Updated: 07/15/2004

At A Time When Almost Anything Goes

Evaluating Student Videos

For those of us who teach video production these can be challenging times.

First, just to keep up with ever-accelerating technological changes we have to revise our lecture notes almost monthly. (Early on, we found a need to revise these Internet materials on almost a weekly basis.) But, since our audio and video tools are based on technology, we've grown to expect that.

There is another area of change which is more difficult to adjust to, especially for those of us who started out learning the craft of film production at a time when there were right and wrong ways of doing things.

As we look at music videos and the many reality-based TV shows, it seems that there are no longer any rules that govern good and bad production practices. Almost anything goes.

In our classes if we presume to list some "don't's'' for video production at least one student will come back with, "But, I see that done all the time in music videos.'' (The six-figure salaries being pulled down by many working in music video production don't escape the notice of our students either.)

We are also seeing production companies producing commercials (for hundreds of thousands of dollars) that emulate some of the worst aspects of home movies: shaky shots, constant zooms, etc.; all the things we hope we never see in class—even in our students' first video assignments.

Faced with these realities, instructors can only ask: "How can I presume to evaluate student videos in an era when there seem to be no rules—when today's nonconformist may end up being tomorrow's video superstar.''

There are at least two ways of confronting this issue. First, is the authoritarian way.

"Good Video Is What I Say It Is!''

Some instructors confront this issue by saying, in effect, "I've had a few decades of experience in this business; I'm the teacher; I'm doing the grading; good video is what I say it is; end of discussion!''

Granted, there is an elegant simplicity in this viewpoint. However, beyond some production basics, I've never been comfortable imposing my views on students, especially in such a highly subjective area as video (and film, which I taught before that). Maybe that shows a basic insecurity. I would prefer to think it addresses three realities:

Video is a constantly changing art form.  What worked yesterday won't necessarily work today.

When it comes to video it's difficult to argue with commercial success.

In any art form, and especially in film and television, there's constant disagreement over that is "good'' and "bad.'' (Reading pro and con reviews of recently released films will quickly prove that.)

Once students are beyond a basic production course, which includes some elements of composition and how to keep an image in focus and well exposed, I will readily admit my hesitation in being the sole judge of what is and what is not "good.'' This is why in doing video critiques in class I regularly allow students to "go first." Not only do I get a different perspective than my own — which may or may not be valid in my opinion — but it allows me to judge just how perceptive different students are (a talent, incidentally, which is also part of their grades).

Often there is another issue. Students are normally "too close'' to their work to see it objectively. As a result, when suggestions are made, by an "over-40" instructor, students can become defensive and occasionally even hostile. If most people in a class agree on an issue, it makes this much more difficult.

On a few occasions after classmates made some critical comments about a video, the student involved was reduced to tears. The comments were valid in most cases; it was just that the students involved was much to close to their work. For this reason I start out each semester by explaining professional detachment and the necessity of separating yourself from what you do.

Since I have been asked how I handle video evaluations, let me trace the sequence I've worked out. First,  I do not allow the student involved to make any comments about their work before showing their video to the group. This includes apologizing for anything, or "setting up'' the video in any way. In other words, the video must totally stand on its own.

Immediately after the video is shown, I allow no verbal comments; only individual written evaluations. Each evaluation takes about eight minutes to complete. (An example of the form used can be found here.) 

I realize that, vocationally, most students will not end up doing the kind of "hands-on'' production work we do in class. Many will be in positions where they need to evaluate the work of others. Therefore, I put great emphasis on an ability to objectively evaluate video productions.

Students are graded on the written evaluations they do. Twice each term I give them written critiques on their evaluations. (This is one area of the course where I find very obvious improvement over the course of the semester.)

Vague phrases such as "the audio was bad,'' or "the video wasn't clear'' are not accepted. I require specific comments and suggestions using proper terminology.

Students know that what they say is confidential. Beyond knowing their overall scores, I never allow a student to see comments by other students. (Occasionally, I will get some revealing comments: "Bill had a lot of [unauthorized] help in editing his piece''; I know that Jane did her piece over four times before she got it the way she wanted,'' etc.)

After the written evaluations are done, I go around the class and ask for comments on the good and bad points of the video and specific things which could have been done to improve the piece. If it's a small class, everyone responds; if not, I call on specific students.

Since students know that they are being graded on their critiques and they may be called upon for their comments, they tend to stay alert to everything they can catch.

After 5 to 10 minutes of student comments, I may summarize the statements. This is my chance to reiterate what I feel are the most valid comments (and conveniently ignore the others). Once all the numbers on the student evaluations are in the computer, I compare my scores with the class averages. If there is a significant difference, I start asking myself why. Did students not see something? (Maybe I didn't explain the particular concept too well.) Did they like something that I didn't? (Maybe there was a valid concept that I missed or can't personally identify with.) This brings us to an aspect of teaching that has nothing to do with the principles of effective production.

What Student Videos Can Reveal

Over the years, I've come to appreciate how student videos reveal inner concerns, fears, frustrations and aspirations. Although maybe we should not read too much into this, I've found it interesting—frequently even revealing—when: (1) an excellent student does a video on the fear and frustrations in social situations; (2) a repressed, solemn female student does a video on a night in the life of a prostitute; (3) a passive male student does a video showing a highly violent a attack on another student; or (4) a popular student does a video clearly questioning the purpose of living. Not only do videos serve as an important form of self-expression, but from a psychological standpoint, they may help students express (repressed?) feelings.

In some cases the instructor and peer feedback can be a form of "checks and balances'' for some of these ideas. At the same time, since students can occasionally expose their deepest fears and vulnerabilities in these situations, I know that I have to be careful in my comments—and may have to "guide" classroom reactions.

Being teachers, we like to be able to teach things that can be evaluated in terms of right and wrong, good and bad. This can be difficult in today's world of video. Given these realities, we are forced to admit that when you get down to it success (as it's commonly defined) is whatever works with an audience. Generally, that means whatever emotionally engages the audience. With this, we move into what I feel is the crux of the whole evaluation process. This is covered in another article.

TV Production Index

© 2004, All Rights Reserved