Motivation and emotion/Assessment/Multimedia/Feedback/2013

This page provides a summary of reviewer feedback about the Motivation and emotion multimedia presentations.

Marks
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
One good way to get further feedback about the multimedia presentation exercise is to watch some of the commendable presentations.

High quality presentations in 2013 are indicated with the symbol in the table of contents. The top presentation was about crying.

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
Below are some general comments about this exercise.

Overall

 * 1) 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

 * 1) The best presentations tend to focus on a relatively small amount of carefully selected content, emphasing explanation and illustration of key take-home messages.
 * 2) Many presentations tried to present too much in too little time.
 * 3) 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?
 * 4) Provide a conclusion or summary emphasising take-home messages.
 * 5) The presentation should stand-alone, so avoid overly referencing back to the book chapter.

Communication

 * 1) Some presentations used a simple, but effective motif to add interest to the presentation.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) In many presentations, the narration was too fast.
 * 4) In many presentations, the narrating voice could have used greater tonal variation to facilitate viewer interest and attention.
 * 5) More examples could be used.
 * 6) 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).
 * 7) Slide animation was sometimes  used effectively particularly to reveal bullet points one by one.
 * 8) Font colour could be different for key words.
 * 9) Best to use font types such as Arial to aid clarity and readability.
 * 10) Sometimes font sizes were too small to be easily read.

Production quality

 * 1) Production quality varied but was generally very good.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) Animation of bullet-points can help to focus viewer attention on each point
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) An easy-to-click link to the book chapter was often not provided e.g., in the multimedia  description
 * 6) A copyright license for the presentation was often not included - Creative Commons Attribution is suggested
 * 7) Image attributions were often not included. Many presentations violated copyright by using non-free images and used them without acknowledgement.