C. Ball's Assessing scholarly multimedia: A rhetorical genre studies approach

Ball, C. (2012). Assessing scholarly multimedia: A rhetorical genre studies approach. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21, 61-77. doi: 10.1080/10572252.2012.626390

 

In this article, C. Ball argues against the possibility of transferable rubrics for assessing scholarly multimedia, claiming that  each of these interpretive and evaluative verbs (reading, grading, assessing, evaluating) indicates a different audience—randomly and overlapping: pleasure readers, students, scholars, hiring committees, tenure committees, teachers, and authors—each of which has different needs from, and comes to the reading experience with different expectations of, such a piece of scholarship” (p. 63). In short, the purpose of a design changes for each audience and, therefore, cannot be assessed without such considerations.

In order to discuss processes for assessing multimedia, Ball first establishes the argumentative nature of such works. Framing the argument through Kress’s situation of design as the “servant of rhetoric” (p. 63), Ball uses S. Delagrange’s scholarly webtext, “Wunderkammer, Cornell, and the Visual Canon of Arrangement” to illustrate the intentionality of a multimodal argument. She further cites both Delagrange’s own description of the aim of the webtext and inclusion of peer reviewers and editors in the design process to assert that “we as readers should assume that each design element belongs, is purposeful, and works to make an argument” (63) that must be discerned by readers.

Citing previous scholarship on reading strategies for multimedia, Ball then uses her own classroom as a model to discuss the assessment process: creating an assignment sequence, building assessment criteria, and using assessment criteria. Ball’s assessment design relies on several key understandings: 1) all first-time designers are all “developmental” (p. 64) in that they are not yet confident, 2) students should be active participants in the assessment process, and 3) values systems for assessments vary according to individual experience and theoretical understanding.

Despite her inability to provide a transferable rubric, Ball does offer four constants in multimedia assessment: the inability to separate form and content from the “conceptual core” (p. 69); the necessity of the project’s elements in serving the conceptual core; the necessity of the design’s decisions to be “deliberative, controlled, and defensible” (p. 70); the achievement of significant goals that could not be achieved on paper. While many instructors could view these constants as assessment criteria for grading, Ball is quick to point out that they foster formative feedback. Recognizing that students cannot create publishable multimedia in one semester, she grades her students on participation, completion, timeliness, and excellence.

Ball’s article counters the belief that there can be one transferable rubric but provides a starting point for instructors interested in multimodal assignments. Through the theoretical framework, she clarifies the challenges and provides suggestions for addressing those challenges. Like many of the theorists we’ve discussed in class, Ball situates the audience as the primary consideration in design and emphasizes the argumentative, rhetorical nature of these texts. This article is especially important for my research as it not only provides practical strategies for the classroom but it also identifies several assessment tools for me to consider in developing my web resource for faculty. My concern for this article is that, similar to George’s, the examples identify upper-level English students as the subjects of the case studies. With institutional and disciplinary pressure to consider multimodal design as a part of rhetoric (and thus a topic for first year composition courses), I need to consider how these case studies (and other research) can inform not only upper level English courses but also lower-level courses and courses in other disciplines.