EVALUATION RUBRIC & REPORT ON INTRO TO DH VIDEOS FROM # DARIAH TEACH

EVALUATION RUBRIC AND REPORT ON THE DARIAH-TEACH VIDEOS

REPORT

This report is an overview of the seven videos available on the #dariahTeach Project’s YouTube Channel as of 27th November 2016 (www.youtube.com/channel/UCScSbG7XjiXbZVgilEp0Pkw).  Three of the videos focus on the topic of what Digital Humanities are according to the individual speakers while the other four concentrate on specific practical applications of Digital Humanities.

My overall opinion of the #dariahTeach videos is a positive one.  The videos are crystal clear and have a really high definition.  The speakers are extremely qualified and knowledgeable in their fields of study, and I found all the videos very interesting to listen to.  However, I do feel that there are some technical areas within some of the videos that could be improved upon.  The audio in all the videos is good, with the exception of certain sections (3:45/5:11) of Digital Humanities in Practice – Spatial Humanities & Social Justice in which the audio is slightly louder when Winnie Mandela is speaking.  In the video My Digital Humanities – Part 1 there was music playing throughout the video which was very distracting.  There were also sub-titles in white at the bottom of the screen which were difficult to see because the lettering was white; they also clashed with the pop-up titles causing obscured visibility.

I also feel that the lighting in some of the videos is unevenly lit hence the shadows that are evident in Digital Humanities in Practice – Spatial Humanities & Social Justice; Digital Humanities in Practice – Digital Libraries; My Digital Humanities – Part 3.  The video My Digital Humanities – Part 2 has the opposite effect to the other videos because the background is too bright, due to the white background.  I found it particularly difficult to look at the screen for long periods of time.  In addition to the lighting issues, I do not think that the subjects are framed particularly well.  Some are skewed to the left or right and on occasions when there are multiple speakers, whilst the camera is focused on the speaker, the second person is partially visible in the frame also.

The other point I wanted to make was that there is no introduction in any of the videos, they begin mid-topic, leaving the viewer bewildered, whilst trying to hypothesise the context of the discussion on their own.  There are also no visible dates of creation on any of the videos; the only information available is when they were uploaded.  I think the best video out of the #dariahTeach selection is Digital Humanities in Practice – Spatial Humanities & Social Justice, this video uses visualisation to display the project being discussed.  This in turn aids and educates the viewer, and advertises the speaker’s message.

EVALUATION RUBRIC

Video No. 1

Digital Humanities in Practice – Spatial Humanities & Social Justice

Speaker – Dr. Angel D. Nieves, Hamilton College US

Video No. 2

My Digital Humanities – Part 2

Speaker – Toma Tasovac, Director of Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities

Criteria Video No. 1 Video No. 2

 

Authority of the video

·         Publication

 

This video was produced by An Foras, Feasa, NUIM, which is respectable entity to create such educational videos.  This is a research and educational institution which specialises in Digital Humanities. The video credits at the end display only the names of the producers and editor of the video without specifying their qualifications.  The source of the video is stable but it could be taken down at a later date.

 

This video was produced by The Belgrade Center for Digital Humanities which is a reputable institution which specialises in theoretical and practical research in the area of Digital Humanities.  The names of the creators of the video are at the end but their qualifications are not displayed.  The source of the video is stable but again, like I said before, this could be taken down at a later date.

·         Production quality

 

The video is interesting to look at as it displays images of Dr. Nieves’ project.  The video uses high quality shots of the speaker and one kind of transition (cuts).  The titles were used effectively and the subject was framed well.  However, I think that the video does not flow seamlessly as the zooming is too abrupt and noticeable, thus distracting.  The audio is clear although the audio from the project is louder.  All the shots are in clear focus but I find the lighting is not evenly dispersed hence the shadows.

 

The video is quite plain and the bright white background is blinding after a while.  The video uses high quality shots, the audio is clear, the subject is framed well.  Titles are used effectively.  The video flows well; there are not all of transitions.  All shots are in clear focus. The lighting is even but the white background is blinding.
Authority of the Speaker

 

We know who the speaker is; his name and qualification are clear from the video.  He is an expert in the topic and appears extremely knowledgeable.  After searching the web, I ascertained that he is very well qualified in the field of Anthropology, History of Architecture and Urban Development and Africana Studies, as well as in Digital Humanities.

 

 

 

The name of the speaker appears on the video but his qualifications are omitted. It is obvious that he is knowledgeable and that he is an expert in the area of Digital Humanities.  After searching the internet I established that he is well qualified in the area of Slavic languages, comparative literature and currently pursuing a PhD in Digital Humanities, which means that he has academic expertise relating to the topic.

 

Accuracy

 

The information in the video is mainly factual as it is related to a data collection project.  The accuracy of the content of the video can be ascertained by browsing the internet and specifically the website which is referred to in the video.  The research project is original to the speaker.

 

The information in the video consists mainly of the speaker’s opinion on what Digital Humanities are.  This means that we cannot evaluate the accuracy of the information as it is the personal view of the speaker.
Objectivity/Bias

 

The point of view of the speaker is clearly communicated and he seems to be very passionate about the object of his research.  It is unclear from the video what his relationship is with An Foras Feasa.

 

The point of view of the speaker is clear.  It is obvious that the speaker works for the organisation which created the video but his exact title is unclear.
Currency

 

I do not think that the date of creation of the video is visible.  The date the video was uploaded is easily found below the video in YouTube. The date of creation of the video is not visible.  The date the video was uploaded can be easily seen below the video.

 

Audience

 

I think the intended audience is scholarly experts in the field, students and teachers in the field of Digital Humanities.  I think the subject matter and terminology used are too academic for a layperson. I think that because of its highly specialist subject matter, it would not be readily accessible on the web. I think the intended audience is students and teachers.  I think the subject matter and language used is a little too specialised for a layperson.  I feel that because of its specialist subject matter, it would not be easily accessible on the web.

 

 

Coverage

 

 

The video in this case is topic specific

 

 

This video is also topic specific.
Uniqueness

 

The content in this video is available on the Dr. Nieves personnel website (www.angel.davidnieves.com).

The video format offers visual information about his project and in the case of a blind person; a video would offer aural information.

 

The content in this video is not available in other forms.  The video format of this video does not offer any visualisations; the only advantage is for a blind person.
Purpose

 

The information in this video is a highly specialised scholarly topic.  I think it was made to advertise the project and educate people on the benefits of Digital Humanities.  There is a central theme and narrative structure in this video.  The theme does focus on negative stereotypes in a prejudicial and racist sense. This is in relation to his Soweto apartheid project.

 

The information in this video is centred on the topic of what Digital Humanities are and the speaker gives his opinion based on his qualifications and experience.  I do not think there is a particular narrative structure in this video.  The video does not talk about stereotypes.