format will still have some constraints, of course. We will use the convention platform that was used for the NCTE Annual Convention in November.  As you may know, that convention was very successful.

So what I am asking CCCC members and convention attendees and presenters to do is to reimagine the convention process and experience. As someone who has taught online asynchronous courses for almost 20 years, I know like many of you do that course planning in an online environment is not just copying and pasting my f2f syllabus and handouts into Blackboard or Canvas. It requires a thoughtful redesign to match the needs of students who are interacting with the material and activities in different ways. 

Likewise, I”ll be taking that same thoughtful redesign to Virtual CCCC 2021. This means the following: The online version requires us to reimagine things differently

  • Realities of pandemic life: we have simultaneously more time and less time. As academic workers, we’ve had to learn new ways of teaching, of doing research, and of collaborating. Further, we’ve taken on additional labor that includes care work on top of paid work. 
  • Time: Our time may be more or less flexible. With the movement of some courses online in an asynchronous format, teaching work can be done more flexibly; others are teaching in the same scheduled format but through videoconference technology. This is to say, our work lives are transformed. 

I am hopeful that this opportunity to try out a virtual convention format will offer some benefits to members of our field. 

  • For many of us, the pandemic has been accompanied by fluctuating enrollments and significant financial cuts or constraints; a virtual convention will ideally allow more of us to participate for just the cost of registration rather than the thousands we may spend through institutional or personal funds on travel and lodging
  • The virtual format will make it possible to participate in the organizational work that is important to us while still being as safe as possible and eliminating travel. 
  • There are opportunities in the online format to move between sessions in ways that are more difficult in person: further, the on-demand and recording of live session options will allow registrants to return to sessions that they may not have been able to attend at their scheduled time; and those sessions will be available on the conference platform for 50 days after the convention, allowing registrants to view as many of the sessions as they would like. 
  • The primary goal of the conference program will be to provide a similarly enriching level of professional resources, support, knowledge and learning, as well as the networking and informal conversation that members value about the conference. 
  • Accessibility will be a priority: The Committee on Disability Issues will be developing an accessibility guide as they have in the past. 

Some other logistical changes: 

  • Session Length. Typically, the session length for a CCCC convention is 75 minutes. I’ve reduced those to 60 minutes simply because of zoom fatigue and because of the reality that, with a virtual conference, I suspect that most of us will be continuing to manage our regular teaching and personal lives. Many of us are spending many more hours on meetings and classes than pre-pandemic. I’m hoping this slightly shorter time slot will allow for better participation and conversation in sessions, along with a longer break between sessions (30 minutes). 
  • Business Meeting. The annual business meetings of SIGs and Caucuses will be arranged separately from the convention program planning process. Additional information will be forthcoming from Kristen Ritchie, the CCCC liaison, about this component of the conference. The idea here is that the Convention Platform will be used for concurrent sessions, workshops, and keynote sessions, and member groups will provide information that will be assembled in a single location so that members can attend constituent group meetings as desired. 
  • Timing of sessions: Unlike the collocated convention, a virtual convention has to account for the multiple time zones that we’ll be participating from. All times for the convention will be listed in Eastern Standard Time. The NCTE Convention typically started in late morning (11:30 Eastern) and sessions ran through the early evening (one as late as 9:15 Eastern). This is just a reality of time and space; we’ll do our best to make it possible for members in US time zones to attend as many sessions within the normal range of the working day as possible but need to account for the three-hour difference between Eastern and Pacific. 
  • Documentarians: For the 2020 convention, Dr. Julie Lindquist and her team created the documentarian role (see the bottom of the CFP link), a way of conference participation in which documentarians would “record some observations about the things you see and hear, and then compose a reflective narrative about your experiences. To help you along in this work, you’ll be given a prompt and a set of guidelines for planning, attending, documenting, and reflecting on your experience with the convention.” In 2020, the documentarian role became documenting the “non-conference” experience, with participants capturing the early pandemic and their reflections on the annual convention’s cancellation. This year, we’ll continue the Documentarian role, which we hope will serve the dual purpose of helping CCCC learn more about the virtual convention going experience as part of longer-range organizational planning work, as a well as a publishing opportunity with SWR/NCTE Press. More information will be forthcoming about the documentarian role in Virtual CCCC 2021.

Right now, presenters have been asked to confirm whether their panelists are still able to participate in this format. I’ll just acknowledge here that, in collaboration with Julie Lindquist, the 2020 conference program chair and current CCCC chair, we are essentially rebuilding the program from the summer review process. The condensed program may not allow for every session that was originally accepted to be included, due to space constraints, and because of limitations on the kinds of session formats available (for example, live webcasting). We’ll do our best to be as inclusive as possible. 

And last but not least (in fact, probably the best)–is that we have confirmed a keynote speaker for the conference. Dr. Roxane Gay, well-known for both her creative work and her nonfiction pieces (including regular column for the New York Times and podcast with Dr. Tressie McMillan Cottom, Hear to Slay). Dr. Gay will be giving her keynote talk on Friday, April 9. More details on the conference schedule and registration are forthcoming.  

I’ll be providing these blog updates as regularly as possible throughout the next few weeks as we ramp up planning. My goal as program chair is to create the convention experience members need at this moment. We were unable to gather together last March 2020 in Milwaukee, and yet our professional work continues. We have new and pressing needs as professionals–our teaching, scholarship, service, and activism–it is my hope that Virtual CCCC 2021 will help us meet those needs until we are able to meet again in Chicago next year. 

For questions about the convention, contact Convention Chair Holly Hassel or Convention Assistant Andrea Stevenson. For questions about Documentarian roles or Engaged Learning Experiences, contact Julie Lindquist.

CCCC 2021 Proposal Review: Updates, Information, and Continuing Questions

Process

Ordinarily for the review of proposals submitted to the annual CCCC Convention, the organization follows a process like this. Proposals are submitted through the online system, and anonymized, then read and ranked by three reviewers. This is called Stage 1 Review. After all proposals are reviewed, the program chair (historically) has selected a smaller group of colleagues to meet in person at the NCTE office in Illinois to use the Stage 1 reviews of individual proposals and determine which to accept, and then assemble the accepted proposals into panels. The work takes place synchronously and in the same location. The program chair makes final decisions about the concurrent sessions that were submitted as panels and roundtables. 

Decisions about the program composition are made within some specific constraints, typically the number of rooms and time slots that are available based on the specific venue. The program chair and the Stage 2 reviewer group balance the values of inclusiveness (trying to ensure that the program includes a range of topics that meet the needs of the diverse CCCC membership) and quality (the proposed session will provide an effective, useful, and professionally valuable experience for attendees). The latter is judged according to the proposal criteria created by the program chair at the time of crafting the CFP. 

This year’s program review work, obviously, is different. In the context of the global pandemic, where time, resources, and mental energy are reduced and differently allocated. The process has had to be adapted. Because travel is less safe, the CCCC liaison, Kristen Ritchie, and meeting and events coordinator, Lori Bianchini, worked with me and my convention assistant, Andrea Stevenson, to design a process for Stage 2 review that is possible virtually. 

Over the course of several weeks in July, then, the materials were made available electronically, and as program chair, I created smaller groups of Stage 2 reviewers based on cluster areas. We started with an opening zoom meeting to talk through the process of electronic review, and the smaller teams coordinated with each other over the next few weeks to develop a process including synchronous and asynchronous components to determine acceptances and rejections, as well as the compilation of accepted individual proposals into 

This was a departure, of course, from the previous processes and had its ups and downs. Certainly for the group of reviewers, it was a different experience to collaborate from a distance, and rather than concentrating the work over the period of two or three days in a common space, it required adding the work on top of our other home and work responsibilities. At the same time, a flexible online approach meant that the issue of travel (which can be an inaccessible expectation for many folks) did not prevent participation. 

Moving Ahead

The process of decisions about the CCCC convention is complex, and the pandemic brings more uncertainty. Some of the complexity lies in  contractual obligations that are in place with the host city and because of the size of our convention, not only in the number of attendees but also in the unusually high number of session rooms required. The pandemic has forced faculty line retractions, a loss of substantial budgets and, in many cases, travel budgets being eliminated altogether. This is made visible by the reduced number of proposals received this year as well as news reports and direct conversations with colleagues.  

Looking ahead, we do know that the NCTE Annual Convention (CCCC is under the umbrella of NCTE, including for the purposes of organizing events like the national convention) has been moved to a completely virtual format. This was possible in part because the host city actually cancelled the in-person convention, as the convention center was being used for COVID-related medical purposes.  Currently, continued conversations between the Executive Director of NCTE, Emily Kirkpatrick, and the national groups that NCTE collaborates with for organization national meetings are ongoing regarding the on-site hosting of CCCC in Spokane in April 2021. To every extent possible, these conversations are proceeding with everyone in mind who is affected by the decision. 

What this means is that I’m approaching the planning process, from my end, as flexibly as possible. We know for sure simply because there were fewer overall proposal submission this year that any onsite convention held in Spokane would be smaller; we’re working on developing a process for proposal acceptance notifications that would also allow us to collect information from proposers about what is preferable and feasible for them, information that will then help inform the planning for any on-site versus virtual components. 

Likewise, we anticipate that the NCTE virtual convention will offer us important insights and lessons when it is held in late November, so that any of the planning between November and April can be supported by what we learn from that event. 

I think there are a lot of exciting possibilities for access and inclusion in a virtual conference, including access to the convention program for individuals who may not have previously participated in or attended CCCC. However the convention takes place, I am committed to making it as inclusive and accessible as possible for presenters and attendees. 

Important Dates

**We are hopeful that acceptances will be sent in mid-September. That communication will be accompanied by a set of questions that ask about your needs and preference related to virtual versus face-to-face convention attendance. This is important information for us to gather for the purposes of planning and of communicating with the sites in Spokane that are reserved for the convention at this time.

**Because the convention is scheduled later than unusual (April rather than March), and because there is a global pandemic, participants will not need to confirm their participation until mid-December

**We hope to make a final decision about the convention format by early January

Though it would be ideal to know more, earlier, about how CCCC 2021 will look, I ask for patience and flexibility as we work to adjust to the changing conditions in service of creating a meaningful and valuable professional experience next April, one that reflects the needs and values of the organization, field, and its members.

If you have questions, comments, or clarifications, feel free to send me an email: 4csconvention2021@gmail.com or holly.hassel@ndsu.edu.

CCCC 2021: Recommendations for (re)Submitting, and Transparency Goals

You have seen that we were able to extend the CCCC submission deadline to June 8 which, I hope, will allow some time for most people finishing up their work for the academic year to find space on their plates to draft and submit CCCC 2021 proposals. I wanted to offer some additional advice or recommendations for those who are thinking about resubmitting a previously accepted (or rejected) proposal from the 2020 convention. In this blog, I’ll talk about three items of potential interest to you: 

  1. The differences in the proposal evaluation criteria between last year and this year
  2. The changes to (and additional details about) the “Area Clusters” that proposers use to identify the topic of their proposal
  3. A change for this year that will allow proposers to receive feedback from peer reviewers 

One: Proposal Review Criteria: each program chair develops their own proposal review criteria; this is one of the jobs of the program chair. For those who may be submitting a previously submitted proposal, it would be helpful to take a look at the two sets of criteria side-by-side. You’ll see that there are some similarities regarding engagement of session attendees, awareness of audience needs, etc. However, it would be a good idea to think about how reviewers will be applying the 2021 criteria to submitted proposals and make any changes that you think will allow the proposal to be a good fit for the program. 

20202021
* Does the proposal engage the idea of commonplaces in some way,  either directly or in terms of the work the presentation/session will do?



· Does the proposal describe an experience for learners as much as content to be delivered (for example, will specify the role(s) audience members will be invited to fulfill during or in response to the presentation)? 

Does the proposal give evidence that the proposer is thinking pedagogically about the talk or session, with the learning needs of audiences/participants in mind? ·       

*Does the proposal articulate learning goals for the participants and means for how participants may pursue them? What will participants take away from the presentation? How do you plan to make it possible for them to do so? (For Engaged Learning Experience sessions, means could include–but are not limited to!–problem-solving groups, spoken-word poetry, dramatization/improv, making, role-playing, storytelling, etc. The number of leaders/facilitators listed should be guided by the goals of the session.)
The proposal…

*reflects an awareness of audience needs relevant to the topic: The proposal shows an awareness of the diverse professional needs of CCCC’s members and the field more broadly. Successful proposals will be aimed at an audience of experienced professionals in the field but who may not be familiar with the specifics of your topic.

*addresses postsecondary teaching and learning: The proposed session engages with the proposal theme, questions, or topics, as outlined in the Area Cluster and convention theme. Proposals are not required to engage with the theme in their titles but proposers should describe the pedagogical implications of their work for undergraduate or graduate education.

*is situated within relevant research and scholarship in the field: Proposers are not expected to have a complete bibliography as part of their proposal, but the proposal itself should demonstrate awareness of prior research and scholarship on the topic of the proposal. Parenthetical citations are sufficient to demonstrate this.

*demonstrates a clear and specific plan that aligns with the criteria for the selected session type*: The proposal clearly describes what will happen in the session and demonstrates that the authors have made careful and intentional choices in proposing a session type that is most suitable to the focus of the proposed activity.

Two:  Area Cluster Changes: You saw in the previous blog post CCCC 2021 Decisions and Advice | hollyjhassel some of the explanations for how 2020 convention chair Julie Lindquist and I had worked to manage the complex decisions around a transition that would allow for flexibility for participants to be able to share their work online, to delay sharing their work by resubmitting for 2021, or to document their acceptance in a different way on their professional documents. If you are reworking a proposal previously considered for 2020, here are some things to consider: 

The “area clusters” change each year because those are nearly exclusively within the purview of the program chair to update/change as they desire or as reflects new developments in the field or a particular emphasis in the program theme. I included in the call the previous 3 years’ clusters to show how those have shifted (and what has remained the same). I bring this to your attention so you can think about whether you might want or need to retool your previous proposal to align with a new area cluster: 

2018201920202021
1. Pedagogy (#Pedagogy)
2. Basic Writing (#BW)
3. Assessment (#Assess)
4. Rhetoric (#Rhetoric)
5. History (#History)
6. Technology (#Tech)
7. Language (#Language)
8. Professional Technical Writing (#PTW)
9. Writing Program Administration (#WPA)
10. Theory (#Theory)
11. Public, Civic, and Community Writing (#Community)
12. Creative Writing (#Creativewriting)

1. First-Year and Advanced Composition
2. Basic Writing
3. Community, Civic & Public
4. Creative Writing
5. History
6. Information Technologies
7. Institutional and Professional
8. Language
9. Professional and Technical Writing
10. Research
11. Writing Pedagogies and Processes
12. Theory
13. Writing Programs

1. First-Year and Basic Writing
2. Writing Programs and Majors
3. Approaches to Learning and Learners
4. Community, Civic, and Public Contexts of Writing
5. Creative Writing and Publishing
6. History
7. Information Technologies and Digital Cultures
8. Institutions, Labor Issues, and Professional Life
9. Language and Literacy
10. Professional and Technical Writing
11. Research
12. Theory and Culture
13. Inventions, Innovations, and New Inclusions
1. First-Year Writing
2. College Writing Transitions
3. Labor
4. Writing Programs
5. Community, Civic, and Public Contexts of Writing
6. Reading
7. Access
8. Historical Perspectives
9. Creating Writing and Publishing
10. Information Literacy and Technology
11. Language and Literacy
12. Professional and Technical Writing
13. Theory and Research Methodologies

Program Clusters (View the detailed list of potential topic areas in each cluster here: Area Clusters). New clusters this year include “Labor,” “Access,” “College Writing Transitions” and “Reading,” and include subtopics like these: 

AccessCollege Writing TransitionsLaborReading
*Students, diversity, and access
*Teaching and learning practices that support access, retention, and degree completion
*Access to college-credit course work
*Gatekeeping courses
*Access to the profession
*Accessibility for students, instructors, scholars
*Barriers to college participation
*Barriers to participation in the profession
*Writing studies work informed by disability studies
*Basic writing curricula and pedagogies
*Teaching non-degree credit courses online
*Developmental writing, reading, and learning support programs
*Teaching and supporting structurally disadvantaged students
*Public policies and politics of remediation
*Collaboration with secondary/K-12 writing writing programs and instructors
*Methods and measures of placing students in writing, reading, and support courses
*Dual credit/concurrent enrollment courses, programs, students, and training
*Reform mandates facing two-year colleges and other access institutions
*Labor activism and advocacy
*Contingency Studies
*Ethical writing program labor practices
*The state and status of labor in the field of writing studies
*Institutional case studies
*Teaching about labor issues
*The labor of online writing instruction and equity for instructors
*Organization and operations of educational institutions
*Working conditions for contingent faculty and graduate assistants
*Teacher support, mentoring, and professional development
*Integrated reading and writing courses and curriculum
*Evidence-based reading instruction
*The role of reading in writing courses
*Writing about reading
*Critical reading strategies
*Designing curriculum to support critical reading
*Preparing instructors for teaching reading
*Relationships between reading and writing

Three: Transparency about Process: one of the issues that I have heard often about CCCC and read in member group reports and documents is concern about transparency. As program chair, I prioritized two changes that I hope will support transparency. First, as I noted in the previous blog and in the CFP, an open-invitation was issued for Stage 1 proposal reviewers. Thanks to all who volunteered their names and to do this labor! A majority of those who responded had not previously had the opportunity to participate in the review process, and I am excited that so many colleagues will have a chance to shape the program. 

Likewise, as part of responding to concerns expressed throughout formal and informal conversations in the field about how and why proposals are successful or not, I’ve asked NCTE to prioritize making proposal feedback available, and when reviewers volunteered to review proposals, they also committed to providing written feedback to proposals that will be available in the proposal system database once the decisions have been finalized. It responds to the CCCC Committee on the Status of Graduate Students (what is called in the CCCC constitution a “special committee”—or a committee formed for a period of 3 years to achieve a specific goal or purpose), which conducted a survey of graduate students presented in this report.

I will acknowledge that any time you break from the traditional way of doing things, unexpected issues can crop up, and I can’t promise that there won’t be new challenges by opening up the process. My leadership style has aimed for transparency about processes, clear and open communication, and visible expectations, so I’m hoping that some of these changes fulfill that philosophy. Again, as so many of the CCCC ways of doing things are determined and redetermined annually on the basis of who the convention program chair is (including all of these changes), I’ll seek to learn more from participants with a short follow-up survey about how they experienced these changes to the process

Questions: Send me an email at holly.hassel@ndsu.edu or 4csconvention2021@gmail.com

How Stuff Works: Timing, Siting, and Review for the CCCC Convention

Unless you’re the sort of person who finds bylaws, constitutions, and policies interesting, the specifics of how the CCCC Convention operates are likely unclear. Given that the organization has had to make some very significant decisions in the recent months, I thought it would be helpful to distill some of the ways things usually work and explain the levels of flexibility that are available, including how the convention might make use of some of the digital and online options that 2020 allowed us to pilot. 

Three to Five Years Prior to CCCC Meeting

  • Site selection: Future CCCC Convention Dates and Sites: The usual process for selecting the convention site takes place over a period of a few years, with NCTE staff circulating a request for bids and then reviewing those bids from various locations. Historically, the convention location has gone through a cycle where it rotates from an East Coast site to a midwest site to a West coast site and then back to Midwest. This is to offer access to the Convention to our national membership in any given year. Making a commitment to a conference site comes with a significant outlay of funding–commitment for holding reservations in conference cities (as much as a million dollars of the CCCC budget for the period leading up to the conference).
  • Most of the decisions around convention siting planning are brought to the Executive Committee (elected annually) and the Officers (who are elected by the membership in the summer elections, and who serve a four-year rotation through various roles and make up the Officers’ committee) by the CCCC and NCTE staff. Sites are approved by a vote of the committee. The EC meets officially twice/year, and the Officers Committee meets monthly to address issues that emerge in an ongoing way.
  • Following the Milwaukee cancellation, the CCCC officers committee (whose responsibilities are outlined in the Constitution of the Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of Teachers of English also the bylaws) discussed the possibility of having a more open rotation so that NCTE leaders–the umbrella organization for CCCC–can have more flexibility in pursuing cost-effective measures and have less rigidity in seeking convention locations. It also allows us to offset some of the penalties from Milwaukee commitments we had made if we are able to book a future convention in the city.

One to Two Years Prior to the Convention:

  • CCCC Officer and EC Elections: CCCC officers rotate through four years in the Officers Committee. The first year is when the assistant chair starts to develop the program information and learn about the CCCC governance work; the Associate Chair year (the second year), is the year of the CCCC program that that person chairs. The third year is when the elected officer is chair of CCCC–the organization itself–and is responsible for convening meetings, developing the agenda, assembling and charging task forces and committees, etc. In the fourth year, the person elected serves as “past chair,” a member of the Officers Committee that votes on decisions and helps lead the organization as well as providing continuity. This election and governance information is relevant because it is connected to the timeline and planning that happens prior to the actual Convention. These don’t line up exactly with the convention planning years because officer terms change 30 days following the NCTE convention, which is held in November. So right now, I am Assistant Chair, Julie Lindquist is Associate Chair, Vershawn Ashanti Young is Chair, and Asao Inoue is Past Chair. David Green is secretary, a position that has a term of four years.
  • Composing the Convention Program: During the 1.5 years leading up to the annual convention, the person elected to program chair follows a timeline that lays out when and how decisions need to be made.  This timeline is provided in the publicly available CCCC Executive Committee Handbook that describes how the convention is composed, how review of proposals take place, and the timeline for the events. However, this is a 180 page document so I direct your attention to Section 8, specifically page 147, where the process and timeline is described in detail. The information in the handbook reflects “pre-pandemic” planning timelines, and I have been working with the CCCC liaison, Kristen Ritchie, on adjusting those timelines in order to provide some flexibility in the timing of decisions in this uncertain time. For example, we were able to move the submission date back by a few weeks, and the process of putting the program together back by about a month (usually takes place in June on-site at the NCTE office in Illinois, now will take place online in July).

The Year Before the Convention

After the CFP is released, there is a lot of coordinating that takes place to assemble the program, schedule sessions, and coordinate with constituent groups or other professional groups who hold meetings at or in conjunction with CCCC. 

  • Constituent Group Planning: A factor that is part of annual convention planning and the timeline between meetings is the constituent groups who plan events at CCCC or contiguous with CCCC. These member groups or groups who collaborate with CCCC include events like the Research Network Forum, the CCCC Feminist Workshop, the TYCA National Conference, the Council on Basic Writing, the Qualtitative Research Network, the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition, and the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, among others. Each of those groups, of course, makes independent decisions about their relationship to the CCCC Convention. It is important for the CCCC program chair to be mindful of the other groups whose work has a mutually invested relationship to the annual convention planning process. 
  • “Back Office” or Behind the Scenes Work: A few other factors that influence the timing of the convention planning include the other responsibilities that are handled by NCTE staff, the size of the convention, and the workload of members who serve as reviewers. While some professional groups are able to ‘carry over’ a full program from one year to the next, the CCCC Convention, because of its size, faces different challenges. Anywhere from 2,800 to over 3,300 professionals attend the annual meeting which amplifies the planning workload in ways that smaller professional groups perhaps can be more agile in navigating.
  • Proposal Reviewing: Likewise, the workload for reviewing proposals takes place over the summer. Stage 1 usually happens when the proposal submission database closes (in most years, that is at the end of the first week in May) and reviewers have a few weeks to complete their work. This year, we’ve pushed the deadline back to the very end of May, which means reviewers will be looking at and evaluating proposals well into summer break. 
  • In usual years, Stage 2 review (again, described in Section 8 of the CCCC Executive Committee Handbook), takes place in June. The current quarantine conditions will require that that part of the process (which includes assembling accepted proposals into panels, for those that were not submitted as a panel) happens remotely, and will be pushed back to July. 
  • We are hopeful that even with that delay in the usual process of several weeks, that folks will be able to hear back about their acceptances by the start of the academic year, in part because we know that for many institutions, professional development funding needs are determined and requested near the start of the Fall term. 
  • After each convention, the CCCC office sends out a post-convention survey, asking about the experience that convention-goers had at the meeting. This past year, for example, one of the subcommittees of the CCCC EC used that as an opportunity to ask participants about their most engaging experiences, which I then referenced when thinking about decisions for the 2021 conference planning. 

Participation for 2021: The cancellation of the 2020 convention in Milwaukee has given us an opportunity to try out some ways of fulfilling at least one goal of the convention for attendees which is public dissemination of their work. You’ll see also in the online sharing site that CCCC and TYCA have been able to distribute some of their materials which offers the advantages of dissemination—being able to read and reference that work and to continue the scholarly conversations on those issues.  I don’t know yet what will be possible for 2021—but we are exploring as many ways as possible to make the convention accessible and seeking all ways to make convention participation as safe as possible for members.

If you are interested in an accessible overview of how CCCC Governance works, consult the User’s Guide to CCCC, created by a CCCC Executive Committee Subcommittee on Committees (for real).

How Stuff Works: Timing, Siting, and Review for the CCCC Annual Convention

How Stuff Works: Timing, Siting, and Review

Unless you’re the sort of person who finds bylaws, constitutions, and policies interesting, the specifics of how the CCCC Convention operates are likely unclear. Given that the organization has had to make some very significant decisions in the recent months, I thought it would be helpful to distill some of the ways things usually work and explain adjustments being made to respond to the pandemic.

Three to Five Years Prior to CCCC Meeting

  • Site selection: Future CCCC Convention Dates and Sites: The usual process for selecting the convention site takes place over a period of a few years, with NCTE staff circulating a request for bids and then reviewing those bids from various locations. Historically, the convention location has gone through a cycle where it rotates from an East Coast site to a midwest site to a West coast site and then back to Midwest. This is to offer access to the Convention to our national membership in any given year. Making a commitment to a conference site comes with a significant outlay of funding–commitment for holding reservations in conference cities (as much as a million dollars of the CCCC budget for the period leading up to the conference).
  • Most of the decisions around convention siting planning are brought to the Executive Committee (elected annually) and the Officers (who are elected by the membership in the summer elections, and who serve a four-year rotation through various roles and make up the Officers’ committee) by the CCCC and NCTE staff. Sites are approved by a vote of the committee. The EC meets officially twice/year, and the Officers Committee meets monthly to address issues that emerge in an ongoing way.
  • Following the Milwaukee cancellation, the CCCC officers committee (whose responsibilities are outlined in the Constitution of the Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of Teachers of English also the bylaws) discussed the possibility of having a more open rotation so that NCTE leaders–the umbrella organization for CCCC–can have more flexibility in pursuing cost-effective measures and have less rigidity in seeking convention locations. It also allows us to offset some of the penalties from Milwaukee commitments we had made if we are able to book a future convention in the city.

One to Two Years Prior to the Convention:

  • CCCC Officer and EC Elections: CCCC officers rotate through four years in the Officers Committee. The first year is when the assistant chair starts to develop the program information and learn about the CCCC governance work; the Associate Chair year (the second year), is the year of the CCCC program that that person chairs. The third year is when the elected officer is chair of CCCC–the organization itself–and is responsible for convening meetings, developing the agenda, assembling and charging task forces and committees, etc. In the fourth year, the person elected serves as “past chair,” a member of the Officers Committee that votes on decisions and helps lead the organization as well as providing continuity. This election and governance information is relevant because it is connected to the timeline and planning that happens prior to the actual Convention. These don’t line up exactly with the convention planning years because officer terms change 30 days following the NCTE convention, which is held in November. So right now, I am Assistant Chair, Julie Lindquist is Associate Chair, Vershawn Ashanti Young is Chair, and Asao Inoue is Past Chair. David Green is secretary, a position that has a term of four years.
  • Composing the Convention Program: During the 1.5 years leading up to the annual convention, the person elected to program chair follows a timeline that lays out when and how decisions need to be made.  This timeline is provided in the publicly available CCCC Executive Committee Handbook that describes how the convention is composed, how review of proposals take place, and the timeline for the events. However, this is a 180 page document so I direct your attention to Section 8, specifically page 147, where the process and timeline is described in detail. The information in the handbook reflects “pre-pandemic” planning timelines, and I have been working with the CCCC liaison, Kristen Ritchie, on adjusting those timelines in order to provide some flexibility in the timing of decisions in this uncertain time. For example, we were able to move the submission date back by a few weeks, and the process of putting the program together back by about a month (usually takes place in June on-site at the NCTE office in Illinois, now will take place online in July).

The Year Before the Convention

After the CFP is released, there is a lot of coordinating that takes place to assemble the program, schedule sessions, and coordinate with constituent groups or other professional groups who hold meetings at or in conjunction with CCCC. 

  • Constituent Group Planning: A factor that is part of annual convention planning and the timeline between meetings is the constituent groups who plan events at CCCC or contiguous with CCCC. These member groups or groups who collaborate with CCCC include events like the Research Network Forum, the CCCC Feminist Workshop, the TYCA National Conference, the Council on Basic Writing, the Qualtitative Research Network, the Coalition of Feminist Scholars in the History of Rhetoric and Composition, and the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, among others. Each of those groups, of course, makes independent decisions about their relationship to the CCCC Convention. It is important for the CCCC program chair to be mindful of the other groups whose work has a mutually invested relationship to the annual convention planning process. 
  • “Back Office” or Behind the Scenes Work: A few other factors that influence the timing of the convention planning include the other responsibilities that are handled by NCTE staff, the size of the convention, and the workload of members who serve as reviewers. While some professional groups are able to ‘carry over’ a full program from one year to the next, the CCCC Convention, because of its size, faces different challenges. Anywhere from 2,800 to over 3,300 professionals attend the annual meeting which amplifies the planning workload in ways that smaller professional groups perhaps can be more agile in navigating.
  • Proposal Reviewing: Likewise, the workload for reviewing proposals takes place over the summer. Stage 1 usually happens when the proposal submission database closes (in most years, that is at the end of the first week in May) and reviewers have a few weeks to complete their work. This year, we’ve pushed the deadline back to the very end of May, which means reviewers will be looking at and evaluating proposals well into summer break. 
  • In usual years, Stage 2 review (again, described in Section 8 of the CCCC Executive Committee Handbook), takes place in June. The current quarantine conditions will require that that part of the process (which includes assembling accepted proposals into panels, for those that were not submitted as a panel) happens remotely, and will be pushed back to July. 
  • We are hopeful that even with that delay in the usual process of several weeks, that folks will be able to hear back about their acceptances by the start of the academic year, in part because we know that for many institutions, professional development funding needs are determined and requested near the start of the Fall term. 
  • After each convention, the CCCC office sends out a post-convention survey, asking about the experience that convention-goers had at the meeting. This past year, for example, one of the subcommittees of the CCCC EC used that as an opportunity to ask participants about their most engaging experiences, which I then referenced when thinking about decisions for the 2021 conference planning. 

Participation for 2021: The cancellation of the 2020 convention in Milwaukee has given us an opportunity to try out some ways of fulfilling at least one goal of the convention for attendees which is public dissemination of their work. You’ll see also in the online sharing site that CCCC and TYCA have been able to distribute some of their materials which offers the advantages of dissemination—being able to read and reference that work and to continue the scholarly conversations on those issues.  I don’t know yet what will be possible for 2021—but we are exploring as many ways as possible to make the convention accessible and seeking all ways to make convention participation as safe as possible for members.

If you are interested in an accessible overview of how CCCC Governance works, consult the User’s Guide to CCCC, created by a CCCC Executive Committee Subcommittee on Committees (for real).

Have questions not addressed here? Feel free to post them in the comments, below.

CCCC 2021 Decisions and Advice

*update: we have been able to extend the submission deadline to Monday, June 8!

Hello colleagues, 

I’m writing as the CCCC 2021 in Spokane Program Chair,  in this more informal format (my occasionally used blog) to share some information about CCCC 2021 in Spokane, particularly how and why the program will be constructed, and the ways that I am collaborating with CCCC 2020 Program Chair Julie Lindquist to work to balance flexibility with continuity in the midst of the pandemic and the accompanying constraints and stressors that have resulted from it. 

CCCC and TYCA 2020 Online Sharing: Hopefully you have received the information about how to share materials online, available here: CCCC and TYCA 2020 Online. In the absence of an in-person meeting in 2020, Julie and I worked with the CCCC and NCTE staff to consider the various needs and material constraints that members of our field are facing right now, particularly for those whose participation is connected to employment evaluation like retention, merit, tenure, and promotion: 

  • Documenting Your Acceptance: Many presenters who planned to attend were still in the process of preparing their materials. For those whose current circumstances whether through childcare responsibilities, illness, other caregiving, financial circumstances, etc have made it infeasible to complete what they planned to present in Milwaukee, the peer-reviewed acceptance in the CCCC program can and should be documented on professional documents with a note that the convention was cancelled. For example, I had a panel presentation accepted but had not yet had a chance to draft my presentation; I’ll list that one on my professional materials as “accepted” with a parenthetical note (*conference cancelled).  
  • Documenting Posted Work: For those presenters who had completed their materials AND have the professional and personal ability to disseminate those materials at this time, the online repository provides a way to disseminate research, advance projects, etc., particularly those that, for various reasons, are not “portable” to the next year. The online space provides an opportunity to share that work, but no member or accepted program presenter should feel obligated to upload materials if it is not aligned with their professional and personal needs and abilities at this time. For example, as a member of a Task Force that planned to present results of a national survey that had been in the works for over a year, I had already worked with my group to prepare a presentation document. That one made sense to post to the TYCA online sharing site, and I’ll list that one as I normally would on my professional documents without an asterisk or qualifying remark.

CCCC 2021: Spokane

The timeline for convention planning is such that the CFP for Spokane has been in development for nearly six months. At the time of the conference cancellation, the convention database for proposal submission was in the process of being built. Quite a number of complex issues, then, have shaped the subsequent work to plan for the 2021 convention. 

CCCC chair Julie Lindquist and her team have worked tirelessly for nearly 2 years to develop the Milwaukee program and convention experience. Some of that work was very place-based and tied to the location; quite a lot of it was not. We decided as officers, the Executive Committee, and together as program chairs that with a convention the size of CCCC, and with the roles and governing documents that shape how the organization does its work, it was not feasible to simply “roll over” the full program to the subsequent year. 

We’ve agreed upon and moved ahead with a collaborative approach that allows for the 2021 program chair to maintain the original vision for the conference–focused specifically on the teaching of writing–while integrating those elements from the Milwaukee program that are compatible, of which there were quite a few: for example, Common Grounds pop-up coffee houses, Think Mobs conversation groups, Documentarians, and Engaged Learning experiences (ELEs). 

We took a lot of factors into consideration when making decisions about how to proceed, including with the decision not to automatically roll over accepted proposals from 2020 to 2021: 

  • Online options: Though the online repository does not ‘replace’ the in-person work of the annual convention, for the purposes of disseminating work and making professional progress for individual presenters, we decided that the opportunity to disseminate work electronically–and in a formal way that is documented by the organization–meets some of the practical needs that members have. Likewise, both Julie and I were attracted to the idea of what this option could provide for exploring the ways that online dissemination of research and scholarship might offer members. There have been ongoing discussions for years (particularly led by the Accessibility and Disability Studies leaders in the organization) about how to enable professional engagement in accessible ways, ways that don’t take as their default assumption the physical presence of teacher-scholars at the convention. This can serve as a kind of ‘pilot’ to see the drawbacks and advantages of this kind of virtual dissemination. 
  • Normalcy and flexibility: We have sought to balance the need for some sense of continuity, and normalcy, with adaptability and flexibility. The CCCC program development timeline and organizational business follows a somewhat rigid process, and so we have tried to adhere to those, when possible. Likewise, we have made some changes, particularly to the timeline and reviewer process, that we hope will add flexibility.
  • Fairness: The final program aims to be fair and ethical in recognizing that new work and new proposals need to have an equitable chance to appear on the program. We considered but ultimately decided against simply rolling over accepted proposals, while simultaneously building in some elements of the 2020 program, so that a 2021 program will be built that both honors the work of the Milwaukee convention and allows for new ideas, work, and projects to have a reasonable ability to receive peer-review feedback and a spot on the program. Though fairness is not an objective concept, we have sought to make the past and future processes as fair as possible. 
  • Situatedness: Much of the Milwaukee 2020 program had specific, place-based connections to the convention site, as we have sought–as an organization–to do more fully through the Social Justice and Activism at the Convention Committee recently and more historically, the Local Arrangements committees. As the annual post-convention survey reveals, as well, many attendees make decisions about whether to go on any given year in part because of the location.  Moving ahead with an open process that mirrors the one that has taken place historically seems to have the best chance of building a coherent convention program that moves the work of the field forward. 
  • The Work of the Field: An important consideration for me as 2021 program chair has been the need to not simply put at least this part of the work of the field ‘on hold’ for a year. Though writing studies scholarship, research, teaching and service takes place in multiple sites and on a range of timelines, the annual CCCC convention has historically been a large and influential gathering where significant work has taken place–to meet, organize, advocate, connect, agitate, and more. Ultimately, the intention of decisions around program building has been to acknowledge the importance of opening the conference to new work in the field and new scholars in the field. The efforts to build a digital and flexible way to move some of that work forward emerge from this principle.
  • People’s Lives: We know that the COVID19 pandemic and all the accompanying changes to people’s lives–a shift to distance learning for both K-12 and college students, caregiving responsibilities, emotional labor and stress that accompanies a crisis of this nature–has fundamentally disrupted the professional priorities we may have previously had. We’ve sought to balance normalcy and flexibility here by creating a) an online opportunity for those folks who are ready and who want to share work sooner rather than later, b) a program call that integrates elements of 2020 so that those who were accepted to that program can more easily link their previous proposal to the 2021 call, without needing to do substantive revisions, c) a new theme and vision for 2021 that will attract and make a space for a wide range of teacher-scholar-activists to collaborate and converse. 
  • Timelines: The usual timeline for CCCC is to make the CFP available at the current year’s convention, with an early May submission deadline. We have moved the submission deadline back to the end of May, in recognition of what is an overwhelming time for many teacher-scholars due to changes in their employment and home conditions. This is an effort to look forward to this major annual event in the field even as we grapple with our current material circumstances. Certainly no one knows what 2021 will bring at this point, but we are collaborating with an optimistic vision to continue the work of writing studies in the wake of COVID19.

That being said, we hope you will visit the TYCA and CCCC online convention site, where accepted presenters, committees, and constituent groups of the organizations (committees, SIGS, standing groups) have been posting materials, including information about ways that those groups plan to hold meetings or do business electronically (oth synchronously and asynchronously) in the coming months as we navigate the semester.  We are excited about the ability to “attend” multiple sessions at once, and for the organization to spotlight sessions through social media in order to distribute the work that members do widely. 

Public Landing Page  

I hope that this explanation provides answers to questions that members may have as they are thinking about their professional work in the coming year. I am happy to answer questions–contact me at holly.hassel@ndsu.edu. Julie Lindquist will be fielding the Documentarian role and work that is continuing into 2021, and the Engaged Learning Experience session model that is going to be carried over into the 2021 proposal process. She can be reached at lindqu11@msu.edu

I’ll be posting another blog entry shortly to offer additional explanations about changes to the convention schedule this year that we hope offers a bit more flexibility for some of the adjustments we’ve made while simultaneously allowing for maximum participation for proposers.

If you are interested in serving as a reviewer for conference proposals, you can sign up here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CCCC2021Stage1SignUp.

Thanks for reading! 

Holly (in collaboration with Julie)

For questions about the convention, contact Convention Chair Holly Hassel or Convention Assistant Andrea Stevenson at 4Csconvention2021@gmail.com. For questions about Documentarian roles, Think Mobs, or Common Grounds, contact Julie Lindquist at lindqu11@msu.edu. For questions about Spokane and the work of the Local Arrangements Committee, contact Bradley Bleck at bradleywbleck@gmail.com.

Advanced Writing Workshop Student Digital Projects

Fall 2019

For English 458: Advanced Writing Workshop this semester, students conducted field research at a site of their choosing. A final part of the project was to identify some digital way to share for specific audiences and purposes some of what they learned in order to contribute new knowledge in a public way. Check out their awesome projects here!

Sage: Learn more about her participant-observation project volunteering at the Salvation Army meal sharing community. https://sites.google.com/view/storyofthesalvationarmy/home

Jacob: Be inspired by Jacob’s take on college aimed at new students! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF52UpNKEls&lc=z23suvajeknnt1uql04t1aokgvwahu3ujp0n1wzni4mfbk0h00410

Ryan: Listen to Ryan’s podcasts inspired by his “inside look” in a Facebook community group. https://soundcloud.com/ryan-janish-527561899

Katie: View Katie’s blog post and youtube video about cancer treatment and the communities that support patients. https://www.caringbridge.org/visit/kellybreidenbach/journal/view/id/5de8391a98f6cf9101b8be3f and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsyzAnlYdGM&feature=youtu.be

Liberty: Listen to Liberty’s podcast about her study of sorority communities at the NDSU campus! https://soundcloud.com/liberty-colling/theta-thoughts

Hannah: Check out Hannah’s inside look into the community of artists in the ceramics programs here at NDSU. https://soundcloud.com/hannah-hirt/ceramics-podcast

Max: Check out https://homeofthehooligans.godaddysites.com/ to learn more about Max’s inside look at the local Air Force base.

Jenni: Visit Jenni’s Facebook page created for parents of heavy metal music fans! https://www.facebook.com/Metal-Music-101-For-Parents-of-Metal-Fans-108315207325486/?modal=admin_todo_tour

Sam: Emerging from Sam’s study of the community of Tioga, ND, her Facebook page with resources for new commmunity members of Tioga can be found here: https://www.facebook.com/The-Community-of-Tioga-ND-105983797556797/?modal=admin_todo_tour

Advanced Writing Workshop: Student Field Site Research Digital Projects

For English 458: Advanced Writing Workshop this semester, students conducted field research at a site of their choosing. A final part of the project was to identify some digital way to share for specific audiences and purposes some of what they learned in order to contribute new knowledge in a public way. I know some are looking for comments and feedback so here are their project links: