Cheryl E. Ball

Assessing Scholarly Multimedia: A Rhetorical Genre Studies Approach

This article describes what scholarly multimedia (i.e., webtexts) are and how one teacher-editor has students compose these texts as part of an assignment sequence in her writing classes. The article shows how one set of assessment criteria for scholarly multimedia—based on the Institute for Multimedia Literacys parameters (see Kuhn, Johnson, & Lopez, 2010) for assessing honor students’ multimedia projects—are used to give formative feedback to students’ projects.

Designerly ≠ Readerly Re-assessing Multimodal and New Media Rubrics for Use in Writing Studies

In this article, I draw on Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwens (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication and Lev Manovichs (2001) The Language of New Media, which have become prevalent texts in US writing studies fields, to describe the rubrics they use and show how they help readers determine the materialities of multi modal or new media texts. I also argue, however, that writing studies scholars should not rely solely on these rubrics because they function in designerly, not readerly, ways that would help readers understand a texts rhetorical situation. I apply the rubrics to a new media text, ‘While Chopping Red Peppers’ (Ankerson and Sapnar, 2000), to show their limited use and to suggest that while these multimodal and new media theories have a place in writing studies, we need better methods and/or reading heuristics in order to interpret (and teach) such works.

Multimodal revision techniques in webtexts

This article examines how an online scholarly journal, Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy, mentors authors to revise their webtexts (interactive, digital media scholarship) for publication. Using an editorial pedagogy in which multimodal and rhetorical genre theories are merged with revision techniques found in process-based composition studies, the author describes how webtexts are collaboratively peer-reviewed in Kairos and authors are provided macro- and micro-level revision suggestions for their scholarly multimedia.

The Moral Dimensions of Open

Scholarly publishing is currently undergoing a digital-era transition that provides both opportunities and challenges for improving the moral dimensions of this enterprise. The stakeholders in scholarly publishing need to consider the moral foundations of knowledge production and access that underlie models of scholarly publishing. This report identifies seven moral dimensions and principles to open-access scholarship and data. OSI2016 Workgroup Question Does society have a moral imperative to share knowledge freely, immediately, and without copyright restriction? A legal imperative? Why or why not? What about research funded by governments? Corporations? Cancer research? For that matter, is our current mechanism for funding scholarly publishing just or unjust? What other models are there? What are the pros and cons of these models? What is the likelihood of change?

What Are The Moral Dimensions of Open

Does society have a moral imperative to share knowledge freely, immediately, and without copyright restriction? A legal imperative? Why or why not? What about research funded by governments? Corporations? Cancer research? For that matter, is our current mechanism for funding scholarly publishing just or unjust? What other models are there? What are the pros and cons of these models? What is the likelihood of change?

Kairos-OJS plugin project: tools for scholarly multimedia

This poster presents the plugin developed for PKPs Open Journal System (OJS) to facilitate editing and publishing scholarly multimedia.