This is an extract from the report for last June's session, highlighting what I have already told you about being creative and using technology in your evaluation. So, from the horse's mouth...
The Director’s commentary format is potentially one of the most interesting methods for evaluating. There were two types of Director’s Commentaries. Firstly the reading from a script commentary, which actually isn’t a commentary at all! This method relies on Candidates from the group taking turns to read a pre-written script. Often this had little correlation to the events happening on the screen. The second, and much more rewarding commentary had the group members discussing the set questions (possibly using notes) and using certain points in the film to highlight points being made. The director’s commentary also allows for still images from the research and planning materials or ancillaries to be edited into the footage. Some other imaginative responses to the evaluation requirement included illustrated podcasts, video presentations, presentations using Issuu, Slideshare, and Prezi.
And another quick extract which focuses specifically on the Evaluation questions and how they are tackled:
The set question approach has worked very well. The conventions question allowed for side by side comparisons, allowing even weaker Candidates to achieve; the audience feedback question led to a range of approaches from uploading onto YouTube and getting feedback, or videoing peers’ group or individual responses, not to mention scans of endless questionnaires! The relationship between the artefacts question forced Candidates to relate their products and create a more cohesive package. The equipment question often led to endless photos of cameras, computers and images of computer screens - but also led to some excellent voice over demonstrations of software being used, for example, explaining how they achieved certain effects, for example, or debates over the use of Web 2.0.
No comments:
Post a Comment