I recently delivered a workshop on the pedagogy of video marking. We didn’t really get round to actually creating examples of video marking (!), but here are some examples of how to physically create the video:

I initially came across video marking with an affable chap who promised that video marking would ‘save time’ (a fundamentally essential consideration in any marking practice). In terms of marking drafts of essays or reports, you can offer substantial feedback with video feedback. However, there is perhaps a further pedagogy to video marking that our workshops raised.

Firstly, a more essential purpose of video marking is to either challenge, or enhance, the fundamental base of knowledge for our students. By that I mean that personalised video of student work should be something to which they return.

In terms of links from the workshops:

http://headguruteacher.com/2012/11/10/mak-feedback-count-close-the-gap/ – examples of marking efficiently.

http://www.learningspy.co.uk/ – irreverent and informed teacher who raised the concept of liminality (that challenges the concept that schemes of work are only about definitive, linear steps).

http://www.amazon.com/An-Ethic-Excellence-Building-Craftsmanship/dp/0325005966 – How to use public performance (and other great practice) to build a culture of excellence with students. Links happily with the concept of video marking, and the challenge of liminality.

Finally, it was great to see another teacher using rubrics in their English teaching. In terms of providing students with a framework for the mechanics of writing (and analysing), the continual use of rubrics (in DARTs-based/content-based lessons) are essential. However, one point of improvement is to have students create their own rubrics – something that involves students realising that there is no definitive framework for writing and analysing. This is a continual tension.

Thanks to this workshop, I think that the rubrics about the MECHANICS of writing can remain the same, and in are presented in relation to generic APP criteria. To develop this, a writing task can have a distinctive rubric (persuasive/arguing etc) created by the students. This is more of a one-off rubric personalised for the class that wouldn’t necessary lead to levelling (which is not really its purpose).

Another step forward for me is the consideration of how to create responsive (but not reactive) schemes of work. For me, constructing a scheme of work to contain content signposts with space for principle lessons and Full English lessons (to be planned on a weekly basis) is an attempt to create a responsive scheme of work. This is something for further deliberation.