Photo by Paul Hanaoka on Unsplash

Here are resources I have curated on design thinking, multimodality, and maker approaches in writing studies, including rhetoric, technical communication, and composition. With a spirit of crowdsourcing knowledge, I welcome comments and contributions from you!

Agboka, G. & Matveeva, N. (Eds.) (2018). Citizenship and advocacy in technical communication: Scholarly and pedagogical perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.

Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C. (1987). What experienced collaborators say about collaborative writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 1(2), 70–90.

American Society for Engineering Education. (2016). Envisioning the future of the maker movement: Summit report. Washington, DC.

Andrews, T. (2012). What is social constructionism? The Grounded Theory Review, 11(1), 39–46.

Arola, K. & Wysocki, A.F. (2012). Composing(media) = Composing(embodiment). Boulder, CO: Utah State University Press.

Baldry, A. & Thibault, P. (2010). Multimodal transcription and text analysis (2nd ed.). Oakville, CT: Equinox.

Ball, C. (2012). Assessing scholarly multimedia: A rhetorical genre studies approach. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 61–77.

Barnett, S. & Boyle, C. (Eds.) (2017). Rhetoric, through everyday things. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Barrett, T., Pizzico, M., Levy, B., & Nagel, R. (2015). A review of university maker spaces. American Society for Engineering Education. Proceeding of 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. 1–17.

Bartholomae, D. (1985). Inventing the university. In Mike Rose (Ed.), When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing process problems (pp.273–85). New York, NY: Guilford.

Bay, J., Johnson-Sheehan, R., & Cook, D. (2018). Design thinking via experiential learning: Thinking like an entrepreneur in technical communication courses. Programmatic Perspectives, 10(1), 172–200.

Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(3), 361–387.

Beichner, R.J., Saul, J.M., Abbott, D.S., Morse, J.J., Deardorff, D.L., Allain, R.J., Bonham, S.W., Dancy, M.H., & Risley, J.S. (2007). The student-centered activities for large enrollment undergraduate programs (SCALE-UP) project. In E.F. Redish and P.J. Cooney (Eds.), Research-based reform of university physics, Vol. I (pp. 2–42). College Park, MD: American Association of Physics Teachers.

Bekins, L. & Williams, S. (2006). Positioning technical communication for the creative economy. Technical Communication, 53(3), 287–295.

Berlin, J.A., & Inkster, R.P. (1980). Current-traditional rhetoric: Paradigm and practice. Freshman English News, 8(3), 1–14.

Blakesley, D. (2018). Composing the un/real future. Computers and Composition, 50, 8–20.

Blikstein, P., Martinez, S.L., Pang, H.A. (2015). Meaningful making: Projects and inspirations for fablabs and makerspaces. Torrance, CA: Constructing Modern Knowledge Press.

Blyler, N.R. (2004) Critical interpretive research in technical communication: Issues of power and legitimacy. In T. Kynell-Hunt and G. Savage (Eds.), Power and legitimacy in technical communication: Strategies for professional status, Vol. 2 (pp. 143–166), Amityville, NY: Baywood.

Bogost, I. (2012). Alien phenomenology, Or, what it’s like to be a thing. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Bolter, J. (2001). Writing space: Computers, hypertext, and the remediation of print. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bolter, J. & Grusin, R. (2000). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bourelle, B., Bourelle, T., & Jones, N. (2015). Multimodality in technical communication classroom: Viewing classical rhetoric through a 21st century lens. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24, 306–327.

Bowen, T. & Whithaus, C. (Eds.). (2013). Multimodal literacies and emerging genres. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Breaux, C. (2017). Why making? Computers and Composition, 44, 27–35.

Breuch, L.K. (2018). Involving the audience: A rhetorical perspective on using social media to improve websites. New York, NY: Routledge.

Brooke, C. (2009). Lingua fracta: Toward a rhetoric of new media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Brown, J., & Rivers, N. (2013). Composing the carpenter’s workshop. O-Zone: A Journal of Object-Oriented Studies, 1(1), 27–36.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46(7), 635–652.

Bruffee, K. (1998). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Bruner, J.S. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J.S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning, and contemporary culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Buechly, L. (2013). Closing address. Fablearn. Stanford University, CA. Retrieved from

Buehl, J. (2016). Assembling arguments: Multimodal rhetoric and scientific discourse. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

Buran, L. (2015). Paper circuits. Digital is. The National Writing Project. Retrieved from

Burnett, R.E., White, C.I., & Duin, A.H. (1997). Locating collaboration: Reflections, features, and influences. In K. Staples & C. Ornatowski (Eds.), Foundations for teaching technical communication: Theory, practice, and program design (ATTW contemporary studies in technical communication; v.1, pp.133–160). Greenwich, CN: Ablex Publishing.

Burns, H. (1979). Editing stimulating rhetorical invention in English composition through computer-assisted instruction. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from

Cargile Cook, K. (2002). Layered literacies: A theoretical frame for technical communication pedagogy. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11(1), 5–29.

Carlson, S. (2015). The “Maker Movement” goes to college. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from

Carter, J. (2016). Making. Disrupting. Innovating. College Composition and Communication, 68(2), 378–408.

Cavalcanti, G. (2013). Is it a hackerspace, makerspace, techshop, or fablab? Make:. Retrieved from

Center for Educational Innovation, UMN. (n.d.). UMN research on ALC: Learning spaces research. Retrieved from

Ceraso, S. (2014). (Re)Educating the senses: Multimodal listening, bodily learning, and the composition of sonic experiences. College English, 77(2), 102–123.

Ceraso, S. (2018). Sounding composition: Multimodal pedagogies for embodied listening. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 509–535). Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE.

Charmaz, K. (20014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). London, UK: SAGE.

Chism, N. (2006). Challenging traditional assumptions and rethinking learning spaces. In D.G. Oblinger (Ed.), Learning spaces (pp. 2.1–2.12). Boulder, CO: Educause.

Coles, Jr., W.E. (1967). The teaching of writing as writing. College English, 29(2), 111–116.

Comstock, M. & Hocks, M. (2006). Voices in the cultural soundscape: Sonic literacy in composition studies. Computers and Composition Online, 23(3). Retrieved from

Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. New York, NY: Routledge.

Cordova, N. (2013). Invention, ethos, and new media in the rhetoric classroom. In T. Bowen and C. Whithaus (Eds.), Multimodal literacies and emerging genres (pp. 143–163). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Council of Writing Program Administrators. (2012). Framework for success in postsecondary writing. Retrieved from

Craig, J. (2014). Makers and makerspaces: Teaching composition in a creative economy. Retrieved from

Crouch, M.K. & Fountaine, S. (1994). Student portfolio as an assessment tool. In D. Halpern (Ed.), Changing college classrooms: New teaching and learning strategies for an increasingly complex world (pp. 306–328). New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.

Cumming, E. & Kaplan, W. (1991). The arts and crafts movement. New York, NY: Thames and Hudson.

Dark, T. & Baker, W.D. (2015). Entering the conversations, practices and opportunities of multimodality texts. Teaching/Writing: The Journal of Writing Teacher Education, 4(1), 65–93.

Davidson, C.N. (2017). The new education: How to revolutionize the university to prepare students for a world in flux. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Davis, M. & Yancey, K. (2014). Notes toward the role of materiality in composing, reviewing, and assessing multimodal texts. Computers and Composition, 31, 13–28.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, NY: The Free Press.

DeWitt, S.L. & Ball, C. (2008). Manifestos as scholarship. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 12(3). Retrieved from (2006). Teaching digital rhetoric: Community, critical engagement, and application. Pedagogy, 6(2), 231–259. Retrieved from

Doering, A., Beach, R., & O’Brien, D (2007). Infusing multimodal tools and digital literacies into an English education program. English Education, 40(1), 41–60.

Donaldson, J. (2014). The maker movement and the rebirth of constructionism. Hybrid Pedagogy. Retrieved from

Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 7(3), 11–18.  

Dragga, S. (1997). A question of ethics: Lessons from technical communicators on the job. Technical Communication Quarterly, 6(2): 161–178.

Duin, A.H. & Burnett, R.E. (1993). Collaboration in technical communication: A research continuum. Technical Communication Quarterly, 2(1), 5–21.

Dusenberry, L., Hutter, L., & Robinson, J. (2015). Filter. Remix. Make.: Cultivating adaptability through multimodality. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 45(3), 299–322.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), 155–171.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (1985). Let them write––together. English Quarterly, 18, 119–127.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (1990). Singular texts/plural authors: Perspectives on collaborative writing. Carbondale, IL: SIU Press.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (2001). Collaboration and concepts of authorship. PMLA, 116(2), 354–369.

Ede, L. & Lunsford, A.A. (2009). Among the audience: On audience in an age of new literacies. In M.E. Weiser, B.M. Fehler, and A.M. Gonzalez (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies (pp. 42–72). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Educause. (2013). Seven things you need to know about makerspaces. Retrieved from

Eidman-Aadahl, E., Blair, K., DeVoss, D.N., Hochman, W., Jimerson, L., Jurich, C., Murphy, S., Rupert, B., Whithaus, C., & Wood, J. (2013). Developing domains for multimodal writing assessment: The language of evaluation, the language of instruction. In H.A. McKee and D.N. DeVoss (Eds.), Digital writing assessment & evaluation (n.p.). Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press. Retrieved from

Elam-Handloff, J. (2016). Making across the curriculum: DIY culture, makerspaces, and new modes of composition. Gayle Morris Sweetland Digital Rhetoric Collaborative (DRC). Retrieved from

Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Evans, G. (2013). A novice researcher’s first walk through the maze of grounded theory: Rationalization for classical grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review, 12(1). Retrieved from

Executive Office of the President. (2014). Building a nation of makers: Universities and colleges pledge to expand opportunities to make. Retrieved from

Eyman, D. (2015). Digital rhetoric: Theory, method, practice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Fab Central. (n.d.). Fab Lab FAQ. Retrieved from

Fahnestock, J. (2003). Verbal and visual parallelism. Written Communication, 20(2), 123–152.

Faigley, L. (1999). Material literacy and visual design. In Jack Selzer, & Sharon Crowley (Eds.), Rhetorical bodies: Toward a material rhetoric (pp. 171–201). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Ferro, T. & Zachry, M. (2014). Technical communication unbound: Knowledge work, social media, and emergent communicative practices. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 6–21.

Fisher, W.W. & McGeveran, W. (2007). The digital learning challenge: Obstacles to educational uses of copyrighted material in the digital age. Retrieved from

Flower, L. & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.

Fraiberg, S. (2017). Start-up nation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(3), 350–388.

Garrison, K. (2018). Moving technical communication off the grid. Technical Communication Quarterly, 27(3), 201–216.

Gee. J.P. (2013, June). Writing in the age of the maker movement. Keynote presented at 2013 Computers and Writing conference, Frostburg, MD.

George, D. (2002). From analysis to design: Visual communication in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 54(1), 11–39.

Gierdowski, D. & Reis, D. (2015). The MobileMaker: An experiment with a mobile makerspace. Library Hi Tech, 33(4), 480–496.

Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London, UK: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

Graban, T.S., Charlton, C., & Charlton, J. (2013). Multivalent composition and the reinvention of expertise. In T. Bowen and C. Whithaus (Eds.), Multimodal literacies and emerging genres (pp. 248–281). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Graham, S. & Whalen, B. (2008). Mode, medium, and genre: A case study of decision in new-media design. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 22(1), 65–91.

Gurak, L. & Duin, A.H. (2004). The impact of the Internet and digital technologies on teaching and research in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 13(2), 187–198.

Haas, A.M. (2012). Race, rhetoric, and technology: A case study of decolonial technical communication theory, methodology, and pedagogy. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 26(3): 277–310

Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Haas, C. & Witte, S. (2001). Writing as embodied practice: The case of engineering standards. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 15, 413–457.

Hagel, J., Brown, J.S., & Kulasooriya, D. (2013). A movement in the making. UK: Deloitte University Press.

Hailey, D., Cox, M. & Loader, E. (2010). Relationship between innovation and professional communication in the “creative” economy. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 40(2), 125–141.

Hansen, C. (1996). Networking technology in the classroom: Whose interests are we serving? In P. Sullivan and J. Dautermann (Eds.), Electronic literacies in the workplace: Technologies of writing (pp. 201–215). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Hart-Davidson, B., Cushman, E., Grabill, J., DeVoss, D.N., & Porter, J. (2005). Why teach digital writing? Kairos, 10(1). Retrieved from

Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford. (n.d.). An introduction to design thinking: Process guide. Retrieved from

Hatch, M. (2013). The maker movement manifesto: Rules for innovation in the new world of crafters, hackers, and tinkerers. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

Hawisher, G. & Selfe, C. (1989). Critical perspectives on computers and composition instruction. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Hawisher, G. & Selfe, C. (1991). The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class. College Composition and Communication, 42(1), 55–65.

Haynes, C. (1998). In T. Taylor and I. Ward (Eds.), Literacy theory in the age of the internet (pp. 79–92). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Henschel, S. & Meloncon, L. (2014). Of horsemen and layered literacies: Assessment instruments for aligning technical and professional communication undergraduate curricula with professional expectations. Programmatic Perspectives, 6(1), 3–26.

Hewett, B.L. (2015). Grounding principles of OWI. In B.L. Hewett and K.E. DePew (Eds.), Foundational practices of online writing instruction (pp. 33–92). Fort Collins, CO: WAC Clearinghouse.

Hickey, D. (2000). Tangled up in blue: The web of resistance to technology and theory. Academic.Writing. Retrieved from

Hodgkin, R.A. (1990). Techne, technology, and inventiveness. Oxford Review of Education, 16(2), 207–217.

Holman, W. (2015). Makerspaces: Towards a new civic infrastructure. Places Journal. Retrieved from

Huang, H-M.  (2002). Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(1), 27–37.

Hull, G. & Nelson, M. (2005). Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224–267.

Jencks, C. & Silver, N. (2013). Adhocism: The case for improvisation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press (Expanded and updated edition).

Jewitt, C. (2009). The Routledge handbook to multimodal analysis. London, UK: Routledge.

Johnson-Eilola, J. (1996). Relocating the value of work: Technical communication in a post-industrial world. Technical Communication Quarterly, 5(3), 245–270.

Johnson-Eilola, J. (2012). Polymorphous perversity in texts. Kairos, 16(3). Retrieved from

Johnson-Eilola, J. & Selber, S. (2013). Solving problems in technical communication. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2018). Technical communication today (6th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.

Jones, K. (1997). Portfolio assessment as an alternative to grading student writing. In S. Tchudi (Ed.), Alternatives to grading student writing (pp. 255–263). Urbana, IL: NCTE. Retrieved from

Kao, J. (2007). Innovation nation: How America is losing its innovation edge, why it matters, and what we can do to get it back. New York, NY: Free Press (Simon & Schuster).

Kaufer, D.S. & Butler, B.S. (1996). Rhetoric and the arts of design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kemp, F. (2005). The aesthetic anvil: The foundations of resistance to technology and innovation in English departments. In J. Carter (Ed.), Market matters: Applied rhetoric studies and free market competition (pp. 77–94). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Keyani, P. (2012). Stay focused and keep hacking. Facebook Engineering. Retrieved from

Kimball, M. (2017). The golden age of technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 47(3), 330–358.

Knievel, M. (2006). Technology artifacts, instrumentalism, and the Humanist Manifestos: Toward an integrated humanistic profile for technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(1), 65–86.

Koerber, A. (2000). Toward a feminist rhetoric of technology. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(1): 58–73.

Koupf, D. (2017). Proliferating textual possibilities: Toward pedagogies of critical-creative tinkering. Composition Forum, 35, 1–13.

Kostelnick, C. (1989). Process paradigm in design and composition: Affinities and directions. College Composition and Communication, 40(3), 267–281.

Kress, G. (2000). Multimodality: Challenges to thinking about language. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 337–340.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London, UK: Routledge.

Kress, G. (2005). Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5–22.

Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London, UK: Routledge.

Kress, G. & Bezemer, J. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: A social semiotic account of design for learning. Written Communication, 25(2), 166–195.

Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (1996). Reading images: The grammar of visual design. London, UK: Routledge.

Kress, G. & van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kuhn, V. (2004). Picturing work: Visual projects in the writing classroom. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 9(2). Retrieved from

Kuhn, V., Johnson, D.J., & Lopez, D. (2010). Speaking with students: Profiles in digital pedagogy. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 14(2). Retrieved from

Lauer, C. (2009). Contending with terms: “Multimodal” and “multimedia” in the academic and public spheres. Computers and Composition, 26(4), 225–239.

Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning in communities of practice. In L. Resnick, J.M. Levine, and S.D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 63–82). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. New York, NY: Routledge.

Lay, M.M. (1991). Feminist theory and the redefinition of technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 5(4), 348–370.

Lee, K.M. (2004). Presence, explicated. Communication Theory, 14(1), 27–50.

LeFevre, K.B. (1987). Invention as a social act. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Leverenz, C. (2014). Design thinking and the wicked problem of teaching writing. Computers and Composition, 33, 1–12.

Levy, P. (2000). Collective intelligence: Mankind’s emerging world of cyberspace. New York, NY: Perseus Book Group.

Logie, J. (1998). Champing at the bits: Computers, copyright, and the composition classroom. Computers and Composition, 15, 201–214.

Lu, M-Z., Bawarshi, A., Ayash, N.B., Guerra, J., Horner, B., & Selfe, C. (2014). F.38 Rethinking difference in composing composition: Language, translation, genre, modality. Panel presentation at Conference on College Composition and Communication. Indianapolis, IN. March 21, 2014.

Lunsford, A.A. & Ede, L. (2011). Writing together: Collaboration in theory and practice. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.Martin.

Make: (n.d.). Maker media. Retrieved from

“Maker Faire: A bit of history” (n.d.). Retrieved from

Marback, R. (2009). Embracing wicked problems: The turn to design in composition studies. College Composition and Communication, 61, 397–419.

Maxigas, P. (2012). Hacklabs and hackerspace––tracing two genealogies. Journal of Peer Production, 2, 1–10.

Meloncon, L. & Schreiber, J. (2018). CFP: Foundational knowledge and innovative practices in technical communication. Retrieved from

McCorkle, (2012). Rhetorical delivery as technological discourse: A cross-historical study. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University.

McGrath, L. & Guglielmo, L. (2015). Communities of practice and makerspaces: DMAC’s influence on technological professional development and teaching multimodal composing. Computers and Composition, 36, 44–53.

McKim, R. (1980). Experiences in visual thinking. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

McLuhan, M. (1964/1994). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Mei, T.S. (2016). Heidegger in the machine: The difference between techne and mechane. Continental Philosophy Review, 49, 267–292.

Melo, M. (2016). Writing is making: Maker culture and embodied learning in the composition classroom. Digital Rhetoric Collaborative. Retrieved from

Miller, C. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40(6), 610–617.

Miller, S. & McVee, M. (2012). Multimodal composing in classrooms: Learning and teaching for the digital world. New York, NY: Routledge.

Morozov, E. (2014, Jan. 13). Making it: Pick up a spot welder and join the revolution. The New Yorker. Retrieved from

Murray, D. (1978). Write before writing. College Composition and Communication, 29(4), 375–381.

Nation of Makers. (n.d.). Nation of makers. Retrieved from

National Council of Teachers of English. (1974). Resolution on the student’s right to their own language. Retrieved from

National Council of Teachers of English. (2005). Position statement on multimodal literacies. Retrieved from

National Science Foundation. (2015). Dear colleague letter: Enabling the future of making to catalyze new approaches in STEM learning and innovation. Retrieved from

National Writing Project. (2013). Annual meeting schedule at a glance. Retrieved from

Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing multimodal interaction. New York, NY: Routledge.

Norris, S. (2014). Learning tacit classroom participation. Procedia: Social and behavioral sciences, 141, 166–170.

Norris, S. (n.d.). Multimodal interaction. Retrieved from

Nystrand, M., Greene, S., & Wiemelt, J. (1993). Where did composition studies come from?: An intellectual history. Written Communication, 10, 267–333.

Office of Educational Technology. (n.d.). Makerspaces. Retrieved from

O’Halloran, K.L. (1999). Towards a systematic functional analysis of multisemiotic mathematical texts. Semiotica, 124(1–2), 1–29.

O’Halloran, K.L. (2000). Classroom discourse in mathematics: A multisemiotic analysis, Linguistics and Education, 10(3), 359–388.

O’Halloran, K.L. (2004). Multimodal discourse analysis: Systemic functional perspectives. London, UK: Continuum.

O’Toole, M. (1994). The language of displayed art. London, UK: Leicester University Press.

Palincsar, A.S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

Palmeri, J. (2012). Remixing composition: A history of multimodal writing pedagogy. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Palmquist, M. (2006). Rethinking instructional metaphors for web-based writing environments.  In C.M. Neuwirth, L. Van Waes, and M. Leijten (Eds.), Writing and digital media (pp. 199–219). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Panitz, T. (1999). The motivational benefits of cooperative learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 78, 59–67.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Papert, S. (1993). The children’s machine. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Pausch, R. (2008). The last lecture. New York, NY: Hyperion. [Video retrieved from]

Pejcinovic, B. (2017). Active learning, labs and makerspaces in microwave circuit design courses. In Proceedings of the 40th International Convention on Information and Communication Technology, Electronics, and Microelectronics. Retrieved from

Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.

Piaget, J. (1957). Construction of reality in the child. London, UK: Routledge.

Piaget, J. (1973). To understand is to invent: The future of education. New York, NY: Grossman.

Pink, D. (2011). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. New York, NY: Riverhead Books (Penguin Group).

Pope-Ruark, R., Moses, J., Conner, T., & Tham, J. (2017). Special issue of Journal of Business and Technical Communication, July 2019. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(4), 520–522.

Porter, J. (2002) Why technology matters to writing: A cyberwriter’s tale. Computers and Composition, 20(4), 375–394.

Porter, J. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers and Composition, 26(4), 207–224.

Prior, P. & Shipka, J. (2003). Chronotopic laminations: Tracing the contours of literate activity. In Charles Bazerman and David Russell (Eds.), Writing selves, writing societies (180–238), Fort Collins, CO :The WAC Clearinghouse. Retrieved from

Purdy, J. (2014). What can design thinking offer writing studies? College Composition and Communication, 65(4), 612–641.

Purdy, J. & DeVos, D.N. (Eds.) (2017). Making space: Writing instruction, infrastructure, and multiliteracies. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Retrieved from;c=drc;idno=mpub7820727;rgn=full%20text;view=toc;xc=1;g=dculture

Rheingold, H. (2014). Circuit stickers, notebook hacking and learning as debugging. DMLcentral. Retrieved from

Rhodes, J. & Alexander, J. (2014). On multimodality: New media in composition studies. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Rickert, T. (2013). Ambient rhetoric: The attunements of rhetorical being. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Rifenburg, M. (2014). Writing as embodied, college football plays as embodied: Extracurricular multimodal composing. Composition Forum, 29. Retrieved from

Roblyer, M.D. & Doering, A. (2013). Integrating educational technology into teaching, 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Rose, M. (2004). The mind at work: Valuing the intelligence of the American worker. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Rowe, P. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rude, C. (2009). Mapping the research question in technical communication. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 23(2), 174–215.

Sabelli, N. (2008). Constructionism: A new opportunity for elementary science education. National Science Foundation, DRL division of research on learning in formal and informal settings (pp. 193–206). Retrieved from

Schrock, A.R. (2014). Education in disguise: Culture of a hacker and maker space. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 10(1), 1–25. Retrieved from

Scollon, R. & Scollon, S. (2003). Discourses in place: Language in the material world. London, UK: Routledge.

Scott, J. B., Longo, B., & Wills, K.V. (Eds.) (2007). Critical power tools: Technical communication and cultural studies. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Selber, S. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Selfe, C. (1999). Technology and literacy: A story about the perils of not paying attention. College Composition and Communication, 50(3), 411–436.

Selfe, C. (2009). The movement of air, the breath of meaning: Aurality and multimodal composing. College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 616–663.

Selfe, C., & Hawisher, G. (2006). Literacies and the complexities of the global digital divide. In C.M. Neuwirth, L. Van Waes, and M. Leijten (Eds.), Writing and digital media (pp. 253–285). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Selfe, C., & Hilligoss, S. (1994). Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology. New York, NY: Modern Language Association of America.

Selfe, C. & Horner, B. (2014).  F.38 Rethinking differences in composing composition: Language, translation, genre, multimodality. Conference on College Composition and Communication program. Retrieved from

Selfe, C., & Selfe, R. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45(4), 480–504.

Selting, B.R. (2002). Conversations with technical writing teachers: Defining a problem. Technical Communication Quarterly, 11(3), 251–266.

Sheridan, D. (2010). Fabricating consent: Three-dimensional objects as rhetorical compositions. Computers and Composition, 27(4), 249–265.

Sherrill, J. (2014). Makers: Technical communication in postindustrial participatory communities. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from

Shipka, J. (2005). A multimodal task-based framework for composing. College Composition and Communication, 57(2), 277–306.

Shipka, J. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Shipka, J. (2013). Including, but not limited to, the digital: Composing multimodal texts. In T. Bowen and C. Whithaus (Eds.), Multimodal literacies and emerging genres (pp. 73–89). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Shivers-McNair, A. (2017). Making, marking, mattering: What we can learn about writing, rhetoric, and technology from a makerspace. Doctoral dissertation.

Simonson, M., Smaldino, S, Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2014) Teaching and learning at a distance: Foundations of distance education (6th edition). Columbus: Prentice Hall.

Simonson, P. (2014). Reinventing invention, again. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 44(4), 299–322.

Smith, A. (2014). Technology networks for socially useful production. Journal of Peer Production, 5, retrieved from

Spilka, R. (2002). Becoming a profession. In Barbara Mirel and Rachel Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping technical communication: New directions and challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 97–110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stolley, K. (2011). How to design and write web pages today. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood.

Stolley, K. (2008). The lo-fi manifesto. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 12(3). Retrieved from

Stolley, K. (2016). The lo-fi manifesto, v. 2.0. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 20(2). Retrieved from

Sullivan, P., & Dautermann, J. (1996). Electronic literacies in the workplace: Technologies of writing. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Swan, K. (2005). A constructivist model for thinking about learning online. In J. Bourne & J. C. Moore (Eds.) Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

Takayoshi, P. & Selfe, C. (2007). Thinking about multimodality. In C. Selfe (Ed.). Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers (pp. 1–12). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Taylor, T. & Ward, I. (1998). Literacy theory in the age of the internet. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

The Garage. (n.d.). What is The Garage. Retrieved from

The New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–93.

Thompson, I. (2001). Collaboration in technical communication: A qualitative content analysis of journal articles, 1990-1999. Professional Communication, IEEE Transactions on, 44(3), 161–173.

Trimbur, J. (2000). Composition and the circulation of writing. College Composition and Communication, 52(2), 188–219.

Trust, T., Maloy, R.W., & Edwards, S. (2018). Learning through making: Emerging and expanding designs for college courses. Tech Trends, 62(1), 19–28. Retrieved from

VanKooten, C. (2016). Singer, writer: A choric exploration of sound and writing. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 21(1). Retrieved from

Vaughn, M.A. (2017). Why making matters: Pedagogy in practice. Proceedings of International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces. Paper No. #40.

Vygotsky, L. (1978a). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1978b). Interactions between learning and development. In M. Gauvain and M. Cole (Eds.), Readings on the development of children (pp. 34–40). New York, NY: Scientific American Books.

Warner, A. (2007). Constructing a tool for assessing scholarly webtexts. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 12(1). Retrieved from

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Westbrook, S. (2006). Visual rhetoric in a culture of fear: Impediments to multimedia production. College English, 68(5), 457–480.

West-Puckett, S. (2017). Materializing makerspaces: Queerly composing space, time, and (what) matters. Doctoral dissertation.

“What is a makerspace?” (2015). Retrieved from

Wickman, C. (2014). Wicked problems in technical communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 44(1), 23–42.

Wolfe, J. (2009). How technical communication textbooks fail engineering students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 351–375.

Wysocki, A.F., Johnson-Eilola, J., Selfe, C., & Sirc, G. (2004). Writing new media: Theory and applications for expanding the teaching of composition. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Yancey, K. (1992). Portfolios in the writing classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Young, I.M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Zamora, M. (2014). Paper circuitry illuminates “Writing as Making.” DMLcentral. Retrieved from

Zhang, Y. & Kitalong, K.S. (2015). Influences on creativity in technical communication: Invention, motivation, and constraints. Technical Communication Quarterly, 24(3), 199–216.