Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Multimedia/Feedback/2013
multimedia presentation exercise
Marks[edit | edit source]
The mean mark in in 2013 was 74.6 without late penalties (73.7 after late penalties). In 2011 the average mark was 71.9/100 without late submission penalties (70.3/100 after late penalties).
Example presentations[edit | edit source]
One good way to get further feedback about the multimedia presentation exercise is to watch some of the commendable presentations.
Here's a list of some very good presentations in 2011:
Also note that feedback about each presentation can be found on the respective talk pages.
Marking criteria[edit | edit source]
Below are some general comments about this exercise.
Overall[edit | edit source]
- Overall, the standard varied widely. Presentations ranged from basic bullet-point text and fast, monotone reading of a pre-prepared script through to highly creative and engaging documentary, interview, and animated-style presentations.
Structure and content[edit | edit source]
- The best presentations tend to focus on a relatively small amount of carefully selected content, emphasing explanation and illustration of key take-home messages.
- Many presentations tried to present too much in too little time.
- Establish the self-help focus questions and/or provide an overview of what will covered. It might also be helpful to establish interest in the topic e.g., through a scenario or example. Basically: What is the problem? Why is it important? What will I gain by watching this?
- Provide a conclusion or summary emphasising take-home messages.
- The presentation should stand-alone, so avoid overly referencing back to the book chapter.
Communication[edit | edit source]
- Some presentations used a simple, but effective motif to add interest to the presentation.
- In some presentations the audio was too quiet and/or was distorted e.g. with white noise due to using an inbuilt micophone rather than plug-in, direct input microphone.
- In many presentations, the narration was too fast.
- In many presentations, the narrating voice could have used greater tonal variation to facilitate viewer interest and attention.
- More examples could be used.
- Presentations that "took a risk" were often some of the better ones (e.g., by taking a creative approach - e.g., a presenter of the happiness chapter dressed up as a clown).
- Slide animation was sometimes used effectively particularly to reveal bullet points one by one.
- Font colour could be different for key words.
- Best to use font types such as Arial to aid clarity and readability.
- Sometimes font sizes were too small to be easily read.
Production quality[edit | edit source]
- Production quality varied but was generally very good.
- Avoid clashing background music with narration - this makes it hard to concentrate on the key point. However, some presentations used a short musical intro and conclusion which worked well.
- Animation of bullet-points can help to focus viewer attention on each point
- Presentations were in the following formats (from most to least popular): screenr, youtube, prezi, slideshare, jing, archive.org. Youtube provides an excellent platform for viewing and disseminating.
- An easy-to-click link to the book chapter was often not provided e.g., in the multimedia description
- A copyright license for the presentation was often not included - Creative Commons Attribution is suggested
- Image attributions were often not included. Many presentations violated copyright by using non-free images and used them without acknowledgement.