The dreaded multimedia assignment…

This content is made available under the Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 License (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, View License Deed | View Legal Code).

Quick Summary:

• First, I discuss the rise in the use of video and multimedia in education, particularly in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• I note that this trend has led to an increase in the use of multimedia assignments, where students create narrated slideshows or similar projects.
• I discuss the challenges of writing instructions for, and grading such assignments, particularly those related to balancing the technical and content aspects of these more technologically-driven assignments (compared to traditional papers).
• Finally, I introduce a rubric created with a little help from AI (ChatGPT-4 Plus with Plugins enabled) to help guide the grading of these multimedia assignments.

One of the most noticeable trends post-pandemic is the dramatic increase in the use of video in the classroom. This is largely due to the sudden necessity of delivering lectures remotely during the pandemic when students and faculty were not only off-site but were frequently unable to attend scheduled class meetings due to illness or caregiving responsibilities. And so it became essential not only to deliver these lectures remotely through platforms like Zoom but also to provide a permanent record of these lectures so that they could be easily replayed, for those who missed them. The concept or recording lectures of course isn’t new at all, and the pandemic didn’t create it, but it certainly made its use much more frequent than before, and forced most faculty to familiarize themselves, at least to a basic degree, with the process of recording lectures and other content, and delivering recorded materials to students.

Both students and faculty discovered during this time that while this rush to video forced by the circumstances, imposed a sudden and often steep learning curve on those who had not used it before, in some ways, once the basics were mastered, turned out to be convenient: students appreciated having easily reviewable material that they could access at their own pace and on their own time for all courses, not just their fully online courses. Faculty appreciated not having to worry if they had to miss a class due to an at-home emergency: just pre-record it… And as everyone became more familiar with narrated slideshows, faculty became increasingly interested in students creating their assignments in this format as well (is it a good idea? see a note at the end of this post)

This format was a;ready popular on a limited scale in my own institution’s courses, but primarily as a part of an advanced, final or capstone project for graduate students. In fact, faculty organized a symposium composed entirely of narrated slideshow presentations by graduating students in the professional (clinical) doctorate program. This format has become a requirement and part of the final project, complementing the written part of the final capstone project.

Multimedia assignments are still less common at the undergraduate level, but as their popularity inevitably increases at the undergraduate level (the trend is already noticeable, based on the number of inquiries from faculty), it presents some challenges that we need to address first.

When we discuss using multimedia assignments where students are asked to record narrated slideshows, we (that is, people like me and my team) need to ensure that faculty understand that there is a higher level of complexity involved than what we encounter in written assignments: iIt’s not enormously complicated, not an obstacle that cannot be overcome, but an obstacle nonetheless, and it does require a slightly different, carefully thought out approach beyond basic instructions of the type usually given for writing a traditional paper.

Most students are very familiar with writing papers (years of practice, for better or for worse!), and faculty are accustomed to grading written assignments (ditto!). When it comes to multimedia assignments, especially narrated slide presentations, there are several things that faculty need to consider that are not a part of a typical paper assignment. One of those things is making sure that while there needs to be a set of instructions for the assignment in terms of the subject matter, just like for a written assignment (aka the topic), there also needs to be a set of instructions that address the technical aspect of creating such assignments.

Over two years ago (at least…) I had created a set of such “technical” step-by-step instructions that our faculty can borrow, adapt, and edit as it fits their needs*, rather than write them from scratch: most faculty do not have training in technical writing, and no methodology for developing (and testing) how-to step-by-step instructions, nor is it something I think faculty should be expected to spend their time on. So, we have a set of very good, tested instructions for students, and they even include links to how-to relevant, professionally produced videos from LinkedIn Learning (that my university licenses for all-campus access). So this aspect of multimedia assignments is off my standard worry list.

But there is another, no less important aspect of multimedia assignments, that often remains unaddressed (or at least does not get addressed in a satisfactory way): and that is how these assignments are to be graded. One of the big challenges is deciding whether the grading will also include, and if yes – to what degree – the technical aspect of the project. With multimedia, there is a certain set of skills that are specific to each of the technologies that students use (by choice or by necessity, given the nature of the assignment). Some faculty have made a brave attempt and provide a basic, all-purpose rubric, but even a quick cursory review makes it obvious that it’s probably not very helpful to students in a constructive, useable way: “Your presentation should be attractive and well-organized.” What does that really mean in practice and how do I know if my presentation is any of these things? And it not, then what do I do? It’s a little like giving someone failsafe instructions on how to become a billionaire: really simple – start with a 100 million, and invest them wisely, and then just wait… Did it help you? Will you be a billionaire any time soon?

So, I decided to combine this video-assignment popularity trend I had noticed (increasing interest among faculty to use multimedia), with another, more recent soon-to-be trend: the use of AI, and I asked ChatGPT-4 Plus (with plugins enabled) to generate for me a starter rubric for a video (narrated slide presentation) assignment. It didn’t’’t work right away, and took about 12 attempts to refine the prompt, before I got anything I considered better than what we already had (those limited-usability rubrics mentioned before _ I am not dissing these: they are better than nothing, bit still not better enough). After several iterations, where I set a few initial criteria in place, Chat and I came up with a rubric, and then I significantly edited that AI-improved version and made it even more practical, to a degree that I hope it is a fairly decent starting point for anyone interested (unless you have something better, in which case, please share!). It’s not perfect, or perhaps not even very good, but my objective was to offer something that provides actionable points of reference to students (when they plan it) and to faculty (when they review and grade it). As you will no doubt notice, while I divided the points among three main areas (Content 70%, Technical quality 20%, and Presentation skills 10%) it isn’t always possible to separate them so clearly, so some points may look like they overlap, slightly (for example, “Transitions between slides or sections should be smooth and clearly signal a change or progression in the topic.” is about both clarity of progression of one’s thought, but also about the form of the presentation…

NOTES:

• I asked ChatGPT for recommendations to improve this post: it suggested I should share the step-by-step instructions I developed for our faculty: alas, unlike this rubric and blog post which I created and posted on my own time and equipment/resources (for example, my own, personal ChatGPT and Unsplash subscriptions), I developed those instructions on my work-time, and so I do not own the rights to them (my employer does) and therefore cannot share them here under a CC license.
• It also recommended that I “could also explore the potential downsides or limitations of using multimedia assignments, providing a more balanced view of the topic.” Point well-taken! But this very useful suggestion is a topic (a great one, at that) for another blog post (and I need to think it through better – that’s my “thinking plan / assignment” for my next walk in the botanical gardens next weekend…)
• It urged me to “provide more specific examples of the types of multimedia assignments that have been successful. This would help to illustrate the points being made and provide a clearer picture for the reader.” And here to, it’s spot-on: but I will defer this to the end of the fall semester when I have had a chance to discuss and experiment with my team colleagues and faculty in a teaching with multimedia fellowship program my team is organizing this fall 2023 semester – so, more to come on this, but much later.
• And it suggested that since I’m talking about this new rubric so much, I should definitely include it… so here it is: it’s posted below.
  Enjoy.

This multimedia assignment rubric is posted under Creative Commons CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 License: (Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike, View License Deed | View Legal Code).

• SECTION 1 of 3 – Content (70 points)
  • Accuracy and Relevance (28 points): The information presented aligns with the established facts, theories, or data relevant to the topic, and directly contributes to the overall understanding of the subject matter.
  • Depth of Analysis (14 points): The presentation goes beyond basic facts or descriptions and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic. It includes critical analysis or synthesis of the subject matter.
    • Understanding of Topic (4 points): The presentation should demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the topic, going beyond simply stating facts or information, and showing an understanding of underlying concepts or principles.
    • Critical Thinking (4 points): The presentation should show evidence of critical thinking, such as comparing and contrasting different viewpoints, evaluating the strength of evidence, or applying concepts to real-world situations.
    • Synthesis of Information (3 points): The presentation should combine information from various sources or perspectives to form a new understanding or draw new conclusions.
    • Appropriate Detail (3 points): The presentation should include enough detail to fully explain the topic, but not so much that it becomes overwhelming or off-topic. Aim for a balance that provides a comprehensive overview without getting lost in minutiae.
  • Citations and References (14 points): All information, images, or media used are correctly cited according to a recognized citation style (e.g., APA, MLA). A reference slide or section is included at the end of the presentation.
  • Organization and Flow (14 points): The presentation is structured in a way that logically progresses from introduction to conclusion. The information is presented in a sequence that is easy to follow and enhances understanding.
    • Introduction (4 points): The presentation should start with an introduction that clearly outlines the topic, the main points to be covered, and the relevance or importance of the topic.
    • Logical Sequence (4 points): The content should be presented in a logical order that makes sense for the topic, such as chronological, by importance, or by category.
    • Clear Transitions (3 points): Transitions between slides or sections should be smooth and clearly signal a change or progression in the topic. This can be achieved through verbal cues, transition slides, or other visual elements.
    • Conclusion (3 points): The presentation should end with a conclusion that succinctly summarizes the main points, restates the relevance or importance of the topic, and leaves the audience with a final thought or call to action.

• SECTION 2 of 3 – Technical Quality (20 points)
  • Slide Design (7 points): The slides are visually appealing, maintain a consistent and professional design throughout, and enhance the communication of the content.
  • Audio Quality (7 points): The narration is clear and easy to understand, with no background noise or interruptions. The volume is consistent throughout the presentation, and the speaker’s voice is loud enough to be easily heard.
  • Timing and Pacing (6 points): The presentation fits within the 5-10 minute time frame. The pacing is steady, with each slide or topic given enough time to be fully explained but not lingering too long to cause audience disinterest.
• SECTION 3 of 3 – Presentation Skills (10 points)
  • Clarity of Speech (5 points): The presenter speaks in a way that is easy to understand, with correct pronunciation and enunciation. Technical terms are clearly explained, and the language used is appropriate for a college-level audience.
  • Engagement and Enthusiasm (5 points): The presenter shows enthusiasm for the topic and engages the audience through their tone of voice, pacing, and use of language. This could include asking rhetorical questions, using expressive intonation, varying the pace of speech to emphasize important points, and using language that is engaging and relevant to the audience.

Image credit: Ryan Snaadt via Unsplash+ / Post GenTag 2307011930-GJ