APRILFeedback

COURSE GRADINGElement Percent of Due DateCourse GradeSession Test (10) 15%Midterm Test 10%Final Exam 15%Film Crew Project 15%Dub/Digitize Project 5% March 10Rough Cut Project 10% March 17Trimmer Project 10% March 31Final or FX Cut Project 10% April 14In this example, the editing portion of the production is subdivided into four gradedstages with specific due dates. One difficulty that can arise with this approach occurswhen students, on a wild roll, complete one stage and charge onto the next withoutsaving a version of the first for evaluation! Reminding these rampant editors to pauseand save is an ongoing lecture component.It is also difficult, as mentioned earlier, to redirect students’ thinking and workingmethods towards the specific parameters of a particular stage; during the rough cutphase it is hard to resist the compulsion to trim or add transitions. This is the mindsetholdover from linear video, “an orthodoxy of presumptions that are based in the linearmode of the editorial process and, consequently, the story-telling process. That iswrong.” (Ohanian)The conflicting ends and ideals that exist between the open nature of digital mediaand the need to discourage academic dishonesty will keep those in digital productioncourse instruction off guard and looking for balance. The most unobstructive solutionsfor imaging and video appear to be pedagogical rather than technological. Breakingout, delimiting, and distributing scrutiny of student progress throughout the course isone solution that both obstructs plagiarism and stimulates nonlinear thinking increative production.Note: This article appeared in a 2002 issue of Feedback but complications preventedthe entire article from appearing in print. This is the entire article.34Feedback April 2003 (Vol. 44, No. 2)