The Fifth C: Computers, Special Interest Group Session. CCCC1996, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Sponsored by the CCCC Committee on Computers in Composition andCommunication

Eric Crump, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri

Judi Kirkpatrick, Kapi'olani Community College, Honolulu,Hawai'i

Traci Gardner, The Daedalus Group, Austin, Texas

[1995, Washington][1996, Milwaukee] [1997,Phoenix] [1998,Chicago]

Session Report for the 1996 SIG

All the responses from folks at the 5th C SIG meeting are dividedbased on the reports of the discussion groups which met in Milwaukee.The responses below will inform asense-of-the-house motion to be presented at the CCCC GeneralBusiness meeting on Saturday, March 30, 1996, and fuel the creationof a specific professional stance on issues of promotion, tenure, andacademic recognition.

traci gardner
traci@daedalus.com

Group One: Create evaluative paradigms which explain research with computers (and its application in the classroom) by analogy to more traditional research and scholarship.

1. How do activities like Tuesday Cafe count and how would it be equivalent to a similar activity?
   • List something like this on the vitae under service to the department?
   • or how do we list this outside the dept?
   • it's like membership in a national organization (i.e., member NCTE, participant Rhetnet, participant Tuesday Cafe)
2. Even if we list it under service, how do we get the academy to value service more?
3. We need analogies OUTSIDE of what we articulate WITHIN our own peer community.
   • online (learning/teaching) record model is another way to evaluate us (see Peg Syverson's talk)
   • we need to help shift the mentality from evaluating products to evaluating activities
4. Make sure to get things in writing as we negotiate our contracts and/or promotion and tenure files/cases.
5. Differentiate what kinds of web pages we work on (i.e., some might be listed in service while others might be listed as scholarship, and still others as teaching)
6. Keep a log of everything we do
7. Number of hits on web pages and links to our work by doing searches (analogous to citation index)
8. We're being reductive to use analogies -- we might use an analogy but at the same time we explain, "you must understand that..."
9. Establish new categories in addition to use analogies (i.e., Faculty Development, Special Projects)

 

Group Two: Create similar evaluative structures which explain managerial and administrative work with computers by analogy to more traditional management and administration in the academy.

 

• Portfolios, sign-in sheets, etc. that track activities and usage
• What is the work worth to the department? with our area of expertise, we are cheap help to a department; to hire a specialist from outside wouild be very expensive to the school.

  Summary

1. Some analogies may be dangerous for us because we offer a specialized value to the school that should be stressed (e.g., online writing lab is not the same as other writing labs).
2. Being capable of doing this type of work serves an important value in maintaining credibility of departmen.
3. Retention -- this person serves various consulting functions that should be valued by the school.
4. Time and expertise in these jobs need to be valued and compensated. make clear that outside consultants would be very expensive.
5. Documentaiton is the only way we could demonstrate our value.
6. Make documentation available to others via the web.

 

 

Group Three: Develop links between the economic value of the work and its value for promotion, tenure and academic recognition.

 

1. Break down the actions into skills approximating marketable skills.
2. Proving value on web work should be easier since salaries in private sector for similar work are real
3. Work across the curriculum
4. Determine the values of your institution and apply constituent elements of your activity into those values.
5. Do we push to create new positions distinct from traditional work description?
6. Put professional consultant work on CV as if it counts and eventually it might.
7. Get them addicted; be the supplier.

 

Group Four: Propose and encourage a system to document work with technology for those in the field.

1. List technologies you are familiar with (like listing language or teaching experience)
   • software proficiencies
   • management proficiencies
   • ghostwriting
2. Create a job description
3. Submit letters from peers, evaluation letters
4. Keep a time log, a report of your activities
5. Use a written request form to document help requests; have them fill out an evaluatoin form for each request
6. List work as departmental service if there is no other place to include details.
7. Keep a portfolio of online materials including instruction sheets, computer syllabi, and so forth.
8. Change job expectations for everyone so that it becomes an institutional expectation that professional will be technology literate
9. Make sure institutions are aware of national organization poligy trends, etc.
10. Create your own technology committee in order to legitimize your work and create structures for evaluation at your school
11. Indicate teaching experience in the computer classroom