Human Rights Video Recommendation

Human Rights Video Recommendation

            Any video intended for educative purposes should address the learner’s needs. The clip should begin with an introduction of the subject matter in a detailed way. Video makers should simplify the details to appeal to the general audience and be understood by an average learner (Ranjith & Chaudhuri, 2012). Use of symbols, pictorial representations and tonal variation is necessary to achieve a desired outcome. Between the recommended YouTube videos on Human Rights and the second video, the former meets most of the requirements of a learner. Human Rights utilize pictorial representation, detailed explanation and symbols, whereas the second video questions the audience.

            Human Rights video uses cartoon and doll graphical images that represent gender, race, and age. Such visual representations are used appropriately. For instance, when the narrator referring to slavery, an image of a African American in shackles is highlighted. On the other hand, the second video lacks the representation of all ages and ethnic backgrounds on the asked questions. Besides, the respondents to the question are average people unaware of facts.

            In ‘Human Rights’ the information narrated are displayed on the screen. This makes it easier for people with hearing problems to get the message as relayed. Besides, the audience can grasp the information easily as they hear the narrator and absorb the message visually. This makes it easier during a future recall. In addition, it should be noted that the information is arranged in a systematic and chronological order to ease understanding. The second video does not meet such standards, hence cannot be recommended.

            Background music has a positive effect on the audience, especially if it is appropriate for the subject (Ortlieb et al., 2015). The maker of ‘Human Rights’ understood this and incorporated music in her presentation. Besides, the narrator uses different tones to ask and answer questions. On the hand, the second short video asks the learners questions than providing answers. In fact, a few answers entails direct quotations from the dictionary, hence a possible loss of learner's confidence in the narrator's ability to educate. ‘Human Rights’ is long enough to answer most of the learner’s question, while the second video is approximately half its length. While ‘Human Rights’ collude with a summary of the information addressed, ‘What are Human Rights’ video clip ends with a question intended to trigger protests and mass outcry. Therefore, it is safe to say that the short video clip not intended for education purposes like ‘Human Rights’ video.

            Different learners have different tastes and preferences. Therefore, if the learners are more inclined towards educative clip with real human representation, then ‘What are Human Rights?’ will be the most appropriate choice even though it lacks crucial information. To address this issue, the creators of ‘Human Rights’ needs to edit the video and incorporate representations with real objects and people. Otherwise, it is clear that the latter pass most of the standards set for an education video hence is recommendable.

            In summary, a personal touch should exist between the learner and the teacher for the information to be absorbed. This is almost unattainable in educative videos unless all the necessities such as graphic representations use of symbols and tonal variations are incorporated (Ranjith & Chaudhuri, 2012). ‘Human Rights’ therefore is a classic example of video clips that all the requirements of the learners. On the other hand, ‘What are Human Rights?’ is mainly designed for journalistic analysis rather than education.

References

Ortlieb, E., In McVee, M. B., & In Shanahan, L. E. (2015). Video reflection in literacy teacher education and development: Lessons from research and practice.

Ranjith, R. A., & Chaudhuri, S. (2012). Video analysis and repackaging for distance education. New York, NY: Springer.