Digital Writing, Rhetoric & Discourse Rotating Header Image

Readings & Bibliography

Many of these print titles are available in 222 McGaw — Michael’s office:

Annotated Bibliography. CCCC Committee on Best Practices in Online Writing Instruction.

Ball, Cheryl E. . “Designerly ≠ Readerly: Re-assessing Multimodal and New Media Rubrics for Writing Studies.” Convergence: The International Journal for Research into New Media Technologies. 12(2006): 393–412.

Borton, Sonya C. and Brian Huot. “Thinking about Responding to and Grading Multi-Modal Texts.” Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Hampton Press, 2007.

Boyd, Patricia Webb. “Analyzing Students’ Perceptions of Their Learning in Online and Hybrid First-Year Composition Courses.” Computers and Composition: An International Journal. 25(2008): 224-243.

Cope, Bill and Mary Kalantzis. “Design for Social Futures.” Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures. Ed. Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis. Routledge: New York, 2000. 203-234.

Daley, Elizabeth (2003) “Expanding the Concept of Literacy.” EDUCAUSE Review, 33-40.

Feenberg, Andrew. Transforming Technology: A Critical Theory Revisited. Oxford University Press, 2002.

Hatmaker, Elizabeth, et al. “Postmodern Pedagogies and the Death of Civic Humanism.” Social Epistemology. 11(1997): 339-348.

Hawisher, Gail and  and Cynthia L. Selfe. Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies. Logan/Urbana: Utah State U P, and NCTE, 1999.

Hawisher, Gail. “The Effects of Word Processing on the Revision Strategies of College Students.” Research in the Teaching of English. 21 (1987): 145-59. PDF forthcoming, but see abstract:

A study explored the effects of word processing on the revision strategies of 20 advanced college freshmen enrolled in a required writing course. Subjects were divided into two groups of 10, each of which alternately wrote a series of four essays on and off the computer. For each essay students submitted three drafts, which were analyzed for revisions. Each student produced two essays with word processing and two with pen and typewriter. In addition to undergoing text analysis, the essays were judged by trained raters using an analytical scale, so that the quality of the essays could be related to the number and kinds of revisions. Results of the analysis of 4,048 between-draft revisions of 80 essays indicated that writing on a computer did not lead to increased revision–at least not for these able students. The finding that there was no positive relationship between extensive revision and the quality ratings, however, suggests that manipulating text for the sake of revision has little value for students or their writing. Nor did the students make different kinds of revisions with a computer than they did with pen and typewriter. The essays produced with pen and typewriter, moreover, received ratings comparable in quality to those produced on the computer.

Odell, Lee and Susan M. Katz. “’Yes, a T-Shirt!’”: Assessing Visual Composition in the ‘Writing’ Class.” College Composition and Communication. 61(2009): 197-216.

Reilly, Colleen A. “Sexualities and Technologies: How Vibrators Help to Explain Computers.” Computers and Composition: An International Journal. 21(2004): 363-385.

Selber, Stuart A.  “Institutional Dimensions of Academic Computing.” College Composition and Communication. 61 (2009): 10-34.

Sconce, Jeffrey. “Tulip Theory.” In Anna Everett and John T. Caldwell (Eds.), New Media: Theories and Practices of Digitextuality. New York: Routlege. 179-193, 2003.

Selfe, Cynthia “The Movement of Air, The Breath of Meaning Aurality and Multimodal Composing.” College Composition and Communication. 60(2009): 616-663. And see accompanying web site:

Sidler, Michelle, Richard Morris, and Elizabeth Overman Smith.  Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008.

Staples, Jeanine. “Does my iMovie suck?”: Assessing Teacher Candidates’ Digital Composition Processes.” English Journal 99.5 (2010): 95–99.

Takayoshi, Pamela and Selfe, Cynthia L. (2006) “Thinking about Multimodality.” Multimodal Composition: Resources for Teachers. Hampton, 2007.

The New London Group, (1996). “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Education Review 66.1: p. 60-92.

Wysocki, Anne Frances, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Cynthia L. Selfe, and Geoffrey Sirc. Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 2004.


Computers & Composition

Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy

Visible Language


Leave a Reply