Assessment using visual and multimodal texts

The Shape of Text to Come (2nd edition) by Jon Callow seeks to provide a way for teachers to understand how images work in their own right, as well as in relation to written text. Text, in the broad use of the term, can be print, screen-based or live presentation and performance. A variety of modes can be utilised through each form, such as word, image, sound, music, movement, video and interactive elements. The term ‘multimodal’ acknowledges this variety of meaning-making resources.

In developing a language to talk about visual and multimodal texts, The Shape of Text to Come presents a semiotic framework for understanding and talking about both images and written text.

Assessment

In The Shape of Text to Come, assessment of students’ visual and multimodal literacy skills should follow similar principles to that of all types of literacy learning, being integrated, student focused and related to the classroom curriculum. Since multimodal theory recognises the significant influence of technology and associated multiliteracies practices, assessment should also reflect integrated learning experiences, co-operative tasks and on-going development of portfolios and work samples which can cross print, performance and screen based literacy learning.

Assessment techniques and tasks should:

• be part of authentic learning experiences
• utilise quality texts, such as picture books, information books, screen based texts as well as texts that students create
• involve ongoing, formative and well as summative assessment
• involve students using a metalanguage as part of the assessment
• provide focused activities where student talk and understanding is focused on specific visual and textual aspects (time to look think deeply and talk about visual texts is very important)
• provide a variety of ways for students to show their skills and conceptual knowledge.
• include student made visual responses (drawing, painting, multimedia) to the texts used in the classroom (based on Callow, 2008)

In most classrooms, assessment is part of a teaching/learning cycle, where teachers plan in light of syllabus outcomes, observe and evaluate as they teach, assessing student learning formatively and modifying lessons as appropriate. Engaging learning activities provide assessment opportunities, where more teacher-guided tasks give way to student control, as they practice new skills and develop ideas.

All literacy learning should occur as part of a wider context, whether an author study, modeled reading lessons, factual curriculum-area reading or another planned learning experience, such as a film making competition, children’s writers' festival or school performance events. Working with multimodal texts creates new challenges for learning and assessment. Bearne (2009) details the importance and challenges of assessing student created multimodal texts, both screen and print, and some ways to go about this in the classroom. Having a metalanguage to describe visual elements is a key feature.

The following tables are based on the Shape of Text to Come and the Show Me framework (Callow, 2008, 2023) and provide examples of relevant metalanguage and assessment questions in relation to informative, imaginative  and persuasive text. The assessment ideas below assume that any text used will be part of a meaningful learning context, so that the student is assisted to see assessment as related and meaningful to class activities. The associated strands, sub strands and threads link assessment to the Australian curriculum. 

Assessment guide for students engaging with visual and multimodal texts

Key points for using assessment ideas tables below

Before or after reading any text (imaginative, informative or persuasive), include discussion of some of the key points:

Cultural context: Where might we find similar texts (stories, websites, books, movies) to the one we just watched? Have you read/ viewed any similar types of texts? (could be anime, picture book, website, movie etc.)

Australian Curriculum: English link – Literacy – Texts in context – Focus of thread within sub-strand: Texts and the contexts in which they are used. How texts relate to their contexts and reflect the society and culture in which they were created – Foundation to Year 8

Audience and social purpose: Who would most likely be interested in reading or viewing this? Why might they choose to read this story/ access this information book/ go to this website?

Australian Curriculum: English link — for example AC9E1LY03 onwards, Year 1–8: Describe some differences between imaginative informative and persuasive texts

Text type: What types of text are similar to the one we have just read / viewed? ( narrative, poetry, recount, explanation, persuasive or a perhaps a combination of these on a webpage)

Australian Curriculum: English link – Language – Texts structure and organization – Focus of thread within sub-strand: Purpose audience and structures of different types of texts. How texts serve different purposes and how the structures of types of texts vary according to the text purpose. 

A webliography for references online

• Anderson, M & Jefferson, M 2009, Teaching the screen: Film education for generation next, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest,  NSW.
• Andrews, R 2010, Re-framing literacy: Teaching and learning in English and the language arts, Taylor & Francis, London, UK.
• Arizpe, E & Styles, M 2003, Children reading pictures: Interpreting visual texts, Routledge Falmer, London, New York.
• Arnheim, R 1974, Art and visual perception: A psychology of the creative eye, University of California Press, Berkeley.
• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. 2008, Beijing Olympic Games tickets scams Viewed December, 2012, from http://www.scamwatch.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/740033
• Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority ACARA, 2012, The Australian Curriculum: English v4.2, viewed 2 December 2012, http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/English/Rationale
• Barthes, R, Lavers, A & Smith, C 1967, Elements of semiology (Excerpt .pdf 154kB) Cape, London.
• Bateman, JA 2008, Multimodality and genre: A foundation for the systematic analysis of multimodal documents, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
• Bazalgette, C & Buckingham, D 2012, ‘Literacy, media and multimodality: a critical response’, Literacy, 1–5.
• Bezemer, J & Kress, G 2010, ‘Changing text: a social semiotic analysis of textbooks’, Designs for Learning (.pdf 1.1MB), 3(1–2), 10–29.
• Bordwell, D & Thompson, K 2010, Film art: An introduction, 9th edn, McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Bryan, K, Scott M & Dicks, L 2011, Earth matters, Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London.
• Buckingham, D 2005, ‘The media literacy of children and young people: A review of the research literature on behalf of Ofcom’, (.pdf 222 kB)
• Callow, J 2005, ‘Literacy and the visual: broadening our vision’ English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 4(1), 6–19
• Callow, J 2008, ‘Show me: principles for assessing students’ visual literacy’, The Reading Teacher, 61(8), 616–626.
• Callow, J 2010, ‘Spot the difference: the changing nature of page-based and screen-based texts’, Screen Education (58), 106–110.
• Callow, J 2012, ‘The rules of visual engagement: images as tools for learning’, Screen Education (65), 72–79.
• Chan, E & Unsworth, L 2011, ‘Image–language interaction in online reading environments: Challenges for students’ reading comprehension’, The Australian Educational Researcher, 38(2), 181–202.
• Chandler, D 2002, Semiotics: The basics, Routledge, London, New York.
• Chang, D & Nesbitt, KV 2006, ‘Identifying commonly used gestalt principles as a design framework for multisensory displays’, Paper presented at the Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2006. SMC ’06. IEEE International Conference on.
• Child, L 2001, Beware of the storybook wolves, Hodder Children’s, London.
• Derewianka, B 2011, A new grammar companion for teachers, PETAA, Sydney.
• DK Publishing 2008, Wow! The visual encyclopedia of everything — Australasia, Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London.
• DK Publishing 2012, DK Natural history: mammals – carnivores: The definitive visual guide, Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London.
• DK Publishing 2012, Eyewitness travel guide: London, Dorling Kindersley Ltd, London.
• Dondis, DA 1973, A primer of visual literacy, MIT Press Cambridge, Mass.
• Elliot, AJ, Maier, MA, Moller, AC, Friedman, R, & Meinhardt, J 2007, ‘Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment’ (.pdf 337 kB), Journal of Experimental Psychology, 136(1), 154–168.
• Ensenberger, P 2011, Focus on composing photos, Focal Press Amsterdam, Boston.
• Fahmy, S, Cho, S, Wanta, W, & Song, Y 2006, ‘Visual agenda-setting after 9/11: Individuals’ emotions, image recall, and concern with terrorism’, Visual Communication Quarterly, 13(1), 4–15.
• Fahmy, S, & Wanta, W 2007, ‘What visual journalists think others think: The perceived impact of news photographs on public opinion formation’, Visual Communication Quarterly, 14(1), 16–31.
• Freebody, P 2007, Literacy education in school: Research perspectives from the past, for the future (.pdf 12MB), ACER (Australian Council for Educational Research).
• Freyd, JJ 1987, ‘Dynamic mental representations’ (.pdf 2.8 MB) Psychological Review, 94(4), 427–438.
• Gaiman, N 2003, The wolves in the walls, Bloomsbury, London.
• Genocchio, B 2008, ‘Van Gogh in moods, both dark and light’, New York Times, July 13 2008.
• Gleeson, L & Blackwood, F (Illus.) 2006, Amy and Louis, Scholastic Press, Sydney.
• Gombrich, EH 1960, Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation, Pantheon Books, New York.
• Gravett, E 2011, Wolf won’t bite, Pan Macmillan, Melbourne.
• Graham, B 2006, How to heal a broken wing, Walker Books, London.
• Green, B 2002, ‘A literacy project of our own?’ English in Australia, 134 (July), 25–32.
• Halliday, MAK & Hasan, R 1985, Language, context and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective, Deakin University Press, Geelong.
• Halliday, MAK & Matthiessen, CMIM 2004, An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn, Arnold, London. Wikipedia entry.
• Hayes, D, Mills, M, Christie, P & Lingard, B 2006, Teachers & schooling making a difference: Productive pedagogies, assessment and performance, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.
• Humphrey, S, Droga, L & Feez, S 2012, Grammar and meaning, PETAA, Sydney.
• Jenkins, H 2008, Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide, New York University Press, New York.
• Jewitt, C 2008, ‘Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms’, Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 241–267.
• Joffe, H 2008, ‘The power of visual material: persuasion, emotion and identification’, Diogenes, 55(1), 84–93.
• Khajavi, J 2011, ‘Decoding the real: a multimodal social semiotic analysis of reality in animated documentary’, Animation Studies, 6, 46–51.
• Knobel, M & Lankshear, C 2007, A new literacies sampler (.pdf 3.7 MB), P. Lang, New York.
• Kress, G & van Leeuwen, T 2001, Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication, Arnold, Co-published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press London, New York.
• Kress, GR 2010, Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication, Routledge, London.
• Kress, GR & van Leeuwen, T 2002, ‘Colour as a semiotic mode: Notes for a grammar of colour’ (.pdf 938 kB) Visual Communication, 1(3), 343–368.
• Kress, GR & van Leeuwen, T 2006, Reading images: The grammar of visual design, 2nd edn, Routledge, London; New York.
• Lang, PJ, Greenwald, MK, Bradley, MM & Hamm, AO 1993, ‘Looking at pictures: Affective, facial, visceral, and behavioral reactions’, Psychophysiology, 30(3), 261–273.
• Lankshear, C & Knobel, M 2011, New literacies everyday practices and classroom learning, 3rd edn, Open University Press, Maidenhead, New York.
• Lenhart, A, Kahne, J, Middaugh, E, Macgill, A R, Evans, C & Vitak, J 2008, ‘Teens, Video Games, and Civics: Teens’ gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement’, Pew Internet & American Life Project.
• Leu, DJ, Gregory McVerry, J, Ian O’Byrne, W, Kiili, C, Zawilinski, L, Everett-Cacopardo, H, & Forzani, E 2011, ‘The new literacies of online reading comprehension: Expanding the literacy and learning curriculum’, Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(1), 5–14.
• Lester, A 2004, Are we there yet? Penguin Group Australia, Melbourne.
• Luke, A 2012, ‘Critical literacy: foundational notes’, Theory Into Practice, 51(1), 4–11. 129
• Luke, A & Freebody, P 1999, ‘Further notes on the four resources model’, Reading Online
• Manuel, J, Brock, P, Carter, D & Sawyer, W 2009, Imagination, innovation, creativity: Re-visioning English in education, Phoenix Education, Putney, NSW.
• McDonald, L 2013, A literature companion for teachers, PETAA, Sydney.
• Mitchell, WJT 1994, Picture theory: Essays on verbal and visual representation, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.
• Mirzoeff, N 1999, An Introduction to Visual Culture, Routledge, London. On Wikipedia.
• Munns, G, Sawyer, W & Cole, B 2013, Exemplary teachers of students in poverty, Routledge, London.
• Norman, DA 2004, Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things, Basic Books, New York.
• Painter, C, Martin, JR & Unsworth, L 2012, Reading visual narratives: Image analysis of children’s picture books, Equinox Publishing, Sheffield, South Yorkshire; Oakville, CT.
• Pantaleo, S 2005, ‘Young children engage with the metafictive in picture books’, Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 28(1), 19–37.
• Platt, R & Cappon, M 2009, London: From Roman capital to Olympic city through time, Kingfisher, London.
• Robins, D, & Holmes, J 2008, ‘Aesthetics and credibility in web site design’, Information Processing & Management, 44(1), 386–399.
• Rogers, G 2010, The hero of Little St, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.
• Selznick, B 2008, The invention of Hugo Cabret, Scholastic Press, NY. Wikipedia entry.
• Singh, SN, Lessig, VP, Kim, D, Gupta, R, & Hocutt, MA 2000, ‘Does your ad have too many pictures?’ Journal of Advertising Research, 11–27.
• Sipe, LR 1998, ‘How picture books work: a semiotically framed theory of text-picture relationships’, Children’s Literature in Education, 29(2), 97–108.
• Sonesson, G 2007, ‘How visual is visual culture?’, Paper presented at the Semio-Istanbul 2007: VIII congress of the International Association for Visual Semiotics, Istanbul. May 29–June 2, p. 51.
• Sturken, M & Cartwright, L 2009, Practices of looking: an introduction to visual culture, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Tan, S 2000, The lost thing, Lothian Books, South Melbourne, Vic.
• Tan, S 2007, The arrival, Hodder Children’s Books, London.
• Unsworth, L 2001, Teaching multiliteracies across the curriculum: changing contexts of text and image in classroom practice, Open University Buckingham, England. First chapters (.pdf 122 kB)
• Unsworth, L 2010, ‘Resourcing multimodal literacy pedagogy: Towards a description of the meaning-making resources of language-image interaction’, In T. Locke (Ed.), Beyond the grammar wars: A resource for teachers and students on developing language knowledge in the English/literacy classroom, Routledge, New York, 276–293.
• Unsworth, L, Thomas, A, Simpson, A & Asha, J 2005, Children’s literature and computer-based teaching, McGraw-Hill/Open University Press, London.
• van Leeuwen, T 2006, ‘Towards a semiotics of typography’ (.pdf 2.8 MB) Information Design Journal, 14(2), 139–155.
• Walsh, M 2006, ‘The ‘textual shift’: Examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts’, Australian Journal of Language & Literacy, 29(1), 24–37.
• Walsh, M 2010, Multimodal literacy: researching classroom practices, PETAA Sydney.
• Ware, C 2008, Visual thinking for design Morgan Kaufmann, Elsevier Science & Technology, Burlington, Mass. / Amsterdam
• Wild, M & Brooks R 2000, Fox,  Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW.
• Zammit, K 2007, ‘Popular culture in the classroom: Interpreting and creating multimodal texts’, In A. McCabe, M. O’Donnell & R. Whittaker (Eds.), Advances in language and education, Continuum, London, pp. 60–76.