This year, the computer systems at UW were integrated with Panopto, which is a video sharing platform that enables both students and instructors to record, upload and share lectures and presentations. As the current Assistant Director of computer-integrated classrooms for the Expository Writing Department, I was asked to write a few instructions on how to use the platform (if anyone is interested, they are here).
While writing that page, I became curious about how we might use Panopto specifically in English and other classes, since the platform has a lot of pedagogical potential outside of simply recording a lecture for absent students. Specifically, I'm interested in exploring how students might use Panopto in presentation drafting and peer review, since students sometimes view the presentation-genre as simply eidetic and this might help it emerge productively as part of a larger process. In other words, I'm hoping that doing peer review on presentations will help students understand the genre as itself productive, generative and revisable.
Below is a proposed lesson plan that I'd love to try out next quarter. I've modelled it on a more traditional writing-based peer review, so that students will have some familiarity with the genre and its expectations. I'd love feedback from all of you on this, as I think there are multiple ways to integrate Panopto successfully!
Prep: Create a Discussion topic on Canvas where students can post videos, familiarize students with peer review expectations through conversations about past experiences, scaffold presentation skills, have students prepare presentation in groups of 3
1) Talk through successful peer review techniques, and brainstorm how we might apply them to presentations. What are the criteria of successful presentations? How might we assess presentations as specific genres? What do we know about writing-based peer review that is transferrable to this context? Design a digital handout together as a class, then post criteria in Canvas Discussion so that students all have access to it (this could be done the night before if class is not held in a computer-integrated space).
2) Students break into groups and record their presentations, integrating previously-composed powerpoints or prezis as they see fit
3) Students embed their videos as responses to the Discussion post, following instructions here. Videos should be accompanied by several targetted requests for feedback that the group proposes, as well as a request for general impressions or reviews.
4) Now, using separate computers, students watch and respond to the video presentations of two other groups (this should probably be assigned or organized so as to avoid confusion). Feedback is based both on the shared class criteria and on the group's specific requests. Students share their feedback as a "response" to the Discussion post on Canvas, so that everyone can see them and reviewers can build on each other's points.
5) As a wrap-up, come back together and reflect on the process as a whole. Did it feel different than a writing-based peer review? What were some of the most effective kinds of comments? What were the limitations or affordances of Panopto as a platform?
6) HW: Students write revision plans separately, and discuss them during the following class in their presentation groups.
In general, my biggest worry here is that the noise volume in the room might get overwhelming and thus prohibit the kinds of thoughtful feedback that I'm hoping students will give. I have considered having students prepare and upload their videos from home, but I think I'll try it in the CIC the first time and see what works. I have also thought about integrating Panopto in the feedback stage, with students responding to presentations in their own new videos. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on all this!