Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

9.4.12 Collaboration ContractsIt is suggested here that resolving the authorship of the production crew should bethe first formal undertaking before any production work begins. Special attentionshould be paid to the role of the academic and professional staff. Some staffmemberschoose not to contribute to student projects and should not be creditedwith any involvement in them. Other staff-members do contribute in various ways.Some staff do this as the Principle Investigator in a research project. All these rolesshould be formalised and inscribed in an initial “collaboration contract” as they havea bearing on the assessment process.9.4.13 CopyrightArranging a collaboration contract on a project that includes staff, student andprofessionals should not infringe any existing copyright laws, as this is essentiallythe same process as arranging multi-authored publication within the conventionalscholarship output.9.4.14 The Changing Format of the Written ComponentThe written component of the honours dissertation is likely to change as the formatof “writing” changes with the changing technology. Screen production should not beconfused with web-based writing about screen productions, DVDs, web sites or withdifferent way of exhibiting and distributing screen productions. There is a risk thattechnological developments will skew the screen production programs away fromscreen production and towards an interactive format of writing, including gaming andinstallations. These are excellent new developments in their own right but are alsodifferent mediums from screen production, even if they do require image and imagemaking. Perhaps films schools should insist on a festival type of presentation, in thefirst instance, as a way of safeguarding the integrity of the medium, no matter howthese screen productions are ultimately used.9.4.15 Assessment Of SequenceIt is possible to evaluate sequences and fragments of productions as was done forcompleted productions in this study. However one can not be entirely certain what isbeing assessed in any particular sequence and the criteria for such an assessmentmay well need to be changed from those imbedded in the SPAS.9.5 Summary9.5.1 Difficulties with Assessing Honours Screen ProductionsThe problems associated with the assessment of screen productions at honourslevel can be summarise as follows:1. Research is not sufficiently transparent.2. Implied contextual links is not sufficiently transparent.3. Social context is not sufficiently transparent.4. Musical scholarship is not sufficiently transparent.5. Body of work is not sufficiently transparent.Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen Australian film schools136
6. Auto-ethnographic information is not sufficiently transparent.7. Gender of the assessors introduces some variation.8. Gender modality (of director &principle actor) introduces some variation.9. Different assessors start from different assessment baselines.10. Different institutions start from different assessment baselines.11. Different states start from different assessment baselines.12. Different countries start from different assessment baselines.13. The assessable crew functions need to be assessed separately.14. The composition of the crew needs to be accounted for especially if it is madeup of mixed crew of students, staff and professionals.15. The duration of the program needs to be accounted for.9.5.2 Moderation of Honours Dissertation – A Summary of Suggestions andRecommendations1. The written component: All honours dissertations should contain a writtencomponent of some 6,000-8,000 words long which addresses Items 1-6above as well as the candidate’s contribution to the production.2. Assessment of the production component: SPAS has been confirmed as aconsistent assessment scale for screen productions and for this reasonshould be used to assess all production components of screen productionhonours dissertations.3. Guidelines: Students should be given SPAS guidelines at the outset of theirhonours candidature so that they know how they will be assessed.4. Local Panel Moderation: Ideally local assessment panels should be used toassess the production component of the honours dissertation rather thanindividual assessors, in the first instance. All assessment panels should strivefor a gender balance.5. Institutional Moderation: State assessment panels with cross-institutionalmembership should be used to moderate the assessment standards in eachstate.6. Reporting: State assessment committee should report to each institutionalhonours committees that submits work to it giving full details of candidate’sSPAS scores. These SPAS reports should be given to the honourscandidates in full.7. State Moderation: Regular national screenings of selected honoursproductions from each state should be established to assess productionsusing SPAS. This moderation will establish a body of (SPAS) data for variousinstitutions and states. This data will, in turn, will help set standards and helpmoderate the assessment marks over time. The data will also help setguidelines for the duration of the production expected for each genre ofproduction (drama, documentary, animation, new media, etc.).8. International Moderation: National screenings of honours productions shouldinclude international works, whenever possible, to assist with internationalmoderation of these works.Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen Australian film schools137
Page 1 and 2:
Assessing graduate screen productio
Page 3 and 4:
Project Team and Contact DetailsPro
Page 5 and 6:
Rasch Statistical Analysis and Cons
Page 7 and 8:
StaffNathan Mewitt, for conference
Page 9 and 10:
ContentsList of Acronyms ..........
Page 11 and 12:
List of AcronymsACTAFTRSACUADSAGMAL
Page 13 and 14:
List of TablesTable 5.1 The number
Page 15 and 16:
Figure 6.6Figure 7.1Figure 7.2Figur
Page 17 and 18:
Executive SummaryThe Assessing of S
Page 19 and 20:
PART 11. ASSESSING GRADUATE SCREEN
Page 21 and 22:
• to host a conference that will
Page 23 and 24:
ulky, unwieldy and untenable for th
Page 25 and 26:
Art scholarship: This term is used
Page 27 and 28:
describes the reasons for the art-b
Page 29 and 30:
and problematic. Problems of assess
Page 31 and 32:
assessment. Rather, the feedback pr
Page 33 and 34:
• If it is shown at a properly ac
Page 35 and 36:
from the UK as depicted in Figure 2
Page 37 and 38:
in Higher Education. Sydney, ALTC/U
Page 39 and 40:
accepted notions of scholarship.3.1
Page 41 and 42:
In contrast to the linear unfolding
Page 43 and 44:
Film editors understand the multidi
Page 45 and 46:
3.2.9 Thinking VisuallyWhen it come
Page 47 and 48:
6. The existence of this art-theory
Page 49 and 50:
Jersey, Prentice Hall, 1971 and in
Page 51 and 52:
How do different academics assess s
Page 53 and 54:
The above standard deviation scores
Page 55 and 56:
Is there something more insightful
Page 57 and 58:
Total (%) Mark and the component ma
Page 59 and 60:
Figure 4.10 Schematic representatio
Page 61 and 62:
18.1% 7.6% 59.0% 15.3%MEDIA ARTS CU
Page 63 and 64:
4.4.8 Exhibition SiteThe exhibition
Page 65 and 66:
4.5.2 Role of Conventional Scholars
Page 67 and 68:
4.5.8 Scholarship StandardsThe thre
Page 69 and 70:
The artistic “How” is often pre
Page 71 and 72:
TOTAL % SCOREA-Z CONSTITUENT PARTSF
Page 73 and 74:
Figure 4.20 Logical oppositions and
Page 75 and 76:
ETHICSQ20THE USE OF EMOTIONS IN THI
Page 77 and 78:
The above criteria components const
Page 79 and 80:
2009 and can be found at the follow
Page 81 and 82:
with us on this project. Subsequent
Page 83 and 84:
discerned in Table 5.1 below. It sh
Page 85 and 86:
Figure 5.1 Project Assessment Schem
Page 87 and 88:
Queensland Griffith 5-6 November 20
Page 89 and 90:
VICTORIAN ASSESSMENT GROUP complete
Page 91 and 92:
assessment scale of 0 to 100 per ce
Page 93 and 94:
6.3 Linear ScaleIt turns out that,
Page 95 and 96:
6.5 The Rasch Model Probability Cur
Page 97 and 98:
Figure 6.5 Category characteristic
Page 99 and 100:
7. RASCH ANALYSIS 17.1 Rasch Analys
Page 101 and 102: 7.1.5 Location of the Threshold Est
Page 103 and 104: Figure 7.5 TC for Q24 (Exhibition s
Page 105 and 106: 7.1.6 Fit of Items to the ModelCons
Page 107 and 108: intense or difficult items to exten
Page 109 and 110: As may be seen, item Q23 (amount of
Page 111 and 112: Q2 SCRIPTFigure 7.17 ICC of Q2 (Scr
Page 113 and 114: Q2 SOUNDSCAPEFigure 7.21 ICC of Q2
Page 115 and 116: Q2 ART DESIGNFigure 7.25 ICC of Q2
Page 117 and 118: This means that highest score group
Page 119 and 120: Q8 ENHANCEMENTFigure 7.33 ICC of Q8
Page 121 and 122: Q13 DURATIONFigure 7.37 ICC of Q13
Page 123 and 124: Q17 SOCIAL RELEVANCEFigure 7.41 ICC
Page 125 and 126: Q22 AIMSFigure 7.45 ICC of Q22 (Thi
Page 127 and 128: 8. RASCH COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS 28.1
Page 129 and 130: FactorSub-groupNumberNMeanproductio
Page 131 and 132: Production Mean location Std deviat
Page 133 and 134: Mean differences amongst Years, Dur
Page 135 and 136: 0.488: it is negative, as expected.
Page 137 and 138: percentage statistic valueCountry A
Page 139 and 140: highest.Factor Sub-group N Mean loc
Page 141 and 142: (dots) are somewhat flat compared t
Page 143 and 144: The slight under-discrimination evi
Page 145 and 146: 9.2.5 Local AssessorsThe need to un
Page 147 and 148: Figure 9.6 Graph of mean locations
Page 149 and 150: 9.4.5 State Assessment Committee Mo
Page 151: 9.4.8 Assessing Crew FunctionsHow d
Page 155 and 156: PART 410. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATI
Page 157 and 158: Q4THE PUBLICATION VALUE OF THIS PRO
Page 159 and 160: Q12THE DURATION OF THIS PRODUCTION
Page 161 and 162: Q20THIS PRODUCTION HAS ATTAINED ITS
Page 163 and 164: 10.1.9 Conclusion 5: To Be Consiste
Page 165 and 166: - individual contribution to the pr
Page 167 and 168: The result of this project support
Page 169 and 170: scholars, who will be able to follo
Page 171 and 172: Diegetic Life Forms II Conference b
Page 173 and 174: BIBLIOGRAPHYAndrich, David, ‘A ra
Page 175 and 176: Kress, G. and Theo van Leeuwen, Rea
Page 177 and 178: Rasch, G., On general laws and the
Page 179 and 180: INFORMATION SHEETAssessing graduate
Page 181 and 182: Consent FormAssessing graduate scre
Page 183 and 184: 1. OVERALL MARK (%)PRODUCTIONS 1-5
Page 185 and 186: 6. THE CLARITY OF THE THEME/ CENTRA
Page 187 and 188: 12. THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL OF THIS
Page 189 and 190: 18. OVERALL PRODUCTION VALUES ARE:
Page 191: 24. YOUR RECOMMENDED EXHIBITION SIT
show all

Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?