The reviewed literature helped me in realizing the limitations of the marking scheme developed as part of the implementation plan, (Yousuf, 2012). The marking scheme was very much content focused with no indication of Digital Narrative specific criteria. This included two components: Digital Narrative, and DN Discussion. As a result, I got concerned for the possibility of the developed marking scheme to mislead my students in a way that would negatively influence the produced assignment deliverable.
It was evident upon the submission date that I my concern was valid, many of the Digital Narratives lacked quality on the media level as well as the analysis level. The students whom delivered such poor quality misunderstood the concept of the assignment and thought it’s just a video of an interview. The reviewed literature clarifies that Digital Narratives term actually refer to many aspects, among which the analysis element that take place as part of the preparation phase to produce any Narrative. Al Yousuf (2012) is one of the videos that lacked the analysis dimension described here. Some students still produced very good Digital Narratives; Al Nuaimi (2012) is an example of good DN. However, this was purely the product of the students’ strong common sense.
As a result of comparing the literature to the outcomes from the first experiment with Digital Narratives, I decided to revise the marking scheme of this MIS Assignment. The new marking scheme included more Digital Narrative specific criteria, inspired by “The 7 elements of Digital Storytelling” as published by the Center of Digital Storytelling (2007), and specifically including the 10 elements recommended by the University of Houston’s Digital Storytelling team in “The Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling” (2012).
The new marking scheme is composed of three distinct sections: DN Content, DN Production, and DN Discussion. I’m currently a second experiment with the updated Implementation Plan with a group of students that started classes two weeks ago after completing their work placement assignments. I have the intention to post another reflection on the outcome of utilizing the updated marking scheme with this group. Below is the structure and criteria followed with the current group:
Digital Narrative Content: 10% | |||
Requirements | Max | Actual | |
Product overview: description of the selected product and the enterprise application category it belongs to. This description should include but not limited to the general purpose and capabilities of the selected enterprise application category. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 10 | ||
Organization overview: general information about the organization selected, like but not limited to: product/service, competitors, market segment and size … etc [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 10 | ||
Business challenges: description of the problems and/or opportunities encountered by the organization for which IS investment was considered. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 10 | ||
Management role: description of changes/investments made on the managerial level for the purpose of the new IS. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 15 | ||
Organizational role: description of changes/investments made on the organizational level for the purpose of the new IS. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 15 | ||
Technology role: description of the IT infrastructure and additional technology investments made for the purpose of the new IS. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 15 | ||
Information System capabilities: description of the new IS features. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 15 | ||
Business Solutions: description of the organization’s strategic objectives achieved as a return of the IS investment. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 10 | ||
Total | 100 | ||
% | 10 | ||
Digital Narrative Production: 10% | |||
Requirements | Description | Max | Actual |
The overall purpose of the story | Why you think you were asked to investigate and talk about Enterprise Applications as Accounting student? | 5 | |
The narrator’s point of view | A major believe or opinion you have developed as part of your journey with the Enterprise Applications topics. | 5 | |
A dramatic question of questions | Include in your work question or questions that help views to think deeply and hopefully understand your content better as a result. | 5 | |
The choice of content | Make sure you only use relevant content. | 5 | |
Clarity of voice | Pay particular attention to the clarity of any used audio. | 5 | |
Pacing of the narrative | Be reasonable, don’t make the follow of content too fast or too slow. | 5 | |
Use of a meaningful audio soundtrack | Make good choice of soundtrack to enrich the viewers experience rather than distracting them. | 5 | |
Quality of the Images, Video & other Multimedia Elements | Make sure you only use good quality content. | 5 | |
Economy of the Story Detail | The overall duration of the narrative should be feasible: don’t be too short by eliminating important aspects, and not too long without added value. | 5 | |
Good Grammar and Language Usage | Aim at accurate and professional communication always. | 5 | |
Total | 100 | ||
% | 10 | ||
Digital Narrative Discussion: 10% (Individual) | |||
Requirements | Max | Actual | |
Student demonstrates interest in understanding other groups work by asking good questions or making good comments on various aspects of the Digital Narratives shared by the other groups. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 30 | ||
Student demonstrates excellent understanding of various aspects presented in his own group’s Digital Narrative by providing good answers/feedback to other groups’ questions/comments. [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 40 | ||
It is compulsory that each member of any group respond to all questions/comments posted against their own Digital Narrative. | 10 | ||
Quality of used vocabulary (i.e. course and business related) [ ] Excellent [ ] Very Good [ ] Good [ ] Satisfactory [ ] Poor | 20 | ||
Total | 100 | ||
% | 10 | ||
References
Al Nuaimi, A. (2012) CRM in DP World. [video online] Available at: http://youtu.be/U3bsjVFeNdk [Accessed: April 22, 2012].
Al Yousuf, M. (2012) Dnata CRM. [video online] Available at: http://youtu.be/e1T_puFFZFI [Accessed: April 22, 2012].
Center of Digital Storytelling (2007) Digital Storytelling Cookbook, Chapter 2. [online] Available at: http://www.storycenter.org/cookbook.pdf [Accessed: March 27, 2012].
The Educational Uses of Digital Storytelling (2012) The 7 Elements of Storytelling. [online] Available at: http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/7elements.html [Accessed: April 15, 2012].
Yousuf, B. (2012) Project Implementation Plan. baraayousuf, [blog] WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2012, Available at: http://baraayousuf.blogspot.com/2012/02/bmgn-n340-management-information.html [Accessed: April 22, 2012].
Hi Barra, all this looks great but if you want a deeper understanding of the process why not include a critical reflection on the process of creating the digital narrative itself with recommendations for improvement?
ReplyDelete