Oops, we forgot to announce the August 2011 publication of Composition Forum 24 here. Better late than never! Check it out, if you haven’t already–we’ve got a great interview with Jonathan Alexander, a review essay on e-books, three strong articles and two very useful Program Profiles, and three reviews, including one of Wardle & Downs’s Writing about Writing.
Composition Forum readers who appreciated Lori Ostergaard and Greg A. Giberson’s “Unifying Program Goals: Developing and Implementing a Writing and Rhetoric Major at Oakland University” will be pleased to learn they are editing a collection which continues their research.
Call for Proposals: Undergraduate Writing Majors: Fourteen Program Profiles
Editors: Greg Giberson, Ph.D., Oakland University
Jim Nugent, Ph.D., Oakland University
Lori Ostergaard, Ph.D., Oakland University
During the 2010 CCCC convention, fifteen contributors to What We Are Becoming: Developments in Undergraduate Writing Majors (Utah State University Press, 2010) participated in a roundtable discussion about the growing interest in the writing major. At least sixty people attended the standing-room only session and almost every question posed to the panel was practical in nature, representing some variation of the question “How do we do this?” The proposed collection is conceived as a follow up to What We are Becoming and attempts to answer this very question.
The proposed collection will provide a snapshot of the major through fourteen profiles from various types of institutions (liberal arts, MA, doctoral, etc.), different programs (having varied departmental configurations, sizes, and disciplinary homes), and curricular orientations (such as writing studies, professional/technical writing, new media, creative writing, etc.). The program profiles will:
- overview the history of the program, institution, department, etc.; describe the program and the rationale for its structure;
- provide a narrative explaining the local contingencies that helped/hindered the program’s implementation;
- provide insight into the deliberations, arguments, and comprises that were made in developing the program;
- include a “Connections” section explaining where the program fits in the university and how it relates to other programs such as first-year composition, WAC, writing centers, etc.;
- include a “Reflection” section explaining what the author(s) learned about developing, implementing, running, and revising such a program;
- include a “Looking Forward” section discussing the future of the program; and
- offer brief supplementary materials as necessary (such as checklists, course descriptions, etc.).
While not an exhaustive list, each chapter should address these aspects of the program thoroughly. While all institutions have their own histories, cultures, and contexts, we believe the knowledge and experiences gathered in this collection will be an indispensable resource for those who find themselves asking “How do we do this?”–whether now or in the years of growth ahead.
The editors seek 500-word proposals for chapters of 5,000 to 7,000 words in length. The deadline for proposals is May 10, 2011. Please email questions and proposals in Microsoft Word or RTF format to: email@example.com.
We are pleased to announce the publication of Composition Forum Volume 23, for Spring 2011. Read our “From the Editors” for a summary of this exciting issue, which features an interview with Malea Powell, three articles, two Program Profiles, and three book reviews.
With Volume 23, we are migrating to Open Journal Systems, making the work of delivering CF less labor-intensive. As we tweak our submissions and review process, we’ll share news here.
To celebrate this work, CF web editor Bradley Dilger made a tag cloud from our Delicious keyword index, which covers Volumes 18-23 of the journal. Here’s a snapshot and a link to the larger cloud.
We welcome your feedback about this volume of Composition Forum.
We are pleased to note that Amy Patrick’s “Sustaining Writing Theory,” originally published in CF 21, has been selected for inclusion in Best Writing from Independent Composition and Rhetoric Journals: 2010. The collection will be published by Parlor Press. Editors Steve Parks, Linda Adler-Kassner, Brian Bailie, and Collette Caton hope to have the book in hand by this year’s CCCC.
Congratulations to Amy, and thank you to everyone involved in the Best Writing 2010 collection.
Congratulations to Helen Foster, whose article “Kairos and Stasis Revisited: Heuristics for the Critical Composition Classroom” (CF 14.2, 2005) will be published in Margaret M. Strain’s Principles and Practices: Discourses for the Vertical Curriculum (Hampton, 2011).
Recently, a reader’s report was returned to me with a comment suggesting that the submitted manuscript might be “too theoretical” for publication in Composition Forum. This comment prompted me, as Managing Editor, to reflect on the role of theory in the featured articles in our journal.
Of course, such a reflection begs the question of what theory is, and I suspect you’ll forgive as much, so as to avoid another extended etymological investigation of the Greek theoria and praxis. Composition Forum, as its subtitle announces, is a “journal of pedagogical theory in rhetoric and composition,” and thus aims to publish work that theorizes practice in sophisticated and provocative ways, or to put it another way that practices theory in sophisticated and provocative ways. So that’s the easy answer to the query that launched this discussion.
The more difficult question is: what amount of theory in a manuscript would be “too much,” what would be “too little,” and what would be “just right.” Trust me, the “too little” scenario is the easiest to recognize and to describe. This is the kind of submission that amounts to little more than detailed lesson plans or assignments, or “research” bereft of any methodological articulation nor any speculative discussion regarding results, or an essay that reveals a surprising unfamiliarity with the current issues or debates within the field of rhetoric and composition. But what might be “too much” theory? I suppose the easy answer would be the case of a submitted essay that had no conversation with or implications for the teaching of writing. Note, however, that I did not specify that the theory had to have a pedagogical application or that it had to be translated into praxis. On the contrary, I can imagine many a worthy investigation into how a theory could not be appropriated by classroom practices or how a theory would be at conflict with writing pedagogy or how a theory could not explain the results of a classroom study of student writers. So what amount of theory would be “just right”? Although not reducible to a golden mean, the “just right” essay would contribute to the ongoing conversation of our field by responding to the published scholarship in complex ways that would construct provocative ways of knowing, thinking, and doing in rhetoric and composition studies.
To this end, we invite submissions that investigate composition theory and its relation to the teaching of writing at the post-secondary level. We welcome essays that examine specific pedagogical theories or that explore how theory informs (or should inform) writing instruction, writing practices, and research into the complex literacies of our time.
With best regards,
Note: All articles published in Composition Forum are subject to rigorous peer review by at least two reviewers who are experts in the topical area.
Featuring a mix of new and experienced voices—both in the texts we select and the authors who review them—is part of our mission as book reviews editors. Our reviews and review essays speak to the diverse interests of Composition Forum’s broad readership. The current issue—our second as book reviews editors—includes reviews that address basic writing pedagogy, pill linguistics, online writing pedagogy, writing assessment, and community literacy. Upcoming reviews will explore these and other issues. We’ll continue to highlight writing pedagogy, program assessment, and technology; we’ll also review texts concerned with literacy; critical theory; race, gender, and sexuality studies; visual and multimedia rhetoric; and writing centers. We are always looking to expand the types of texts we review, and future reviews could include style manuals, textbooks, multimedia texts, and even technologies themselves, like the Kindle or the Nook.
We typically commission reviews, an increasingly common practice at academic journals in rhetoric and composition. We strive to make the review process as fair and objective as possible, and we discourage reviews of texts written by colleagues in one’s own academic department, reviews of works by former mentors or students, or reviews of books in which one has participated in the editorial process (as a manuscript reviewer, for example, or as a member of an editorial board). In fairness to book authors, we need to establish that a reviewer has the credentials to review the text in question. While graduate students certainly can possess this expertise, reviews written as a seminar assignment may not reflect sufficient understanding of the review genre or the field.
A successful review does both. It shows a balance of summary and analysis, depth of critical assessment, and willingness to assert an opinion. A successful review also conveys an informed opinion, situating the text in question in relation to recent scholarship and larger trends in composition studies.
Our work requires a robust community of prospective reviewers with a range of expertise. With that in mind, we invite you to join our pool of reviewers by emailing your curriculum vitae to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please include a brief statement of your scholarly interests in the body of your message. We also welcome comments and suggestions.
The newest volume of Composition Forum is now available!
Volume 22 features an interview with Susan Jarratt and articles focusing on pedagogical theory in composition. This volume also includes two program profiles describing writing programs at Southern Illinois University Carbondale and at Oakland University.
Along with the interview, case articles, and program profiles, CF 22 offers five reviews of new texts of interest to writing scholars and teachers.
Thanks for visiting the journal! We welcome your suggestions and comments about this volume.
Composition Forum will participate in the Research Network Forum at this year’s CCCC Convention in Louisville, KY. Join us on Wednesday, March 17th from 1:30-2:45 in Ballroom V at the Louisville Marriott.
We would love to hear about your scholarly work and to tell you a bit about Composition Forum‘s features and future plans. Look for CF Editor Christian Weisser at the Editors’ Roundtable.
Composition Forum 21 is now available.
This volume features an interview with Cindy Selfe, troche and articles focusing on web literacy and on sustainability in composition. CF 21 also includes two Program Profiles describing writing programs at SUNY Binghamton and the University of Minnesota Duluth. In addition, Volume 21 contains three book reviews and a review essay that examines recent books on activist rhetorics.
We thank you for visiting the journal, and we welcome your suggestions and comments about this volume.