Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Support for this project has been provided by the Australian Learning and TeachingCouncil, an initiative of the Australian Government Department of Education,Employment and Workplace Relations.The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of theAustralian Learning and Teaching Council Ltd or the Australian Government.This work is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia Licence. Under this Licence you are free tocopy, distribute, display and perform the work and to make derivative works.Attribution: You must attribute the work to the original authors and include thefollowing statement: Support for the original work was provided by the AustralianLearning and Teaching Council Ltd, an initiative of the Australian GovernmentDepartment of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.Noncommercial: You may not use this work for commercial purposes.Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build on this work, you may distribute theresulting work only under a licence identical to this one.For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the licence terms of thiswork.Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyrightholder.To view a copy of this licence, visit:http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/au/ or send a letter to CreativeCommons, 171 Second St, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA.Requests and inquiries concerning these rights should be addressed to Learningand Teaching Excellence Branch, GPO Box 9880, Location code N255EL10,Sydney NSW 2001 or through learningandteaching@deewr.gov.au.ISBN: 978-0-642-78240-3 [PRINT]ISBN: 978-0-642-78241-0 [PDF]ISBN: 978-0-642-78242-3 [RTF]2011Front Cover: Photo by Peta Walker from Tokyo Rose honours dissertation
Project Team and Contact DetailsProject Leader:Dr Josko PetkovicDirector, NASS Research CentreSchool of Media, Communication and CultureFaculty of Creative Technologies and MediaMurdoch UniversitySouth Street, Murdoch WA 6150Phone + 61 8 9360 2548Fax + 61 8 9360 6570E-mail J.Petkovic@murdoch.edu.auProject Team:Leo Berkeley, School of Media and Communication, RMIT UniversityProfessor Ian Lang, Faculty of VCA and Music, The University of MelbourneAssociate Professor Gillian Leahy, Creative Practices Group, University ofTechnology, SydneyNick Oughton, Griffith Film School, Griffith UniversityAlison Wotherspoon, Department of Screen and Media, Flinders UniversityAssessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen Australian film schoolsii
Page 1: Assessing graduate screen productio
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 and 152:
9.4.8 Assessing Crew FunctionsHow d
Page 153 and 154:
6. Auto-ethnographic information is
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?