VIDEO RHETORIC

Jones (2007) observes, “Since we are near a point when video production will be as ubiquitous as text composition, it will soon become necessary for training everyone in video composition. If this is the case, I think it is likely that a huge part of the training in the rhetoric of video communication will be left to composition departments” (parag. 1). Video production integrates several elements of textual composition as well as visual perception. Though students may use video production equipment in the course of making their own videos for family and friends, they need to develop an understanding of how to develop a professional video. Johnson (2008) observes several questions that professionals face when developing a video product:

What screen size should the videos be, what recording tool should you use, what microphone is best, how long should the videos be, what file size is acceptable? Should you use voice or captions? Where will you create the recording? You can create video tutorials using dozens of different methods. There are no official steps to create videos, because situations and audiences vary so widely. If you’re creating e-learning with quizzes for a global audience, your approach will be different from one who is creating demo videos for a small company. Parag. 1

Kress (2004) observes that the interface of the Web is dominated by images. He asserts that with increasingly sophisticated graphics, the forms of reading and composing become more complex (p.160). As a user interacts with 3-D virtual environments he learns how to read the screen and comes to expect certain organization of information. Kress also explains that this reading literacy becomes more powerful than the literacy of the writer/composer because the readers’ expectations will frame the composing process (p. 165). Anne Wysocki (2001), further, observes that composers need to consider such rhetorical issues as camera angle, backgrounds, and use of colors in text, background and other images when they develop Webtexts that integrate video. All of these recall Ball’s (2006) observation about the need to focus design and assessment on the reader’s perspective.

EQUIVALENTS

Given these rhetorical attributes of video I propose the following equivalents that integrate elements of the guidelines suggested by Murray, Sheets and Williams (2010) as well as the Odell and Katz (2009) principles of assessment to guide formative assessment of machinima video (Table).

These equivalents can be used to discuss assessment of machinima video using terms generally associated with design attributes, with which writing instructors are familiar, or using terms associated with audience expectations. Indeed, it may be possible to use both sets of terms to facilitate revision. Instructors may consider the audience-expectations terms to help students understand why a given feature worked or not, and they can suggest revisions using the design-oriented terms.

I discuss formative assesment of hte machinima video relative to these terms on the Assessments page.