Skip to content
2018
Volume 53, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0007-8204
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2216
side by side viewer icon HTML

Abstract

Drawing from the , as well as prior scholarship on digitally mediated communication, rhetorical studies and composition, assessment, and digital literacies, this theoretical article presents a framework for creating and assessing digital multimodal compositions. The Interconnected Framework for Assessment of Digital Multimodal Composition conceptualizes digital multimodal composing through three interconnected and layered domains: audience, mode and meaning, and originality. Though the three domains are defined individually, they are inextricably linked within the recursive processes and products of digital multimodal composing to contribute to intended meaning. The authors describe and justify the domains, present assessment considerations, and conclude with implications for practice and suggestions for designing assessments relevant to context and task.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ee202131483
2021-07-01
2024-04-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/ee/53/4/englisheducation31483.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.58680/ee202131483&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. AndersonK. T.KachorskyD. (2019) Assessing students’ multimodal compositions: An analysis of the literature. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 18(3), 312–334.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. AndersonM.JiangJ. (2018) Teens, social media & technology 2018. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewinternet.org/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
    [Google Scholar]
  3. BartelsJ.BeachR.ConnorsS.DamicoN.Doerr-StevensC.HicksT.LabonteK.LoomisS.LynchT. L.McGrailE.MoranC.PasternakD.PiotrowskiA.RiceM.RishR.RodesilerL.RybakovaK.SullivanS.SulzerM.ZuckerL. (2018) Beliefs for integrating technology into the English language arts classroom. National Council of Teachers of English Position Statement. http://www2.ncte.org/statement/beliefs-technology-preparation-english-teachers/
    [Google Scholar]
  4. boydd. (2014) It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. BruceD. L. (2009) Writing with visual images: Examining the video composition processes of high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(4), 426–450.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. BurkeA.HammettR. F. (2009) Assessing new literacies: Perspectives from the classroom. Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. CharltonC. (2014) The weight of curious space: Rhetorical events, hackerspace, and emergent multimodal assessment. Computers and Composition, 31, 29–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DukeN. K.Purcell-GatesV.HallL. A.TowerC. (2006) Authentic literacy activities for developing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344–355.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Eidman-AadahlE.BlairK.DeVossD. N.HochmanW.JimersonL.JurichC.MurphyS.RupertB.WhithausC.WoodJ. (2013) Developing domains for multimodal writing assessment: The language of evaluation, the language of instruction. InMcKeeH. A.DeVossD. N., Digital writing assessment and evaluation. Ch. 7 Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. ElseG. F. (1957) Aristotle’s poetics: The argument. Oxford Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. FlowerL.HayesJ. R. (1981) A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. FulwilerM.MiddletonK. (2012) After digital storytelling: Video composing in the new media age. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 39–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. HJ. (2019a) The Museum of ED 352’s Trip Abroad. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1BF0tEYKz85k7LFVh3OLvucas7ZAUis7F8pW75min3c/edit#slide=id.p
    [Google Scholar]
  14. HJ. (2019b) Assessing writers with virtual museums. https://docs.google.com/document/d/10KocnIeb-cbO9Syb7dwUgWwGvEi9NBeeI_MD8AQ73QA/edit?usp=sharing
    [Google Scholar]
  15. HicksT. (2013) Crafting digital writing: Composing texts across media and genres. Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. HicksT. (2015) Assessing students’ digital writing: Protocols for looking closely. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. HicksT.TurnerK. H.StrattonJ. (2013) Reimagining a writer’s process through digital storytelling. Learning Landscapes, 6(2), 167–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. HobbsR. (2010) Copyright clarity: How fair use supports digital learning. Corwin.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. HobbsR. (2019) Ethical practices: Meditation. InTurnerK. H., The ethics of digital literacy: Developing knowledge and skills across grade levels (pp.155–158). Rowman and Littlefield.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. HoffmanM. (2015) Peer response, remixed: Authentic peer response through audio technology. English Journal, 104(4), 32–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. ItoM.BaumerS.BittantiM.BoydD.CodyR.Herr-StephensonB.HorstH. A.LangeP. G.MahendranD.MartinezK. Z.PascoeC. J.PerkelD.RobinsonL.SimsC.TrippL. (2009) Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out: Kids living and learning with new media. MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. JociusR. (2020) The CLICK model: Scaffolding multimodal composing for academic purposes. Language Arts, 97(3), 146–158.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. KressG. (2005) Gains and losses: New forms of texts, knowledge, and learning. Computers and Composition, 22(1), 5–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LammersJ. C.Van AlstyneJ. H. (2019) Building bridges from classrooms to networked publics: Helping students write for the audience they want. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(6), 653–662.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. LawL. (2020) Creativity and multimodality: Analytical framework for creativity in multimodal texts (AFCMT). Linguistics and Human Sciences, 14(1), 60–93.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. LeeD. (2016) Virtual museums with Google slides. YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XNevQHfvjc
    [Google Scholar]
  27. LindblomK. (2015) School writing vs. authentic writing. Writers who carehttps://writerswhocare.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/school-writing-vs-authentic-writing/
    [Google Scholar]
  28. LiuZ.DouK. (2015) Home. Treasure of Readinghttps://sites.google.com/site/treasureofreading/home
    [Google Scholar]
  29. LongR. C. (1980) Writer-audience relationships: Analysis or invention?College Composition and Communication, 31(2), 221–226.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. LunsfordA.EdeL. (2009) Among the audience: On audience in an age of new literacies. InWeislerM. E.FehlerB.GonzálezA. M., Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies (pp.42–72). NCTE.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. MartinJ.WhiteP. (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. MarwickA. E.boydd. (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society, 13, 114–133.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. McGrailE.BehizadehN. (2017) K–12 multimodal assessment and interactive audiences: An exploratory analysis of existing frameworks. Assessing Writing, 31, 24–38.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. McGrailE.McGrailJ. P. (2010) Copying right and copying wrong with Web2.0 tools in the classroom. Contemporary Issues in Technology & Teacher Education, 10(3), 257–274. http://www.citejournal.org/vol10/iss3/languagearts/article1.cfm
    [Google Scholar]
  35. MillsK.StoneB.UnsworthL.FriendL. (2020) Multimodal language of attitude in digital composition. Written Communication, 37(2), 135–166.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. NealM. (2011) Writing assessment and the revolution in digital texts and technologies. Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. New London Group (2000) A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. InCopeB.KalantzisM., Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp.9–37). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. PainterC.MartinJ. R. (2011) Intermodal complementarity: Modelling affordances across image and verbiage in children’s picture books. InWenH. G., Studies in functional linguistics and discourse (pp.132–158). Higher Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. RishR.CunA.GlossA.PamukM. (2018) Community inquiry with mobile asset mapping. InHerroD.ArafehS.LingR.HoldenC., Mobile learning: Perspectives on practice and policy (pp.119–142). Information Age Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. SilsethK.GiljeO. (2019) Multimodal composition and assessment: A sociocultural perspective. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 26(1), 26–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. SmithB. E. (2017) Composing across modes: A comparative analysis of adolescents’ multimodal composing processes. Learning, Media and Technology, 42(3), 259–278.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. SmithB. E. (2019) Collaborative multimodal composing: Tracing the unique partnerships of three pairs of adolescents composing across three digital projects. Literacy, 53(1), 14–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. SwensonJ.YoungC. A.McGrailE.RozemaR.WhitinP. (2006) Extending the conversation: New technologies, new literacies, and English education. English Education, 38(4), 349–367.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. TanL.ZammitK.D’warteJ.GearsideA. (2020) Assessing multimodal literacies in practice: A critical review of its implementations in educational settings. Language and Education, 34(2), 97–114.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. TurnerK. H.HicksT. (2017) Argument in the real world. Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. WahleithnerJ. M. (2014) The National Writing Project’s Multimodal Assessment Project: Development of a framework for thinking about multimodal composing. Computers and Composition, 31, 79–86.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. WeiserM. E.FehlerB. M.GonzálezA. M. (2009) Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies. [Preface]. NCTE.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. WhithausC. (2005) Teaching and evaluating writing in the age of computers and high-stakes testing. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. WierszewskiE. (2013) Something old, something new: Evaluative criteria in teacher responses to student multimodal texts. InMcKeeH. A.DeVossD. N., Digital writing assessment and evaluation. Chapter 5 Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. WigginsG. (2009) Real-world writing: Making purpose and audience matter. English Journal, 98(5), 29–37.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ee202131483
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/ee202131483
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error