Using tracings from a 1924 technical writing class, this article follows some normally unmarked processes of teaching and learning in order to highlight the humanities–utility binary from the perspective of the shadows of instructional practice. First, the article situates the humanities–utility debate as it is being addressed in postwar America, and second, it offers evidence of how far-reaching the resolution might have been, evidence taken from the margins of a copy of Watt’s (1917) The Composition of Technical Papers. Both the professional discussions and this textbook’s philosophy are reflected in jottings made by a technical writing student. This article suggests that tracing these issues through this underside of pedagogical history offers a type of evidence that is difficult to recover but worth seeking.
American Library Association. (1918, February). Watt, the composition of technical papers. The Booklist: A Guide to the Best New Books, 15, 53.
2.
AydelotteF. (1917a). In English and engineering: A volume of essays for English classes in engineering schools.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
3.
AydelotteF. (1917b). In The Oxford stamp and other essays: Articles from the educational creed of an American Oxonian.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
4.
BreitenbachH. P. (1906). The value of English to the practicing engineer: Contributions to rhetorical theory VII (ScottF. N. Ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
5.
ConnorsR. J. (1986). Textbooks and the evolution of a discipline. College Composition and Communication, 37, 178–194.
6.
HaggeJ. (1995). Early engineering writing textbooks and the anthropological complexity of disciplinary discourse. Written Communication, 12, 439–491.
7.
HauptL. M. (1878). In A manual of engineering specifications and contracts.
Philadelphia, PA: Stoddart.
8.
JacksonH. J. (2001). In Marginalia: Readers writing in books.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
KynellT. C. (1996). In Writing in a milieu of utility: The movement to technical communication in American engineering programs, 1850-1950.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
10.
LongoB. (2000a). In Spurious coin: A history of science, management, and technical writing.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
11.
LongoB. (2000b). What kind of knowledge gets deposited in textbooks?. International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings, 18, 295–300.
12.
MannC. R. (1918). In A study of engineering education: Prepared for the joint committee on engineering education of the national engineering societies. Bulletin number 11.
New York, NY: Merrymount Press.
13.
MillerC. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40, 610–617.
14.
ParkC. W. (1920). Preliminary report of Committee No. 12, English. Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, X, 410–417.
15.
RickardT. A. (1908). In A guide to technical writing.
San Francisco, CA: Mining and Scientific Press.
16.
RobinsonA. T. (1909, November 12). The teaching of English in a scientific school. Science, 30, 657–664.
17.
RussellD. R. (1991). In Writing in the academic disciplines, 1870-1990.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
SullivanP. (2012). Inspecting shadows of past classroom practices: A search for students’ voices. College Composition and Communication, 63, 365–386.
20.
SullivanP. A.PorterJ. E. (1993). Remapping curricular geography: Professional writing in/and English. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7, 389–422.
21.
SwainG. F. (1918). The liberal element in engineering education. Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education, 9, 97–107.
22.
ValentineR. G. (1899). Instruction in English at the institute. Technology Review, 1, 441–456.
23.
ValentineR. G. (1902). On criticism of themes by students. The Technology Review, 4, 459–478.
24.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute. (1924). In V.P.I. Bulletin, 1923-1924.
Blacksburg, VA: Author.
25.
WattH. A. (1916). The English department and the professional schools. Engineering Education, 7, 73–89.
