Designing Assessments: A Multiliteracies Approach

Author(s): GLORIA E. JACOBS

Source: Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, Vol. 56, No. 8 (MAY 2013), pp. 623-626
Published by: International Literacy Association and Wiley
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41827915
Accessed: 07-01-2019 01:50 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41827915?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

International Literacy Association, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy

This content downloaded from 103.18.0.50 on Mon, 07 Jan 2019 01:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Designing Assessments
A Multiliteracies Approach

GLORIA E. JACOBS

Although coming from different disciplinary

tion is broad, the mandates of No Child Left traditions, the literature general y agrees that tools
are needed for as es ing multiliteracies and youths'
Although , tion Behind, is broad,
, Behind, Race to the Raceandconcept
the Top, programsthesuchto the mandates Top, of assessment and of programs No Child in educa- such Left
as Response to Invention have been reinforcing the understanding and creation of multimodal texts.
The table contains an overview of multiliteracies
"old basics" (Kalantzis, Cope, & Harvey, 2003) by
narrowly defining assessment as the measurement approaches to assessment, and the remainder of
of discrete cognitive skills used for decoding and this article explores those suggestions of what a
comprehending alphabetic texts (Cope, Kalantzis, multiliteracies approach to assessment can look like
McCarthey, Vojak, & Kline, 2011). Such a narrow in an instructional setting already overly filled with
view of assessment fails to help teachers develop traditional literacy assessments.
deeper understandings of students' multiliterate skills.
As the New London Group (2000) argued, multilit- Designing Multimodal Assessments
eracies are integral to a diverse, multimodal, and
The move from assessment as currently practiced in
information-based world. However, it is not enough
schools to a multiliteracies assessment is not simply a
to provide opportunities for youths to engage in mul-
matter of identifying a set of discrete skills, nor is it
tiliteracies; assessment of multiliteracies must also be
a matter of creating rubrics. A pedagogy of multilit-
meaningfully integrated into instruction. Therefore,
eracies is philosophically different from the cognitive
in this last entry of the Multiliteracies: Production
approach that dominates assessment and requires a
and Consumption department, I turn attention to the
different way of thinking about texts and assessment.
possibilities of assessment within a multiliterate world.
Kalantzis et al. (2003) called this the "new basics"
There is a wealth of theoretical and empirical
literature that explores assessment for multilitera- (p. 16).
cies and multimodal texts. Scholars in composition According to Cope and Kalantzis (2006), "the
studies (Adsanatham, 2012; Peterson, Botelho, Jang, 'new basics' are about a kind of learning which facili-
& Kerekes, 2007), the new media studies (Ball, tates an active engagement with new and unfamiliar
2006), the new literacies (Callow, 2008; Hansford & kinds of text, without arousing a sense of alienation
Adlington, 2008), multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis, and exclusion" (p. 37). Thus, "assessment techniques
2006; Cope et al., 2011; Kalantzis et al., 2003), need to be altered, in many cases quite radically, to
and multimodal research (Kress & Van Leeuwen, promote new learning and to measure more accu-
2001) have contributed to a vision of assessment for rately the skills required for success in the twenty-first
multiliteracies. century" (Kalantzis et al., 2003, p. 16).
Kalantzis et al. (2003) identified 10 key skills
needed for a person to be successful within an
information-based society:
E. Jacobs is an independent scholar in Portland, Oregon,
USA. She is a former as ociate profes or of literacy at
St. John Fisher College, Rochester, New York, USA. Her
1. Autonomy and self-direction
H The St. E. research USA. Jacobs John department ShereFisesarhcherfocusfocuseseons itshiesneawanlitforme
eracies rofianddeolepsceenndetsnantdCollege, editor on the as ociate welcomes Rochester, new scholar literacies profes or reader New in Portland, of York, comments. of adolescents literacy USA. Oregon, Her at Gloria and
the implications of those practices for education. E-mail 2. Flexibility
glojacobs@gmail.com.
3. Problem-solving skills 623

Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 56(8) May 2013 doi:10.1002/J A AL.189 © 2013 international Reading Association (pp. 623-626)

This content downloaded from 103.18.0.50 on Mon, 07 Jan 2019 01:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Multiliteracies (Cope & Kalantzis,
Composition studies New literacies (Callow, 2008; 2006; Cope et al., 2011; Kalantzis
(Adsanatham, 2012) Hansford & Adlington, 2008) et al.( 2003)

Qualities assessed • Rhetorical elements • Affective/social purpose • Autonomy and self-direction

• The relationship • Compositional (holistic • Flexibility
between modes structure, technical skills, • Problem-solving skills
• Design choices grammatical components) 9 Multiple strategies for
• Coherence • Critical tackling a task
• Argument strength • Flexible solutions-
orientation to knowled
• Collaborative and
communicative
• Ability to work productively
with linguistic and cultural
diversity
• Intelligent in multiple ways
• Broadly knowledgeable
• Ability to engage with
different interpretative
frameworks and contexts

Assessment Inductive - heuristics/ Performative based on qualities Performative based on qualities

approach rubrics based on student identified by theory. Includes identified by theory. Includes
identification of standards • project assessment • project assessment
used for evaluating multi- • performance assessment • performance assessment
modal works. # quantification of collaborative • group assessment to
skills measure collaborative skills
• portfolio assessment • portfolio assessment

4. Multiple strategies for tackling a task 3. How are the meanings organized textually?

5. A flexible solutions-orientation to knowledge

How and to what extent do they cohere?
(organizational)
6. Collaborative and communicative
CO
4. How do the meanings fit into the larger world
7. Able to work productively with linguistic and
o

of meaning? (contextual)
CM

>•
<
5 cultural diversity
5. Whose interests are the meanings positioned
õo
(O 8. Intelligent in multiple ways to serve? (ideological)
in

>- 9. Broadly knowledgeable

o
<
The elements described here provide possible frame-
oc
LU 10. Able to engage with the different interpre- works for assessing performative aspects of text use
ř-
-I
tative frameworks and contexts of specific and creation as well as the multimodal texts used
Î3
=> information within a multiliterate environment.
O
<
00 There are other approaches for assessing how stu-
y-
z
In addition to the 10 performative skills identified dents engage with multimodal texts that acknowledge
UJ
O
co
by Kalantzis et al. (2003), Cope and Kalantzis (2006) the social and contextual nature of multiliteracies
UJ
-J
o identified five questions that can be asked about but also include an operational or skills-based per-
o
< multimodal texts: spective. For instance, Callow (2008) suggested the
Li-
CJ
analysis of three dimensions of text use and creation:
<
1. What do the meanings refer to?
Z
OC the affective, the compositional, and the critical. The
=>
(representational)
o
~3
affective dimension, according to Callow, includes
2. How do the meanings connect people? expressions of enjoyment as students participate in an
624 (social) activity. The compositional includes concepts such as

This content downloaded from 103.18.0.50 on Mon, 07 Jan 2019 01:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
actions, symbols, shot length, angles, gaze, color, lay- works. Toward this end, Adsanatham suggested (a)
out, salience, lines, and vectors. The critical includes frequent rhetorical viewing and analysis exercises;
how an image positions the viewer to think or feel (b) evaluation criteria that are flexible, adaptable,
a particular way. Similarly, Hansford and Adlington and open to revision; (c) continuous reflection;
(2008) argued that digital texts should be assessed (d) student involvement in the design of criteria; and
for their social purpose, holistic structure, grammati- (e) flexibility about how students repurpose criteria
cal components, and the technical skills required to for their own purposes.
create them.
These approaches are obviously time consuming
These approaches hold promise as the framework and work intensive. As such, they may seem unrealis-
for heuristics that teachers can use to guide their tic to a teacher already faced with a heavy set of stan-
students when consuming or producing multimodal dardized assessments that must be implemented or
texts. The next section provides descriptions of several
prepared for. A multiliteracies assessment should not
multiliteracies assessments.
be an add-on but rather an integral part of an existing
pedagogy of multiliteracies in which the old basics and
Implementing Multiliteracies new basics are taught in conjunction with each other.
Assessments Even if a teacher strives to implement a peda-
gogy of multiliteracies and integrate multimodal text
Scholars have suggested several approaches for mul-
into instruction, assessing their instructional efforts
tiliteracies assessments. Callow (2008) and Kalantzis
and to
et al. (2003) argued for a performative approach student work may be problematic. Honan (2010)
suggested that teachers struggle with the assess-
assessment. Callows "show me" (p. 617) approach
ment
to assessment includes (a) project assessment ofof multiliteracy projects because the operation
of the technology is often foremost in teachers' dis-
in-depth learning tasks, (b) performance assessment
course
of how students complete tasks, (c) quantification ofrather than the thinking or creative processes
engendered by the technology. Honan posited that
collaborative skills, and (d) ongoing documentation
through portfolios. the focus on the operational aspects of technology
Callow (2008) suggested that multiliteracies
over the creative might be associated with the pres-
assessment also should include "focused and pur-
sures of standardized testing:
poseful student talk in assessment" (p. 619), affective
These teachers [the ones in Honan s study]
engagement with images, inclusion of students in the
know that accountability measures in relation to
creation or manipulation of visual texts, and explicit
literacy learning, including nationwide stan-
compositional concepts and development of a meta-
dardised testing, emphasise the skills required to
language. Similarly, Kalantzis et al. (2003) argued
"break the code" of texts. They also know that
for (a) project assessment to measure in-depth tasks,
the operational skills being learned by their stu-
(b) performance assessment to measure the creativedents are as easily identified, measured, and as-
process, (c) group assessment to measure collabora-
sessed as these literacy skills. In a climate where -C
o
(O
tive skills, and (d) portfolio assessment to document
this codebreaking is seen to be of paramount
o
o.

the student s body of works. value in classrooms, it is no wonder that teachers <
a

Whereas Kalantzis et al. (2003) and Callow

V)

emphasise this area in their teaching surround- ©

o

(2008) approached development of a multiliteracies

(O

ing new technologies, (pp. 186-187) ©

assessment framework through the creation of a priori

"5
Honan (2010) found that the only connection teach-
categories based on theory and research, Adsanatham
(2012) approached multimodal assessment throughers made between literacy teaching and learning <loand
thestu-
an inductive process. In Adsanatham s class, the use of new technologies was "the drafting, plan- c
0
E
ning
dents first engaged in critiquing new media texts as and writing of a print-based text that is then CO
en
©

a way to learn what rhetorical elements make transferred

up a into a digital space" (p. 188). Thus, mul- en
to
<
timodal texts become a supplement or extension of
text and to identify the relationship between modes, O)
c

existing ways of using texts rather than openingOJ up

c
design choices, coherence, and argument strength.
w

However, Adsanathams (2012) approach also re-

opportunities for engaging in the new ways of think-
Q
a>

ing afforded by the new literacies (Cope & Kalantzis,

quires a heuristic and grading as well as an identifi-
2006; Cope et al., 2011; Kalantzis et al., 2003).
cation of standards used for evaluating multimodal 625

This content downloaded from 103.18.0.50 on Mon, 07 Jan 2019 01:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Conclusion Callow, J. (2008). Show me: Principles for assessing students' visu-
al literacy. The Reading Teacher , 61 ( 8), 616-626. doi: 10. 1598/
The prospect of adding assessment of multiliteracies toRT.61.8.3
an educational system crowded with assessments may Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2006). From literacy to "multilit-
be daunting or seem undesirable. However, just as mul-eracies": Learning to mean in the new communications
tiliteracies require a rethinking of what constitutes liter-environment. English Studies in Africa , 49(1), 23-45.
doi: 10.1080/00138390608691342
acy and the role of literacy in everyday life, so, too, does
Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., McCarthey, S., Voják, C., & Kline, S.
implementing an assessment of multiliteracies. The ap-(2011). Technology-mediated writing assessments: Principles
proaches suggested by Cope, Kalantzis, and others are and processes. Computers and Compositiony 28(2), 79-96.
not about creating rubrics for a curriculum. I suggest doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2011.04.007
that the core of a multiliteracies assessment is the core
Hansford, D., & Adlington, R. (2008). Digital spaces and young
people s online authoring: Challenges for teachers. Australian
of any meaningful assessment. It is about watching and
Journal of Language and Literacy , 32(1), 55-68.
noticing what students are doing and then using that Honan, E. (2010). Mapping discourses in teachers' talk
information to guide the students toward new skills and about using digital texts in classrooms. Discourse: Studies
knowledge. Good teachers do this already; however,in the Cultural Politics of Education , 31(2), 179-193.
doi: 10. 1080/01 596301003679701
multiliteracies assessment asks for a different set of ques-
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Harvey, A. (2003). Assessing mul-
tions. Once a teacher is routinely asking questions that
tiliteracies and the new basics. Assessment in Education:
build on a pedagogy of multiliteracies, then a new way
Principles , Policy Ó Practice7 10(1), 15-26.
of envisioning assessment will emerge. Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The
modes and media of contemporary communication. London:
References Arnold.
Adsanatham, C. (2012). Integrating assessment and instruction: New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies.
Using student-generated grading criteria to evaluate multi- In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy
modal digital projects. Computers and Composition , 29(2), learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-37). London:
152-174. Routledge.
Ball, C.E. (2006). Designerly^eaderly: Re-assessing multimodalPeterson, S.S., Botelho, M.J., Jang, E., & Kerekes, J.
and new media rubrics for use in writing studies. Convergence : (2007). Writing assessment: What would multiliteracies
The International Journal of Research into New Media teachers do? Literacy Learning: The Middle Years , 15(1),
Technologies , 12(4), 393^*12. doi: 10.11 77/1 3 54856506068366 29-35.

CO

o
CM

>-
<
2

oo

to
in

>-
O
<
oc
LU

£
-I

5
3
O
<
00
I-
Z
LU
O
CO
UJ
-I
o
□
<
U_
o
-J
<
z
oc
=3
O
-3

626

This content downloaded from 103.18.0.50 on Mon, 07 Jan 2019 01:50:50 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms