Cross-walking Between Frameworks and Student Work
After our work at the NWP Annual Meeting in Orlando, the MAP Committee met in Davis, California in February 2011. Our goals were to review our overall assessment framework in light of feedback we’ve received and to reflect on the implications of design in tools like rubrics and graphic representations. What do different designs signal about what is valued in an assessment context and how threads of value inter-relate?
Reviewing Our Assessment Framework
We looked together at the feedback we received on the emerging framework that we shared at the NWP Annual Meeting. There was much rich discussion at the Annual Meeting, and the committee got a real sense from the group how teachers would want to participate and use all or part of our work. That led to some refining of the domains, or areas, in our framework.
At the February meeting we focsued on five consensus domains that many felt were critical for assessing and improving our work as creators of multimodal texts. We asked ourselves, how can we grow and develop over time as creators of these texts. The domains below were our answers (with names that may change):
- Context: we can grow in our awareness of and attention to the context/situation in which we are working and for which we are composing. This includes the rhetorical context of audience, purpose, and occasion; circulation context of the distribution environment; expectations for form and genre; etc.; the assignment if there is one or expectations of a discourse community
- Artifact: we can grow in our capacities to design and produce the pieces themselves, including developing our capacities to manage the technical elements and affordances in the medium of composition, and to use them for effect in ever more powerful ways
- Process Management: we can grow in our abilities to plan, implement, and assess our work; to find and manage resources and digital assets that we use in composing; to reflect on our performance and to collaborate effectively (particularly given the fact that so many multimodal projects are produced by teams)
- Substance/Content: we can grow in the quality and sophistication of what we are communicating in our work; we can improve the quality and power of the ideas or content, the credibility of the information, the depth of the story or argument
- Habits of Mind: we can develop, in an ongoing way over time, dispositions and capacities that will serve us well in life as a productive and creative individual.
Looking at Student Work
As is typical for the Committee, we put the framework up against a collection of student work to see how it would hold up in dialog with student work. We looked at Google Lit Trips produced in Google Earth by elementary students in a class setting; we looked at student films by elementary-aged youth in an after-school program; we looked at digital stories by high school students presenting their digital lives to teacher education students; we looked at a video remix taking on last summer’s Levi’s ‘go forth’ commercials; and a delightful set of deliberately bad Powerpoints. We also looked at a Twitter stream where students responded to The Things They Carried in character and a set of student posters and Shutterfly books.
This video remix, linked below, was created a college-aged student who wanted to speak back to the Levi’s commercials that were airing the summer of 2010. In this remix, the student strips out the audio, adds a found recording of Tuli Kupferberg reading his poem “State Of The Union”, and adds highlighting of elements of the text over the images. To see his video, follow the link at the bottom of the page. It was the only public student product, so it’s the only one we can share with you. Enjoy!