Bateman, J. (2008). Multimodality and genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. (Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan).
Bayne, S. (2006). Temptation, Trash and Trust: the authorship and authority of digital texts. E-Learning. 3(1): pp. 16-26.
Bayne, S. (2006a). Networked Learning with Digital Texts, Paper presented at Fifth International Conference on Networked Learning 2006, University of Lancaster, 10-12 April.
Bayne, S., and Ross, J. (2013). Posthuman literacy in heterotopic space: a pedagogical proposal. In Literacy in the Digital University: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship, and technology. R. Goodfellow and M.R.Lea (Eds.) (London, Routledge): pp. 95-110.
Bennett, S. and Maton, K. (2010). Beyond the ‘digital natives’ debate: Towards a more nuanced understanding of students’ technology experiences. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 26: pp. 321-331.
Bezemer, K. and Kress, G. (2008). Writing in Multimodal Texts: A Social Semiotic Account of Designs for Learning. Written Communication. 25(2): pp. 166-195.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2): pp. 77-101.
Carpenter, R (2009) Boundary negotiations: electronic environments as interface. Computers and Composition. 26, 138-148.
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. (London, Sage).
Eistenstein, E. L. (1979) The printing press as an agent of change: Communications and cultural transformations in early-modern Europe (Volume 1). (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
Febvre, L. and Martin, H. (1979). (2nd ed.) The Coming of the Book: The Impact of Printing 1450-1800. (London, NLB).
Fitzpatrick, K. (2011). The digital future of authorship: rethinking originality. www.culturemachine.net. 12: pp.1-26.
Flewit, R., Hampel, R., Hauck, M. and Lancaster, L. (2009). What are multimodal data and transcription? In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Jewit, C. (Ed) (London, Routledge): pp. 40-53.
Goodfellow, R. (2011). Literacy, literacies, and the digital in higher education. Teaching in Higher Education. 16(1): pp. 131-144.
Goodfellow, R. and Lea, M. R. (2005). Supporting writing for assessment in online learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 30(3): pp. 261-271.
Goodfellow, R., and Lea, M. R. (2013). Introduction: literacy, the digital, and the university. In Literacy in the Digital University: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship, and technology. R. Goodfellow and M.R.Lea (Eds.) (London, Routledge): pp. 1-14.
Hammersley, M. and Atkinson P. (2007) (3RD edn.) Ethnography: principles in pratice. (Taylor & Francis e-Library).
Hemmi, A., Bayne, S. and Land, R. (2009). The appropriation and repurposing of social technologies in higher education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
Social technologies in Higher Education Special Issue: pp. 19-30.
Jewitt, C. (2005). Multimodality, “Reading”, and “Writing” for the 21st Century. Discourse: studies in the cultural politics of education. 26(3): pp. 315-331.
Jewitt, C. (2006). Technology, Literacy and Learning: A multimodal approach. (Abingdon, Routledge).
Jewitt, C. (2009). An introduction to multimodality. In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Jewit, C. (Ed) (London, Routledge): pp. 14-27.
Jewitt, C. (2009). Different approaches to multimodality. In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Jewit, C. (Ed) (London, Routledge): pp. 28-39.
Kress, G (2005) Gains and losses: new forms of texts, knowledge and learning. Computers and Composition. 22(1): pp. 5-22.
Kress, G. (2009) What is mode? In The Routledge Handbook of Multimodal Analysis. Jewit, C. (Ed) (London, Routledge): pp. 54-67.
Kress, G. and Selander, S. (2012). Multimodal design, learning and cultures of recognition. Internet and Higher Education. 15: pp. 265-268.
Kress, G., and van Leeuwen, T. (2001) Multimodal Discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. (London, Hodder Arnold).
Land, R. (2011). Speed and the unsettling of knowledge in the digital university. In Digital Difference: Perspectives on Online Learning. Land, R. and Bayne, S. (Eds.) (Rotterdam, Sense Publishers): 61-70.
Landow, G. P. (2006). Reconfiguring Literary Education. (John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore).
Lea, M. R. (2013). Academic literacies in the digital university: integrating individual accounts with network practice. In Literacy in the Digital University: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship, and technology. R. Goodfellow and M.R.Lea (Eds.) (London, Routledge): pp. 137-148.
Lea, M. R. and Jones, S. (2011). Digital literacies in higher education: exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education. 36(4): pp. 377-393.
McKenna, C. and McAvinia, C. (2011) Difference and discontinuity – making meaning through hypertexts. In Digital Difference: Perspectives on Online Learning. R, Land. and Bayne, S. (Eds.) (Rotterdam, Sense Publishers): pp. 45-60.
McKenna, C. and Hughes, J. (2013) Values, digital texts, and open practices – a changing scholarly landscape in higher education. In Literacy in the Digital University: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship, and technology. R. Goodfellow. and M. R. Lea. (Eds.) (London, Routledge): pp. 15-26.
Merchant, G (2007) Mind the gap(s): discourses and discontinuity in digital literacies, E-
learning, 4 (3), 241-255.
Ong, J. (2012). (3rd ed.) Orality and Literacy: The technologizing of the Word. (London, Routledge).
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Retreived: 5 January 2014. http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20Part1.pdf
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research : a resource for social scientists and
practitioner-researchers. (Chichester, Wiley).
Rose, Gillian (2007). Visual methodologies: an introduction to the interpretation of visual materials. (London, Sage).
Ross, J. (2010). Was That Infinity of Affinity? Applying Insights from Translation Studies to Qualitative Research Transcription. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 11(2).
Satchwell, C., Barton, D., and Hamilton, R. (2013). Crossing boundaries: digital and non-digital literacy practices in formal and informal contexts in further and higher education. In Literacy in the Digital University: Critical perspectives on learning, scholarship, and technology. R. Goodfellow and M.R.Lea (Eds.) (London, Routledge): pp. 42-55.
Spalter, A M and van Dam, A (2008) Digital visual literacy, Theory into practice, 47, 93- 101.
The University of Edinburgh. MSc in Digital Education. Retrieved: 5 January 2014. http://online.education.ed.ac.uk/
The University of Edinburgh (2012). Manifesto for teaching online. Retrieved: 5 January 2014. http://www.swop.education.ed.ac.uk/manifesto.html
To begin, I would like to thank the members of the course team from the MSc in Digital Education at The University of Edinburgh for agreeing to participate in interview for my research. Their generosity of time, combined with a willingness to speak openly about the potentially sensitive subject of assessment, was greatly appreciated. In particular, I would like to thank Dr Sian Bayne for the encouragement, guidance and feedback she offered in the role of Dissertation Supervisor.
Colleagues from the Edinburgh School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (ESALA) at The University of Edinburgh generously allowed me to observe their assessment practices and took time to offer clarification where requested. In particular I would like to thank Professor Fiona McLachlan for her enthusiastic cooperation.
Andrew O'Dowd from the Interactive Media Design programme at Edinburgh Napier University kindly allowed me to photograph examples of student work and took time to explain how learning and assessment are undertaken within his field of study. Stephen Hunter and Stewart McCrae (both University of Edinburgh) also spent time telling me about assessment strategies within the fields of Intermedia Design and Music, respectively. Students attending the LEAPS Summer School also generously gave me permission to take photographs as they participated in a presentation assessment exercise.
Finally, I would like to thank Michael Sean Gallagher from Hankuk University for his willingness to engage in late-night, long-distance discussions concerning the representational possibilities of multimodality.
Digital means of production
It seems appropriate within this multimodal dissertation to acknowledge the resources that enabled me to realise the digital form of my work.