Critical Self Reflection – Week 5 BP
I contributed specific, fairly detailed feedback on the delivery mode of, (predominantly), my peers’ videos and also their blogs, which I believe my peers would have found valuable and will hopefully enable them to make improvements in their future posts.
I commented briefly on the understandability of the analytical frameworks and made a few recommendations for changes and inclusions based on the lecture notes, like improving Gantt Charts and Feedback Loops where necessary. I was remiss in that I provided no suggestions for further research, which I will remedy in future.
While giving feedback on my peers’ pitch videos, I learned the importance of assessing audio-visual information, in order to make recommendations for future improvements and to help promote their audiences’ understanding.
I applied the criteria below to evaluate the visuals:
- Were the images on the screen relevant / complementary to the spoken information? Were they distracting?
- Were there too few images? Too many?
- Were there too many words on the screen? Too few?
- Was the print style, colour and size readable?
Regarding the audio I considered:
- Was the voice-over easy to understand? Spoken too fast or too slow?
- Was the voice audible and expressive. Did it communicate interest?
- Did the voice have a comfortable listening pitch?
The success of the presentation’s delivery is based upon good planning too. I considered that the information should be complete and correct. This includes spelling, grammar and sentence structure. The video should also be clear, (understandable on the first viewing), and concise, (the information should be presented in the required timeframe with full meaning apparent).
I decided that I should be diplomatic and empathise with my fellow students when giving feedback. How would I want to be evaluated? I decided the best approach would be to praise their work before I gave any constructive criticism.
When I was giving the actual criticism, I used my words and expressions diplomatically. I also signed off with a positive statement about looking forward to seeing more of their work in the future.
I think this ‘respect treatment’ in giving feedback, bodes well for its incorporation into any future work. My peers are less likely to feel insulted and thus rejecting of the comments. If they were insulted, I would have to listen to their feedback regarding this and re-evaluate/redesign my approach.
To be more engaging regarding feedback in the future, I also need to provide information on those areas that I neglected this time, like recommendations for further research.
I learned from evaluating my peers’ work that the strength of my pitch video is its presentation regarding the use of audio-visual support materials. A critical look at my peers’ works also made me realise my pitch’s weakness is the brief treatment of any research and linkage to the lecture notes; and that my pitch’s analytical framework needs development and inclusion.
I also learned from my peers that there are other platforms upon which to effectively communicate my pitch, such as PowerPoints or Prezi.
I hope they learned something valuable from me, as I certainly learned from them.