This paper considers current assessment practice, looks at the impact of the Internet on today’s learners, explores ways of modernising assessment to narrow the gap between the everyday lives of students and the assessment practices that we impose on them.
ABSTRACT: This article explores the emergence of multimodality as intrinsic to the learning, teaching and assessment of English in the Twenty-First Century. With subject traditions tied to the study of language, literature and media, multimodal texts and new technologies are now accorded overdue recognition in English curriculum documents in several countries, though assessment tends to remain largely print-centric. Until assessment modes and practices align with the nature of multimodal text production, their value as sites for inquiry in classroom practice will not be assured. The article takes up the question: What is involved in assessing the multimodal texts that students create? In exploring this question, we first consider central concepts of multimodality and what is involved in “working multimodally” to create a multimodal text. Here, “transmodal operation” and “staged multimodality” are considered as central concepts to “working multimodally”. Further, we suggest that these concepts challenge current understandings of the purposes of, and possibilities for, assessment of multimodal text production.
Just over 10 years ago, Educational Review published an article “Reconceiving argument” by Richard Andrews. In the article, Andrews traced some of the changes in the conception of argument that had taken place within educational contexts (primarily within the UK) over the previous few years. An important aim of the authors’ article is to consider whether there is any evidence that the (re)conceptualization of argument discussed in Andrews’ article has permeated educational theory and practice in the last 10 years. Specifically they will consider his invocation of new metaphors to conceive of the argumentation process as more akin to a dialogic exchange in contrast to adversarial combat. They question whether such a framing diminishes the value of conflict and confrontation in the argumentation process.