VIDEO AS A TOOL FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT OF
UNDERGRADUATE ORAL PRESENTATIONS
FINAL REPORT
Dr David J McGarvey and Dr Paul C Yates, School of Chemistry and Physics
INTRODUCTION
Keele’s Learning and Teaching Strategy (May 2000) places great emphasis (Section
3.6, key objectives in learning and teaching) on the development of key transferable
skills in undergraduate teaching. Specifically (Section 3.4), the strategy expresses
within the educational aims…’a capacity for self-reflection, self-assessment and self
criticism’ and ’…the ability to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing’.
This project addresses the development of oral presentation skills through the use of
video as a vehicle for critical reflection and self-assessment.
Undergraduate oral presentations form a vital component of the Principal courses in
Chemistry and Biological & Medicinal Chemistry at Keele. All undergraduates are
requested to give one oral presentation per year at levels I, II & III. Detailed written
guidelines are provided and, at level I, an introductory presentation by an academic
member of staff is given as part of the study skills programme. The assessment of
the oral presentation at levels I and II contributes 5% of the mark for the laboratory
component of the module in which the presentation is given. In addition, there is an
element of peer assessment of the presentations at levels I & II. Both staff and
students use an assessment pro-forma (see Appendix 1) with explicit assessment
criteria. Oral presentation sessions at levels I & II are preceded by an introductory
session and concluded by a general feedback session hosted by the Academic Staff
member in charge (usually the Module Leader). Detailed individual feedback is
provided on the oral presentation assessment form at levels I & II, a copy of which is
stored with the student’s records. As part of our continual development of such
activities, from September 2000 undergraduates will have the opportunity to deliver
an oral presentation using an LCD projector and PowerPoint.
In summary, the key features of the management of oral presentations in chemistry
are:
 Structured peer assessment
 Group and individual feedback
 Opportunities for delivering an oral presentation through the use of an LCD
projector and PowerPoint software (from September 2000).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
AIMS
 To encourage students to be self-critical through self-assessment of their oral
presentations on video.
 To improve the quality of feedback provided to students.
OBJECTIVE
 To improve student performance in delivering effective oral presentations.
IMPLEMENTATION
 The project was implemented during 2001-2002.
 1st and 2nd year students were asked to carry out a self-assessment after
viewing the video (see Appendix 2).
 The use of video was evaluated through an evaluation questionnaire (see
Appendix 3).
SELF-ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION
 Self-assessment was done on an individual basis.
 Eight students participated in the evaluation exercise (see Appendix 3 for a
summary).
 Evaluation was based on an indication of the extent of agreement/disagreement
(1-5) with positive statements about the use of video.
 The evaluation feedback indicates that most students found the video tool useful
and some students identified specific aspects of their presentation that could be
improved.
 Practical considerations such as the choice of room (background noise), lighting
and camera angle etc. are important for the exercise to be beneficial to students.
 Time demands are modest, but careful organisation is required and technical
support is recommended.
 The equipment costs are modest and could be shared between Departments or
within a Faculty.
 On balance, our conclusion is that video as a tool for self-assessment of
undergraduate oral presentations is beneficial to students.
 The use of video is established in the undergraduate chemistry and BMC
courses and all student oral presentations are now recorded as a matter of
routine.
 Students have a free choice as to whether they view their presentation and take
up of this opportunity is ~30-40%.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
Item
Video camera
Tripod
Camera tapes and
Blank VHS tapes
Technical Support
Total
Budget requested
£300
£50
£100
Actual spend
£499
£116
£165
£615
£615
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Innovation Project is part funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for
England & Wales (HEFCE) via the Learning and Teaching Committee of Keele
University. The authors thank Dave Olivant and Sue Love for technical assistance,
and also 1st and 2nd year Chemistry/BMC undergraduates for their participation and
valuable feedback.
Appendix 1
SCHOOL OF CHEMISTRY & PHYSICS
ORAL PRESENTATION PEER ASSESSMENT FORM
Name of Speaker:
Name of Assessor(s):
Module: Chem-
Experiment:
Date:
CRITERIA
Quality of visual aids
General organisation &
structure of talk
Clarity of explanation
Presentation style
Response to questions
Time-keeping
COMMENTS:
FINAL MARK:
%
GRADE (A-E)
Appendix 2. Examples of Self Assessment Comments
The comments below are taken from the COMMENTS box of the completed
proforma given in Appendix 1.
 “I went a little too fast. I had a good idea and I really kept it entertaining, but I
don’t think any information got through”.
 “Came across in the presentation that I was nervous. Though I did get better
throughout the speech. In future oral presentations, I need to maintain eye
contact with the audience more often”.
 “I tried to keep things simple which I thought was good as the majority of
people can understand more easily. I probably made things too simple though
and as a result didn’t have the information available to answer the questions”.
 “I sometimes mumbled over points when I had difficulty explaining my point.
Waffled a bit in making an attempt to answer the questions”.
 “Visual aids were good but I think I looked at the screen too much. More eye
contact with the class was needed to get feedback if they understood. Could
have done with more detail and added some results”.
 “Weaknesses: Spoke a little too quickly at first. Paused a few times. Strengths:
Fairly organised; all acetates were in order”.
 “It would have been better if I had notes and had practiced more because I
forgot most of what I was going to say. OHPs done on the computer would
have been clearer”.
 “Clearly explained all points but there needs to be more eye contact and
louder speech. There was too much hesitation and some overheads were
quite faint. Possibly need to practice the talk a bit more and read around the
area which the talk deals with”.
Appendix 3. Evaluation Questionnaire Summary
SCHOOL OF CHEMISTRY & PHYSICS
VIDEO AS A TOOL FOR SELF-ASSESSMENT OF
UNDERGRADUATE ORAL PRESENTATIONS
EVALUATION FORM
Name:
Module: Chem-
Title of My Talk:
Date:
Statement
AGREE/ DISAGREE (Scale 1-5)
The video recording was of good quality.
2.5
Watching the video of my presentation
only served to confirm my previous
assessment of how I thought I had
preformed.
2.8
Having watched the video recording I
have noted particular aspects of my
presentation that I will try to improve
upon in future (if applicable, please
summarise what these are).
2.6
Having viewed the video recording of my
presentation I feel will be more confident
about giving presentations in the future.
2.6
I would recommend self-assessment of
oral presentations via video to other
students.
2.3
Viewing the video recording of my
presentation has been useful to me.
2.4
COMMENTS (these can be quite general or specific, including suggestions for
improvements we could make to the whole process and/or any comments you have
on the overall assessment of your presentation and this evaluation form).
Summary of comments made in the COMMENTS box:
 “Possibly give those who are doing the talk first a bit more notice to prepare
and give them a bit more advice than that given”.
 “Good idea to have peer input but it may have been more useful to have a
breakdown showing lecturer marks as well”.
 “The camera view from the side of the room was not suitable for viewing what
I did on the blackboard”.
 “A very good idea and I can do better”.
Acknowledgements: This Innovation Project is part funded by the Higher Education
Funding Council for England & Wales (HEFCE) via the Learning and Teaching
Committee of Keele University.