Bødker, S. (1991). Through the interface: A human activity approach to user interface design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Carroll, J. M. (1990). The Nurnberg funnel. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Carroll, J. M., & Mack, R. L. (1984). Learning to use a word processor: By doing, by thinking, and by knowing. In J. C. Thomas & M. L. Schneider (Eds.), Human factors in computer systems (pp. 13-51). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5.
Connors, R. J. (1983). Actio: A rhetoric of manuscripts. Rhetoric Review, 2(1), 64-73.
6.
Connors, R. J. (1993). Actio: A rhetoric of written delivery (iteration two). In R. F. Reynolds (Ed.), Rhetorical memory and delivery: Classical concepts for contemporary composition and communication (pp. 65-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Cross, G. A. (1990). Left to their own devices. Computers and Composition, 7(2), 47-58.
8.
Dilger, B. (2001). An ideology of ease. Journal of Electronic Publishing, 6(1). Retrieved December 1, 2001, from http://www.press.umich.edu/jep/06-01/dilger.html
9.
Haas, C. (1996). Writing technologies: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (1995). Teaching writing as reflective practice. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
11.
Joram, E., Woodruff, E., Bryson, M., & Lindsay, P. H. (1992). The effects of revising with a word processor on written composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 167-192.
12.
Kostelnick, C., & Roberts, D. D. (1998). Designing visual language: Strategies for professional communicators. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
Mauriello, N., Pagnucci, G. S., & Winner, T. (1999). Reading between the code: The teaching of html and the displacement of writing instruction. Computers and Composition, 16, 409-419.
14.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Patton, M. (1980). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage.
16.
Piaget, J. (1981). Problems of equilibration. In J. Gallagher & D. K. Reid (Eds.), The learning theory of Piaget and Inhelder (pp. 210-220). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
17.
Rea, A., & White, D. (1999). The changing nature of writing: Prose or code in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 16, 421-436.
18.
Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504-554.
19.
Schriver, K. A. (1997). Dynamics in document design: Creating texts for readers. New York: Wiley Computer Publishing.
20.
Selfe, C. L., & Selfe, R. J. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45, 480-504.
21.
Suchman, L. A., Blomberg, J., Orr, J. E., & Trigg, R. (1999). Reconstructing technologies as social practice. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 392-408.
22.
VanLehn, K., Jones, R. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (1992). A model of the self-explanation effect. Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 1-59.
23.
Winner, L. (1985). The whale and the reactor: A search for limits in an age of high technology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24.
Witte, S. P., & Cherry R. D. (1994). Think-aloud protocols, protocol analysis, and research design: An exploration of the influence of writing tasks on writing processes. In P. Smagorinsky (Ed.), Speaking about writing: Reflections on research methodology (pp. 20-54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Yancey, K. B. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College Composition and Communication, 56, 297-328.