Multimodal Assessment

Overview

In this final assessment lesson for the unit, students present an analysis using a multimodal format, demonstrating how evaluative language and evidence support claims. They rehearse briefly, then deliver to a small group, using voice and visual choices to enhance meaning.

Learning intentions

Students will:

• Demonstrate analytical understanding of a text through a multimodal presentation
• Use evaluative language to make judgements and substantiate them with references to the text and other sources
• Select multimodal features (visuals, layout, timing) and voice features (tone, volume, pitch, pace) to match purpose and audience
• Plan and rehearse to deliver a clear presentation and respond to peer feedback

Success criteria

Students can:

• Make clear evaluative claims about the text (what and why), using sophisticated vocabulary
• Support evaluations with accurate references to ideas, characters, events, or evidence (and note other sources if used)
• Use multimodal elements (images, text overlays, spoken segments, transitions) to strengthen analysis
• Deliver with purposeful voice and structure; rehearse and implement at least two feedback changes

Curriculum links

• AC9E7LA02: Recognise language used to evaluate texts (including visual and multimodal texts) and substantiate evaluations by referencing the text and other sources
• AC9E7LY07: Plan, create, rehearse and deliver presentations using structures, language and visual features, plus features of voice
• AC9E7LE05: Identify and explain how characters, settings and events combine to create meaning in narratives (used to shape analytical points)
• AC9E7LY05: Use comprehension strategies to analyse and summarise information and ideas (used for organising evidence)

Lesson structure (70 minutes)

1. 0–5 min · Entry & goal check Teacher shows the success criteria poster and a one-slide model of a strong multimodal analysis (short, clear, evidence-led). Students write one sentence: “My strongest evaluation is… because…”

2. 5–15 min · Vocabulary & evidence warm-up Teacher leads a quick “eval upgrade” routine: students receive 6 evaluative sentence starters (e.g., “The author’s choice of… effectively…”, “This suggests… which is credible because…”). Students rewrite two using sophisticated vocabulary and evidence cues (text moment + effect). Teacher circulates, focusing on judgement + substantiation. Dyslexia-friendly option: sentence starters are also provided as a short audio read-aloud and printed with plenty of spacing.

3. 15–25 min · Structure run-through (quiet planning) Students use a checklist to confirm their presentation structure:

• Claim (what you judge)
• Evidence (what in the text/other source)
• Explanation (how/why it creates impact)
• So what (final judgement and audience effect) Students rehearse silently with their visual slides/poster boards, timing each section. Teacher prompts: “Where will your audience hear your best evaluative word?”

4. 25–45 min · Rehearse & refine (teacher coaching + peer support) In pairs, students do a 2–3 minute “trial delivery” each. The listener uses a one-page feedback form:

• Evaluative language: underlined words used and whether they match the claim
• Substantiation: circle where evidence is referenced
• Multimodal support: note one visual/audio choice that improved clarity
• Voice: one suggestion for volume/pitch/pace Teacher provides targeted coaching for three groups:
• Group A: evidence referencing (make claims traceable to text)
• Group B: multimodal timing and transitions (reduce clutter, increase clarity)
• Group C: voice and pacing (audience engagement)

5. 45–60 min · Assessment presentations (small-group rotation) For 10 students, teacher runs a structured rotation:

• Each student presents 3–4 minutes
• Q&A/feedback: 1 minute after each (one “wonder” and one “glow” from a peer, plus one teacher check) Teacher uses an observation checklist aligned to success criteria: evaluative language, evidence substantiation, multimodal clarity, and voice features.

6. 60–68 min · Final improvements (micro-adjustment) If time allows (or for students presenting earlier), students add one last change:

• Replace one weak word with a stronger evaluative word
• Add a brief source note on a slide (if another source was used)
• Adjust timing of one visual (shorter text overlay)

7. 68–70 min · Exit ticket (reflection on evidence & delivery) Students submit a short response:

• “My best evaluative claim was…”
• “My evidence substantiated it by…”
• “One multimodal or voice improvement I will use next time is…”

Resources

• Student multimodal presentations (slides, video, audio + images, or poster with recorded voice)
• One-page feedback form with prompts and checkboxes for evaluative language, evidence, and multimodal clarity
• Success criteria checklist and timer
• Evaluative sentence starter strips (print and audio)
• Dyslexia-friendly handouts (large font, high contrast, ample spacing)
• Marking/observation checklist for teacher
• Optional: laptops/tablets, headphones, projector/speaker system, spare extension cords

Assessment

• Formative: teacher coaching during rehearsal; peer feedback checklist checks evaluative language and substantiation
• Summative for this lesson: observation during presentation against success criteria
• Exit ticket: verifies students can state their claim, evidence, and one delivery improvement

Differentiation

• Support: provide a model “Claim–Evidence–Explanation–Judgement” storyboard template; supply sentence starters with colour-coded sections (Claim/Evidence/Explain/So what)
• Support for dyslexia: audio read-aloud of sentence starters; allow recorded voice over slides instead of live speaking where appropriate; use consistent slide layout with minimal text per slide
• Technical support: offer a quick “low-tech pathway” (paper storyboard + phone/recorder voice) if device issues occur; allow students to present from printed notes with reduced visual dependency
• Extension: students add a brief critical evaluation of credibility (e.g., “This evidence is reliable/unreliable because…”), and refine multimodal choices to anticipate audience needs (e.g., annotate with a key term overlay)