Approaches to Assessing PPT
Borton and Huot (2004) assert that formative assessment “helps to focus students’ attention on a rhetorical understanding of a text as they are in the process of composing it.” (p. 99). I focus most of the discussion in this section on formative assessment.
According to Borton and Huot (2004), all instruction in the use of digital and non-digital composing tools, and all assessment of multimodal compositions, should be tailored to teaching students how to use rhetorical principles appropriately and effectively. Similarly, all multimodal composing tasks should be aimed at producing effective texts appropriate for a specific purpose and audience. (p. 99)
Many of the same rhetorical principles that apply to print-linguistic representations can also apply to multimodal texts. Odell and Katz (2009) observe that authors must consider rhetorical contexts with either kind of composition (p. W201). Borton and Huot identify transitions and “detailed description, examples, sound, music, color, and/or word choice to convey ideas” effectively and appropriately as points to consider in assessing such compositions (p. 101). Formative feedback generally includes acknowledging strengths and weaknesses. So, when a teacher observes something a student has done well, she should acknowledge it (Stern and Solomon, 2006). Doing so helps offer encouragement.
Another principle Stern and Solomon acknowledge is to focus on a few important areas of the product—“those tied to the student learning goals for the paper assignment” (p. 26). This helps to focus the student’s attention on particular items to facilitate revision. Another principle they acknowledge is to “provide comments that identify patterns of weaknesses, errors, and strengths” (p. 26). Focusing on a limited number of items and calling attention to observed patterns can help students manage revision better.
In an effort to limited the number of considerations for assessment purposes, I focus attention on the following: application of narrative with slides, use of space on slides, content, and transitions from one slide to another slide. Murray, Sheets and Williams (2010) encourage such foci, comparing them to assessment for syntax and diction—“syntax and diction are evaluated through the student’s choices of text, images, and sounds and the interaction among them in order to express complex ideas clearly,” format and design—“the student shows that they are aware of color, typeface, layout, image selections, audio choices, etc” and organization—“organization will be made evident through the audience’s ability to understand and follow the flow of the text and images in the composition” (Conclusion). Such assessment uses a few traditional attributes of composition: transitions and page design; while also including an important element in multimodal instructional rhetoric: combining narrative and visuals (Mayer and Moreno, 2000).
Tufte (2003 and 2006) and Walbert (n.d.) call attention to a few rhetorical attributes of PowerPoint as a presentation aide; both indicating its simplicity as a weakness. Tufte points out that it was designed principally as a business presentation tool, its slide templates facilitating quick information using bulleted points and highlighting certain attributes of a message with larger font sizes. It is because of its relative simplicity that I encouraged composition students to use it for this multimodal assignment; while template slides exist, students can design additional attributes from templates or use a blank slide to create their own design. Further, a voice recorder is part of the PPT package; so, audio can easily be integrated with the slides.
Walbert attempts to present a rubric, also calling upon a rubric for self-assessment and peer feedback that was developed by the University of Wisconsin. It is from these rubrics that I draw criteria to facilitate assessment of the particular PPT slide shows. Walbert identifies a few standards to guide assessment of multimodal projects, especially PPT slideshows. While his criteria are targeted toward K-12 teachers, similar criteria can apply in college composition courses. He acknowledges that the first item to consider is content. He states, “… remember our first two rules: it’s not about the presentation, [highlighting, his] at least not primarily” (parag. 13). His rubric for multimedia projects encourages instructors to first assess content, then assess how well the product demonstrates that knowledge and, finally, the design of the slides show.
Among specific criteria for assessing content, which are often applied in assessing traditional forms of writing, he identifies focus, organization, development, and mechanics. Focus pertains to how well the product addresses a specific issue or topic. Organization pertains to how logically the presentation flows from one point to the next. Development pertains to examples and use of outside sources to illustrate and clarify a give point. Finally, the print-linguistic text on each slide ought to reflect proficiency with conventions of spelling, grammar and punctuation. Walbert’s rubric uses a 4 point scale for assigning values to the degree to which each is done effectively. As I viewed the slide shows, I tended to critique the content by understanding the information students presented and sources they used to acquire that information. I also drew on my own readings of some phenomena to verify the accuracy of their content.
Walbert encourages teachers to help students understand that PPT is a visual aide and, as such, should supplement or complement the narration; any narration that occurs with the slide show ought not simply repeat text on the slides, as if the speaker is reading a slide. Walbert does not discuss design; however, he refers to the rubric developed by the University of Wisconsin (2010) for guidance with design issues. These include textual items such as size of text and amount of text on a given slide (too much is difficult to absorb), layout, which pertains to use of space on the slide generally.
Also included is the synthesis of images and audio; images should be an appropriate size, and audio should help explain the images and help the information to flow smoothly. Mayer (2001) explains, too, that the integration of narration and image consecutively and in conjunction with each other help to reinforce each other . Baddeley (1986) identifies a phonological (auditory) channel and a ‘visuo-spatial’ (visual) channel associated with short-term memory that facilitate “working memory.” Schnotz (2005) explains that the reader can create a visual model as he/she listens to a narrative about the picture when a visual image is provided as well (pp. 54-55). By facilitating use of both channels, people can better process information than they can when too much of one system is used. The rubric uses a 3 point rating scale to assign values related to effectiveness of each. I applied several of these attributes to assessing the PPTs students submitted; however, I will discuss the pedagogy and specific slideshows and their assessment in the Assessment in Practice section.