The methods used to determine the value of multimodal student work can be as creative as the work itself. To assess student work across modes such as hypertext, video, audio, animation, and presentation, digital compositionists advocate moving away from static, alphanumeric specific rubrics.
Composition specialists often suggest networked assessment. The public dimension of new media allows students to become producers as well as consumers of knowledge. The shift toward digital production provides an occasion for writing assessment to become, “a social, collaborative, publically focused activity” (“Discourses, Rhetorics, Selves: Writing Assessment in the Academy.”)
The following framework from the National Writing Project Multimodal Assessment Project provides ways to approach multimodal composition at Emory. The framework makes it possible to assess student work in multiple modes and contexts; value the interaction between modes; and refrain from privileging one mode over another.
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
Ball, Cheryl. “Assessing Scholarly Multimedia.” Technical Communication Quarterly 21.1 (2012): 61-77.
Murray, Elisabeth A., Hailey A. Sheets, and Williams, Nicole A. “The New Work of Assessment: Evaluating Multimodal Compositions.” Computers and Composition Online n. pag. Web. 26 Aug. 2013.
Shipka, Jody. “Negotiating Rhetorical, Material, Methodological, and Technical Difference: Evaluating Multimodal Designs.” CCC 61.1 (2009): 343-66.
Whithaus et. al. “The NWP Multimodal Assessment Project.”
Yancy, Kathleen Blake, Founder of the Journal, Assessing Student Writing.
—–. “Discourses, Rhetorics, Selves: Writing Assessment in the Academy.” Speaker Series. Ed. Lillian Bridewell-Bowles. Minneapolis: Center for Interdisciplinary Studies, 2001.
—–. “Looking Back as We Look Forward: Historicizing Writing Assessment.” CCC 50.3 (1999): 483-503.