Posted by DB on September 25, 2013 in Uncategorized
September 26, 2013 at 3:46 pm
This visual gave me a good understanding of the multiplicity of voices and perspectives engaged in the conversation of multimodal assessment. How did you choose the particular people you chose to highlight in this timeline?
The layered visual style made the timeline a little difficult to read – because the dates change on multiple lines that are spread significantly across the page, I found it difficult to discern when one year ended and another year started.
This is a well-developed timeline, and I’m very interested in the tension you create (especially in relation to Dr. Neal’s work) between assessment based on rhetorical choices and self-evaluation.
Question: Is there further discussion of Holtzman’s “incoherence” elsewhere that you could address? It seems like this is a big claim to have only been taken up by Yancey (in the form of coherence or “rhetorical arrangement”).
Suggestion: I would consider starting earlier… Because you are, after all, discussing multimodal assessment, not digital multimodal assessment. Was anyone talking about this before 1996? I think this comes back to Lessig’s (I think it was Lessig, anyway… or maybe Kress) assertion that multimodality is incorrectly thought of as beginning with the digital revolution.
Interesting work. It seems that much of the debate centers on the degree to which assessment should change when it comes to assessing multimodal texts. Can teachers collaborate with students to come up with criteria for multimodal compositions done in a course so that teachers can assess, to use Yancey’s rhetorical view, how well the intent and effect of a composition line up? I hope that instructors at all levels, from K-12 to higher ed, can have discussions about multimodal composing and how these multimodal compositions can be assessed.
September 26, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Comment: I thought the strands of thought is an interesting and helpful representation of the scholarship out there.
Question: The question I was asking as I was reading through was whether there were some other kinds of multimodal assessments before 1996–was it all based on print texts? How would someone assess a painting or a film before the digital revolution?
Suggestion: some of the strands of thought connect in interesting ways: for example, Yancey’s piece on coherence also discusses how we use print assessments for multimodal assessments–my suggestion would be to show visually how those might connect.
September 26, 2013 at 4:03 pm
I really like the spatial organization of this timeline. I think it helps readers understand how certain scholars build on other scholars’ work. My question for you (which is similar to Josh’s) would be “how did you decide which material to include?” In terms of a suggestion, I might suggest making the top of the graph (the part with the 2004 Yancey intersection) a bit more clear, but really, I like your timeline a lot 🙂
September 26, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Comment: I like seeing the branching paths you used here.
Question: Were there other points you wanted to add? I feel like there should be more points but I wonder how limited you were by time and the assignment itself to include it all (as well as not murdering peoples’ eyes).
Suggestion: Is there any way to visually unit the timelines a bit more? The dashes in the middle but not elsewhere made them different in ways I wasn’t sure if I was supposed to pay attention to or not.
September 26, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Comment: I like the visual logic of the timeline: your use of space and your use of lines and arrows. I think that you navigated the readability issues/lack of space pretty well. I think that your key figures/works/ideas is a really smart way to filter and select what to include and what to exclude. Your selection gave us some key ideas to start considering if we were to take up multimodal assessment.
Question: What do you all think about this? Is the *modified rubric* the way to go, or are you learning toward something like Shipka or Sorapure proposes?
Suggestion: As it stands, your timeline suggests the absence of a relationship between modified rubrics and multimodal assessment through reflection? Are there any points of overlap in practice, theory or research? That kind of hybrid model is something that I would be interested in learning about.
October 9, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Comment: I think this is a really good looking timeline, and very readable. I like how you have the different lines to keep the timeline organized.
Question/Suggestion: My question is similar to Joe’s: why did you decide to start in 1996? I think that starting in 96, but having a focus on digital multimodal projects, or starting earlier and doing a more full timeline of multimodal assessment—with maybe a divergent timeline for the digital—might have been a little more interesting, albeit more time consuming project. But still, great job!
Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS)