Written Composing Assessment Overview
Holistic: Does the writing genuinely and productively engage the audience?
Students whose written compositions fall into the upper half (4–6: competent, mature, exemplary) present a thoughtful thesis, supported by specific examples and details, and a distinct voice suited to the audience and purpose. Their work is more often deductively structured and clarifies purpose and audience early in the writing.
Students whose written compositions fall into the second half (1–3: basic, beginning, developing) are more likely to have a topic rather than a thesis, to use a simple inductive narrative or chronological structure, and to write in generalities.
Context: How clearly does the student explain the topic’s purpose and value for the audience?
The introduction needs to motivate readers and involve them in a worthwhile effort. The writer’s stance and purpose need to be established early. Weaker writers assume too much, expecting readers to know what is important and where a writing is headed without providing clues. Weaker writers focus on themselves, not their readers.
Substance: How worthwhile is the student’s main point and how engaging are examples?
Stronger writers demonstrate immediately that they’ve thought about their topic and their audience and have something distinctive and valuable to say. They involve readers through the specificity of descriptions and narratives and get them asking “why” and making judgments. Weak material repeats the obvious, overgeneralizes, and settles for one quick example or explanation as sufficient for any point.
Organization: How much is the structure claim-driven, leading readers deeper into the topic?
Strong writers let their purpose drive the structure, moving quickly but systematically to explore challenging questions, issues, or problems. The resulting organization is complex and interconnected, always situating new information in terms of the overall objective. Weak writers think in terms of topics rather than positions and lean toward parallel structures, short lists of subtopics briefly discussed and in no rigorous order. They often are attracted to a mechanical version of the five-paragraph theme.
Style: How distinct and appropriate are the student’s voice and attitude toward the subject?
Good writers surprise readers occasionally with their diction, humor, and individuality. Weak writers prefer the general and abstract over the visual and concrete. They use much more formulaic and trite diction, let distracting mechanical and usage errors slip by, and seldom tap and properly cite reputable sources.
Delivery: How well is the page designed to support the logic and structure of the writing?
Good writers at the very least present a cleanly edited page with conventional margins, a title, and usually some purposeful headings that reveal the writing’s logic or engage readers. Weak writers are oblivious to the impression that the physical page, typography, spacing, binding, etc. have on readers’ reception of the writing.
Oral Presentation Assessment Overview
Holistic: Is the student communicating something worthwhile to the audience?
Students whose oral presentations fall into the upper half (4–6: competent, mature, exemplary) have something worthwhile to say and communicate it with clarity and expression to the audience. They look directly at the audience, gesture naturally, speak enthusiastically, forego notes, make a clear point, and conclude confidently. Students whose oral presentations fall into the second half (1–3: basic, beginning, developing) typically focus more on their own performance than on communicating with the audience. Their body language shows nervous, purposeless movement, limited eye contact, uncertain control over content and organization, often preferring an inductive, narrative structure, an overly conversational style, and an unemphatic conclusion.
Context: How much does the student display a sense of purpose and an awareness of audience?
Context issues arise most typically in the beginning of the presentation. Does the speaker motivate and engage the audience, explain his or her connection to the presentation topic, and indicate how the audience is supposed to respond? Does the speaker explain references that the audience wouldn’t otherwise understand?
Substance: To what degree does the student have something worthwhile to say?
More effective speakers contribute details rather than generalities. They offer some surprises, insights, or engaging examples. They more often focus on a single substantive point rather than settle for a string of loosely related topics.
Organization: How clearly does the student make a claim, identify subpoints, and close?
Better presentations are usually deductive with a clear, specific claim or thesis stated at the outset. Subpoints are foreshadowed, marked by key words, repetition, and deliberate transitions. The conclusion at least summarizes and closes confidently, but preferably uses detail and insightful interpretation to recast the main point. Weaker presentations are often organized around a set of topics rather than a thesis or get lost in narration and description with little analysis or interpretation.
Style: How articulately does the student express ideas and individualize the presentation?
While avoiding grammatical errors, trite diction, and undue colloquialism, the effective speaker adapts the content to his or her own personality and experience. The tone is expressive without being artificially dramatic. The speaker’s attitude toward the content and the audience is clear and appropriate. The less effective speaker typically uses an overly conversational style, often marked by distractions in word choice, grammar, or formulaic phrasing.
Delivery: How well does the student use voice, body, face, computer, space, and time?
The face and body of an effective speaker are expressive. The speaker is suitably dressed, with facial expression clearly visible, voice loud and clear, posture upright, and use of any print, electronic, or physical aids well integrated into the presentation. Notes, if any, are referenced minimally and without distraction?. The presentation concludes close to the allotted time? Throughout the speaker stands where the audience can clearly view him or her. The ineffective speaker has little control of body language, allowing nervous energy to become distracting body movements. Eyes are focused more on thoughts of one’s performance than on the audience and its responses. Voice may be too loud or soft, perhaps directed at the floor or ceiling more than at the audience. Such speakers allow space, equipment, and time to control them rather than the reverse.
Small-Group Assessment Overview
Holistic: Does the group member productively shape the group’s activities and final product?
Students whose small-group contributions fall into the upper half (4–6: competent, mature, exemplary) are typically on task throughout the allotted group time, interact (verbally or nonverbally) with more than one group member, initiate some actions, understand and shape the group goal, and provide more than just opinion or information. The best group members challenge decisions at key points and mediate between conflicting viewpoints.
Students whose small-group contributions fall into the second half (1–3: basic, beginning, developing) are off task at least part of the allotted group time; display disinterest or passivity; make few substantive contributions; focus mostly on themselves, one other group member, or the group leader; and may display some distractive, nonproductive communication, by voice, gesture, facial expression, language, or use of time or space.
Context: How much is the student contributing to the group’s sense of purpose and audience?
Context issues arise most often in the beginning and end of the allotted group time. Effective group members offer positive clarifications of the group purpose and task by reviewing the assignment sheet, setting criteria, and assessing how the audience’s knowledge or experience may affect the group outcomes.
Substance: How much is the student providing and refining content for the group’s task?
Quantity of content is less important than quality. Better group members contribute details rather than generalities, make comparative judgments and back them up, not only give their own opinions but seek and evaluate others’ ideas. Some students may do internet research or purposefully connect the group task to personal experience (not just becoming sidetracked by personal memories). Comments that merely confirm (“a good point”) don’t necessarily contribute to substance, but may contribute to any of the other four categories, depending on what the student is confirming.
Organization: How much is the student keeping the group on track?
Students who help the group with decisions, either by delaying them productively or moving them toward closure, show an understanding of organization. Group planning falls under this category whereas judicious personal use of time falls under delivery. Students may also contribute to the organization of the group deliverables. Notetakers contribute significantly in this category; those who generate the notes would be rewarded in the substance category.
Style: How well does the student express ideas and attitudes verbally and nonverbally?
For style consider both the minimal competence (avoiding violations of basic conventions of language and form) and genuine expression, where variety and aptness figure into everything from posture to grammar. In general, the effective group member shows signs of being in control of both verbal and nonverbal expression.
Delivery: How well does the student use voice, body, face, space, time, and equipment?
Students indicate their involvement by the way they position themselves within the available space both in group work and any group presentations. Effective group members lean forward, look engaged, make eye contact with group members and audience, and project clearly. Weaker group members move away from the group, work alone, stare at the floor, etc. The use of computers or media equipment should be efficient and appropriate, supportive of the group purpose, and not an end in itself.
Visual Composing Assessment Overview
Holistic: Do the visual elements contribute substantively to the overall communication?
Students whose visual compositions fall into the upper half (4–6: competent, mature, exemplary) typically use multiple, well-chosen, captioned, documented, and logically placed images. They may also include a properly formatted title and often some internal headings.
Students whose visual compositions fall into the second half (1–3: basic, beginning, developing) include a minimal number of visuals, whose relationship to the text is general, and whose features have been modified only slightly to fit the context. They show little attempt to integrate images by resizing, cropping, altering margins, compressing files, and crediting sources.
Context: How much do the visuals establish both topic and stance?
Effective visuals can contextualize the content, introducing key information for readers, setting priorities, indicating tone, and engaging the audience. Visuals should reinforce or extend titles and headings. Captions are often significant contextual aids. Weaker visuals may indicate the topic but nothing about stance or claim. Misleading visuals may confuse the audience by presenting a minor point as if it were the central message, or vice versa.
Substance: To what degree does visual detail develop, illustrate, and clarify content?
Visuals must go beyond mere decoration and clip art triteness, ideally providing a level of detail not possible through words alone. Weaker visuals may be relevant but not insightful, or may actually confuse readers by poor or nonexistent captioning or difficult-to-identify content.
Organization: How well are visuals placed to indicate their role and relationship to other components?
Effective visuals show deliberate and appropriate directionality both internally and collectively in the overall layout of the document. They are placed near direct textual references and allusions. Figure references or labels help integrate the visuals into the text.
Style: How consistently and aptly are the visuals designed (color, graphic style, spacing)?
Visuals should follow basic conventions about integration of graphic and textual elements (e.g., sufficient marginal and gutter spacing for easy reading and for alignment with major document structures). Graphic style should be consistent and appropriate to the subject matter (photographic realism, line art, cartoons, impressionism, etc.). In general, images should be captioned with proper citations for copyrighted material.
Delivery: How well are the visuals crafted technically (size, resolution, cropping)?
Visuals should be sized to suit their purpose within the document, keeping in mind resolution limits. Sufficient figure-ground contrast must be maintained, especially where the readability of text is critical. Focus should be reinforced by judicious cropping of images that contain distracting or boring backgrounds or extraneous content.
Electronic Composing Assessment Overview
Holistic: Do content-purpose-audience merit the speed and richness of multimodal treatment?
Students whose electronic multimodal compositions fall into the upper half (4–6: competent, mature, exemplary) address an audience’s dual needs: (1) accessing information quickly and easily and (2) engaging ideas through multisensory experience. They create an interactive interface with multiple paths and layers, helping users to make quick decisions while allowing them repeated, deepening, and varied experiences, often involving purposeful play.
Students whose electronic multimodal compositions fall into the second half (1–3: basic, beginning, developing) tend to treat media as unrelated objects or channels or as mere decoration. At one extreme, they view technology as an end in itself, an endless compilation of bells and whistles, the victim of stylistic excess with little useful content; at the other, they merely sprinkle the linear and vertical forms derived from print with snippets of unintegrated audio and video, failing to involve the audience in a rewarding, multifaceted experience.
Context: How well does the interface fit the purpose and audience?
Context issues arise when users first encounter the multimodal interface or when they navigate its layers. Are the purposes of individual layers or media clear? Is the overall orientation user-centered rather than author-, designer-, or developer-centered?
Substance: To what degree is the content unique, up-to-date, and worth repeated access?
Beyond quick and simple access, the content must clarify and justify its distinct value among all the pieces of information existing in electronic form. Even personal content must respect and merit the user’s time, encouraging repeated experiences through multimodal perspectives, dynamic data, or engaging interfaces.
Organization: How clearly are chunks and layers defined both in terms of content and function?
Better multimodal compositions keep the number of interface chunks to a minimum, maintaining consistent purposes for individual chunks, layers, and media. Ideally, interactive elements are visually defined, requiring little or no explanatory help. Weaker sites needlessly shift interface layout and function in different segments of the composition, leading to user confusion and loss of time.
Style: How skillfully does the author create identity while respecting multimedia conventions?
While avoiding the distractions related to careless editing in any mode, the skilled multimodal author individualizes the composition’s identity in a way that informs and entertains users. Interface elements are consistent and icons culturally unambiguous, aesthetically pleasing, and functionally clear. Overall the interface invites participation and rewards both short and long interactivity. Weaker efforts exhibit a careless cut-and-paste look marred by inconsistencies and failure to restyle other sources to fit the current context.
Delivery: How well does the composition function within the parameters of current technology?
Effective interactivity respects the technological and physical differences in equipment and human beings. Each medium contributes a distinct and valuable perspective on the overall communication. Sound and video quality and delivery are sensitive to differences in user technology. In weak efforts the message is not effectively deliverable to the people intended nor fully functional in the spaces where they experience the multimodal work.