This is an exploratory study of reading and writing within a particular discipline. It is also an investigation of critical thinking and an examination of engagement and resistance in using language to learn about new concepts. I looked at how college history students wrestled with and sometimes worked around issues of theory, specifically theories of the causes of the Civil War. Using analysis of think-aloud protocols, I investigated how students comprehended theoretical writing about the Civil War and how they used the theoretical material to take a position in writing about these same issues. My main purpose in this article is to examine the cognitive moves students make, their ways of thinking, when working with theory, an activity which many educators today are touting as particularly important in developing students’ critical thinking abilities. I am especially interested in the stances students take toward their subject matter which promote critical reasoning, that is, which lead to engagement, as well as approaches which circumvent or stand in the way of such thinking, that is, which lead to resistance.
Durst, Russel K. LLAD (1994). Articles>Writing>History
History of Modern Technical Writing
Technical writing has been around since the first technical writer, Cro-Magnon man, was drawing on cave walls. However, most experts would agree that the golden age of technical writing started with the invention of the computer. Here are some of the major milestones in technical writing history over the past 60 years.
ProEdit (1996). Articles>Writing>Technical Writing>History
A History of Plain Language in the United States Government
Awareness of the need for clear language isn't new in the US government.
Locke, Joanne N. PlainLanguage.gov (2004). Articles>History>Writing>Minimalism
Technical Writing in English Renaissance Shipwrightery: Breaching the Shoals of Orality

Describing the emergence of the first shipbuilding texts, particularly those in English provides another chapter in the story of the emergence of English technical writing. Shipwrightery texts did not appear in English until the middle decades of the seventeenth century because shipwrightery was a closed discourse community which shared knowledge via oral transmission. The shift from orality to textuality in shipwrightery did not occur until advancing navigation principles enabled ships to sail in open waters. Shipping rapidly became a commercial business, and shipwrightery was forced to move from closely-guarded simple design principles to mathematically-based designs too complex to be retained only in memory of shipwrights and shared via oral transmission. Textual transmission began to supplant oral instruction. The evolution of English shipwrightery provides rich research opportunities for historians tracking the development of technical writing.
Tebeaux, Elizabeth. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (2007). Articles>History>Writing>Technical Writing
Technical Writing in Seventeenth-Century England: The Flowering of a Tradition

English technical writing clearly emerged during the Renaissance and the first decades of printing, but during the 1641-1700 period technical writing gained credibility and prestige. It was a valued tool for achieving the utilitarian ends of an age in which practical goals were valued more than aesthetic ones. Technical writing can be found in a range of disciplines, such as agriculture, medicine, science, as well as the major English trades and crafts. As a valued form of discourse, it illuminates the world of work in seventeenth-century England and the problems faced by the early experimenters of the Royal Society who sought to use science to solve major human, military, and economic problems while seeking to expand understanding of nature. Studying technical writing of this period allows us to track the continued development of technical writing as a distinct form of discourse.
Tebeaux, Elizabeth. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (1999). Articles>History>Technical Writing>United Kingdom
The New Word Order: Or, the Awful English Language
Will the global interconnectedness of our conversations freeze the features of our languages in place? If so, farther into the future than anyone can foresee, much of the human race will be stuck with English as we now know it.
Garrison, Ronald W. Carolina Communique (2006). Articles>Language>History>Writing
Two Approaches to Modularity: Comparing the STOP Approach with Structured Writing 
The first time I heard of the STOP paper was sometime in the mid 80's when the historian of technical writing, John Brockman, phoned me to ask if my Information Mapping method of structured writing derived from the STOP method. At the time I told Brockman that there was no direct relationship between our two approaches since I'd never read the paper. When the editor of this journal sent me the STOP document in preparation for writing this paper, I read it with delight. Although our two innovations date from the same period, the STOP authors and I were working in two completely different disciplines, cultures, organizations, and locations. These two approaches resulted in modularity - albeit of quite different kinds. The main purpose of this project is to compare and contrast these two approaches to modularity. I should note here that I approach this article principally as an exercise in historical comparison, rather than as an exposition of my current views, about which I will say a bit at the end of this article.
Horn, Robert E. Journal of Computer Documentation (1999). Articles>Information Design>Technical Writing>History
A study of how three historical rhetorical concepts (kairos, memoria, and mestiza consciousness) are relevant to professional communication practices today, and productive historical concepts for contemporary practitioners.
Haas, Angela. Michigan State University (2004). Articles>Rhetoric>History>Technical Writing
Theories of the Middle Range in Historical Studies of Writing Practice

Recent historical examinations of nonliterary, nontheoretical texts within their activity settings have aimed to identify the historically developed communicative and rhetorical resources currently available to writers and to reveal the dynamics of the formation,use,and evolution of those resources. These studies, in examining communal literate practices, combine theoretical, empirical, and practical concerns by building theories of the middle range. This methodological article elaborates how theories of the middle range can guide research through identifying interrelated levels of research questions (originating, specifying, and site specific) and identifying strategic research sites. This article further elaborates methods of finding, selecting, and analyzing relevant texts and placing them within appropriate social and historical contexts.
Bazerman, Charles. Written Communication. Articles>Writing>History>Rhetoric
Although we look at the past with embarrassment about some of our practices, we often lack the foresight to see the present with the same degree of scrutiny. Years from now, we’ll look back at what we’re currently doing and not only blush, but feel remorse and wish we could get back what we lost.
Johnson, Tom H. I'd Rather Be Writing (2009). Articles>TC>Technical Writing>History
Oral Communication and Technical Writing: A Reconsideration of Writing in a Multicultural Era

This article investigates the status of orality in the history of technical communication. The article calls for orality as an integral part and driving force of technical writing. The article brings to light the misconceptions that have led to a diminished role of oral communication in technical writing. The article shows the implications of oral skills for improved effectiveness of technical communicators. The article outlines the challenges and promises of teaching oral communication in technical writing.
Cibangu, Sylvain K. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication (2009). Articles>Writing>Technical Writing>History
There are 24 readers currently online: 1 registered user and 23 guests. Register.

![]()
![]()


![]()
![]()
![]()