Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Multimedia/Feedback

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
General feedback about
multimedia presentations

This page summarises general feedback about the 2022 multimedia presentations. Detailed feedback about each individual presentation is available on its chapter talk page.

Overall[edit | edit source]

  1. The overall quality of presentations was reasonably good, but there was a wide range.
  2. The best presentations will be tweeted to the #emot22 hashtag
  3. Some presentations went over time. Content beyond the maximum time limit was ignored for marking purposes. This often meant 0 or reduced marks for the Conclusion.

Overview[edit | edit source]

  1. Overviews were often missing or too brief
  2. Narrate and show the title and sub-title (which should match the title and sub-title for the book chapter)
  3. Provide at least some context about why the topic is important
  4. Consider presenting focus questions

Content[edit | edit source]

  1. Content was generally well selected
  2. There was bias towards theoretical material and away from research findings
  3. Greater use of examples would be useful

Conclusion[edit | edit source]

  1. Conclusions generally did a good job of reinforcing one or more take-home messages

Audio[edit | edit source]

  1. Audio communication was generally very good
  2. Most presentations were well-paced. Some presentations could have been improved by slowing down.
  3. Most presentations were well practiced and reasonably smooth

Video[edit | edit source]

  1. Visual presentation was generally very good
  2. Most presentations did a good job of providing a small amount of text per slide in large font, making it easy to read and listen at the same time
  3. Some presentations could have been improved by splitting content from a small number of visually busy slides into a larger number of slides each with less visual information

Meta-data[edit | edit source]

  1. Surprisingly few presentations used the full title and sub-title (or an abbreviated version that fits within 100 characters) as the name of the presentation
  2. Informative, detailed descriptions of the presentation were rare
  3. Almost all presentations provided a link to the book chapter and a link from the book chapter to the presentation

Licensing[edit | edit source]

  1. Some presentations used copyright restricted images without permission – doing so violates copyright law Frowny.svg
  2. Most presentations indicated a copyright license for the presentation, but only some did so using the licensing field in YouTube settings

See also[edit | edit source]