Filmmaking with biology undergraduates: combining digital technology with authentic assessment to develop students’ skillset and capabilities for life after graduation

Abstract

The use of technology in Higher Education teaching is now commonplace and can have multiple benefits for learners; however, the benefits of learner-generated digital media (LGDM) are understudied. Using a combination of pre- and post-workshop questionnaires and student critical reflections, we evaluated the impact of an assessed week-long filmmaking unit on preparing students for life after university. Quantitative results show a boost in student confidence in the areas of academic skills, teamwork, communication, and digital capabilities. We categorise our qualitative data in six main themes: self-confidence; emotional awareness; connecting and communicating; self-regulated learning; students as researchers; and authentic learning. Our findings suggest that students independently recognise the authenticity of team-based LGDM projects, understanding how it will prepare them for life after university. We discuss the value team-based filmmaking projects can have in developing student skills and competencies (both digital and human) and relate this to recent literature on authentic assessment and technology enhanced learning.

Keywords:

• Digital
• skill development
• collaboration
• student reflection
• communication

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Sammy King Fai Hui, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

SUBJECTS:

• Biology
• Group Communication
• Mass Communication
• Higher Education
• Educational Technology
• Filmmaking and Postproduction

Introduction

Authentic assessment

Assessment for Learning (AfL) considers that all assessment (be it formative or summative) helps students to learn (Sambell et al., 2013). Authenticity is a critical component of AfL and is often described as having ‘real world’ relevance to activities enabling added value and greater personal meaning to students, while promoting both learning and employability (Sambell et al., 2013). Authentic assessment traces its origins to United States (US) schooling sector in the early 1990s and has seen several reframings (McArthur, 2023). Ashford-Rowe et al. (2014) outline eight critical elements of authentic assessment, which itself is a vital ingredient of authentic learning. They assert that authentic assessments should: (i) be challenging; (ii) have an outcome in the form of a performance or product; (iii) enable transfer of knowledge; (iv) ensure metacognition is demonstrated; (v) be accurate; (vi) be conducted in an appropriate environment (fidelity); (vii) require discussion and feedback; and (viii) require student collaboration. Villarroel et al. (2018) provide a different perspective, or ‘blueprint for course design’, having distilled 13 common features of authentic assessment from 112 articles into three key constituents: realism; cognitive challenge; and evaluative judgement. Realism relates to the ‘real world’ either in terms of framing the context of a problem to be solved, or in terms of giving learners tasks that are comparable to those they will face outside of their studies. Cognitive challenge relates to higher-order cognitive skills such as problem solving and synthesis of knowledge and critical analysis; thus, more than mere information recall. Finally, evaluative judgement relates to students being able to develop mechanisms for judging performances and for regulating their learning.

While the term ‘real world’ appears numerous times within the literature on authentic learning and assessment, McArthur (2023) argues that this concept is often conflated with the term ‘world of work’, and that both reinforce the ‘ivory tower’ stereotype of Higher Education (HE) as an entity separate from society. Instead, McArthur (2023) proposes educators ask themselves why that task matters in a societal context? It is a cognitive shift aimed at developing students as key members and transformers of society, each with a better sense of achievement and self-worth as well as improved wellbeing: ‘authentic assessment is not assessment that mirrors the world as it is, but that which pushes the possibilities of what the world could be’ (McArthur, 2023, p. 96). We shall return to this idea in our discussion.

The frameworks by Ashford-Rowe et al. (2014) and Villarroel et al. (2018) are well-cited references regarding authentic assessment design, however, Nieminen et al. (2023) point out that both lack reference to ‘the digital’. They argue that this is a non-trivial omission given the degree to which digital technologies are deeply embedded within society and that a key goal of higher education institutions is to prepare students for future work and life. They call for ‘closer attention to the role of the digital in both authentic assessment design and research’ (Nieminen et al., 2023, p. 537).

Digital media

Digitalization has been a mega-trend affecting employability in UK higher education in recent decades, affecting the job market (rending some jobs obsolete, while creating new opportunities). A greater emphasis on ‘lifelong learning’ has co-developed, ensuring individuals can keep pace with changing technologies and skills within the workplace ensuring job security (Kornelakis & Petrakaki, 2020). More recently, the Covid-19 pandemic caused a rush of digitalization within the education sector, but enhanced digital skills education and training is needed to help students ‘succeed in the digital age while curbing risks and inequality’ (Jackman et al., 2021).

Technology enhanced learning (TEL) is now ubiquitous in HE. Students and teachers view TEL as being ‘equalising, efficient, engaging, authentic, collaborative and flexible’ (Downie et al., 2021). The benefits of digital technology are often strongest when used as part of a blended learning approach to teaching (Kang & Kim, 2021; Mitra et al., 2010), and use of digital technology can create opportunities for students to personalise their learning (Alamri et al., 2021). Digital technology can facilitate the uptake of flipped classroom pedagogy, which can afford necessary time and space for authentic in-class activities (Porcaro et al., 2016). Use of digital tools and inclusion of videos in teaching material can provide a helpful medium for stimulating learner interest and for enabling deep learning (Mitra et al., 2010).

While there is ample evidence for the various merits of using digital technology as a teaching aid (such as video lectures) and as an assessment aid (Deeley, 2018; Downie et al., 2021; Jopp, 2020; Porcaro et al., 2016), there are few discussions on the benefits of learner-generated digital media (LGDM) (Reyna et al., 2021; Wakefield et al., 2022). Thus, there is a need for empirical, quantitative research and careful evaluation of the benefits of LGDM, including learner-generated video (henceforth referred to as filmmaking) (Greene & Crespi, 2012; Reyna et al., 2021).

Filmmaking projects can enable active and experiential learning (Greene & Crespi, 2012) and are ‘an excellent example of constructionist learning’ (Willmott, 2015, p. 128). They can create a strong sense of student ownership (Schuck & Kearney, 2006) and students have reported positive emotional responses to video production, motivated by the prospect that their product will have future use (Pirhonen & Rasi, 2017). Use of filmmaking within assessment facilitates student-centred learning, encouraging students to take up a more autonomous role in learning. Filmmaking projects also promote the acquisition of valuable skills such as teamwork and can benefit student self-esteem (Schuck & Kearney, 2006), while allowing students to engage deeply with their subject material (Mavroudi & Jöns, 2011). Additionally, by diversifying assessment methods within a programme of study, the overall evaluation of students’ abilities is arguably fairer, as video assessment can assess capabilities not captured by more traditional essays and exams (Cox et al., 2010). Filmmaking tasks embedded within a mixed portfolio of assessment (e.g. alongside a reflective journal and/or traditional literature review) can be an efficient model for learning subject knowledge as well as acquiring new skills (Mavroudi & Jöns, 2011; Pirhonen & Rasi, 2017; Reyna et al., 2021). These skills include independent research; digital literacy; teamwork; communicating complex topics to various audiences; problem-solving; and conflict resolution (Reyna et al., 2021). These map closely to many of the key capabilities identified for graduates by the National Union of Students and the Confederation of British Industry (CBI): self-management; teamworking; problem-solving; communication; application of numeracy; application of information technology; and business and customer awareness (Kornelakis & Petrakaki, 2020).

Bearman et al. (2023) identify three main reasons why educators chose to include digital aspects into assessment design: (1) enhancing the assessment design; (2) developing students’ digital capabilities; and (3) developing human capabilities within the digital world. Nieminen et al. (2023) report that (1) is by far the most common with 52 of the 55 studies they investigated falling into this category, with 29/55 aligning with (2) and only 8/55 associated with (3). Murray et al. (2023), outline a model for embedding filmmaking within an assessment portfolio as a tool for developing science communication skills and digital literacies. Their stated aims were to prepare students for life after graduation via: (i) development of a range of student skills (digital, academic and teamwork); (ii) improvement of students’ confidence in these skills; and (iii) reflection upon their experiences and insights into future practice. These most closely align with the least common ‘developing students’ digital capabilities’ and the ‘develop human capabilities’ motives outlined by Bearman et al. (2023), but also all three aspects of the blueprint by Villarroel et al. (2018). The filmmaking design by Murray et al. (2023) represented a ‘digitally transformed’ (vs ‘digitally enhanced’) approach, as per Puentedura’s (2006) SAMR (Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition) framework, by way in which they reframed the task of scientific research and communication through a filmmaking lens (see also Hamilton et al. (2016)). In this paper, we report the student perspective on this filmmaking model (Murray et al., 2023), focusing on students’ beliefs about how it prepared them for life after graduation.

Materials and methods

Filmmaking workshop overview

Within the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol (UK), Biology/Zoology/Plant Science undergraduates undertake an intensive week-long workshop at the end of their 2^nd year of study. For June 2018, we introduced a new option entitled 'Communicating Science through Filmmaking’ to which 20 students enrolled. The study was carried out on Biological Sciences students for no other reason than because all authors held teaching positions within the School and therefore had access to, and teaching responsibility for, this cohort at the time. Students worked in groups of 3 or 4 and learnt how to plan, shoot, source, edit and share a five-minute educational film on a pre-selected title. Scaffolding support for digital literacy is important (Nieminen et al., 2023) so prior to the workshop students were required to research their film topic, and to familiarise themselves with the filming and editing process via an interactive guide that the authors had co-produced with a recent graduate (http://tinyurl.com/filmmaking4students). Together with the video editing software Camtasia 9 (TechSmith Corporation, Michigan, U.S.), students used this guide to create a 30-second video clip about themselves which served as a formative activity. Summative assessment comprised of group marked storyboard component (10%) and the final group film (25%), as well as individual marks for a written literature review and discussion (35%), peer review (5%), and a reflective critique (25%). Full details can be found in Murray et al. (2023). We chose a portfolio of assessment to assess some key aspects of mastery and proficiency but also to enable student evaluation and critique abilities via reflective activities (Boud & Soler, 2016; Ono & Ichii, 2019). The intended learning outcomes of the workshop stated that by the end of the unit students should be able to:

• Develop competencies in the filmmaking process from start to finish;

• Manage time effectively;

• Work collaboratively with other people and divide tasks between group members;

• Recall key points in the subject investigated and be able to discuss them confidently and with a critical approach;

• Communicate effectively with the desired audience through media presentation.

The final films included a combination of footage students had filmed themselves, stock footage sourced freely online (e.g. pixabay.com) and animations they created (including stop-motion sequences and digital animation). Some student groups opted for presenter-led films, other chose a narrator-led format. Films were pitched for a general adult audience (i.e. the narrative should be accessible to a non-specialist audience). Examples of films produced by students (non-survey participants) on this filmmaking workshop can be found online at (https://www.youtube.com/@BristolBiologyFilms).

Research approach

We approached this research from an interpretivist philosophy, under this paradigm researchers seek to ‘understand, explain, and demystify social reality through the eyes of different participants’ (Cohen et al., 2007). This complimented our research approach as we were primarily interested in the students’ personal experiences of filmmaking. We used a mixed-methods approach to evaluate students’ perceived self-confidence in a range of skills and attributes before the project to establish a baseline, and then again directly afterwards to measure the impact of the project on the students’ experience (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011). The adoption of a mixed-method approach allowed us to combine quantitative and qualitative methods and analysis to explore our research phenomena – to understand what students faced within this new filmmaking challenge (Feilzer, 2010). Data collection took the form of pre-and post-workshop questionnaires as well as a guided reflective critique that students were required to complete as part of the assessment. Informed consent was acquired from all participants prior to data collection, and all participants were given the opportunity to opt-out at any time.

Questionnaires

Students were presented with 29 Likert-style questions and asked to rate their confidence in their ability to carry out specific tasks using a six-point scale: ‘not confident at all’; ‘not very confident’; ‘somewhat confident’; ‘confident’; ‘very confident’ and ‘completely confident’. Likert-style questions were identical between both pre- and post-workshop questionnaires and were classified into four categories: (1) academic confidence; (2) working with others; (3) communication; and (4) digital capabilities. The questionnaires also contained several open-ended questions which differed between the pre- and post-workshop questionnaire. The surveys were conducted using JISC Online Surveys (www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk).

Reflective critique

The purpose of completing the reflective critique exercise was to encourage students to focus and reflect on their own skills and abilities that would hone their lifelong learning and personal development competencies (Zubizarreta, 2009). Students submitted their reflective critiques by October 2018.

Data analysis

A concurrent triangulation design was adopted which enabled a greater depth of understanding of the research topic through the collection of different, yet complementary data (Creswell et al., 2003). This model was used as an efficient design allowing both data types (quantitative and qualitative) to be collected during the same research period. Each data type was analysed independently and then discussed, compared and contrasted together by all members of the research team to gain an in-depth and integrated interpretation of findings (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011) and explore emerging themes within the data.

Qualitative data were analysed via thematic analysis with a largely deductive and semantic approach using the six-stage process detailed in Braun and Clarke (2006; Braun et al., 2012). Our approach used computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software (NVivo Pro 12, QSR International). Additional measures were taken to ensure trustworthiness in the analysis process, including storing our data in a well-organized archive, reflexive journaling by all three authors, regular researcher triangulation and peer debriefing, a clear audit trail, as well as collective vetting and mapping of themes (Nowell et al., 2017). For the quantitative analysis, responses to the six-point Likert scales question were assigned a rank score value (‘not confident at all’ = rank score 1; ‘not very confident’ = 2; ‘somewhat confident’ = 3; ‘confident’ = 4; ‘very confident’ = 5; and ‘completely confident’ = 6). For each questionnaire (pre and post), mean rank scores were calculated for each of the four skills categories (academic; working with others; communication; digital capabilities) by averaging the scores for all questions in each category. The pre- and post-mean rank scores of the four categories were then compared using Welch two sample t-tests in R (v.3.6.1. R Core Team 2019). Anonymous student identifiers were missing from many of the post-workshop questionnaire responses preventing a more granular paired analysis of our data.

Results

Nineteen students participated in the pre- and post-workshop surveys, 17 of which consented to their reflective critiques being included in this research. Our findings can be described in six themes: self-confidence; emotional awareness; connecting and communicating; self-regulated learning; students as researchers; and authentic learning.

Theme 1: self-confidence

Our definition: Students reported an increase in their self-confidence in all skill areas and reflected on how this altered through time.

There was a significant improvement in students’ perceived confidence rank score values in all skill categories (academic skills, Welch t test (t = −6.76, d.f. = 5.50, p < 0.001); working with others, (t = 5.96, d.f. = 22.41, p < 0.001); communication skills, (t = −2.83, d.f. = 13.10, p = 0.014) and digital capabilities, (t = −3.66, d.f. = 3.94, p = 0.022)) after completing the workshop (Figure 1). Prior to undertaking the workshop, students appeared to lack confidence in their teamwork ability (Figure 1(b)) and showed variation in perceived confidence associated with their communication skills (Figure 1(c)). Considering the changes in confidence in academic skills in more detail, one of the most marked improvements was seen in students’ perceived ability to 'identify key features of a task/problem’, with 58% of students reporting that they were 'very confident’ or 'completely confident’ upon completion of the workshop compared with only 11% in the pre-workshop questionnaire (Figure 2).

Figure 1. Students showed an improvement in perceived confidence rank score values after completing the workshop. Overall change in student mean confidence rank before and after field course as determined from pre- and post-course questionnaires (n = 19 students). Responses from individual questions have been grouped and summarised into the broad categories of students’ confidence in their: (a) Academic skills, n = 4 questions; (b) Working with others, n = 13 questions; (c) Communication Skills, n = 9 questions; (d) Digital capabilities, n = 4 questions. Rank score values: (1) not confident at all; (2) not very confident; (3) somewhat confident; (4) confident; (5) very confident; and (6) completely confident. Tukey boxplots show the median and extent of the 25th and 75th percentiles, whiskers are shown with maximum 1.5 inter-quartile range. Two-sample t test significance values for unpaired comparisons are indicated as follows: * = p ≤ 0.05, ** = p ≤ 0.01, *** = p ≤ 0.001.

Figure 2. Changes in student confidence to questions on academic skills both pre- and post-completion of the workshop. Students recorded their responses in a 6-point Likert scale with the following categories: ‘not confident at all’; ‘not very confident’; ‘somewhat confident’; ‘confident’; ‘very confident’ and ‘completely confident’. Numbers represent percentages of students (n = 19) responding to each question according to a 6-point Likert scale.

Regarding skills associated with working with others, prior to the workshop no students reported 'complete confidence’ in their ability to 'introduce new ideas to group in which you work’ or to 'lead and co-ordinate a team’, compared with 26% in both skills at the end of the workshop (Figure 3). The largest increase in confidence was seen in students’ ‘ability to negotiate with other individuals/groups’; those reporting either ‘very’ or ‘completely confident’ rose from 21% to 68% (Figure 3). With regards to communication skills, no students perceived themselves to be 'completely confident’ in their abilities to 'present information to a group of people’ or to 'join in during class or group discussions’ prior to the workshop. When asked the same question after the workshop, 11% and 5% of students reported complete confidence in these skills respectively (Figure 4). Despite students reporting a generally high degree of confidence in their ability to carry out tasks related to digital capabilities prior to the workshop there were still noticeable increases in confidence by the end of the week. However, it can be deciphered that one student (5.3%) reported lower confidence for ‘establishing a process that would enable teams to work together well’ (Figure 3). Nevertheless, no students reported 'not confident at all’ in any skill after completing the week (Figures 2–5).

Figure 3. Change in student confidence to questions on working with others both pre- and post-completion of the workshop. Students recorded their responses in a 6-point Likert scale with the following categories: ‘not confident at all’; ‘not very confident’; ‘somewhat confident’; ‘confident’; ‘very confident’ and ‘completely confident’. Numbers represent percentages of students (n = 19) responding to each question according to a 6-point Likert scale.

Figure 4. Change in student confidence to questions on communication skills both pre- and post-completion of the workshop. Students recorded their responses in a 6-point Likert scale with the following categories: ‘not confident at all’; ‘not very confident’; ‘somewhat confident’; ‘confident’; ‘very confident’ and ‘completely confident’. Numbers represent percentages of students (n = 19) responding to each question according to a 6-point Likert scale.

Figure 5. Changes in student confidence to questions on digital capabilities both pre- and post-completion of the workshop. Students recorded their responses in a 6-point Likert scale with the following categories: ‘not confident at all’; ‘not very confident’; ‘somewhat confident’; ‘confident’; ‘very confident’ and ‘completely confident’. Numbers represent percentages of students (n = 19) responding to each question according to a 6-point Likert scale.

The qualitative analysis of the reflective critiques revealed a wide range of examples where students reported an increase in their self-confidence levels. These ranged from communication skills (with team members and/or different audiences), to making themselves heard and working with others. Indeed, quantitative results from the reflective critiques are well-supported by the students’ free-text comments in the post-workshop survey. In response to the question ‘What one/two skill(s) did you either gain or reaffirm during the [workshop]?’, participants described new or reaffirmed skills in the context of increased self-confidence, supporting the quantitative results from the Likert-scale responses. These skills frequently related to aspects of film production, such as video capture with a variety of equipment (e.g. use of mobile phone attachments and green screens), the sourcing of free stock footage, as well as the handling and editing of digital material in various software. Non-digital skills mentioned included problem-solving abilities, time management and organization, through to leadership, communication and group working.

Theme 2: emotional awareness

Our definition: Recognitions of own emotions (regardless of skill outcome); recognition of others’ emotions (e.g. team members or audience); and regulation of emotions (perhaps towards a future outcome).

Prior to starting the workshop, students reported multiple apprehensions. In response to ‘What are you most nervous about taking part in this [workshop]?’ students responded in three major areas: time management; the product (the finished film); and teamwork. Time management featured in relation to student concerns about running out of time, needing to rush, and thus not managing their time effectively throughout the project. This also linked with the concerns over the film itself, as students were concerned that they would not be able to produce a quality product. For example: ‘I'm nervous that it may not all go to plan and that we may feel rushed to get it done’; and ‘Being able to get the footage filmed and edited in time to a standard I will be proud to show the group at the end of the week’. Teamwork featured in students’ apprehensions concerning their ability to work well within a group of their peers, and this aspect was expanded on in the reflective critiques when describing their social experiences ‘[I] quite often feel very nervous and uneasy when meeting new people, and I have always preferred to work alone’.

In the reflective critiques, students demonstrated wide-ranging recognitions of both their own emotions and those of others. Examples include students commenting on their comfort levels, some were ‘pushed out of our comfort zones’ while others were respectful of the comfort levels of team members – ‘We all took the initiative to focus on tasks we were most comfortable with in order to meet our deadlines’. Enjoyment was another emotion that had presence, e.g. ‘the experience of learning an entirely new skill, different to anything else on the Biology course has been very interesting, and felt like the most productive, useful and enjoyable week of my degree that I have done so far’, which extended to happiness, contentment and enthusiasm. Many students also commented on a sense of pride they possessed for their final films and this pride extended towards their abilities to work as a team.

Theme 3: connecting and communicating with others

Our definition: Meeting new people and forging a sense of course community, practicing peer learning and communicating both within and beyond their team.

Students reported greater confidence in their team-working abilities, as described above (Figure 1(b)), and we found through the qualitative analysis that this extended to social experiences and community building. The apprehensions around meeting and working with new people indicated that the students did not know many people before starting the workshop (our cohort sizes range from 220–250). Nevertheless, students demonstrated an impressive ability to forge social relations and work professionally with one another during the week, offering team members praise and/or constructive feedback. There were instances of peer learning occurring because of working in teams – e.g. ‘The teamwork element of the course also allowed us to each learn skills from one another, as well as providing an opportunity to teach skills to others in the group.’. In addition, this led to new friendships and social connections ‘This [workshop] was also a great opportunity to form new friendships with like-minded students on my course with similar career aspirations’. This not only related to other students, but also provided the opportunity to interact with staff ‘…being in an environment where talking to lecturers and people in the community such as the botanic gardens staff who have more life experience than myself has been very valuable … with this providing an experience that lectures often cannot supply’.

Students demonstrated consideration of the needs, experience, or emotions of others including those within their team, interviewees (for their films) and of their target audience. The recognition of listening and respect for others was clear, for example ‘empathy was also important even during times when I disagreed with other individuals, as I learnt to try to understand other people’s point of views and remain open minded and respect their opinions and ideas’.

Theme 4: self-regulated learning

Our definition: Making deliberate selection and use of strategies to set direction, including flexibility to adapt to and negotiate challenges or distractions and taking responsibility for specific outcomes whilst holding oneself and others accountable.

Students reflected on their experiences of regulating their learning and improvements of self-assessment in related skillsets including team management (leadership, delegation), active learning (responding to feedback, using initiative/creativity), meeting challenges (flexibility of working practice, adapting to needs of others, negotiating distractions), and individual accountability (time management, preparation and organisation of work).

Students also reflected on their individual performance in preparation for the workshop and noticed that topic research was key as it afforded them enough time to effectively plan and create the film within the week. For example, ‘research [was very valuable] as it made writing our script much quicker, enabling more time for the filming and editing of the video which is the most time consuming part’. Other students recognised that additional research before the workshop could have prepared them better. Students commented that the formative 30 second film task was a valuable experience as it allowed them to familiarise themselves with the software ahead of the course. For example, in response to being asked to identify value aspects of the pre-course tasks one students commented: ‘The 30 second video – it would have taken a long time to learn how to use the software if we hadn’t’. Students also recognised the value of effective planning, specifically contingency planning, as many came across problems throughout the week such as strong winds rendering some audio that they had recorded unusable.

In the process of delegating tasks within their groups, students frequently recognized their strengths and weaknesses as well as those of their team members. They used this rationale to allocate duties and/or to maintain flexibility to meet challenges as they arose; e.g. ‘working in a group to complete such a large task in a relatively short period of time demanded a united yet flexible work ethic to ensure maximum productivity of the team. Before producing the film, we discussed each individual’s interests, skills and abilities in different components of the film making process in order to negotiate roles’. This workshop also fostered creativity in the students as they had to explore a biological topic in a novel format where artistic creativity [oft constrained within traditional scientific lab reports and essay assessments] was encouraged and rewarded – ‘this whole process has made me feel more confident and comfortable with my own creative skills and the value of that is huge in expressing myself creatively in a scientific way or otherwise’. This use of creativity and/or initiative led to active learning and students responding to feedback, which was ultimately recognised as valuable practice, e.g. ‘during the creation of the film, giving and accepting criticism from staff, peers or teammates is essential. I believe my ability to give, process and incorporate feedback into my work improved throughout the [workshop], especially following the criticisms regarding our storyboard’.

Theme 5: students as researchers

Our definition: Students practicing research both within and outside their curriculum, deepening their subject learning as well as applying these skills to associated activities.

Students took ownership of their own learning to become subject-matter experts, leading to them being able to extract and present the most relevant or important information, for instance ‘I learnt how to turn scientific research found in papers into engaging information for the general public and how select what facts are most memorable and important to include’. This command of independent research techniques was not limited to the subject curriculum, as it commonly extended to researching the filming techniques they were going to use and troubleshooting problems encountered with film editing. It also extended into researching the wider academic community to find alternative interviewees; ‘I researched online to find other academics… …who specialised in pollinators’.

Theme 6: authentic learning

Our definition: Using experiences to provide insight into future life, academic practice or careers.

Students frequently discussed realising the importance of a skill, activity or even the difficulty of a task presented. Students recognised the authenticity of the assessment set and were able to relate experiences and skills gained to future life. Sometimes this was in relation to their degree programmes, e.g. ‘moving forward, I am looking forward to applying [successes in time management and organisation] to my final year of university, where my time management and organisational skills will once again be tested, but now knowing I can do it through efficient delegation and concentrated motivation, it should no longer be a hinderance to my confidence’. However, more commonly this was focused on their future career options, e.g. ‘developing skills in these areas [cooperation, listening, consideration of others’ emotions] will be highly useful for my future career’. Some recognised the transferability of skills and experiences; for example, ‘although I am currently aiming for a career in research, videos are expanding as a tool for scientific communication, for example with video abstracts now being common. This makes the experience I’ve gained in video production valuable and relevant to my goals’. Similarly, ‘[the workshop] provided me with a number of skills and scenarios I'd be able to refer back to in a job application or interview’.

During the workshop we invited professionals from the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) to talk about their careers in TV and radio. This was particularly well received by students and may have resulted in a transformative experience for some students, as indicated by this remark: ‘I had never considered a career path in natural history radio and so was particularly interested to hear more about the field… I was curious to find out more about what it is like being a female presenter’.

Discussion

Our results indicate that use of filmmaking-projects can increase student confidence in academic skills, teamwork, communication (including listening), and their digital capabilities. Our findings corroborate earlier research on the value of video projects in relation to self-esteem (Schuck & Kearney, 2006), engagement with subject material (Mavroudi & Jöns, 2011) and a variety of transferable skills (Reyna et al., 2021). Results also highlight the authentic nature of filmmaking projects and their value for students during their degree studies and beyond.

Student self-confidence

Students’ perceptions of their own abilities are powerful forces shaping their degree of success (Sander & Sanders, 2006). As students undertake a programme of study, they are exposed to multiple learning experiences that can influence these perceptions and feelings of accomplishment. While the output of each experience may bolster an individual’s self-confidence, negative experiences can also undermine it. For instance, repeated success in academic tasks can help to develop a robust sense of self-efficacy, whereas failure in these same tasks may reduce a student’s belief in their ability (Bandura, 2001). Incidentally, this may provide some explanation for the single instance where a lower state of confidence was reported in the post- vs pre-workshop questionnaire (see Theme 1: Self-confidence). Sander and Sanders (2006, p. 31) argue that while mastery experience is very important, the social environment should have more consideration in ‘development and maintenance of academic confidence beliefs’. Bandura (1977) states four ways in which self-efficacy is influenced: (i) mastery experiences; (ii) social modelling/vicarious experiences; (iii) social persuasion; and (iv) physical and emotional states. Over the duration of workshop there was a noticeable relationship between student confidence and their sense of accomplishment and attainment in all these areas. Students noted mastery of new skills in filmmaking, time-management, and using technical equipment. By working with others, students were able to adapt and model their behaviour by responding to the needs to the group. Several students commented on their ability to negotiate and delegate work thus demonstrating abilities for social persuasion to achieve a common goal. Also, many students showed recognition of their own emotional state (as well as those of others) and an ability to regulate their emotions.

When students observe peers (especially those similar to themselves) succeed because of their efforts, this boosts their own confidence via social modelling. Students frequently assess their own performances against various external frames of reference. These include: (i) direct observation of peers’ achievements; (ii) feedback from peers; (iii) feedback from teachers; (iv) feedback from others outside of the class; and (v) grades (Sander & Sanders, 2006). Thus, the team-based nature of our filmmaking task likely had a strong influence on student development and provided students with additional opportunities (vs making films as individuals) to improve their confidence in their academic skills, their ability to work with others, to communicate and to improve digital capabilities. By exposing students to peer learning and group work, educators can provide enhanced opportunity for social comparison (specifically (i) and (ii) above) as well as providing more opportunity for vicarious learning to foster students’ confidence. Peer learning is associated with developing student confidence in both subject content and independent learning (Secomb, 2008; Vickerman, 2009), as well as helping to diversify students’ learning experiences (Vickerman, 2009). We agree with Lancastle (2012), that the process of producing videos can provide an effective avenue for vicarious experiential learning.

Authenticity

Many of the student participants related their experiences to their considerations about the future. Students themselves recognised various authentic aspects of the filmmaking task (including time management, organisation, cooperation, listening, consideration of others’ emotions, and digital capacity) and how their experiences would help them prepare for their professional lives. The authenticity of digital/technological aspects of the filmmaking task is obvious for some of our biological sciences students who are keen to pursue careers in natural history filmmaking, but the ability to source, create, edit and produce digital media in various formats is a valuable 21^st century skill. Indeed, based on recent survey results there is a need for greater digital literacy adaptability as well as industry-relevant experience within curricula (Morgan et al., 2022). The ability to complete tasks in a short timeframe and collaboratively with colleagues was also recognised by the students as valuable for their future lives. Interestingly, Villarroel et al. (2018) report that collaboration and decision-making abilities are not a common feature of the authentic assessment literature despite their relative importance as transferable skills to employers. Again, by completing these filmmaking projects in teams our students needed to use skills and competencies that mirror those they will need to employ in their future jobs.

Value to society?

Bearman et al. (2023) include ‘develop human capabilities within a digital world’ as their third rationale for educators including digital aspects in assessment design, thus relating to the intersection between people and the digital. They emphasise the importance of ‘uniquely human characteristics’ that cannot be replaced by machines. Many of these characteristics shone through in our qualitative analysis, such as creativity, collaboration, empathy and compassion. We feel that embedding the film product within an assessment portfolio that includes elements of personal reflection is a sustainable (Boud, 2000; Boud & Soler, 2016) model and encourages the parallel development of students’ data literacy, technological literacy, and human literacy.

The sense of pride students had in their finished films compliments research from other forms of LGDM, such as learner generated podcasts (Wakefield et al., 2022). This pride existed despite student films being broadcast to only a restricted audience (staff, students and guests directly involved in running the workshop). Theory by Reyna and Meier (2018b) suggests that uploading finished media products to open platforms (e.g. YouTube) will provide an additional boost to both student motivation, but we also suspect that showcasing films to a wider audience would also boost pride and confidence too. This returns us to McArthur’s (2023) ideas about students being transformers of society, and how LGDM like filmmaking may enable this to be achieved during students’ studies as well as post-graduation.

Nieminen et al. (2023) included ‘fostering communality’ as an additional reason to include digital aspects into authentic assessment. This is the notion that students work together not just collaboratively with each other but with other communities to foster good for the latter. In our workshop, students were given a shortlist of film topics that had been chosen by staff to cover a range of biological themes and which overlapped with staff expertise. But what if students were asked to create educational films on specific themes for targeted and/or broader beneficiaries? The possibilities are numerous but here are three examples. (1) Videos could be aligned with a topic on the national curriculum such that the product is watched by school children as part of their education each year. (2) Films could be produced on topical themes aligning to the needs of policy makers (e.g. local councils) thus briefing them on a current topic due for debate. (3) Students could be tasked with creating a short video to boost the scope and impact of an upcoming research publication via TikTok. This final example could provide great value given the reach of social media platforms and the way in which short format videos have become popularised. This would require modifications to the model we used (see Murray et al., 2023), specifically the need for additional time and structured activities dedicated to ‘audience research’ forcing students to consider the audience perspective to new depths. All options would (to different degrees) allow students to practice communicating beyond the academic bubble. Doing so should foster greater empathy within participating students and afford them the opportunity to relate their disciplinary knowledge not only with ‘big issues’ but also with the finer detail of people’s everyday lives – something McArthur (2023) also discusses.

Limitations and further work

While students were overwhelmingly positive when evaluating the workshop and recognised numerous authentic elements associated with filmmaking tasks, we recognise that many of the aforementioned skills and capabilities can be achieved by applying a team-based approach to other assessment modes. Filmmaking is merely one of many tools which educators can use to transform an authentic assessment to one which includes opportunities for students to improve their digital capabilities and their human capabilities within the digital world. We chose video creation specifically as natural history filmmaking is a strong desire of many undergraduate students within our school, yet Reyna et al. (2017) provide a useful taxonomy of LGDM assignments, highlighting the considerations needed when using these various LGDM assessments. All require ’conceptual’ elements (i.e. research and storyboarding), but the various modes vary in their ’functional’ and ’audio-visual’ domains. Some, like podcasts, require only audio only components, whereas others (like our films) allow students to develop both audio and visual digital capabilities.

Bearman et al. (2023) suggest that potential harms of digital technology should be reported in publications rather than just the benefits of new tools/assessment designs. In the most recent iteration of this workshop (June 2023) some students (and staff) discovered the ease by which short films could be created using freely available artificial intelligence (AI) online (e.g. www.kapwing.com). While the AI generated videos were not comparable in quality to the students’ own efforts, it serves as a reminder that advances in AI are likely to create authorship uncertainties for LGDM projects in the future, just as they exist for written work already (Cotton, Cotton and Shipway 2024). Similarly, it is important for us to highlight challenges based on our reflections having taught this workshop for six years. Firstly, we urge educators to consider how strict they wish to be when setting the parameters for team-based LGDM projects. Each year we encounter some students who have extensive pre-existing digital capabilities (e.g. editing experience) and others have access to their own filmmaking equipment (e.g. drones, expensive cameras, and editing software subscriptions). It can be a challenge to strike the right balance between allowing those students to use non-standard equipment, hone their skills and flourish, while also preserving some parity in the assessment across all groups. This ties closely with inclusivity and opportunity and should be considered when designing courses and when writing the marking criteria for the assessment. The other main point for consideration relates to teamwork issues. Having a clear strategy for how to deal with unacceptable behaviour is important, but so is a policy for dealing with cases where one group member has extenuating circumstances that cannot, for personal reasons, be discussed with other members of the group. From our experience, these factors test our own teamworking, problem-solving, listening and communication skills as educators.

Our quantitative and qualitative data indicate a boost in student confidence following completion of the assignment. Yet, it is difficult to ascertain the relative importance of (a) the filmmaking task, with (b) the intensive structure of the week, and (c) the teamwork component, when considering these results. Broadening the study to include reflections from students who attended one or more of the alternative week-long workshops within our school could have provided some insight into the relative importance of these components. Reflections were completed within several weeks of the workshop itself and therefore submitted while still fresh in students’ minds. Future work could investigate the longevity of the self-confidence boost shown, as well as the role other specific components of our assessment/workshop had. For instance, does the dominance of individual assessments within many degree programmes slowly erode students’ confidence in their own teamwork and communication skills? Students worked in groups of 3–4 during our workshop, but it would be interesting to investigate how altering group size may affect student confidence in these same skills. Would working in larger groups result in enhanced confidence via positive vicarious experiences and social persuasion? Future research could investigate what impact broader sharing of the final product has on student confidence.

In our study, we held a communal screening of all student films on the final day of the workshop and invited an industry professional to informally judge the films. Sharing of LGDM products is believed to be important in boosting student motivation with the task (Reyna et al., 2018a), but to what extent did the presence of industry professionals influence the gain in student confidence reported here? The final screening event would have offered students a chance to assess their own success against numerous frames of reference – direct observation of peers’ achievements, feedback from peers, feedback from teachers, and feedback from a professional outside of the class. Given that many students who chose this filmmaking workshop were keen on careers in natural history filmmaking, we think it is likely that the positive feedback from the industry professional would have had influence on students’ confidence in their own abilities, but this could be quantified in future work and aligned to the concept of ‘pre-professional identity’ which ‘relates to an understanding of and connection with the skills, qualities, conduct, culture and ideology of a student’s intended profession’ (Jackson, 2016, p. 925). Our study involved intradisciplinary student groupwork, but future research could investigate whether transdisciplinary student LGDM projects result in greater gains for students. We suspect that exposure to a broader range of student perspectives and skillsets could generate a greater increase in individual student confidence across all four skill areas investigated here. For instance, it is intuitive to see how transdisciplinary group assessments could result in an increase in confidence to the question ‘communicate with colleagues who are very different from you’ as well as others listed in Figure 3. Confidence gains have been reported in other non-LGDM multidisciplinary projects (Victory Brodman et al., 2023).

Conclusions

Our study shows the positive effects a team-based filmmaking assessment can have for undergraduate students, both during their degree and in preparation for life after university. We demonstrate it is possible to include digital media tasks within student assessment and that this aligns to the key aspects of authenticity identified in recent pedagogic literature. We provide evidence that including digital elements within assessment can help develop students’ human capabilities with a digital world and that – depending on the specifics of the filmmaking task – there can be opportunity for the film to be of benefit to wider society too. Not only do students find such opportunities fun and engaging but they can play a key role in developing student confidence in their academic skills, give then an autonomous role in their learning, as well as opportunities to practice teamwork, communication and digital literacy skills. Together these multi-facetted outcomes can support students for life after graduation. Using films as a novel means of assessment is not just limited to biological sciences but could be adopted across multiple disciplines, using either intra- or trans-disciplinary groups of students. We believe that that model presented by Murray et al. (2023) serves as a useful blueprint for enhancing students’ subject knowledge, digital and human capabilities, as well as a range of other transferable skills across academic disciplines. The process led to gains in student confidence and with subtle tweaking this type of LGDM project could result in a much more powerful output that benefits not only the student creators but also a variety of audiences beyond the academic marker.

Ethical statement

Ethical approval was gained for this project via the University of Bristol Faculty of Life Sciences and Science Research Ethics Committee (reference ID: 66521) in April 2018.

Authors’ contributions

Emily Bell had the original idea for this project; Andy Wakefield drafted the manuscript; all three authors contributed equally to study design, data collection and analysis.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to personally thank Dr Jane Pritchard for her guidance during the grant application phase and Alice Flannery, an undergraduate student partner, who helped create the online filmmaking guide.

Disclosure statement

There are no declarations of competing interest with regards to this project.

Additional information

Funding

The authors thanks the funders of this projects, the Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT).

Notes on contributors

A. Wakefield

Andy Wakefield is an education-focused academic and Digital Champion at the University of Bristol. His research interests involve authentic learning and assessment, applied ecology, science communication, and sustainability.

R. R. Murray

Rose Murray is an educational-focused academic at the University of Bristol. Her pedagogic research interests lie in the areas of inclusive assessment and feedback and student support in higher education. She is also interested in sustainability with regards to food production and the education thereof.

E. Bell

Emily Bell is an educational-focused academic at the University of Bristol. Her pedagogic research interests lie in the areas of transitions throughout higher education and integrating wellbeing and resilience throughout curriculums. Alongside her educational interests, Emily also continues her social insect-based biological research.