Teaching Category

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

“Collaborative Web Sites” and “Teaching & Reading New Media”

citation
Ball, Cheryl E. (2005, June 7 & 9). Collaborative web sites; Teaching & reading new media. Computers in Writing-Intensive Classrooms (CIWIC), Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI.

description
CIWIC was an internationally recognized two-week workshop to teach college-level instructors how to teach writing using digital technologies and multiple media. These two workshops focused on (1) how to consider collaborators as an audience when building websites, including consideration of information architecture, filenaming conventions, etc. , and (2) how to use rhetorical analysis as a basis for interpreting multimodal texts, which can be useful to also assign students to compose such texts.

accompanying materials

  • not available

Tags: ,

Thursday, October 29th, 2009

“Designing for Kairos”

citation
Ball, Cheryl E.; Eyman, Douglas; Stolley, Karl; Gossett, Kathie; & Dukaj, Vera. (2008, May 22). Designing for Kairos. Computers & Writing Conference, Athens, GA.

description
A workshop for authors specifically interested in composing for Kairos, informing them about our technical style guide and working with them in small groups to mentor them through the brainstorm and design stages of digital media scholarship.

accompanying materials

  • none available

Tags: , ,

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

Myers: “Digital Media Scholarship in the Humanities”

citation
Jonathan Myers. (2009, Spring). Digital Media Scholarship in the Humanities. Illinois State University.

description
Masters student, Jonathan Myers, sat in on my English 239: Multimodal Composition class to work on an independent digital scholarship project. Graduate students had advanced readings and worked individually but otherwise contributed to class discussions and followed the undergraduate syllabus.

accompanying materials

Tags: , ,

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

Docktor: “Digital Media Scholarship in the Humanities”

citation
Jason Dockter. (2009, Spring). Digital Media Scholarship in the Humanities. Illinois State University.

description
PhD student, Jason Docktor, sat in on my English 239: Multimodal Composition class to work on an independent digital scholarship project. Graduate students had advanced readings and worked individually but otherwise contributed to class discussions and followed the undergraduate syllabus.

accompanying materials

Tags: , ,

Wednesday, March 11th, 2009

Chamberlain: “Advanced Multimodal Composition”

citation
Undergraduate student Andrew Chamberlain. (2008, Fall). Advanced Multimodal Composition. Illinois State University.

description
Fall 2008 Independent Study with Andrew J. Chamberlain (undergraduate, senior); he sat in on my English 239: Multimodal Composition class to work on an individual, advanced, sustained digital scholarship project; co-teach some class sessions; and organize the students who attended a 3-day academic conference in Louisville, KY.

accompanying materials

  • none

Tags: , ,

Saturday, October 28th, 2006

Professional Writing Capstone (Eng 5430)

This course, targeted at graduating seniors in the Professional Writing major at Utah State University, uses a common syllabus designed to have students gain an understanding of the technical writing job market as well as to produce materials they can use in job interviews (such as a résumé, cover letter, and print and web portfolios).

SPRING 2006 summary
This was the first time I taught Capstone, and I adapted a weekly schedule based on the common syllabus that USU professional writing faculty members Kelli Cargile Cook, Charlotte Thralls, and Mark Zachry produced in the early 2000s.

  • sections taught in department this term: 1
  • number of students enrolled: 13

teaching innovations
I made one major change to the standard syllabus for this class, and that was to assign the capstone students to work two hours in the departmental computer lab. I instituted this pilot program to see whether those in their final year of school—who knew the lab and its software best—would make ideal lab consultants. However, the students misinterpreted my reasons for wanting them to work in the lab and assumed that it was so that the lab didn’t need to have to pay consultants. (I was Acting Lab Director at the time, so this class assignment was received as my trying to get the students to work for free.) Thus, the majority of the students complained that the experience was a waste of their time. Sadly, they didn’t take advantage of the many professional development opportunities I knew this work would provide for them, and my suggestions on how they might make the situation more useful for themselves remained unused. I’m still considering what I might learn from this situation that will be of use the next time I think about implementing professional development and service learning into my course goals.

teaching challenge
In addition to the above challenges to my innovation, this course proved to be difficult for me not because of subject matter (professionalization, which is right up my research alley) but because I intervened in an incident involving one of the students overstepping her boundaries in the departmental lab prior to the semester starting. A lab consultant had to call the campus police, and as Acting Lab Director, I revoked her privileges. However, she had to take my course, so we agreed on terms of proceeding before the semester. In the end, her behavior did not improve and class was disrupted, evidenced by a downward trend in my teaching evaluations for that class. Should this unique situation happen again, I believe the solution would be to work with advisers and find alternate class arrangements for the student.

narrative evaluations

  • The interview process was fun and very helpful. Cheryl gave some good stories and examples from her life that helped us see what the real world is like.
  • I have two great portfolios now! I’m ready to get a job, or at least apply for one, and I wasn’t before this class.
  • Cheryl was interested in what the students want to do with their future. She has good networking and interviewing examples to share.
  • Dr. Ball is a talented designer and she has enthusiasm for design and online teaching. She has contemporary insights into the job market and the skills required to get hired and be a competitive tech writer. Dr. Ball is great at what she does.
  • I liked the immediacy of our concerns, the reality and importance of everything we’ve been learning at university. Cheryl’s attitude of professionalism without too much idealism/stuffiness was nice.
  • She has a weird idea of what a good design is and those that didn’t use pink flamingos had a poor design even if it refleted us. We should be able to choose what works for us, otherwise she needs to design portfolios for each student so that we do exactly what she wants.
  • Good things: Cheryl was happy. She has energy. She fed us poundcake. Once. We got the recipe. We built portfolios. This is good.

accompanying materials

Tags: , , , ,

Saturday, October 28th, 2006

Publication Production (Eng 5420)

The purpose of this course at Utah State University was to introduce professional/technical writing majors to pre-press and printing processes for large-scale print documents. We covered printing terminology, color types, production management techniques, image manipulation for print documents, and pre-press guidelines. Editing and working with clients as well as establishing baseline differences between print and web publications was also part of the course goals.

SPRING 2005 summary
The majority of this class was spent designing the campus literary magazine, Scribendi, a project that provided many collaborative opportunities for students, which I describe in detail below.

  • sections taught in department this term: 1
  • number of students enrolled: 19

teaching innovations
This class was a new prep for me at Utah State. I implemented an idea I used for a similar class at a previous school—having students re/design the campus literary magazine. The purpose of this assignment is to give students a real-world example of preparing a large-scale document for a printing press (including real-world deadlines, budgets, and clients). The past editors of Scribendi, the literary magazine at USU, were thrilled to have students work on updating the design. (Past editors were volunteer English department staff and faculty members assigned to oversee the creative writing contest, winners of which were published in the magazine.)

In class, the students worked in small groups to complete the redesign:

  • four groups worked on the main content and design (after a collaborative effort on making a template). Each group consisted of a book designer, a graphic designer, and an editor, and the three members worked collectively on one signature (16-page spread) of the magazine;
  • a fifth group was responsible for the design template that every group used, the cover, table of contents, and other front- and backmatter;
  • a sixth group was the marketing and budget team. They were responsible for raising money (which they elected to do rather than stick with the current budget, even though I informed them that it was not a part of the class) and for writing promotional materials.

The students worked with several clients including the new creative writing contest director, Anne Shifrer, to collect the winning entries; choose how many would fit in the pages we had the budget for; edit the entries and insert them into the template in an appropriate sequence based on thematic issues; collected graphics from artists on campus and matched the graphics to specific texts; and prepared the entire publication for printing. In addition, they raised a significant amount of money (nearly $1,500 in a month) so that they could publish 1,000 copies on a professional press instead of photocopying 100 for departmental use, as had been done in past years.

Because students had a limited budget for printing, which meant a limited number of pages they could print, they decided (with my guidance) to excerpt several large stories and place all winners in their entirety on an accompanying website. Thus, students also had the chance to design the publication for a second medium. The website is linked at the bottom of this post.

Finally, students presented fresh-off-the-press copies of Scribendi to the campus at the annual Student Showcase for undergraduate research. They created a poster to outline their hands-on research activities and distributed nearly 700 copies that week to stakeholders and students around the campus and the community. (The rest of the copies were kept to include in the students’ portfolios and for departmental recruiting efforts.)

narrative evaluations

  • “Cheryl has an incredible knack for helping students take charge of their learning. She has such a personable nature that students feel elevated to her level. Cheryl is a great professor, and a mentor that keeps me striving to impress! 10 out of 10.”
  • “I thought that the objectives were very clear and we always knew what was expected of us. I also thought the expectations of us were high, which helped us to learn more. I am glad that I had the opportunity to take this class from Cheryl Ball. I thought she was a very good teacher.”
  • “Cheryl Rocks! She really pushes for quality and her attitude is positive. She doesn’t take b.s. from anyone and she’s extremely knowledgable about technology that we’re suposed to learn. I appreciate that…. She goes the extra mile.”
  • “I felt that the literary magazine redesign was a very good teaching process for publication production. I enjoyed learning the process of publishing an actual magazine. Cheryl, I appreciate the knowledge that you shared with us. I am glad to have a professor that has such a great knowledge of what we are doing, particularly about making a publication as a student [refering to my experiences making litmags when I was a student]. Thank you, Cheryl. You rock! And we learned a lot about responsibility.”
  • “I never knew publication production could be so exciting.”

accompanying materials

Tags: , , , ,

Saturday, October 28th, 2006

Perspectives on Writing and Rhetoric (Eng 3040)

The 3040 class is a general-education (depth), upper-division writing class at Utah State University. (I usually refer to it as an advanced composition class.) Non-English-majors typically enroll, and the theme changes depending on the faculty member who teaches it.

———————————

Fall 2004 summary
Fall 2004 was the first time that I taught English 3040. The focus was on multimodal composition, and the students created websites that demonstrated their rhetorical understanding of writing and design. Due to technological and scheduling constraints, however, the students were aggravated by their inability to complete what I was supposed to be teaching: video-editing, which I had been asked to teach but the lab was not capable of handing. This class was a huge teaching challenge for me, and I rewrote the syllabus several times upon discovery of each technological hindrance. I quickly learned what the lab could accommodate and worked closely with the systems administrator to update the hardware that I would need to teach this class in future semesters.

  • sections taught in department this term: 1
  • number of students enrolled: 25

——————————–

Spring 2005 summary
This course went much better than the Fall 2004 version. I changed the syllabus to accommodate the technological resources the department had, and the focus was on literary hypertexts. The course objectives — which included having students read about, analyze, and produce creative, digital texts — were spelled out for them from the beginning of the term. We were able to produce new media videos as a final project.

  • sections taught in department this term: 2 (mine & ‘medical writing’ which is technically offered through the Biology department, although they use our course number)
  • number of students enrolled: 18

———————————-

Summer 2005 summary
I taught this version of the class as a 5-day workshop (which at Utah State counted as a full, 3-credit class). I truncated the syllabus dramatically to overview all history and theory about electronic literature in the first day and had students working on video poems by the beginning of the second day. They had three days to complete all progress on the videos, which they presented to each other and to department colleagues in an open house on Friday morning.

  • number of students enrolled: 18
  • no other sections

———————————-

Fall 2006 summary
This is the third time I taught this course (in a full semester), although it was still a new prep because I kept changing the theme and major projects as the lab gathered more resources. The focus for Fall 2006 was on digital narratives. Students read about and produced a range of digital, narrative texts including iMixes, voiceovers, vogs, video or audio documentaries, and a final project of their choice. The assignments focus on how to rhetorically choose media that will meet the purpose and audience expectations of a given genre (or mixed-genre text).

  • sections taught in department this term: 2 (mine & ‘medical writing’, offered through the Biology Department)
  • number of students enrolled: 17

——————————–

teaching innovations
By the time I taught this class for the second time, I was able to procure [through the department and the Vice President of Research] digital video cameras for the students to use as well as hardware updates to accommodate digital video-editing in the English department computer lab. Thus, I was able to have students complete the final assignment of a new media video poem. (The assignment is included in the accompanying materials.)

For the Fall 2006 class on digital narratives, I used blogs for the first time in my teaching as a way for students to explore public/private issues when composing narratives and also as a way for them to communicate mid-week since the class meets once a week. A single blog was used for both this undergraduate class and my graduate class on multimodal composition, so that students could play with issues of audience in their comments. (The students themselves didn’t have blogs; an innovation I didn’t pick up for another two years.)

narrative evaluations

  • “I didn’t know what to expect, but I have really learned a lot from being here. My computer literacy, which was very low, grew a lot. I like how you have style and personality but still have the respeect because you know how to do it all.”
  • “The learning about rhetoric was subtle and fun!”
  • “Overall it was a fun class and was unexpectedly helpful with other classes and presentations. I liked learning about the 13 terms [from the ix: visual exercises CD, which we looked at in class] and how they relate to different kinds of communication. It’s cool to apply some of those terms to other things I’m doing in school. Thanks”
  • “I love Cheryl…her outlook and assignments were great.”
  • “Dr. Ball did really well in presenting the design considerations from the CD, and in teaching the class how to create web pages in Dreamweaver.”
  • “I am very satisfied that the university hired Cheryl Ball to teach this new style of English course. I was able to learn more applicable communication skills in this class than I did in all of my years in AP/Honors English. Great job!”
  • “Your teaching style really engages the class and makes it a fun class environment. I particularly liked the level of class discussion which you allowed. This really facilitated learning the subject matter.”
  • “It was the most interesting English class I’ve ever taken. You got me looking at writing and the formats of my papers in a whole new way.”
  • “Cheryl was very knowledgable and enthusiastic. It is a hands-on course that she actually gave us time to put our hands on.”
  • “I really liked the way the class was more of a discussion. It helped me feel a part. I also thought the assignments were both educational and fun.”
  • “It was good to learn new ways of looking at all things.”
  • “She has studied this a long time and is good at it. She assigns the right amount of workload for the class. I liked discussing the readings; it’s more helpful than just taking a quiz on them.”

accompanying materials

see also

Tags: , , ,

Saturday, October 28th, 2006

Professional Writing Technologies (Eng 3410)

English 3410 is one of two gateway classes into the Professional Writing Major in the English Department at Utah State University. The focus of the class is on rhetorical design skills in relation to image manipulation software and web design editors. Students are tasked with designing a web-based portfolio of their work, on which they build until they take the Capstone class as seniors. Students are required to earn a B- or better to enter the major. I taught this class twice: Fall 2004 and Fall 2005.

FALL 2004 summary
This class was a new prep since I was a new faculty member at the time. The students encountered problems with the technology because we had limited numbers of software licenses for the first half of the term, which made demo-ing the programs (Adobe and Macromedia Suites) in class and having students complete homework outside of class very difficult. Mid-term we got more licenses, which significantly helped the students’ learning and engagement in the class. Besides software, the students encountered many hardware problems because I was (unknowingly, at the time) asking them to design and save documents that the hardware couldn’t handle. As a class we discovered these problems and came up with some work-arounds, but the students were generally aggravated at the lack of technological resources.

  • sections taught in department this term: 1
  • number of students enrolled: 21*

*(I accidentally over-enrolled the class, which caused computer-access issues that we accommodated by having the extra student use the instructor’s computer workstation.)

———————————

FALL 2005 summary
Fall 2005 was the second time I taught this course, and much of the technological problems encountered the first time I taught it were ameliorated. In addition to the web-portfolio project, I instituted several new assignments for this class, which I discuss below.

  • sections taught in department this term: 1
  • number of students enrolled: 17

teaching innovations
I changed the way I teach this class in the Fall of 2005 to include more instruction (albeit self-guided) in software programs since students had requested such instruction in this class the last time I taught it. (Students request direct instruction in software in most all of their professional writing classes because they believe that is what the class is about. They learn fairly quickly in most classes that professional writing is more about rhetoric, design, usability, etc., than having an instructor step them through a particular software program.)

To accommodate their desires, however, I created approximately twenty tutorials that would help them learn programs such as those in Microsoft Office Suite, Macromedia Suite, Adobe Creative Suite, and also other programs including WS_FTP and CD-burning software, all of which they will use at some point in their professional writing courses and employment. These tutorials give basic instructions on how to create a product in that particular program (and for what purpose). I constructed these tutorials so that the product students create directly ties in to the parts of their web portfolio they will need to construct during their time in the 3410 class.

For example, they complete a set of tutorials on Adobe ImageReady and Macromedia Fireworks in which they learn how to slice a large image/web-interface (created in a previous tutorial) and add a pop-up navigational menu to one (or multiple) slice(s) of the interface. Typically (in 2004/5) students would implement the slicing and pop-up menu techniques for their web portfolio. In addition, students are required to write a contextualizing introduction (required in the Reflective Letter portion of the portfolio assignment) to each finished product, which doubles as an introduction to the artifact in their final web portfolio should they choose to use it.

narrative evaluations

  • “Cheryl tried to help each person individually in class and tried to make time for each student.”
  • Cheryl was “easy to talk to and learn from” and had “good enthusiasm for the course content.”
  • “I really liked how enthusiastic Cheryl is about her job. She really cares about the students and wants them to do well.”
  • “She responds well to the needs of her students.”
  • “I feel like everything Cheryl presented to us was relevant. I’ve learned so many new things that are going to be especially helpful when I graduate. She is an excellent teacher! I feel like she has been one of the best new additions to this department.”
  • “Great class, Cheryl! One of my best this semester. I really liked the one-on-one attention that I (and others) got. It helped the students to help each other toward the end of the portfolio construction. I liked the personal, active interaction with you.”
  • “I feel like I am walking out of this class with a tremendous amount of knowledge and skills. I learned so much in this class, and that knowledge will be a great foundation for the rest of my classes.”
  • “Cheryl is an excellent teacher! Her teaching theories (praxis) are some of the best I’ve seen.”
  • “We didn’t just learn how to make a website, we learned good design and how we want to present ourselves to exmployers.”

accompanying materials

see also

Tags: , , ,

Thursday, October 19th, 2006

Studies in Technology and Writing (Eng 6480/7480)

This is a special-topics seminar for masters students in the Literature and Writing program and for PhD students in the Theory and Practice of Professional Communication program. I taught two very different iterations of this course: Fall 2006 and Summer 2006.

FALL 2006 summary
I was asked last spring to prep for this new course, which was easy considering this is my dream syllabus. My focus is on multimodal composition pedagogies. The readings and assignments of this onsite class focus on composition pedagogies from the last 20-ish years. Assignments include reviewing journals in the field, writing an academic paper, and producing a multimodal project, along with reading an average of 200 pages of theory each week. We also cover professional development in the field.

  • sections taught in department this term: 1
  • number of students enrolled: 5 masters and 3 PhD students

teaching innovations
The first innovation was an in-class assignment that we worked on throughout the semester. This assignment includes having students map out their understandings of the readings (in relation to composition pedagogies) on the wall of our classroom. We constructed a large board on which students posted index cards filled with major and minor theories, themes, important authors and articles, and other useful information, all of which helped them to visually conceive of the scope of composition studies as an academic field.

The second innovation was the inclusion of professional development discussions that enhance the students knowledge about becoming an academic, joining the field of writing studies (as many of them would, in some form), and demystifying that process. The PhD program was new at the time and so these discussions were built on informal questions about the academic job market at the beginning of class. I was happy to provide a setting for these discussions since it relates to my professional mentoring work at national conferences.

narrative evaluations

  • to come

accompanying materials

  • Fall 2006 syllabus [doc]
  • photograph of the student-produced ‘map’ of composition pedagogies

————————————

SUMMER 2006 summary
I taught an online summer course for masters students, focused on Teaching Writing with Technology. When I offered this course, it had a different course number (basically as a special topics) but USU has reconfigured their course catalog since 2007 and now that course number no longer exists (6/7480 is the next closest). I taught this version of 6480 as a reading group where students were invited to choose a list of 5 books in the field of digital writing studies, according to their particular interests, read a book a week, write a formal book review about it, and post that review (along with responses to and discussions about each others’ selections) on an online discussion forum. This class helped me enact a happenings pedagogy through open assignments (i.e., allowing each student to choose, and negotiate with me, their book lists).

narrative evaluations

  • student evaluations were not available for summer, online classes at the time

accompanying materials

  • none available


Tags: , , , ,

Tuesday, October 17th, 2006

Advanced Technical Editing (Eng 6400/7400)

This online course is a requirement in the online masters program in technical communication at Utah State University. It focuses on teaching students how to edit documents with consideration to audience and context, including readability and accessibility issues. I taught two sections of this course, with two different preps: Spring 2006 and Summer 2007.

SPRING 2006 summary
This was the first time I taught Editing, and also the first time I taught in our online-only, practitioners-based MA program. (There were no doctoral students enrolled this term.)

  • sections taught in department this term: 1
  • number of students enrolled: 13
  • numeric evaluations (none available)

teaching innovations
I introduced students to the procedures of editing scholarly, digital texts, and we used webtexts from the journal I edit, Kairos, as the major project. In groups of four, students collaboratively edited one webtext (including written content and website design) from developmental stages to the text’s final copy-editing and proofreading. In addition, they wrote introductions for their webtext, the themes of which were focused on the history and future of the journal. None of these students lived in the same area and so all group work had to be completed using online communication.

Another innovation was my use of an offsite FTP location where students could upload and view their in-progress websites. (USU doesn’t offer this ability to students, and so I used other resources at my disposal to accommodate learning.) Because of the theoretical and technical expertise students had to learn to complete the major assignment, I learned how to write more detailed assignment sequences. I also learned to organize my online teaching better using a content management system so that students can more easily find the information they need.

teaching challenge
The class progressed fairly well, with the exception of one problematic student group who had difficulty communicating and collaborating in the online environment. I ended up moderating their discussions, and group work progressed smoothly after that. From this experience, I learned how to react in appropriate ways to inappropriate online communication from adult learners.

narrative evaluations

  • not available

accompanying materials

SUMMER 2007 summary
This was the second time I taught this online-only class to graduate students at Utah State University. I changed the syllabus, since the summer course was only six weeks long (as opposed to the 15-week semesters), and we focused on the rhetorical and aesthetic situations of editing different media. We “progressed” through levels of editing (developmental, copy-editing, proofreading, etc.) on written texts whose layouts had yet to be completed (i.e., an unformatted article), to visual texts such as poems, to audio-only texts such as radio commercials, to multimodal texts such as websites with graphics and videos. This course proceeded much more smoothly than the previous iteration did, in part because I was more comfortable teaching online and in part because I had earned the trust of many onsite graduate students in the Literature & Writing program who enrolled in this online course because it was my last class at Utah State.

evaluations

  • These were lost in a database crash. (I can provide an email from the college systems administrator attesting to this.)

accompanying materials

  • Summer 2007 syllabus (to come)

Tags: , , , ,

Sunday, October 15th, 2006

Studies in Writing & Rhetoric (Eng 6890)

This course, targeted at masters students in the Literature and Writing program, is a graduate-level special topics class.

Fall 2005 semester summary
I was asked to teach this online class—my first online teaching experience—so that distance students in the now-defunct online Literature & Writing program could finish their coursework. I focused on literary hypertext and aesthetic new media texts. Students read theory about and produced several genres of digital literary texts. The course was taught completely at a distance through Syllabase (USU’s own CMS), primarily using discussion forums.

Although it was a new prep in a new medium of delivery for me, overall I believe the course went well despite a rocky start regarding my trying to understand differing time management and assignment issues in an online learning space. The students enrolled in this class included those in the Literature and Writing, Online Technical Communication, American Studies, and Theory and Practice of Professional Communication graduate degrees. Each strand of our graduate program is represented because the class fulfills requirements in each while crossing interdisciplinary boundaries, depending on the topic. This class’s focus on literary hypertext and new media texts crosses academic boundaries, bringing together the tech comm and literature students, for instance, into some insightful discussions from different viewpoints.

  • sections taught in department this term: 1
  • number of students enrolled: 13

teaching innovations
This was the first online class I taught. It is also the first graduate class for which I have been the instructor of record, and it was a new prep for me. Although it got off to a rocky start because of my inexperience teaching solely online, it matured into a class and a medium I enjoy.

The main innovation I feel I have introduced to this special topics class is that of having students produce complicated new media texts at a distance. Learning to troubleshoot technological (as well as pedagogical) issues from a distance has helped me to rethink how I teach the same information in face-to-face classes like Professional Writing Technologies (3410) and to not take that knowledge for granted. Several final projects from this course have been featured in conference presentations and articles I have published.

narrative and numeric evaluations
Because Fall 2005 was the first semester that online evaluation forms were made available to distance students, only one student participated in filling a form out. Continuing Education, the department which oversees online course evaluations, mislabeled which class this evaluation was from (attaching it to an onsite, undergraduate course from the same semester). Thus, I do not have reliable evaluation data to show from this course.

accompanying materials

see also

Tags: , , ,

Powered by WordPress

Blossom Theme by RoseCityGardens.com and heavily tweaked by Cheryl E. Ball