The cognitive theory of multimedia learning (CTML) describes a set of empirically tested principles that technical and professional communication research largely acknowledges as important to the design of presentation slides. However, presenters often run into difficulties understanding how to apply CTML principles to contexts in which it has not been tested. We present three pilot studies that extend our knowledge of how to apply CTML principles. Pilot study one suggests that CTML principles can be effective for presenting advanced research to expert audiences. Pilot study two highlights the importance of user testing nonessential images added primarily for visual interest, specifically finding that visual organizer images such as Microsoft PowerPoint's SmartArt, can backfire by unintentionally indicating imprecise relationships while adding little in terms of visual interest. Pilot study three suggests that, when needing to present a long quotation, presenters should avoid verbatim reading and consider abridging or paraphrasing the quotation.

Current paraphrasing instruction in the composition classroom may ironically promote “knowledge telling” source use, such as patchwriting. We argue for an approach to source use instruction that teaches paraphrase as a spectrum of task-dependent rhetorical skills ranging from knowledge telling to knowledge transforming. We encapsulate and test the effectiveness of this approach in a series of interactive videos. These videos present a rhetorically-grounded framework for source use instruction, including think-aloud protocols that demystify how reading processes can be used to critically engage with source content. We validate this approach with two different demographics: Non-Native English speaking graduate students and First Year Writing students. Findings suggest our approach, compared with a workshop that used ‘traditional’ fear-of-plagiarism tactics, helped NNES students better recognize knowledge transforming as a task-dependent option and understand the process of note-taking to transform source texts. In contrast, the traditional workshop promoted knowledge telling behaviors.

Many communication instructors make allowances for grammatical error in nonnative English speakers’ writing, but do businesspeople do the same? We asked 169 businesspeople to comment on three versions of an email with different types of errors. We found that businesspeople do make allowances for errors made by nonnative English speakers, perceiving these errors as less bothersome than those made by native speakers. We also found that businesspeople perceive pragmatic errors of politeness and tone as even more bothersome than grammatical error—a finding we share with our students to persuade them of the importance of polite and professional email correspondence.