The COVID pandemic has evidenced at least two realities in education: the ability for digitally delivered instruction and the persistence of an educational culture zealous about high-stakes assessment. Following more than a year of educational innovation as teachers met their students in varied remote, hybrid, and face-to-face environments, there was a swift return to testing to determine alleged learning loss (Engzell et al., 2021; Kuhfield et al., 2020; Strauss, 2021).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although the digital means and modes enabling remote instruction have the potential for expanded opportunities for producing and consuming information, the methods and outcomes of high-stakes assessment could constrain this potential. However, if it is demonstrated that instruction incorporating these expanded characteristics also increases test scores, educators at all levels may more fully embrace the potentialities of digital learning. This study begins to provide such evidence by considering the impact of teacher professional development in new literacies practices on students\u2019 achievement on high-stakes writing assessments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the past, literacy was associated with reading and writing of print-based texts. However, recognition of the distinct discourses and multiple means and modes of linguistic representation, along with ever-expanding opportunities for producing and consuming linguistic expression, has led to use of the plural, literacies, <\/em>as a common referent for communicative activities (Kalantzis et al., 2016). Because these means, modes, and opportunities are deictic and ever-changing, the term new literacies <\/em>has been used to represent both the mechanisms and the practices used for linguistic expression, and key characteristics of these new literacies have been identified (Leu et al, 2019), including features of participation and transmediation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New literacies represent expanded opportunities for social and collaborative composition and communication (Kalantzis et al., 2016). For example, phone and internet applications provide open access to broad audiences. Publishing through these resources is more accessible and less filtered, and distribution may be rapid and extensive, expressions of a participatory culture (Leu et al., 2019).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Today\u2019s youth frequently use digital, multimodal tools to create, communicate, and collaborate in out-of-school environments. For example, Alvermann et al. (2012) documented five teens\u2019 use of web-based resources and found they were developing relevant literacy skills, were \u201chighly motivated and adept at using multimodal tools,\u201d (p. 191) and demonstrated critical thinking and life-skills through participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n New literacies expand opportunities for using multiple modes of representation (Leu et al., 2019; Thibaut & Curwood, 2018). Meaning may be represented through text, image, video, and audio. The term transmediationhas been used to describe the act of recasting meaning from one sign system to another (Siegel, 2006; Suhor, 1984). Contrasts and commonalities encountered when moving across modes of representation have the potential to help learners connect ideas and enhance knowledge of content (Siegel, 2006; Zoss, 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Researchers have considered ways multiple literacies mediate meaning and have applied the concept of transmediation to writing instruction (Batchelor, 2018; Mills, 2011; Smith et al., 2016). For example, Mills, in her study of eight-year-olds, demonstrated that producing artifacts via different sign systems supported generative and reflective thinking because new connections were created. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Curwood and Cowell (2011), in their iPoetry project, where high-school students created videos of their original poems, found that students deepened their understanding of the genre. Similarly, Batchelor (2018), found that middle-school students\u2019 understanding of the purpose and process of revision improved as they transmediated their writing into another sign system. Transmediation allowed students to see their work from a new perspective. These studies suggest that transmediation, as a tool for composing, deepens understanding of the content, purposes, and processes of writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In contrast, however, Howell et al. (2017) conducted a formative experiment to investigate how using multimodal tools could enhance students\u2019 argumentative writing. Although high-school students in the two classes they studied were engaged in constructing multimodal arguments, they found no evidence that this learning increased their conventional argument-writing skills. The teacher\u2019s concern regarding preparing students for high-stakes assessments seemed to inhibit multimodal instruction. The authors suggested further research to consider design features addressing such concerns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the ubiquity of new literacies in students\u2019 lives, research suggests that new literacies are not yet well-represented in classrooms (Hundley & Holbrook, 2013; Lenters, 2016; Seglem & Garcia, 2018). In an era of testing and accountability, public educators may not incorporate new practices into writing instruction unless they see evidence that students\u2019 achievement on high-stakes assessments will improve. <\/p>\n\n\n\n School boundaries that limit literacies may exist because many out-of-school practices that embed literacy are invisible to teachers who frame literacy narrowly as reading and writing achievement (Roswell & Kendrick, 2013). To this point, Stewart (2014), in her study of youths\u2019 literacy experiences, found that in-school literacy represented a limited view that prevented students\u2019 success, despite participants\u2019 adroitness with new technologies. Many factors likely contribute to school boundaries that limit literacies. One of these factors is high-stakes testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\nParticipation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Transmediation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Constraining Characteristics of Standardized Testing and Remediation<\/h2>\n\n\n\n