When, why, and how do college students come to value their writing as intellectual property? How do their conceptions of intellectual property reflect broader understandings and personal engagements with concepts of authorship, collaboration, identification, and capital? We address these questions based on findings from the Stanford Study of Writing, a five-year longitudinal cohort study that examined students’ writing, writing development, and attitudes toward writing throughout their college years and one year beyond. Drawing in particular from interview data, we trace relationships between students’ complex and creative negotiations with intellectual property and shaping tensions within the academy, arguing for renewed pedagogical approaches that affirm students’ writerly agency as consumers and producers of intellectual property.

Tracy Santa and Harvey Wiener have each written a commentary on Andrea A. Lunsford and Karen J. Lunsford’s article Mistakes Are a Fact of Life: A National Comparative Study, which appeared in the June 2008 issue of CCC.

This essay reports on a study of first-year student writing. Based on a stratified national sample, the study attempts to replicate research conducted twenty-two years ago and to chart the changes that have taken place in student writing since then. The findings suggest that papers are longer, employ different genres, and contain new error patterns.

This essay reports on the first two years of the Stanford Study of Writing, a five-year longitudinal study aimed at describing as accurately as possible all the kinds of writing students perform during their college years. Based on an early finding about the importance students attach to their out-of-class or self-sponsored writing and subsequent interviews with study participants, we argue that student writing is increasingly linked to theories and practices of performance. To illustrate the complex relationships between early college writing and performance, we explore the work of two study participants who are also coauthors of this essay.

these reflections on working group discussions held at the ARS meeting has quickly taken me back to Evanston in mid-September 2003 and to the extraordinarily productive and provocative work that got done there. I vividly remember listening as Jerzy Axer and then Jeffrey Walker sounded an emergent theme: rhetoric, they said, is a teaching tradition. I remember being surprised at this theme - in fact, I would not have predicted it, and that surprise took me even further back, to the disappointment I felt in having a proposal rejected for an ISHR meeting: awe do not accept papers on pedagogy, the letter said. The dismissal of pedagogy is not unique to ISHR, of course; MLA and NGA have also been reluctant to yield pedagogy a place at the disciplinary table. Even in the GGGG, which was founded on pedagogical concerns, a sometimes bitter conflict has sprung up between theory and practice, with those advocating for the crucial role of theory arguing that studies in composition/rhetoric will not prosper or mature unless the field gives up its attachment to practice, to pedagogy. So I was surprised at the primacy of pedagogy at the ARS conference, and I was heartened by it as well. As Mike Leff has since remarked, at ARS, all roads lead to teaching. In his essay in this issue, Jerry Hauser offers a retrospective explanation for the marginalization of pedagogy and teaching: the ancient Greek rhetorical tradition, grounded in the paedeia and on the capacitating the individual student to lead the life of an active and responsible citizen gave way to the model of the German research institution, with its emphasis on and valorization of discovering new knowledge. This is an elegant explanation, one that leads to Hauser's equally elegant peroration: capacitating students to be competent citizens is our birthright It has been ours since antiquity. Modern education has stripped us of We need to reclaim it. What became increasingly clear to me is that a second key term that animated the conference - performance - must also play a central role in any such reclamation. In retrospect, I realized that every keynote address touched not only on pedagogy but also on performance: the performance of teaching; the performance of civic duty and discourse; the performance of student speaking and writing; the performance of disciplinarity. As I listened and talked, the focus on performance and pedagogy seemed perfectly to bridge the rhetoric/composition and communication traditions to which

These essays examine: how women have used language to reflect their vision of themselves and their age; how they have used traditional rhetoric and applied it to women's discourse; and how women have contributed to rhetorical theory.

Preview this article: Intellectual Property and Composition Studies, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/47/3/collegecompositionandcommunication8692-1.gif

Preview this article: Representing Audience: "Successful" Discourse and Disciplinary Critique, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/47/2/collegecompositionandcommunication8698-1.gif

"Philosophical bases of rhetoric and composition Ph.D. programs." Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 25(1-4), pp. 247–248 Notes The annual meeting of the Rhetoric Society of America at the CCCC in Washington, D.C. featured talks by Kathleen E. Welch, Andrea Lunsford, and Susanne Clark. The topic for the session was “The Theoretical Basis of Rhetoric/Composition Ph.D. Programs in the Discipline of English.” We are printing presentations by Andrea Lunsford and Suzanne Clark. As we went to press, Kathleen Welch's presentation was not available.

Preview this article: Teachers' Rhetorical Comments on Student Papers, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/44/2/collegecompositioncommunication8835-1.gif

As far back as we can trace student papers, we can see the attempts of teachers to squeeze their reactions into a few pithy phrases, to roll all their strength and all their sweetness up into one ball for student delectation. Every teacher of composition has shared in this struggle to address students, and writing helpful comments is one of the skills most teachers wish to develop toward that end. Given that writing evaluative commentary is one of the great tasks we share, one might think it would have been one of the central areas of examination in composition studies. Indeed, a number of thoughtful examinations of written teacher commentaries exist, most of them measuring empirically the comments of a relatively small teacher and student population. No studies we could find, however, have ever looked at large numbers of papers commented on by large numbers of teachers. We do not have, in other words, any large-scale knowledge of the ways that North American teachers and students tend to interact through written assessments. There are clear logistical reasons for this lack of large-scale studies; the gathering and analysis of a large data base are daunting tasks, and evaluating rhetorical (as opposed to formal) commentary is a challenge. But we had the data base gathered from previous research, and in the great tradition of fools rushing in where wise number-crunchers fear to tread, we thought we'd take a look at this question of teacher commentary. As inveterate historical kibbitzers, we naturally started research by asking what sorts of comments teachers had made on student papers in the past. Have teacher comments become more or less prescriptive, longer or shorter, more positive or more negative? We headed for the stacks to try to find out. Rather to our amazement, we discovered that what we were proposing to look at-

Since the rise of college-level spelling instruction, pedagogies have been few, based primarily on “demon lists” of spelling words and injunctions to students about developing “informed doubt.” This study examines spelling instruction historically, then describes a large-scale analysis done in 1986 of the spelling errors found in 3,000 nationally gathered and stratified student essays. The result of this research is a new and somewhat unusual “demon list” indicating that the most commonly misspelled words are homophones, spellings based on pronunciation, and visual errors. The study then examines the changes wrought in student spelling by the advent of word processing with and without associated spell-checking, examining 100 word-processed essays with and 100 without spell-checking. This research indicates that word processing greatly increases the number of spelling errors unless spell-checking is used. The study concludes by exploring the question of what the future may hold for spelling pedagogies.

(1990). Rhetoric in a new key: Women and collaboration. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 234-241.

Preview this article: Composing Ourselves: Politics, Commitment, and the Teaching of Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/41/1/collegecompositionandcommunication8981-1.gif

Edward M. White, Developing Successful College Writing Programs. Foreword by Richard Lloyd‐Jones. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 1989. xxii + 232 pages. Louise Wetherbee Phelps, Composition as a Human Science: Contributions to the Self‐Understanding of a Discipline. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. xiii + 268 pages. Louise Z. Smith, ed., Audits of Meaning: A Festschrift in Honor of Ann E. Berthoff. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann, 1988. Foreword by Paulo Freire. xv + 264 pages. Jasper Neel, Plato, Derrlda, and Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. 252 pages. Brian Vickers, In Defence of Rhetoric. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, 1988. xi + 508 pages.

Preview this article: Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa Kettle Do Research, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/39/4/collegecompositionandcommunication11144-1.gif