Evaluation

Final Evaluation

In my evaluation, I will assess how far our final documentary has met or exceeded my aims and objectives that I set out at the beginning of the project. I will methodically discuss the strengths and weaknesses and then suggest meaningful actions for improvements to our final video.

Leadership

Aim: To be a fair leader that group members find approachable

Objectives

• To listen to everyone during group discussions

Strengths: I feel that this was not a problem and I did this well throughout the process. During group discussions, I would often ask for group members to contribute ideas and we would all listen to each other actively before offering our feedback and criticism. There was often no interruptions or lack of attentiveness. 

Weaknesses: Sometimes, I felt like I would be too absorbed with my own work and may not give my group members my full attention. Thus, I couldn't focus on their contributions and actually use them to the best extent to aid us in achieving our goal.

Improvements: In the future, I think I need to better recognise the value of listening attentively over concentrating on my own work for a bit longer. Even though it's good to stay focused, I think it's more important to focus during group discussions.

• To respect all group members' opinions

Strengths: I was able to always consider and respect my team's opinions during group discussions. Even though, sometimes their ideas could be quite farfetched, I still wouldn't immediately shut them down but rather discuss with them about how to turn their idea into reality. 

Weaknesses: I found that after I made a decision and my group members would continue throwing ideas at me, I would begin to respond curtly. I wouldn't completely ignore them but I would stay firm in my own decision. Looking back, this was not the best thing to do because it demonstrated that I did not properly consider their ideas. 

Improvements: To improve, I need to work on my active listening skills and be mindful that each members' opinions are just as worthwhile as my own. This will not only ensure that team members know that their opinions are valued but perhaps make them more willing to share ideas with the team.

• To calmly resolve any disagreements and make sure that the group reaches a consensus

Strengths: Whenever we had disagreements, which rarely happened, our group was able to discuss it and reach an agreement. For example, we disagreed on who should be saying the voiceover (even though this is typically the director's role). After a group discussion, we voted that this task should fall to me and thus, reached an agreement in a simple manner. 

Weaknesses: I think that our group often disagreed on unimportant matters that came from outlandish ideas group members spurred out during discussions. Even though we were quick to overcome these issues, I think that these tiny problems disrupted our productivity as a team.

Improvements: I think I should have set out an expectation at the beginning of the project, for the ideas being suggested to be practical and actually achievable. Thus, we could have avoided several extra discussions and been more productive in general.

• To give fair feedback to each group member

Strengths: I was able to do this quite well throughout the project. For example, when the information designer sent his first draft to me, after reviewing his graphics I informed him of the things I liked about his work, as well as a couple of areas for improvement. This showed that I did not simply focus on the negatives, but rather gave balanced feedback and offered praise when deserved. Similarly, I also encouraged my group members to give feedback to each other and this was done quite well. To illustrate, not only did I provide feedback to the information designer regarding his draft graphics, but the production technician and editors also gave their own criticisms and suggestions. 

Weaknesses: I feel that sometimes my feedback was quite repetitive and lacked depth. Even though it is challenging to elaborate on things like making the background music softer, I think that I could have added a bit more detail to my comments. 

Improvements: In the future, I need to try to give more precise feedback and perhaps break down my comments into smaller sections about certain aspects, instead of just a generalised comment. 

Communication

Aim: To keep in touch with group members and monitor their progress

Objectives

• To be active in the Whatsapp group chat

Strengths: I was always active in the group chat and responded quickly whenever group members had questions or wanted my help. My group members were also active in the group chat too and would offer their own opinions and guidance to fellow members' questions. 

Weaknesses: A minor weakness was that sometimes I would fail to read my messages as quickly as I would like to. I also found that at times, group members wouldn't understand what I meant over text, leading to our progress slowing down.

Improvements: I think that as well as using technology to communicate with each other if team members wanted an extra bit of guidance, I should have arranged to meet with them during lunchtime or break time. This would overcome the problem of misunderstanding my messages.

• To make sure each group member understands their task and feels comfortable to ask for help

Strengths: I mostly used the Whatsapp group chat to help me with this objective. Usually, after the lesson, I would send a message to remind group members what they should be trying to do over the week before the next lesson. Furthermore, my group members always contacted me through the group chat if they had any questions regarding their tasks or just wanted some advice on how to improve their work. I think our group had a very friendly atmosphere and we weren't afraid to voice our opinions. This definitely helped make sure we all felt comfortable and made the project more enjoyable. 

Weaknesses: At the very start of the project, I felt that our team was a bit divided in terms of our years- three of our members were Year 11s and two were from Year 10. Therefore, sometimes the Year 10s would discuss ideas and ask for help between themselves. However, quickly we soon became better acquainted and this no longer was a problem. 

Improvements: In the future, I think I would have initiated more icebreaker activities at the beginning of the project so that we could all get to know each other better. This could help us get familiar with each other quicker and improved the group dynamic earlier on.

• To set up a planning document where each group member's task for each week is clearly set

Strengths: I set up a planning document at the start of the project with the help of the planning resources provided to us. In this document, it listed out the blog tasks that should be completed each week and I also used this document to note down separate tasks other than completing the blog. 

Weaknesses: The team did not refer to this document as frequently as I would have liked them to, instead they used the group chat to confer with me. Also, sometimes I would not update the document regularly since I found our group chat conversations to be sufficient and my instructions during these conversations to be clear enough. Therefore, during the middle of the project, I neglected the document and did not make good use of it. 

Improvements: I should have continuously used the planning document throughout the whole project and establish that document as the place where all my instructions would be. I think I could have also improved how the document was laid out. By setting up additional columns for reminders and a system to prioritise tasks, I think this would have overall improved our planning process. 

Management

Aim: To produce a documentary of good quality that meets the assessment criteria

Objectives

• To regularly check that the work being produced fits within the assessment criteria

Strengths: During the final bit of the production process, I would check the brief given to us and make sure that we were completing each section of the criteria. For example, when I was writing the script, I referred back to the brief and ensured that I included all the different informational aspects our video required. Therefore, in the end, our documentary included all the necessary aspects as stated by the assessment criteria. Furthermore, I would also remind my group members of what they were required to produce, such as instructing the editor to include cross-dissolve transitions or making sure the production technician was filming relevant B-roll and sourcing relevant still images from the internet. 

Weaknesses: A weakness was that some of the B-roll was not in 1080p HD quality but rather at a lower resolution. Even though I don't think this affected the documentary as a whole, it would have been preferable if the whole video was of a high resolution. 

Improvements: I think the weakness I mentioned above was a result of me not explicitly making it clear to the team that they should be regularly checking the video brief. If I included the assessment criteria in our planning document, I think this problem could have been avoided.

• Use a range of primary and secondary sources

Strengths: In terms of the research behind the content of the voiceover, I mostly used secondary sources such as reliable websites and statistics obtained from organisations. I made use of the information from the interview we did with a professional horticulturist during the section about the consequences of the issue. However, aside from that single primary source, most of my sources were secondary. 

Weaknesses: There was a lack of primary sources in our research because we did not try to obtain primary research through contacting NGOs, other than the interview we conducted. 

Improvements: Even though I think our research was sufficient, an improvement could be to try to obtain additional primary research by contacting a local NGO. This could have been done simply in the form of an email.

• Organise interviews with organisations and professionals

Strengths: One interview with a horticulturist that works at Island School was conducted as well as three public opinion surveys. Although the public opinion surveys were obviously not with professionals or NGOs, this was a required aspect of the documentary. However, I still feel that our team should have contacted a local NGO linked with the issue of food waste because not only would it have aided our primary research, but we could also have gotten more A-roll footage to use in the documentary. 

Weaknesses: I think this objective was not set well. This is because I set this objective without keeping in mind that an interview is no longer required in the documentary, but rather public opinion surveys that try to identify what the public knows about our issue. 

Improvements: In the future, I need to set more relevant objectives that are appropriate to the aim of meeting the assessment criteria. This can simply be achieved if I changed my objective to organising public opinion surveys with members of the public, instead of focusing on interviews.

• Collect relevant facts and statistics from reliable secondary sources

Strengths: I collected many attestable and trustworthy facts and statistics during my secondary research. This is because whilst researching, I tried to use reputable sources like the United Nations or governmental organisations and strayed away from using information that comes from unreliable sources like blogs. An example of an admissible and reliable statistic I found was the composition of Hong Kong's municipal solid waste which I sourced from the Hong Kong Waste Reduction website. 

Weaknesses: Most of the facts in our secondary research was focused on Hong Kong or the world as a whole. There was a lack of information that focused on the practices of other major countries, such as the USA or the UK.

Improvements: To extend our secondary research, in the future I need to try to include other national statistics to demonstrate the scope of the issue. This can also provide additional reliability to what our documentary is trying to convey.

• Work with the editor to make sure the technical side of the documentary is completed well

Strengths: Prior to the actual editing process, I made my editing instructions clear on the script document and discussed with them what my vision for the documentary was. During the editing process, the editors would give us regular progress updates or ask for the team's opinions on creative decisions through the group chat.  Before the draft videos were uploaded to Youtube, I also made sure the editors shared the video with the group so we could all watch it over, provide feedback and the editors could adjust it accordingly. This meant that not only did I work with the editor but our whole team worked closely with the editors too. Furthermore, I reminded the editors of the technical requirements as stated in the assessment criteria, and made sure that they were exporting the video in the correct resolution and quality. 

Weaknesses: A weakness that occurred was that the editors only began to properly edit quite late. Even though in the end we met the deadline, because of time constraints, it was challenging to provide extensive feedback and for all the changes to be applied before the deadline. This pulled down the quality of the documentary because there were some obvious areas for improvement in the draft video uploaded to Youtube. 

Improvements: I could have set an earlier deadline for the video, such as two days before the actual deadline so that I could use this time to review the video and the editors would have a comfortable amount of time to apply the final touches.

• Work with the production technician to check that all footage is filmed in an appealing way

Strengths: I collaborated well with the production technician too throughout the production process. I gave him directions on what type of shots I was hoping to get for the public opinion surveys and the B-roll but he was able to take my suggestions further and apply his own creative ideas too. Additionally, I reminded the production technician to borrow filming equipment prior to filming day and made sure he kept on top of it. 

Weaknesses: Even though I worked well with the production technician, I don't think I met the objective in terms of checking that all footage is filmed in an appealing way. This is due to my lack of expertise in the filming side of things, and even though I did provide some advice, I feel that my comments were quite generalised and weren't constructive enough. However, overall I think the production technician was skillful enough and did not require too much of my help regarding the technical side of things. 

Improvements: Something I could have tried to do more of was to get the group to feedback on their thoughts about the footage. As mentioned before, this was done extensively for the editing process but comparatively, rather limited for the filming process. Therefore, this could have compensated my lack of expertise.

• Work with the information designer to ensure that all graphics created are relevant

Strengths: I worked with the information designer the most because often, he required extra guidance which I offered accordingly. I created a document that outlined the graphics I hope he could make and the section of the voiceover it would accompany. I think this document was extremely effective because it was what the information designer relied on during his creative process and helped me achieve my objective consistently too. I also encouraged him to send short clips of his graphics to me on Whatsapp so I could help him and provide some ideas on how to make them better. For example, I suggested to him to use a colour scheme and to use a more visually appealing font. In the end, he produced information graphics of excellent quality which I am very happy about. 

Weaknesses: The information designer had many different ideas at the start and only some of which were achievable. Therefore, I had to reject some of his ideas. Additionally, at times he wouldn't understand my directions and I would get frustrated.   

Improvements: To improve, I should have tried my best to turn his visions into reality by discussing with him on how to change his ideas, instead of coming up with my own separate ideas for him to use. Furthermore, I only created the document previously mentioned quite late into the process, so to improve, I think I should have structured this document earlier on. 

-------

Other than the aims and objectives I set out for the video, I also established a couple of collaboration and communication objectives at the start of the project. Below, I will evaluate how far I have met or exceeded these objectives

Collaboration Objectives

1. To demonstrate conflict-resolution dispositions, such as the harmoniser when necessary

2. To always put myself in others' shoes in order to show sensitivity to group members' feelings

3. To lead by example, such as making sure I always meet deadlines and pay 100% effort to all the work I do

4. To ensure that group members all contribute even amounts

Strengths: I think I successfully met all of these objectives, especially the first three. This project has allowed me to improve my conflict-resolution dispositions not because I necessarily had to resolve conflict during this project, but I learnt how to avoid unnecessary conflict and build team consensus. Moreover, I effectively led by example because I always put in my best effort into my work and kept up with my own tasks. If my group members needed my help, I would try my best to help them and made sure they knew they could approach me if they ever needed guidance.
Weaknesses: A weakness that I had was ensuring that group members contributed even amounts. Sometimes, members would prioritise other commitments over the project, leading to others having to compensate for it. Even though it is very challenging to make sure each member contributed exactly even amounts, I think the work was split up quite fairly and each group member always pulled their own weight in the end.
Improvements: In the future, I should make sure group members notifies the team of extra commitments they have. Therefore, the team can split up our workload around these extra commitments and better help us ensure that all group members contribute evenly. 

Communication Objectives

1. To ensure that the information in the video is not too complex so that the audience can stay engaged

2. To use literary conventions in voiceovers, such as rhetorical questions or imagery

3. To organise the media in the documentary well so that the audience can follow through and in the end, be informed of our topic

Strengths: I believe I have met all of these communication objectives too. During my voiceover script writing, I kept in mind the understanding of the audience and made sure I explained clearly what the issue was in simple language. Furthermore, I included some literary conventions in the voiceover such as rhetorical questions and used emotive language too. I did this because I hoped that this could better engage the audience and keep their attentiveness. In terms of the organisation of the video, I structured it methodically by introducing the topic at the beginning, explaining the causes of the issue, the significance of it, the consequences and finally by briefly explaining the action our team took. In terms of the media in the documentary, I made sure the B-roll was not bland, but instead visually appealing and much more interesting than just a couple of still images. Moreover, there were appropriate cuts between the A-roll and B-roll which overall enhances the effect of the documentary. I think the systematic organisation of the content in the video ensured that the audience could follow through and gain the most out of it.
Weaknesses: A weakness that the video had was the lack of B-roll footage that wasn't sourced from the internet. We struggled to find applicable B-roll that we could film ourselves that would look professional.

Improvements: To improve, I think we should have still filmed lots of B-roll footage even if it was unprofessional because then we could have had lots of footage to work with. With a lot of material to work with, there was bound to be footage that looked professional enough to be used in the video. 

Originality & Creativity

Originality and Creativity

Here is the link to our final documentary, with timestamps at the bottom explaining my creative and technical decisions.

0:01- we decided to use crackling music in the background as a classy way to indicate decay, and set the overall mood of the video. 

0:15- for our title sequence, we used pictures of rotting food as an indication of our topic of food waste. I also told the editor to choose a calligraphy font style because I thought it would add a nice touch to the title sequence and the elegance of it would contrast the pictures in the background.

0:25 - 0:38 - we decided to start the video by putting in the responses of our public opinion survey to the question of "how much do you know about food waste?" This is because we noticed that the answers were all similar and so it provided good insight into why such a documentary is necessary in order to raise awareness of the issue of food waste. I personally think that this was effective because not only was it filmed with good camera angles and clear audio, it also keeps the audience hooked at the beginning.

0:40- we decided to use this background music throughout the whole documentary because it's uplifting yet does not invoke any emotions. This is so that the audience can stay focused on the voiceovers and not get distracted by exciting background music. This style of music is also similar to the type of music usually heard in video essays and so it fits the genre of a documentary.

0:44- for our B-roll footage, we sourced videos of supermarkets and grocery stores online- typical places where food is often wasted and something that is often referenced in my voiceover explanation. This is because it will help keep the audience engaged and provide visual links to what the voiceover is trying to explain.

1:05 - 1:22 - voiceover explanation of the causes of the food waste issue begins. For my voiceover, I recorded it in a more natural state and imagined that I was having a conversation with someone. I did not want to invoke a mood that I was announcing something, but rather simply talking to the audience about the issue at hand. I think that this voiceover could have been improved if I used a pop filter to reduce plosive sounds that can often be heard in this particular recording.

1:24 - 1:37 - further responses during our public opinion survey about how much they know about food waste. We grouped these answers together because we saw a link between them, and it provided a good introduction to the next section about the video on the significance of food waste.

1:38 - 2:24 - voiceover explanation of the significance of food waste globally and locally, accompanied by an information sequence. I think the information sequence was particularly effective as it was created so that the timing would fit the voiceover exactly. Not only did the animations convey the most important facts in a concise manner, but it was also visually appealing, therefore keeping the audience engaged. Personally, I am particularly happy with the pie chart at 2:02, because it provided the most visual aid in the simplest way possible.

2:25 - 2:58 - voiceover explanation of the consequences of the issue supplemented with another information sequence. Again, the graphics were made according to the information in the voiceover and timed excellently so that whilst the audience was listening to my factual voiceover, their eyes could follow along with the visual aids. Therefore, the audience could better understand the information being presented to them and still be engrossed in the video itself.

3:01 - 3:25 - voiceover explanation of the solutions towards the issue of food waste, with relevant B-roll footage supporting it. In this part, we again used videos of supermarkets and sourced relevant footage off the internet that our production technician could not get. For example from 3:15 to 3:20, we found a short clip of someone storing food correctly as explained in the voiceover in order to provide the best visual aid possible.

3:26 - 3:49 - a quick introduction to the direct service our group did in the form of bokashi composting with video footage of our group members doing the bokashi itself. I think the B-roll footage here is particularly effective as you can properly see us completing one of the solutions proposed in the voiceover. Not only did we use footage that demonstrated individual steps of the simple process, but also gives the audience a sense of how simple taking action actually is.

3:50 - 4:38 - following the voiceover explanation of possible solutions, we wanted to then include testimonies from our public opinion survey about what people actually do to reduce food waste. Even though the audio is sometimes a bit too loud at times because of microphone issues (such as at 3:55), I think the testimonies were overall very effective as it gave some legitimacy to what the video was trying to propose.

4:39 - 4:57 - a closing sequence to the video with an ending voiceover that provides a short conclusion and sums up the video in two simple sentences. Again, we used B-roll footage of supermarkets, some of which is sourced from the internet and some of which is filmed by our production technician. 

Draft Video

Reflection and Evaluation of Draft Video

Here is the link to our two versions of the draft video because we had two editors.

Version 1:

Version 2:

In the end, based on a group consensus and our teacher's opinion, we decided to use version 1 because it overall had better use of B-roll footage and was more sophisticated. 

Even though I reviewed the video with the editor before the deadline, we received feedback from our teachers outlining a few strengths and weaknesses that it had. 

Strengths:

- Had all the required elements

- The information sequence fit really well with the voiceover and was well-made

- The filming and camera work for the public opinion surveys was done well

- Interesting opening sequence

- Voiceover was clear

Weaknesses:

- Crackling music in the opening doesn't fit well

- The sound was sometimes too loud in the public opinion surveys- needs to be moderated

- Background music was sometimes too loud in the voiceovers

- Include an extra bit outlining the direct service bokashi we did

- B-roll footage was mostly sourced from the internet

Therefore, we took these points for improvement and worked on changing these couple of bits for the final edit of the documentary.

Voiceover

Recording a Voiceover

Before actually recording the voiceover, I watched two videos and made some notes about it.

Creating a warm and natural voiceover:
- Imagine you are talking to someone, treat it like a conversation
- Avoid speaking like you are announcing something
- Put pauses in between to make it sound more natural

Creating the correct environment:
- Use a good microphone
- Capture your voice in a place with minimal background noise, like a separate isolated space
- If you can't work in an isolated area, then adjust your workspace such as using heavy curtains and putting your laptop behind the microphone so it won't pick up the noises from your laptop
- Place a soft material on the tabletop to reduce reflections
- Position yourself in a set distance away from the microphone so that your voice will sound natural
- Use a pop filter to reduce plosive sounds

I then practised my script and read through it a couple times to make sure I can pronounciate and enunciate my words properly.

Here are some screenshots of my script:

Script Planning

Script Planning

Before I developed my script, I looked into the narrative structure and how a documentary should be structured in order to effectively convey the message. 

These are some of my notes after looking at the resources provided:

Video

- Act 1, the set-up and contains the inciting incident 

- Act 2, the longest act of the film and contains the conflict

- Act 3, the shortest act and contains the suspenseful climax

- Denouement, the ending

Presentation

- The Tease- introduces main characters, establishes a setting, presents a question

- The Body- the main plot, action unfolds, get to know the characters, makes up 80% of the documentary

- The Conclusion- wrapping up, recaps the story and ends it by answering whatever presented in the tease

- Video Technique- establishing shots should provide context, head and shoulder shots for interviews, zoom in to force the viewer to focus on something, shoot the same thing from various angles for additional editing options

- Script Narration- can be 3rd person, self-injected, character narrator or no narration at all, tone of narration should remain the same, avoid descriptive language

- Scripting Technique- uses narrator and character voice

- Editing Technique- pacing of edits affect the tone, A-roll is melody whilst B-roll is harmony, use transitions

Afterwards, I carried out the hexagonal planning task. This involved writing one thing about the topic that I want to include in the documentary onto a hexagon and then linking the hexagons up.



This task allowed me to brainstorm ideas for the key content I wanted in the documentary. From this, I used these ideas and compiled the documentary story structure. This is my group's draft story structure:

For my final script, I extended the draft story structure into a table with 5 different columns: time, narrative, shots, sound, editing. For each column, I described what I wanted in detail in terms of the camera work, sound and editing. 

Here are some screenshots:

Meeting with the Information Designer

Information Designer Meeting

In order for my information designer to know which parts of our secondary research should be made into visual outcomes, I held a meeting with him to discuss our plans. 

Firstly, prior to the meeting, I identified 2-4 pieces of information from our group's secondary research that can be turned into something graphical and visual. I had these in mind during the meeting.

During the meeting, I showed him the statistics I identified and talked to him about the ways we could present these visually. We discussed whether or not we should be including other sorts of facts too and finalised our ideas.

After the meeting, I sent him a list of our chosen statistics which included statistics on how much food we waste on a global scale, a comparison of the amount of food wasted in HK and other countries, as well as the composition of Hong Kong's municipal solid waste. These are the chosen ones because not only are they valuable towards the documentary but also because they can easily be presented in a visual form through pie charts or graphs.

However, when I started to write the script for the voiceover for the video, I realised that I needed some other bits of information for the information designer to present visually. I conveyed these over to him after the meeting and also created a document for him to refer back to make sure everything we discussed in the meeting was clear.

This was what the document looked like and it clearly outlined what infographics I was hoping he could achieve. Each row was for a different section in the voiceover and I also gave him brief timings so that the voiceover and the infographics would match up.

Planning Interviews

Planning Interview Questions

Before planning my questions for the interview and to ask the public, I learnt about how to direct an interview through a video. 

Here are some of my notes:

- Brief your interviewee to make sure they know the topic beforehand

- Treat the interview like a conversation

- Get your talent to speak naturally by speaking to you instead of the camera

- Don't ask leading questions but ask open-ended questions

- Write out a question list but don't blatantly follow it

- Interviewer should respond to the answers of the interviewee through verbal and non-verbal feedback

- Wait for the subject to finish before asking the next question

Next, I brainstormed a list of questions I could possibly ask in the interview and identified which one is open-ended or close-ended. Then I rewrote the close-ended questions into open-ended ones and narrowed down a couple of final questions to be used in the interview.