Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IM: Interactive Media e-journalAssociate Professor Jenny de ReuckAssociate Professor Mick BroderickColette McKennaConferencesMedia Arts Congress Co-convenersDr Paul Thomas, Curtin UniversityAssociate Professor Su Baker, VCA, The University of MelbourneDiegetic Life Form and Diegetic Logic: Assessing Image-based ScholarshipConferenceProfessor Ian Lang, The University of Melbourne, for being a gracious host of theConferencePeta Walter, for image from the film Tokyo RosePresentersProfessor Ian Lang, Associate Professor Su Baker, Associate Professor GregBattye, Dr Josko Petkovic, Leo Berkeley, Associate Professor Hart Cohen, Dr TonyDowmunt, Associate Professor Gillian Leahy, Dr George Karpathakis, NicholasOughton, Geoff Portmann, Helen Yeates and Charles Strachan. AssociateProfessor Michael Sergi and Alison Wotherspoon, Nicolette Freeman, TerrenceMaybury, Mick Broderick.Diegetic Life Forms II: Creative Arts Practice and New Media ScholarshipReference CommitteeProfessor Ian Lang, The University of MelbourneAssociate Professor Maggie PhillipsDr Tony DowmuntOrganizing CommitteeDr Josko Petkovic, Conference Co-convener, Murdoch UniversityDr Ingrid Richardson, Conference Co-convener, Murdoch UniversityDr Ken MillerAndrew EwingLarissa Sexton FinckLinda ButcherColette McKennaKey Note SpeakerMr Rolf de HeerPresentersProfessor Ian Lang, Professor Lesley Parker, Associate Professor Gail Phillips,Associate Professor Chris Smyth; Ron Elliott, Dr Larissa Sexton-Finck, Dr ZemirahMoffat, Howard Worth, Susan Taylor Suchy, Dr Chantal Bourgault de Coudray, Rolfde Heer, Robert Marshall, Professor Lesley Parker, Dr Josko Petkovic, AssociateProfessor Maggi Phillips, Associate Professor Jenny de Reuck, Erin Hawley, Dr KenMiller, Dr Jane Gilmer, Dr Cat Hooe, Andrew Ewing, Dr Serge Tampalini, AssociateProfessor Martin Mhando, Dr David Moody, Associate Professor Matthew Allen, DrIngrid Richardson, Jacqui Baker, John McMullan, Mark Cypher, Dr JenniferRobinson and Professor Su Baker.The project leader, would like to recognise the valuable contributions from staff andstudents attending this conference and in particular the direct contributions of:Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen Australian film schoolsv
StaffNathan Mewitt, for conference technical supportDamian Fasolo, for filming the key guest speakers of the conference and festivalAndrew Tapsall, for general technical supportStudentsAmanda OlivierKanokgan ChokchaiaphiwatSundeep KurupZoe WallRachael KennedyJanesa WongOthersSeymour Davison, for audio visual supportLiv Stockley, for professional photographyClive Palmer, Club Murdoch, for catering servicesSarah Courtis, NEXUS TheatreSpecial ThanksThe project team would also like to acknowledge support and assistance from:Associate Professor Peter Hutchings, Dr Elizabeth McDonald, Neridah Baker, SemirCerkic, Siobhan Lenihan and the staff of the Australian Learning and TeachingCouncil for their support and guidance in the development and implementation ofthe project.Professor Lesley Parker, consultant for ALTC-funded projects in Western Australia.The host institution, Murdoch UniversityAssociate Professor Chris Smyth, Dean of School of Media Communication andCultureLorraine Bennett, for her secretarial assistance.The project leader would like to give sincere thanks to Linda Butcher, projectmanager, for her excellent work and her professionalism and attention to detail, hercollegial engagement with the participants in the project. The success of this projectis to a great extent an outcome of her significant contribution.The project leader would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution of theexternal evaluator, Professor Su Baker, VCA, The University of Melbourne.Meetings throughout the project guided the project’s strategies to effect policy andher contributions at the two conferences were most useful.Dr Sally Knowles, for her assistance with the original application.Ellie Meek, for financial assistance.Michael Done, for management of the project website.Nathan Mewett, for technical assistance and creation of DVDs for assessments.Helena Tay, for website design.Richard Eames, for website design and creation of DVDs for assessments.Colette McKenna, Manager of IM e-journal, for valuable contributions in publishingconference papers and for the smooth running of the Perth conference andsupervision of the student film crews.Assessing graduate screen production outputs in nineteen Australian film schoolsvi
Page 1 and 2: Assessing graduate screen productio
Page 3 and 4: Project Team and Contact DetailsPro
Page 5: Rasch Statistical Analysis and Cons
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 ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?