STUDENTS’ ORAL PRESENTATION AS MULTIMODAL AND FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT.

STUDENTS’ ORAL PRESENTATION AS MULTIMODAL
AND FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT
Fauzul Aufa
Universitas Negeri Padang
fauzul.aufa@uq.net.au

Abstract: The pervasiveness of digital media technologies has significantly shifted the notion of teaching and
language learning. This also affects how teachers design particular assessment for students’ learning process in a
multimodal environment of the contemporary classroom. However, the construction of multimodal assessment
and its effects on students’ learning outcomes particularly on their oral performance is still inconclusive. Taking
into account Wiliam’s (2011) strategies for successful formative assessment practice and the advancement of
Computer-mediated Communication (CMC) use in learning, this paper illustrates the emergence of students’
oral presentation as multimodal assessment in language classrooms particularly at tertiary level, and provides
insights for teachers to design and develop a rubric for assessment. Specifically, this paper argues that despite its
challenges in classroom practice, this alternative assessment can be used to assess students’ multimodality
proficiency and to be formative assessment. Additionally, this assessment can be used to monitor students’
learning progress and diagnose their learning problems through teachers’ feedback once students present their
works orally. Therefore, it is expected that this practice can scaffold students’ multimodal literacy by using the
multimodal assessment for their learning as a teaching approach in pedagogy of multiliteracies, and improve
teachers’ quality instruction and students’ learning outcomes.
Keywords: Computer-mediated communication (CMC), multimodal assessment, oral presentation, formative

assessment, teachers’ feedback, tertiary students.

Introduction
As multimedia technologies have been highly used in language pedagogy practices, literacy is no longer
viewed as the ability to read and write. Rather, new literacies are associated with the ability to understand and
compose different modes (e.g. audios, visuals, motions, and spatial modes of meaning) which also possibly
result in meaning-making. These new literacies represent a meaning-making process which combines two main
elements of literacies: language and multimodal elements (Ajayi, 2009; Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Jewitt, 2005).
In other words, meaning making is conceived not only by using of standard language but also by integrating
multimodal in contemporary language teaching and learning practices. As a result, teachers need to address this
learning transformation as an important dimension of their instruction. Teachers have to be able to develop
instructional materials and appropriate assessments that fit into a language pedagogy of multiliteracies.
PowerPoint, Prezi, and PowToon, for instance, which are three of software tools used to support oral
presentations visually, have become more popular in language classrooms particularly at tertiary level (Nelson &
Johnson, 2014; Rowsell, 2013; Yi, 2014; Yu & Yan, 2013). Teachers present their materials by adding some
semiotic resources (e.g. sounds, graphics, images) into slides which create meaning to help learners to
understand concepts being taught (Kress, 2010). Since they transform abstract concepts (e.g. grammar,
psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics) into something meaningful and engaging, these presentation slides can
captivate learners’ interest and increase their motivation to learn. Further, as a part of course assessments,
teachers often assign their students individually or in groups to create multimodal texts by using presentation

applications (Wang, 2011). One of the goals of this assessment is to see how well students understand concepts
being taught and explore links among theory, research, and practice. Hence, teachers can consider this activity as
formative assessment to gain information from students’ performance used to make adjustment for their
instruction to meet students’ needs and course objectives.
However, despite their potential benefits for language pedagogy, presentation slides regarded as an
emerging academic genre are not taught explicitly. These multimodal texts are infrequently addressed in
language teaching. On the one hand, learners find it difficult to design effective presentations that meet course
expectations when being assigned by their teachers. They may just add and mix images and sounds to sum up
information from course materials into their presentations, but they do not have comprehensive understanding of
what they do in the presentation. On the other hand, teachers may not know how to assess their presentations.
When it comes to assess students’ presentation slides, they only focus on the language use (e.g. accuracy and
fluency) (Hung, Chiu, & Yeh, 2013). In fact, there are also other non-linguistics modes included in designing
slides that can make meaning. This may be because little information is available for teachers to design rubrics
for multimodal assessments if they want to practice multimodal teaching in their classrooms. Thus, the purpose

1146

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

of this paper is to describe the emergence of tertiary students’ oral presentation as multimodal assessment in
language classrooms and provides insights for teachers to design and develop a rubric for assessment.
Specifically, this paper argues that despite its challenges in classroom practice, the multimodal assessment
fosters teachers’ understanding of particular learning materials and target skills, as well as giving information for
students to design presentation visual aids for their oral performance.
Before discussing how this multimodal literacy practices can be implemented in the language
classroom, the paper is split into a number of related sections. This paper will first address relevant theoretical
accounts of multimodality for oral presentations. Secondly, the paper briefly explores some opportunities and
potential challenges in implementing multimodal assessment in the language classrooms. It then discusses the
use of multimodal presentations as a part of formative assessment of language courses and proposes elements to
develop a rubric for oral presentations as multimodal and formative assessment. Finally, the paper provides
possible pedagogical implications.
Multimodality in Oral Presentations
Oral presentations are commonly used especially in higher education to present information related to
course materials. Not only is an oral presentation a valuable skill in communication that students should master,
but also this is a useful communicative academic practice for teachers to develop students’ knowledge in the
language classroom. Specifically, the oral presentation is an approach used by teachers to evaluate students’
learning outcomes of the course (Grez, Valcke, & Roozen, 2009). Students are assigned to design effective
presentation slides that demonstrate their understanding of materials. To develop such a presentation, students

usually need to combine various communicative modes (e.g. images, videos, sound, gestural and spatial of
meaning, transcribed speech) within a text which visualizes meaning making (Altas, 2014; Cope & Kalantzis,
2009; Kress, 2010; Nelson & Johnson, 2014; Shanahan, 2013). Briefly, this text conveys meaning or message
from the choices of modes that influence how viewers perceive in particular ways.
Theoretically, according to Cope and Kalantzis (2000), Kress and Van Leeuwen (2001), and Kress
(2005, 2010) who firstly invented the term ‘multimodal’ contend that due to the advancement of technologies,
communication is no longer restricted with one single mode (e.g. text) through one medium (e.g. books or
articles). Multiple modes can be mixed and constructed using computer technology as a medium. In other words,
multimodal texts are designed by combining certain modes (e.g. images, sound, colors, and videos) with putting
logics in the mix to make meaning. In this way, different modes can compensate for each other’s drawbacks
since every mode has its own advantages and disadvantages (Janks, 2010; Lauer, 2009; Whitin & Whitin, 2012).
For instance, while spoken or written language may only be useful to construct an argument, visuals can work
effectively to present relationships in texts as they are organised dimensionally. If all modes work together in a
presentation, they can develop and emphasise meaning by setting up particular modes such as word size, colors,
and sounds.
Multimodal Assessment: Opportunities and Challenges
With the increasing use of digital technologies (e.g. presentation software tools) in language course
assessments, there is a need to consider multimodal assessment in contemporary classrooms. Teachers of
particular courses in language programs have their students design presentation slides as part of the learning
process. However, assessing oral presentations performed by students may be challenging. Specifically, there are

some issues when it comes to scoring students’ presentation skills and the content of their presentations. Since
there are no standardised scoring rubrics, well-designed or bad presentations sometimes can distract teachers’
perceptions of the information displayed (Lim, 2013; Pandya, 2012). There are also concerns about the degree to
which the product of presentation work is assessed as well as the process of presentation making, particularly if
this activity is assigned to groups. Hence, there should be a model of appropriate multimodal assessment for
learners’ oral presentations. What follows is a brief review of some benefits as well as potential issues that need
to be considered when employing oral presentations as multimodal assessment.
Firstly, multimodal assessment encourages teachers to assist learners to construct a metalanguage for
illustrating and understanding multimodal texts. This assessment allows teacher-student discussion of criteria for
enhancing students’ knowledge and skills in composing presentation slides. Jewitt (2003, 2005) argues that
using such a rubric for multimodal assessment can also be used to collect information about learners’ learning
progress and provide learners with feedback and a new framework in learning particularly to compose engaging
multimodal texts for their oral presentations. In the same vein, Hung et al. (2013) investigated how a designed
rubric as a formative assessment tool can assist tertiary EFL learners in Taiwan to produce presentation slides as
a multimodal text. They found that this rubric was effective in improving learners’ understanding when
designing multimodal texts. Thus, it is important to design an effective multimodal assessment tool to support
learners’ multiliteracies practices.

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

1147

Secondly, multimodal assessment supports learners’ autonomy in their learning processes. They can
take the ownership of their knowledge construction when they are assigned to design presentation slides. They
also can control on their learning outcomes through self-directed learning, as they have a deep and meaningful
engagement with course materials. Further, this assessment allows them to be more flexible and explore their
interests in creating a presentation (Fehring, 2005; Godhe, 2013; Mills, 2010). For instance, they are free to
choose which modes they use and compose into their slides. Hence, this creates comfortable environment for
learners to use new and engaging digital media in learning that fit into their real-life contexts in composing
presentation slides.
Finally, as an authentic form of assessment, multimodal assessment affords learners with more
opportunities to develop their relevant multiliteracies skills in the digital age. In other words, this assessment can
support not only students’ learning processes in the classroom, but also their future careers in the workplace.
One of the main goals of higher education is to prepare students to enter workplaces and gain professional
success. Of course, multimodal assessment enhances their digital literacy skills in order to create high
performing and creative students (McConnell, 2014; Tan & McWilliam, 2009). Particularly, these skills are
important for those who want to be language teachers. They can use their formal qualifications that a university
awards to be implemented in their teaching practice. Briefly, this multimodal assessment may be a useful way to

encourage students to develop their creative capacities for their future professional pathways.
Teachers, however, may need to overcome potential challenges when applying oral presentations as
multimodal assessment. The first issue is related to the focus of assessment in oral presentations. By
concentrating on students’ multimodal proficiency and their technical skills, the teachers’ attention may be
distracted from the substantive content of the presentations. The next issue is the time consuming nature of the
process. This assessment can take a great deal of time to implement especially in big classes. For instance,
teachers might spend more time in giving constructive feedback as soon as students finish presenting their slides.
Lastly, subjectivity in scoring cannot be avoided. Teachers find it easy to assume that particular students who
can perform well in their presentations are active users of such technologies. This issue may arise when
assigning students to do oral presentations in groups. Therefore, to solve these issues, teachers really need to
have clear objectives and criteria for what to expect from students’ presentations.
Multimodal Presentations as Formative Assessment
According to Wiliam (2011), formative assessment or assessment for learning refers to a wide range of
practices used by teachers to evaluate student learning process. This assessment can be used to monitor their
progress during the instructional process in order that teachers can take some action to enhance student learning
(Chappuis, Stiggins, Chappuis, & Arter, 2011). Shepard (2008) adds that the information gained from formative
assessment can be used to make adjustments to teachers’ instruction to frame a new learning. More importantly,
formative assessment is not an add-on to instruction, but it is integrated into instructional process. In other
words, formative assessment is not an instrument or tool. Rather, it is a process that teachers and students have
to incorporate into the classroom.

Oral presentations can be one of instances of formative assessment in the classroom. This multimodal
assessment can be used to create an interactive feedback session which afford more opportunities for having
discussion between teachers and students. These constructive feedback sessions pertain to not only the
multimodality aspects of presentation slides, but also the materials of a course. Teachers can briefly review what
students understand about teaching materials after they perform their multimodal presentations. This reflection
can inform teachers to make adjustments or new learning framework so that students can enhance their
knowledge and skills related to courses being taught. Therefore, in the light of formative assessment, teachers
can assist students to compose or produce multimodal presentation tasks by using different modes appropriately
and effectively, as well as to gain information and evaluate their understanding of teaching materials. In this
way, students may improve decision-making skills in combining multiple modalities and help them understand
the principles of effective communication to present particular topics or tasks related to course materials.
Informed by the New London Group’s (2000) pedagogy of multiliteracies and Hung’s et al. (2013)
theory-driven rubric guided by five design modes (linguistic, visual, gestural, auditory, and spatial), I propose
four design elements included into a rubric for oral presentation scoring sheet as multimodal and formative
assessment: 1) coverage of topic (e.g. introduction and development of topic, compact topic with one main issue,
evidence of clear understanding of the issue by providing relevant background research, conclusion of topic,
thoughtful response to questions of audience); 2) critical commentary (e.g. exploration of links among theory,
research, and practice, exploration of contextual influences, personalised (e.g. related to one’s research interests,
experience, and professional)); 3) delivery (e.g. audience engagement such as eye contact, voice (e.g. clarity,
pace, and fluency), language use); and 4) visual aids (e.g. the use of color and typology to reflect a visual theme,

animated elements or special effects, sound effects or narration). These four elements can be modified into a
complete grading sheet which typically has a scoring system attached to performance descriptors and space for

1148

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

comments. Researchers and practitioners can thus adapt the four elements to better fit into their research and
instructional goals.
Conclusion
Informed by relevant theories and previous research studies for successful formative assessment
practice and the advancement of CMC use in learning, this paper explores some advantages and disadvantages of
the use of multimodal assessment in classroom practices. Oral presentation practice can also be integrated into
the classroom as formative assessment so that the outcome inform both teacher and students about their learning
progress, and lead to considerable adjustments to instructional process.
This assessment can foster constructive feedback practice to provide students with knowledge and skills
not only in composing different modes into presentation slides for new literacy practices, but also in gaining
better understanding of course materials. Although this formative feedback may benefit student learning, time

constraints may become an issue in implementing this idea into the classroom practice. Therefore, teachers
should be able to design effective multimodal assessment for their own local contexts. As guidance, four design
elements proposed in the paper can be used to develop a complete scoring rubric for oral presentations in order
to assess students’ multimodality proficiency as well as their learning progress regarding course materials being
taught.
Biography
Fauzul Aufa is currently a Teaching Assistant in the English Department at State University of Padang.
Aufa received his masters in Applied Linguistics in 2013 from the University of Queensland. His research is
mainly concerned with online discourse analysis, Computer-assisted Language Learning (CALL), language
assessment, language socialisation, and intercultural communication.
References
Ajayi, L. (2009). English as a second language learners' exploration of multimodal texts in junior high schools.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(7), 585-595.
Altas, B. (2014). A case study of multimodal presentation of selected stage play literature in a multimodal
environment. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1726-1734.
Chappuis, J., Stiggins, R., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2011). Classroom assessment for student learning. Boston:
Pearson.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. . New
York: Routledge.
Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). "Multiliteracies": New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International

Journal, 4, 164-195.
Fehring, H. (2005). Critical, analytical and reflective literacy assessment: Reconstructing practice. Australian
Journal of Language and Literacy, 28(2), 95-113.
Godhe, A. (2013). Tensions and contradictions when creating a multimodal text as a school task in mother
tongue education. Nordic Journal of Digital Literacy, 8(4), 208-224.
Grez, L. D., Valcke, M., & Roozen, I. (2009). The impact of an innovative instructional intervention on the
acquisition of oral presentation skills in higher education. Computer & Education, 53, 112-120.
New Group London. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis
(Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-38). London: Routledge
Harste, J. (2010). Multimodality. In P. Albers & J. Sanders (Eds.), Literacies, the arts, and multimodality (pp.
27-43). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English
Hung, H., Chiu, Y. J., & Yeh, H. (2013). Multimodal assessment of and for learning: A theory-driven design
rubric. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 400-409.
Janks, H. (2010). Literacy and power. New York: Routledge.
Jewitt, C. (2003). Re-thinking assessment: multimodality, literacy and computer-mediated learning. Assessment
in Education, 10(1), 83-102.
Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, "reading" and "writing" for 21st century. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural
Politics of Education, 26(3), 315-331.
Kress, G. (2010). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London:
Routledge and Taylor and Francis Group.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary
communication. London: Arnold.
Lauer, C. (2009). Contending with terms: "Multimodal" and "multimedia in the academic and public spheres.
Computers & Composition, 26, 225-239.

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014

1149

Lim, J. M. A. (2013). Rubric-referenced oral production assessments: Perceptions on the use and actual use of
rubrics in oral production assessments of high school students of St. Scholastica's college, Manila.
Language Testing in Asia, 3(4), 1-14.
McConnell, P. (2014). Get the picture: Teaching with multimodal texts [ELT World Online]. Retrieved from
http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/?p=4374
Mills, K. A. (2010). Shrek meets Vygotsky: Rethinking adolescents' multimodal literacy practices in schools.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(1), 35-45.
Nelson, M. E., & Johnson, N. H. (2014). The shape of joy, the color of fear: Multimodal abduction in the foreign
language classroom. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 9(1), 45-62.
Pandya, J. Z. (2012). Unpacking Pandora's box: Issues in the assessment of English learners' literacy skill
development in multimodal classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(3).
Rowsell, J. (2013). Working with multimolidality: Rethinking literacy in a digital age. New York: Routledge.
Shanahan, L. E. (2013). Composing "kid-friendly" multimodal text: When conversations, instruction, and signs
come together. Written Communication, 30(2), 194-227.
Shepard, L. A. (2008). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. In C. A. Dewyer (Ed.), The future of assessment:
Shaping teaching and learning (pp. 279-303). New York: Erlbaum
Tan, J. P., & McWilliam, E. (2009). From literacy to multiliteracies: Diverse learners and pedagogical practice.
Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 213-225.
Wang, M. (2011). Using multimodal presentation software and peer group discussion in learning English as a
second language. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(6), 907-923.
Whitin, P., & Whitin, D. J. (2012). Empowering children as critics and composors of multimodal texts. Talking
Points, 23(2), 4-12.
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
Yi, Y. (2014). Possibilities and challenges of multimodal literacy practices in teaching and learning as an
additional language. Language and Linguistic Compass, 8(4), 158-169.
Yu, L., & Yan, M. (2013). Application of web and multimodality of linguistic teaching. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Science and Social Research.

1150

st

The 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo 2014