According to Ross & Bell (2020), multimodal assignments are increasing in frequency across the higher ed landscape. However, they claim that many of the rubrics are rooted in “print-based culture” and don’t “always address the richness and complexity of multimodal work” (Ross & Bell, 2020, p. 3). The nature of multimodal texts means that students are engaging with disciplinary knowledge in creative and innovative ways, where videos, images, and reimagining material must be assessed, and to do so effectively requires new tools for educators.  Clear standards and grade descriptors, rubrics, and exemplars are often used, according to Ross & Bell (2020), but run the risk of vagueness and use as “recipe cards” or checklists. In the study, students were asked to create a short film about their cultural experiences, including structured narratives, interviews, movie making techniques, and reflection on the process, and were later asked about the effectiveness of the assessment tools used during the process. Some students felt like the rubrics were vague and too much was left to the students to figure out; others simply used the rubrics as checklists rather than using it as a holistic tool to evaluate their films along the way as they worked. With this in mind the authors redesigned both the task and the rubric. However, there was still a disconnect between what the rubric was describing and what was being shared in the classroom. In response to this disparity, Ross & Bell (2020) have proposed a multimodal assessment framework that has the potential to move multimodal assessment rubrics away from decomposition of the final task into a dialogic process more reflective of the complex nature of multimodal work. Their model consists of four parts: 

1. Assessment tools should serve as scaffolds that guide students to critically think about their choices in multimodal assignments.
2. Assessment tools should allow for students to engage in creative processes and exercise agency over their choices.
3. Assessment tools should be co-created with students to make the holistic process of evaluation transparent.
4. Assessment tools should be used iteratively, and assess content as well as other multimodal factors, in order to increase the inherent value of the task.

The authors originally created this study to address two questions: How do university students use assessment criteria to understand expectations of their multimodal work? And how do teachers in higher education design and assess students’ multimodal work? To study the phenomena, the authors interviewed students and a tutor, and analyzed multimodal assignments. Following analysis of data from an initial study that included 35 students over the course of a semester, Ross & Bell (2020) decided that revision of the tasks were needed for consistency and clarity. However, even after revising both the assignment and the assessment tools, students were still unclear about expectations, and used the assessment tools as recipes rather than as guides to quality work. This second failed attempt prompted the researchers to step back and consider the bigger picture of multimodality. In so doing, R & Bell (2020) realized that the problem was bigger than an assessment tool or lesson design; it hints at the need for a complete shift in the way that students and instructors view multimodal work. It is essential that multimodal work is valued as a complex way to both learn and to communicate.

It is not enough for educators to simply throw technology into their lesson plans without consideration of the nature of the digital space. When creating assessments, instructors must consider the nature of the medium in which the assignment is both created and completed. Words on the page and an occasional video or slide presentation are not enough any more to prepare students for today’s workforce. And a checklist does not provide enough to guide and engage students in the deep thinking that is required to structure a multimodal artifact. I recently attended an English-Language Arts conference, and multimodality was a hot topic. Publishers are scrambling to meet the need for multimodal resources by pumping out graphic novels and online, interactive texts. But again, the creation of more stuff isn’t the answer. What must happen first is a paradigm shift in the classroom and in the hallowed halls that dictate what happens in the classroom.  Scripted pen and paper curricula and multiple-choice tests are not going to prepare students for life beyond the classroom walls. Hence my desire to pursue multimodal research. The field of multimodality embodies what I love most about education–its potential to help students synthesize ideas and make connections in new and exciting ways that are authentic and relevant, and most of all, forward-thinking.

Ross, J., Curwood, J. S., & Bell, A. (2020). A multimodal assessment framework for higher education. E-Learning and Digital Media, 17(4), 290–306.

OTHER REFERENCES

Holloway, S. M. & Qaisi, R. (2022). Composing meaning through multiliteracies and multimodality with adolescent and adult learners. Language & Literacy (Kingston, Ont.), 24(2), 85-106. 

Law, L. (2018). Creativity and multimodality: Analytical framework for creativity in multimodal texts (AFCMT). Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 14(1-2), 36–69.

Nilsson, M. (2010). Developing Voice in Digital Storytelling Through Creativity, Narrative and Multimodality. Seminar.net, 6(2), 148-160.

Nouri, J. (2019). Students multimodal literacy and design of learning during self-studies in higher education. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 24(4), 683–698. 

Poppenk, J. (2020). Multimodal brain data and core dimensions of creativity. Data in Brief, 29, 105176–105176. 

Rowsell, J. & Walsh, M. (2011). Rethinking literacy education in new times: Multimodality, multiliteracies, & new literacies. Brock Education, 21(1), 53-62.

Smith, B.E. (2018). Composing for affect, audience, and identity: Toward a multidimensional understanding of adolescents’ multimodal composing goals and designs. Written Communication, 35(2), 182–214.

Svensson, A. (2021). Aesthetic dimensions of literary studies: Multimodality and creative learning. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 20(2), 160-182.

Vally Essa, F. & Mendelowitz, B. (2022). Remixing storytelling across modes. Reading & Writing (Cape Town, South Africa), 13(1), e1–e9.