Presentation Critique
This is an in-class group assignment designed to reinforce students' understanding of all the design principles introduced in the self-check videos. Each group must watch, analyze and critique the multimedia design of the video presentation I provide them with.
Video Annotation Tool (VideoAnt)
To make the whole process seamless and easy for students and me, we use the video annotation tool called VideoAnt for this exercise. This is a collaborative video annotation tool, meaning that multiple people can add annotations to the same video from their own computers no matter where they are. Here's how we use it...
Procedures
- Each group sets up a VideoAnt page in which the YouTube video I selected is embedded (see the grey comment in Figure 1).
- As a group or individually, students watch the video, and analyze its design.
- When a student finds a design flaw in the video presentation, he/she pauses the video and enters in the comment box his/her analysis and critique of the video design. The comment appears in the comment list on the right with the time code of the paused segment. It also adds a marker to the paused position on the video timeline. See the red comments in Figure 1.
- I, the instructor, can add feedback to the student's annotation (see the blue comments in Figure 1).
- After 30-40 minutes, each group presents and critiques 3 or more design flaws they have identified.
Annotation Format
Students must write annotations by using the format below (Figure 2). Each added annotation must:
- Indicate which pedagogic design principle it violates (in the subject line).
- Describe the video segment that has a design flaw (PROBLEM).
- Explain why it is a problem (REASON).
- Provide an alternative design to fix the design flaw (SUGGESTION).
Students really must follow the above annotation format (Figure 2) as this is not a free, open-ended analysis exercise. Students must analyze the presentation design based on their understandings of the pedagogic design principles introduced in the lesson videos. Before students can freely analyze and critique, I want to make sure that students can analyze and critique based on the evidence-based theories and principles, not on their intuitions and experiences. When it comes to multimedia learning, intuitions and common practices are often wrong.
Grading
① Feedback Within VideoAnt
When their annotations lack some information or have incorrect information, I indicate it by adding responses (comments) to students' original annotations (see Figure 1). I also provide aural feedback during their presentations. Rather than correcting their annotations, I ask them questions most of the time - e.g., "Which specific multimedia learning principle does it violate?" It's because I want the students to fix those incorrect annotations, and if they correct their incorrect annotations by the end of the lesson day, they do not lose points.
They get a second chance because this is a learning process, and it is my philosophy that success can only be found at the end of a cycle of failure and that my role is to give them the opportunity to fail.
② Rubric
All the assignments and projects except two have a specific grading rubric. All my rubrics are designed with specific instructional design criteria that are objective rather than subjective. When I grade assignments and projects, I strictly adhere to my rubrics. This is the first assignment in which a grading rubric is provided (see Figure 4: Click the image to enlarge it). Even if I tell students that I will adhere to the rubric, many students don't take it seriously and fail to hit all the grading criteria. They learn a valuable lesson here and learn to pay attention to details on the rubric in the future assignments and projects.
|