Video production pedagogy


Published on

Slides from my presentation "Video production as a pedagogic tool: an example from the biosciences" at the 2010 Higher Education Academy conference "Shaping the Future". The slides describe an activity in which second year undergraduates produce short films on bioethics topics.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Video production pedagogy

  1. 1. Dr Chris Willmott Dept of Biochemistry, University of Leicester [email_address] Video production as a pedagogic tool: an example from the biosciences Higher Education Academy: Shaping the Future University of Leicester
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Describe activity </li></ul><ul><li>Demonstrate student films </li></ul><ul><li>Discuss generic advice on equipment & organisation </li></ul>
  3. 3. Context of activity <ul><li>MB2050: “Targeting Biochemical Knowledge to Medical Problems” </li></ul><ul><li>Core 2 nd Year module for Medical Biochemists (n ~ 30) </li></ul><ul><li>Optional SSM for Medics ( n ~ 7) </li></ul>
  4. 4. Introduction: why video? <ul><li>Video = engaging media (not new, not rocket science) </li></ul><ul><li>The YouTube phenomenon </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities for creativity </li></ul><ul><li>Prices  </li></ul><ul><li>Ease of editing  </li></ul><ul><li>Attractive alternative to essays </li></ul>
  5. 5. Bioethics videos <ul><li>Produce 2 to 5 minute film on science and ethics of a current development in biomedicine (assigned) </li></ul><ul><li>Allocated to teams of 4 or 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Given approximately 6 weeks to complete </li></ul>
  6. 6. Teamwork – allocation of marks <ul><li>Marking: Initial team mark 70% for accuracy and clarity 30% for creativity and production </li></ul><ul><li>Peer-generated weighting then applied to team mark to calculate mark for each team member </li></ul><ul><li>Conway et al (1993) Peer assessment of an individual’s contribution to a group project Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 18 :45-56 </li></ul><ul><li>Details available on request </li></ul>
  7. 7. Teamwork – allocation of teams <ul><li>Bioethics film production > individual task </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-activity questionnaire inc prior experience </li></ul><ul><li>Semester 1 scores in biochemistry module </li></ul><ul><li>Friendship groups? (seats in lecture #1?) </li></ul><ul><li>Allocation of weak students? - distributed? - form one group? </li></ul>
  8. 8. Training <ul><li>Clips: - example film from YouTube etc (not all good) Patrick Dixon ( ) Common Craft ( ) Josh & Adam ( ) - previous student films </li></ul><ul><li>Recommended websites </li></ul><ul><li>Discussion of roles within project </li></ul><ul><li>Briefing sheet, including indicative milestones </li></ul>
  9. 9. Training: online advice and tutorials <ul><li>Fourdocs ( ) </li></ul><ul><li>BBC Good Shooting ( ) </li></ul><ul><li>Mashable ( ) </li></ul><ul><li>Videomaker ( ) </li></ul>
  10. 10. Example video clips (1) Use of animals in research (2009)
  11. 11. Example video clips (2) Xenotransplantation (2008)
  12. 12. Example video clips (3) Transhumanism & Genetic Enhancement (2008)
  13. 13. Example video clip (4) Gene therapy (2009)
  14. 14. Questionnaire-based survey before and after activity in 2008 and 2009 (n = 50, score out of 10) * Comparison survey re web authoring activity 2002 & 2003 (n = 69) Evaluation by participants Category Before After Change Knowledge about Bioethics 2.47 (2.53*) 6.81 (6.61) + 4.34 (+4.08) Interest in Bioethics 6.10 (5.80) 7.58 (6.84) + 1.48 (+1.04) Knowledge about digital film-making 2.89 (-) 6.73 (-) + 3.84 (-) Interest in digital film-making 6.39 (6.13) 6.95 (6.51) + 0.56 (+0.38)
  15. 15. <ul><li>Anonymous online survey 2008 (n = 12, 34%) 9 entirely positive, 3 bit of both, 0 negative </li></ul><ul><li>Positives: “It was good to do something different as we were more interested in getting started and motivated” </li></ul><ul><li>“ enjoyable experience – was something different than writing an essay etc and allowed us some creativity, something I miss doing the ‘sciency’ course that we do” </li></ul><ul><li>“ This was a positive experience for me, I enjoyed making the video” </li></ul>Evaluation by participants
  16. 16. <ul><li>Reservations: “Whilst doing it I thought it was a bit of a pain to be honest! But by the end I was quite pleased with the result” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Fun to do and spend time on, however... the marks allocated for this project were disproportionate to the amount of time and effort we had put in” </li></ul>Evaluation by participants
  17. 17. Equipment: which cameras? - ‘content-driven’ sound quality = vital - external microphone jack essential - Only brand with mike jack on entry level models is Canon (e.g. MD205, approx £200) <ul><li>Choice of camera depends on several factors inc. - budget - miniDV tape v DVD v card v hard disk? </li></ul>
  18. 18. Equipment: which cameras? - ‘content-driven’ sound quality = vital - external microphone jack essential - Only brand with mike jack on entry level models WAS Canon (e.g. MD205, approx £200) <ul><li>Choice of camera depends on several factors inc. - budget - miniDV tape v DVD v card v hard disk? </li></ul>
  19. 19. Equipment: which cameras? <ul><li>“ Market forces” have led to near extinction of external microphone minijack </li></ul><ul><li>Kodak Zi8 (£120-150) has minijack ... but doesn’t have optical zoom </li></ul><ul><li>Jump up to mid-range prices e.g. Panasonic TM300 ~ £600 Canon Legria HF200 ~ £600 Canon HG10 ~ £800 </li></ul>
  20. 20. Equipment: storage & distribution <ul><li>Will student/team be issued with camera for duration of project or will they be signed in/out? </li></ul><ul><li>If signed in/out where will they be stored and how will this be administered? </li></ul><ul><li>Who will be responsible for keeping cameras charged, checking all wires there, etc? </li></ul><ul><li>Security? Damage? Insurance? </li></ul><ul><li>Penalty for late return of kit? </li></ul>
  21. 21. What software? <ul><li>Windows Movie Maker is free with XP/Vista/W7 but is limited in scope </li></ul><ul><li>Relatively inexpensive alternatives (less than £75) have greater flexibility e.g. For PC - Adobe Premiere Elements - Pinnacle Studio - Coral Video Studio For Mac - iMovie - Final Cut Express </li></ul>
  22. 22. Issues: colleagues perception? <ul><li>“ How can you say anything meaningful in a four minute film? Better to set an essay” </li></ul><ul><li>You can say a lot in four minutes </li></ul><ul><li>Evidence students actually need good grasp of the issues to decide what to include </li></ul><ul><li>73% of students agreed that they could answer an essay question on their topic </li></ul>
  23. 23. Issues: copyright and permissions <ul><li>Assessment v Wider usage? - use of copyrighted images and/or music allowed for assessed activities but not wider distribution </li></ul><ul><li>Encouraged to be copyright-free </li></ul><ul><li>Informed Written Consent from interviewees to allow use on the internet (introduced 2009) </li></ul><ul><li>Consent from students to share their work </li></ul>
  24. 24. Conclusions <ul><li>Video production is an engaging alternative to more traditional forms of assessment </li></ul><ul><li>Thought needs to be given to: - training - provision of equipment - storage of equipment - software for editing - assessment criteria and markscheme </li></ul><ul><li>Sound quality and copyright are key issues for affecting the reuse value of any films produced </li></ul>
  25. 25. Acknowledgements <ul><li>National Teaching Fellowship Scheme </li></ul><ul><li>Liz Barber and Dawn Goodey </li></ul><ul><li>MB2050 Students </li></ul>
  26. 26. Thank you E-mail : [email_address] Twitter : cjrw Slideshare : cjrw2 Delicious : chriswillmott Blogs :