Elective Badge #2 - Assessment of multimodal composition

Key Points/Main Idea/Connections:

When I do trainings for teachers, I always emphasize that their Orton-Gillingham lessons have to include both reading and spelling elements.  Remediation begins at the tip of a pencil, and one cannot become a proficient decoder without becoming a proficient speller.  The same is true of comprehension and writing; they go hand in hand.  And while the skills are inherently different, we find they intersect quite frequently. 

As I read Chapter 1 from Multimedia text sets: Changing the shape of engagement and learning, I couldn’t stop thinking about these pairings.  There are five semiotic systems and the chapter focuses on literacy, the use of oral and written language such as vocabulary, grammar, and discussion (Strop & Carlson, 2011, p. 10).  Within this area, the authors look at the “Four Resources Model – four reader ‘roles’ representing a set of practices that support learners as they engage in reading and writing” – and how these roles can be implemented with multimedia text sets (MTS) (Strop & Carlson, 2011, p. 12).   The four roles – code breakers, meaning makers, text users, text critics – are used as intersection points for how we instruct students and ask them to respond to that learning.  What I found is that code breakers approach writing, discussion, vocabulary, intertextual connections, engagement, and reading practices by recognizing patterns.  Meaning makers approach those six instructional dispositions as understanding the semantics in relation to background knowledge. Text users find purpose and function in a text, and finally, text critics analyze those texts for various perspectives.  While these roles do vary, they can all be supported and connected through multimedia. 

The National Council of Teachers of English’s (NCTE) position statement on multimodal literacies helps make these connections.  “Because of the complexity of multimodal projects and the different levels of skill and sensitivity each individual brings to their execution, such projects often demand high levels of collaboration and teamwork” (NCTE, 2005).  Also, multimodalities allow for various ways to acquire, organize, evaluate and creatively respond to texts that weren’t available 15 years ago. In addition, “The ‘definitions’ of multimodal composing may be written by educators, but they will most likely have first been pioneered by these young people” (NCTE, 2005).  This means that students, regardless of their role, may find traditional school instruction unrelated to their lives.   And the point that most hit home for me, was that digital tools give more responsibility to the students for all aspects of expression.  Students become not only the ones that generate the work, but the publishers and distributers as well. 

The reason I related so strongly to the last position is that, as teachers, we can fully assess a student’s learning when they are in complete control of the assignment.  I am not only evaluating their work for patterns of facts and information (like code breakers), but also their critical thinking and problem solving (like text critics).  Multimodalities incorporate the activity of produsage in the classroom.  Children are the producers, consumers and users of text. To assess or students in this way also ensures that we are staying true to the analogy I began my post with - comprehension and expression go hand in hand.  If we use various forms of digital literacy, visual literacy, video literacy, and others to instruct or students, then it is only appropriate to use the same in the assessment of their learning. 

Below are some funny comics I found showing the different ways technology and mutlimediating are viewed in the classroom.

Image citation

Image Citation

Image Citation

Image Citation

Ideas for the classroom:

I was so excited to see a link to Troy Hicks’s blog! I have read his book Crafting digital writing; Composing texts across media and genres and got so many good ideas.  His blog was no different!

These all come from or relate to Troy Hicks’s blog -

1) Under “Exemplary Middle School Digital Writing” I found a link to Animoto.  Hicks highlighted this as a way to make a digital book trailer, but I could see using this for many different projects. Unlike iMovie, which takes a ton of practice to use efficiently, Animoto seems like an easer application for movie making. Plus, you don’t have to have a MAC.  I also feel like it highlights the final position NCTE stated, and students really can take over the whole process.

2) Hicks includes links to author studies.  I checked out one on Gordon Kormon which used Google Sites. I totally think my students could create, plan, design, and add to a website with this simple set up.  I think I would use the website for collaborative projects about the reading group book we are working on in class.  I am envisions taking lit circles digital.

3) And then under High School examples of digital writing, I couldn’t help but smile when looking at “Multigenre Digital Essay: The Internet.”  Don’t laugh, but even though I have used hyperlinks all throughout grad school, I haven’t incorporated it in my classroom yet.  Believe me, 2015-16 school year will see a definite inclusion of this multimodality in my Language Arts curriculum!

References:

Hicks, T. (2015). “Digital Writing Gallery.” The Digital Writing Workshop. Retrieved from: http://digitalwritingworkshop.wikispaces.com/Digital+Writing+Gallery

NCTE (2005). Position Statement on Multimodal Literacies. Retrieved from: http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/multimodalliteracies

Strop, J. & Carlson, J. (2011). Multimedia text sets: Changing the shape of engagement and learning. Portage & Maine Press.