Sample Cases from Dublin Institute of Technology

See some samples cases for this assessment method in the table below or browse the full set of cases in the assessment toolkit.

Assessment MethodLecturerAssociated Programme(s)NFQ LevelYear
Video Catherine Barry Ryan BSc Nutraceuticals in Health and Nutrition
BSc Food Innovation
Higher Certificate in Pharmacy Technician Studies
Level 6, 8 Years 2, 3
Digital Multimedia Barry Ryan BSc Nutraceuticals in Health and Nutrition
BSc Food Innovation
BSc Pharmaceutical Healthcare
Level 8 Year 2

[Return to the Assessment Toolkit]


Incorporating multimedia, in particular digital video, as a means of assessing student understanding of a topic. The assessment includes initial idea brainstorming, story board design, digital recording, editing and presentation.


Students are becoming ever more aware and comfortable with technology (Sharples et al, 2010). It is part of their everyday life, and as such, students demand the most interesting and up-to-date technology as part of their learning and assessment (Skiba & Barton, 2006). Outside the classroom students exist in a digital world; social media outlets allow for instantaneous collection and sharing of text and multimedia data. These ‘digital natives’ intuitively create, modify and publish digital media to their online community and in return they receive feedback in the guise of “likes” and comments; however, they are often restricted from using these innate skills in the classroom (Richardson, 2008). The use of multimedia, and in particular digital video, may provide an alternative method of assessment that is more creative, innovative and provides a tangible connection for the student between everyday life and their academic studies.

Brief Literature Overview

In recent times the use of student generated digital video has become increasingly popular at all levels of education; examples range from primary (Schuck and Kearney, 2008), and secondary (Hiller et al., 2012) to third level, including teacher training (Kearney, 2012), language education (Nikitina, 2010); and marketing and accounting (Greene and Crespi, 2012). The use of student-generated video content is gaining some traction in the Sciences also. Current examples span the spectrum from in-house student generated instructional videos for laboratory equipment, accessible through strategically placed QR codes permitting peer ‘just-in-time learning’ (Shultzginger, 2012) to the international MIT/Khan Academy ‘Making Video to Make a Difference’ Initiative (Chandler, 2012).

Greene and Crespi (2012) outline the benefits to the student who produces a video compared to, for example, a once off presentation. During the video production several steps must be articulated and physically carried out; the student must analyse and synthesise several multimodal sources on the subject content, then the student must script, rehearse and shoot the video. Often times this process is repeated several times and each time the student refines not only their resource, but also their understanding of the content. If the digital resource is produced as a group activity additional benefits include; meaningful student interactions, enhanced communication proficiency, project management skills, learner co-operation and autonomy (Robin, 2008). The process becomes a student-orientated, social constructivist activity where the student(s) take ownership of their project and become responsible for the product and, subsequently, their learning (Harel and Papert, 1991). Kearney and Schuck (2006) also noted that peers viewing peer-produced resources deepened their perceived knowledge. Furthermore key employability traits that employers seek in potential employees can also be developed by use of such an assessment approach; including collaboration, communication and project management (Ju, et al., 2012).

This is not the first time pedagogical paradigms have been questioned by an advancing technological era; Ong (2005, as cited in Schuck & Kearney, 2008) describes the advent of technology enhanced learning as analogous to the arrival of the printing press. This was a transformative time in education; the printing press allowed books to be published at a price more readily affordable by the common man. Now, the incorporation of the digital media, with its anywhere, anytime interaction could again revolutionise education.

Key Papers on the topic

Potential Methods of Feedback

Students can be provided with feedback at multiple stages during the assessment and after the final submission.

During the assessment:

  1. The student can meet with the academic to discuss their initial ideas for their video. During this face-to-face meeting the academic provides feedback, but more importantly freedforward; this will assist the student decide which topic to focus their digital video production on. 
  2. Students can discuss their ideas and issues with other peers, either inside or outside class. This structured, but informal, peer review can take place before final shooting and editing so as to allow any suggestions to be taken on board and incorporated into the final production. An easy way to encourage the students to take part in peer review is to follow the ‘two stars and a wish’ feedback. Each student must listen to their peers idea(s) and provide two stars (two things they liked abou the idea) and one wish (one thing they think might improve the final production).

After the assessment:

  1. Students could be provided with general feedback from their peers after the presentation of their final production. If the class size is large, Clickers can be an easy way to poll a large number of students quickly and instantly. Alternatively, a student centred discussion could take place after each student production viewing. Constructive feedback from peers, and the academic, should provide positive re-enforcement for the students. This group feedback session can be used by the student during a reflective writing follow-up to the assessed digital video production.


  • Chandler, D.L. (2012). MIT launches student-produced educational video initiative [online] (Accessed 20/09/2012)
  • Greene, H., and Crespi, C. (2012). The value of student created videos in the college classroom: an exploratory study in marketing and accounting. International Journal of Arts and Sciences, 1, 273-283.
  • Harel, I., and Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1-30.
  • Hiller A. Spires, H.A., Hervey, L.G., Morris, G., and Stelpflug, C. (2012). Energizing Project-Based Inquiry: Middle Grade Students Read, Write, and Create Videos. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55, 483-493.
  • Kearney, M. (2012). How iVideos Inspire Teacher Learning. In P. Resta (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference 2012. AACE, Chesapeake, VA. pp. 1389-1396.
  • Kearney, M., and Schuck, S. (2006). Spotlight on authentic learning: Student-developed digital video projects. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 22(2), 189-208.
  • Nikitina, L. (2010). Video-Making in the Foreign Language Classroom: Applying Principles of Constructivist Pedagogy. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 7, 21–31.
  • Richardson, W. (2008). Footprints in the Digital Age. Educational Leadership, 66, 16-19.
  • Robin, B.R. (2008). Digital Storytelling: A Powerful Technology Tool for the 21st Century Classroom. Theory Into Practice, 47, 220-228.
  • Shultzginger, A. (2012). QR Coded Student-Created Video. [online] (Accessed on 20/09/2012).
  • Schuck, S., & Kearney, M. (2008). Classroom-based use of two educational technologies: A sociocultural perspective. Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 394-406.
  • Sharples, M., Taylor, J. & Vavoula, G. (2010). A Theory of Learning for the Mobile Age. Media Education in the New Cultural Spaces, 2, 87-99
  • Skiba, D., & Barton, A. (2006). Adapting your teaching to accommodate the net generation of learners. OJIN: The Online Journal of Issues in Nursing, 11, 4.

Back to Top