RSS

Multimedia Essay Response

22 Oct

We have four groups in class today that represent different approaches to response: 1) descriptive, 2) evaluative, 3) contract, and 4) rubric or scoring guide. Please post your response as a “comment” to this post and we’ll use this for discussion in class.

Advertisements
 
5 Comments

Posted by on October 22, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

5 responses to “Multimedia Essay Response

  1. DB

    October 22, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    Descriptive evaluation:

    Dear Alexandra,

    Here are the things we observed about your video essay:

    • You used the “I” in Ipod to suggest a cultural shift, pointing to some effects
    o Effect 1: A cultural movement toward socialization through the screen
    o Effect 2: Ambivalence on your part toward portable devices and social media
    • You point to a change, but seem unsure what you think about the change. You seem to like being part of the change, but are unsure about the end goal.
    • You use examples from popular shows (sampling) as representative of a common feeling toward these technologies (distrust, misunderstanding)
    • This is a kind of man vs. machine narrative, and you locate yourself within the narrative not necessarily as heroic but implicated
    • The video shifts from more simple to more sophisticated (how technology positions people relative to each other)
    • A different voice emerges during the Twitter/F2F: 6:45
    • You use a lot of stock photos
    • You often put captions on them
    • The shot in .51-.56 enacts Mulvey’s scopophilia: http://faculty.cua.edu/johnsong/hitchcock/pages/scopophilia/scopophilia.html
    • The voiceover connects the modes
    David, Erin, Jacob

     
  2. profkelp

    October 22, 2013 at 4:14 pm

    We are the group thinking about grading contracts in relation to this video. In thinking about how we would want to assess this video with a grading contract, we decided to begin by asking, “What would we expect of the students/projects?” and “What elements would comprise our contract?” This is what we came up with:

    -a quantitative element; are we assuming that she has taken this project through a drafting process? Has she created something like an outline or a storyboard? Hours? Is the final project an appropriate length?

    -a descriptive element; does the project include more than one modality? Does it have multiple, appropriate examples? Does it draw from multiple sources?

    -a rhetorical element; does the final project communicate a clear argument?

    -a reflective element; did they complete a reflection that shows us a purposeful selection and creation process? Has the student shown us how their thoughts, understanding, attitudes, may have changed?

    But do we want to make this into a hybrid contract where basic fulfillment of the above elements would constitute a B, but with the understanding that doing something else in addition to the assignment (something that is more evaluative), or going “above and beyond,” would earn a higher grade? Maybe the A engages the audience through effective use of multiple (and well-blended) modalities, the production of a compelling argument, and the provision of adequate support for the argument. It’s aesthetically-pleasing, also.

    In thinking through all of this, we’ve decided that the student easily meets the basic criteria of the grading contract. Now the question is, does she go above and beyond the basic requirements? This is the part that is more difficult for us to assess, especially when using this format of grading, because once you start moving beyond the contract, the process becomes more evaluative than contractual. Overall, though, we felt that the project was aesthetically-pleasing, and that her sources were important and her argument was sound, though there were a few transitions that were a bit choppy. We might have liked to see a more nuanced argument that addressed counterarguments or challenging ideas. At the end, we would suggest that the project receive an A-, but we are not completely confident of this grade because of the murky area beyond the actual contract.

    -Sarah, Amy, and Kendall

     
  3. jc12t

    October 22, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    Here are the major points in our discussion about how to construct the rubric.

    We talked about how, typically, an instructor would make the rubric before he or she saw the assignment—so, we could make a rubric that is based inductively from the video, or we could think of a deductive kind of rubric that exemplifies “necessary” or expected qualities of the assignment. However, rubrics by design are made so that one rubric corresponds with one assignment—not typically one rubric per student per assignment. With that line of thought, we decided to go with the deductive kind of rubric because that would reflect the traditional use of rubrics.

    So, let’s talk about just things we think would be important to this kind of assignment.

    This is for Visual Rhetoric so rhetorical choices need to be considered. And the assignment itself was to make conscious decision about a medium and what kind of arguments can be made in that medium. This is different kind of essay so there’s an argument involved.

    In sum, we’re saying that rhetorical choices, argument and medium are important to this assignment—so far.

    Let’s look more in depth.

    First let’s look at medium—so, what do we think of when we think of medium? I’m thinking like affordances, accessibility, circulation, and constraints. Medium is linked with rhetorical choices because students should be aware of the advantages and disadvantages of the medium they’re using and how to navigate those effectively.

    Then we have the argument. The essay is multimodal but it’s still an essay so there needs to be a coherent argument: this involves a major claim or question that is clear to the user, minor claims and supporting evidence that ties back to the major claim/question to strengthen it, and a user-friendly structure (people can follow the creators’ line of thought), and supporting evidence

    So, through our discussions, we came up with these two criteria. But how are we going to construct it? The rubric can be used to add another layer to justify the final grade—so we decided that each piece of criteria will guide the score; each piece will be worth a certain amount of points. But we’re not really going to put like a number score, but a ranking that is more like a range where there’s room for improvement.

    It may look something like this:

    Rhetorical Choices:
    >Aware of the affordances and constraints of the medium and uses them to his or her advantage
    >Student has a sense of audience
    >Student has a sense of rhetorical situation

    Argument:
    >Central argument is clear

    Actually….this isn’t working. It’s too difficult to make a rubric in such a short amount of time—there’s too much to consider so maybe we should find a pre-existing rubric that we can adapt to the purposes of this assignment.

    Joe has a heuristic—not a rubric—that he made with his students that might work as a guide to making this rubric. Here it is:

    Purpose:
    >What is the author’s intention? Does the text go through with the author’s intention? What function does the text serve? What is this text offering? Is the text worth reading? Does the text offer something valuable to the reader? Is this text appropriate for the given situation?
    Durability:
    >Is the text easy to “break”? Meaning: does the text explore all of it’s potential? Does it account for all potential critiques? Is the text strong enough to serve it’s purpose? Does the text offer enough valuable discussion to convince you that it’s a valuable text?
    Usability:
    > Are the ideas organized logically? Does the organizational structure of the text allow the reader to access it’s content easily? Are the claims made clear to the reader? Does the author know his or her audience? Does the author account for the knowledge that his or her audience may or may not have?
    Cost:
    >Is this text worth the time and energy to read? Does the author provide his or her ideas clearly and succinctly? Does the author seem as if they spent time thinking about his or her topic–does the author go deep into the content of the text to make interesting and thoughtful connections?
    Customizability:
    >Is the text operating within a familiar genre? If so, does the author utilize a set of common conventions that reflect the individuality of the author?
    >Does the author seem to be contributing to ongoing conversations about the topic he or she discusses? Can the ideas in this text be used to see other texts on a similar topic differently? Does this text provide a questions for further discussion?

    This heuristic isn’t meant to be used during grading, but it gives students a writing companion that offers questions to consider and—since Joe made this heuristic with his students—offers the instructor evaluative tool to consider things the students were thinking about when composing.

    So, now that we have this heuristic, let’s adapt it for our purposes: a rubric that can be used for a multimodal project and as a scoring guide for instructors.

    We have some hesitations. One, this rubric would totally not be contextualized—we don’t know the students, we don’t know the classroom culture or context, we don’t really know the background of the assignment. Two, the heuristic wasn’t really made for a multimodal project—it was made for a writing assignment in ENC1102.

    Here’s a more adapted rubric:

    Purpose:
    >The project is appropriate for the given situation.
    >The project offers a valuable contribution to ongoing conversations.
    >The purpose is clear to the audience
    Durability:
    >The text accounts for potential critiques.
    >The claims and questions are strong enough to be considered valuable
    Usability:
    > The project has a logical structure that allows users to follow the author’s line of thought.
    The claims/questions are clear to the audience/user.
    >The project demonstrates that the author has account for a specific audience.
    Cost:
    >The argument clear an succinct
    >The project goes deep into the content of the topic to make interesting and thoughtful connections
    Customizability:
    >The project shows an awareness of genre and convetions, but show creativity in navigating the medium.
    >The author seems to be contributing to ongoing conversations about the topic he or she discusses.
    >The text provides questions for further discussion

    Each bulleted point will ranked “Very Good”, “Good”, “Fair”, and “Needs Improvement”—as we discussed before.

    Although this rubric isn’t perfect, but honestly no rubric is perfect. It does however provide useful discussion points and is a star to something valuable.

     
  4. jasonecuster

    October 24, 2013 at 2:48 pm

    Evaluative Response — Notes

    Multimedia essay
    Making arguments in different modalities
    Any platform of their choosing
    Third or fourth assignment
    Revision in mind for this

    Great use of music.
    Great visual (images).
    Liked the arrangement.
    Thought the return to music in the conclusion felt distracting, though it functioned well as an introduction.
    Maybe felt weird because it started as text and moved to video.
    Mine the South Park episode a bit more.
    Good use of commercials/video
    Might need to work on shifting the volume for the video in places.
    What software was used?
    Some transitions between images were abrupt

    A- (with chance to revise)

     

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: