AR Focus Statement
As students move through the Finals Department, an apparent disconnect has formed between student work and Art Director expectations of them. The proposed solution is to implement a more focused critique and feedback process.
Inquiry Questions
Will directly referencing recorded videos and audio sessions help my University level Compositing students to accurately and quickly implement the feedback they receive during our critique sessions?
Will the QuickTime screen recordings, checklists, and synchronized notes offered to my University level Compositing students be a strong enough basis to improve the quality level of their artwork when compared to the level of work they were producing prior to receiving the advanced format critiques?
Target Audience – A total of 14 students participated in the first cycle of the action research project. There were 8 males and 6 females. Ages ranged from 19-28 years old.
Summary of Cycle 1–
I began implementation of my cycle 1 with a brief meeting with my students. During this meeting, I explained the new critique procedures, including the screen recording and checklist process. After the explanation, I directed my students to the media assets I created for QuickTime player for screen recording, Evernote for note taking and checklists, and instructed them to complete the pre-assessment survey. The initial meeting was only about 10 minutes long, and responses were overwhelmingly positive with students vocally and visibly excited to start the new critique processes in our labs.
During the month for my cycle 1 implementation, there were two new pieces of software implemented, as well as some new hardware. QuickTime Player was used to screen capture the entire critique as it was given. After the critiques, Evernote was used to develop a checklist of items that would need to be completed by the next meeting. A USB microphone was placed on the students’ desks during the critique to capture live audio of our critique sessions as well (which was recorded into the movie from QuickTime.)
Data Collection– The assessment tools consisted of a post assessment survey at the end of the Cycle, which could be referenced against the consensus answers from the pre assessment survey taken before the critiques began.
Data Report–
At the end of the first cycle implementation, it was clear that students were responding positively to the recorded critique sessions. Responses in the post assessment survey showed an increase of 9.61% in the students’ ability to effectively implement the delivered feedback. This refers to the student’s perceived ability to take the information that is delivered on a critique and apply that information, in a meaningful way, to improve their project. This response was measured on a scale of 1-10. The median response rose from an 8 to a 9 concerning the effectiveness of the critiques they were given.
All recorded responses from the surveys demonstrated a student desire for recorded feedback, as opposed to written feedback. The consensus among respondents was that the video offered a more dynamic experience, with 11 out of 14 respondents specifically mentioning the advantages of having a video to reference at a later point while working. These noted advantages include: the ability to see information they may have missed, the video allowing the student to pay closer attention to the critique, and allowing the student to “look back and see how to put things together.”
Some students did demonstrate a desire to have the critique process implemented on a bi-weekly basis, as opposed to a weekly basis, in order to receive more direction on their projects before entering the weekend. According to the post assessment surveys, all students involved in the critique process felt that the video critiques were both helpful and informative. One student felt that the critiques were less helpful as the end of the month drew closer because there was less to critique in their work, but still showed a positive outlook and demonstrated an improvement in their ability to implement the feedback.
All of my cycle data is reported on a google spreadsheet. You can view a summary of responses here on the Google Summary of Responses. You may also view a spreadsheet containing more analysis of my data. Please note that this summary represents ALL cycle data, not just cycle 1, and will be continually updated as I continue further cycle implementations.
Insight –
The first implementation cycle directly addressed my Focus Statement in that the critique process was directly changed and attempted improvements were implemented. My cycle 1 data shows an immediate and direct correlation between the video critiques, and an increase in the student’s ability to implement the feedback. The degree and type of feedback remained unchanged, with only the delivery method being altered. This increase supports my inquiry into whether or not recording my critique sessions and providing checklists with notes would improve the student’s ability to implement the feedback they were given. I will paste a selection of responses directly from students below. These are pasted directly from the surveys and have not been altered.
“The video critiques were extremely helpful because we were able to communicate much easier. It was easier to not have to write down everything as Wes or Krys critiqued my work. Also, getting Evernote and writing down a to-do list is extremely helpful. Ive always had to-do lists but Evernote made the process a lot better.”
“The videos were really helpful because I was able to make sure I did everything I was supposed to do, or check something specific. The ability to see the videos again and hear the critique again is great, because when I’m receiving a critique my head is thinking a million things trying to remember everything and also thinking about possible questions that I have to my Art Director, but with the screen recording I can go through it again and refresh my memory.”
“I really liked having the video critiques there too look back to to see how to put things together and what I needed to correct.”
Surprises –
The only truly unexpected part of the cycle implementation was how LONG the implementation took me on the first critique session. It was a total of 8 hours straight with student critiques. After the first week, I began having a co-worked help me on the critique process. He is also a trained compositor, so his technical knowledge is on par with my own. I instructed him in the critique process prior to his critiquing a student, and everything went smoothly thereafter.
The target audience reaction was overwhelmingly positive. The data shows an overwhelmingly positive response to the video critiques, both in their effectiveness, and in the student ability to utilize the information. After the first critique sessions, I no longer had to remind them of what to use or how to set up for the critiques. They were genuinely excited about the process, and were encouraged by the level of detail and effort put into the process in order to help them succeed. According to survey responses, the excitement and increased involvement stems from wanting to take ownership of their projects. The students responded about their motivations for success, and I was able to use those responses to help deliver content to them that was pertinent to their goals.
Some excerpts from the post assessment when the question was posited as to whether they felt the critiques they received were conducive to helping them produce better work:
“I believe that my final projects wouldn’t be anywhere near the quality that they are with out them. That being said yes they were very conducive to my learning experience.”
“I feel like the critiques I received were sufficient in providing good feedback to my projects and the art directors definitely provided good advice to improving my shots.”
“Yes. I feel like from where I started to where I am now, my project improved completely.”
Future Direction-
For cycle 2, I will be utilizing the help of my co-worker throughout the entire process. The next step is to continue the implementation of the critique process. From all accounts from my students, there are only very minor tweaks I will be making as I move into cycle 2 this month. I plan to sit down with the students early on and make sure that they have a clear understanding of their project goals before beginning the month. The month has already started, so I am in the process of meeting with my students to undertake that assessment process.
In continuing into cycle 2, I want to be able to even further the critique process. I plan on meeting with my students more often in a less formal manner. The desire for bi-weekly feedback has been well expressed, so I have begun to implement that as well. The sessions are not formal critiques, and are not recorded, but I am making a point to meet with my students more often. These “mini-critiques” can be used as progress reports for both them and myself. The students already seem to be responding positively to this change, which they proposed during cycle 1. Cycle 1 was a success and was hugely relevant to my AR project.
wesleyhancock 