1. Faculty of Creative Industries
Final mark awarded:_____
Assessment Cover Sheet
Module
Code:RA3D20
Module Title:
BA Performance & Media
Major Project
Module Lecturer:
Stephen Fisher
Assessment Title and Tasks:
EXTENDED PORTFOLIO 75%
Assessment No. 2 of 2
( amended )
No. of pages submitted in total including this page:
1 blog page – several posts
Word Count of submission
(if applicable): 6029
Date Set:
Amended March 2020
Submission Date:
TUESDAY 5th of May
Return Date:
20 working days
Part A: Record of Submission (to be completed by Student)
Extenuating Circumstances
If there are any exceptional circumstances that may have affected your ability to undertake or
submit this assignment, make sure you contact the Advice Centre on your campus prior to your
submission deadline.
Fit to sit policy:
The University operates a fit to sit policy whereby you, in submitting or presenting yourself for an
assessment, are declaring that you are fit to sit the assessment. You cannot subsequently claim
that your performance in this assessment was affected by extenuating factors.
Plagiarism and Unfair Practice Declaration:
By submitting this assessment, you declare that it is your own work and that the sources of
information and material you have used (including the internet) have been fully identified and
properly acknowledged as required1
. Additionally, the work presented has not been submitted
for any other assessment. You also understand that the Faculty reserves the right to investigate
allegations of plagiarism or unfair practice which, if proven, could result in a fail in this
assessment and may affect your progress.
Intellectual Propertyand Retention of Student Work:
You understand that the University will retain a copy of any assessments submitted
electronically for evidence and quality assurance purposes; requests for the removal of
assessments will only be considered if the work contains information that is either politically
and/or commercially sensitive (as determined by the University) and where requests are made
by the relevant module leader or dissertation supervisor.
Details of Submission:
Note that all work handed in after the submission date and within 5 working days will be capped
at 40%2
. No marks will be awarded if the assessment is submitted after the late submission
date unless extenuating circumstances are applied for and accepted (Advice Centre to be
consulted).
You are required to acknowledge that
you have read the above statements by
Student Number(s):
17098564
1
University Academic Misconduct Regulations
2
Information on exclusions to this rule is available fromthe Advice Centre at each Campus
2. writing your student number (s) in the
box:
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP A RECORD OF ALL WORK SUBMITTED
Part B: Marking and Assessment
Assessment Task: Portfolio (– revised due to Covid 19 restrictions on movement)
Brief for Assignment 2 :
Title: EXTENDED PORTFOLIO
Length: A combination of written response, made work and additional
material in a variety of media, equivalent to 6000 words
Weighting: 75%
Portfolio:
The extended portfolio should include the following:
any and all Recorded Performance Material that is available, either in finished or
fragmented form;
Documentation of process; including intentions for the project, relevant research
material, design choices and other relevant material, presented so as to reveal
the intention of the original concept.
This will include a written critical reflection on the project, providing context for the
material presented, further informed by a question & answer session during a viva
voce conducted by video call as appropriate.
Learning Outcomes to be assessed (as specified in the validated module
descriptor https://icis.southwales.ac.uk/ ):
1. Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the key skills required to engage
confidently and proficiently with a chosen project specialisation.
2. Negotiate a course of work and produce a set of projects/performances to a
professional standard.
3. Demonstrate initiative and enterprise, autonomy and individuality in pursuit of goals.
4. Critically evaluate their practice, their professional development and their ideas in
relation to other forms
Grading Criteria: You will be marked on …..
1. The submission of all made creative work prepared for the production element of
your project.
2. Your ability to reflect on, and critically evaluate your work. This will include :
-your understanding of and research on the forms and practices of the chosen
project.
-Your ability to conduct research, draw on valid sources to support your work and
use references/citations as per university guidelines to situate your project and
ideas within a broader context of creative practice.
3. -Your ability to organise and present your project with clarity and coherence.
-The clarity, creative endeavour and originality of your idea – this also includes
evidence of progress since your tutorials and meeting in previous weeks.
-Your ability to respond, in written form, to complicated material – be that your
own practice and ideas, those of a particular artist/company or practitioner, or
the theoretical approaches of a particular scholar.
1st
class work will excel in all areas above, showing enterprise, good clear decision
making, skill, endeavour and originality or expertise.
2:1 work will demonstrate strong competence and endeavour across all the areas.
2:2 work will illustrate a good attempt overall and a range of competence with strengths
and weaknesses in different areas.
3rd
will reflect poor execution, a disorganised process, but some attempt to follow the
brief.
Fail will reflect an overall lack of effort, poor execution, bad time keeping, a lack of
rehearsal, poor decision-making and execution or a failure to submit the brief.
The following rubric will be used as a guideline where appropriate.
Assessment Criteria for Academic Written Work
85-100 70 – 84 60-69 50-59 40-49 20-39
Outstanding Excellent Good to Very
Good
Satisfactory to
Good
Pass Approaching
standard
required
Structure and Argument
Structure is highly
advanced and
approaching the
standard of a
published journal
article. Work is
original and
demonstrates
significance in its
field.
Logical and consistent
structure which displays
an advanced
understanding of scholarly
framew orks. Workhas
original ideas and
approaches demonstrating
aw areness of the nuances
and assumptions of the
question/task.
Logical and
consistent
structure
displaying a
sound
understanding of
scholarly
framew orks.
A highly
developed and
logically sound
argument
supported w ith
referencesto
w ell-documented,
detailed and
relevant
examples.
Appropriately
structured around
a w ellbalanced
scholarly
framew ork.
Coherently
constructed and
presented
argument
supported w ith
adequate
referencesand
examples.
Structure
inconsistent and
erratic. Sections
poorly balanced.
A w eakly
developed or
incomplete
argument.
Incoherently
structured.
Standard sections
missing or
minimal (i.e no
conclusion). Work
exhibits no clear
point of view .
writing
Flaw less and
engaging style.
Excellent. Well w ritten and
engaging to read, w ith a
fluid command of
language and few, if any
errors.
Well w ritten and
engaging to read.
Occasionalerrors
in the w ork.
Reads w ellon the
page, but there
are errors in
spelling, grammar
and syntax which
distract and
should be picked
up w ith a more
thorough proof
reading.
Most of the w orkis
understandable,
but there are
frequent errors in
spelling, grammar
and syntax which
have affected the
meaning.
Some parts of the
w orkare hard to
understand.
There are
frequent errors in
spelling, grammar
and syntax which
have affected the
meaning
significantly.
4. Analysis
Analysis is
painstaking and
applied to the
task w ith scant
omissions.
Thorough coherent
analysis of source material
and subject matter.
Clear consistent
critical
engagement w ith
source material
and subject
matter.
Clear but
inconsistent
critical
engagement w ith
source material
and subject
matter.
Limited level of
criticalengagement
w ith source
material and
subject matter.
Little to no critical
engagement w ith
source material or
subject matter.
References andbibliography(HarvardReferencing)
References are
approaching a
peer-reviewed
standard.
All qualities in adjacent
column as w ellas in-text
referencing that informs
exposition/argument in a
very intelligent and useful
manner.
Organised and
accurate
referencing that
complies w ith the
School’s
guidelines of
presentation and
citation.
Overall
incorporation of
in- text
referencing and
bibliography
satisfactory.
References and/or
bibliography are
inconsistent and
contain errors.
Referencing
and/or
bibliography
either missing or
inadequate.
Assessment
Criteria for
Reflections on
Practice
85-100 70 – 84 60-69 50-59 40-49 20-39
Outstanding Excellent Good to Very
Good
Satisfactory to
Good
Pass Approaching
standard
required
Articulationof
Process
Process is
review ed in
thorough detail.
Highly advanced
conceptual
connections
made.
All relevant
issues accurately
review ed in
appropriate
detail. Advanced
criticaland
conceptual
discussion.
Well-informed
and detailed
exposition.
Consistent
criticaland
conceptual
discussion.
Main issues
explored, but
often lacking
depth. Sound
criticaland
conceptual
discussion.
Superficial
review of
relevant issues.
Limited critical
and conceptual
discussion.
Few relevant
issues reviewed.
Little to no
criticaland
conceptual
discussion.
Material
Included
All material is
precisely curated
and integral to
the w ork.
Wide range of
relevant material
illustrates &
supports
principles
discussed.
Good range of
relevant material
illustrates &
supports
principles
discussed.
Different types of
material
incorporated
though not
alw ays relevant.
Small amount of
material
incorporated.
Very limited
range of material
incorporated.
Research
Research is
rigorous and
efficiently used
in w ork.
Effective
research and
investigation
underpins the
w ork.
Work clearly
informed by
research and
investigation.
Research and
investigation
evident but
inconsistent.
Limited research
and investigation
incorporated.
Little to no
research or
investigation.
Structure and
Appearance
Appearance and
structure is
stylish and
professional.
Organisation and
structure
produce a high
level of
communicative
clarity. Style
adopted
illuminates
content.
Organisation and
structure
produce a good
level of
communicative
clarity. Style
adopted
informed by
content.
Organisation and
structure makes
partial sense.
Decisions
occasionally
informed by style
rather than
substance.
Confusing
organisation and
structure that
does little to
illuminate the
reader.
Decisions
frequently
informed by style
rather than
substance.
Organisation and
structure makes
little sense.
There is neither
a coherent style
nor any
discernible
substance.
Critical
Evaluation
Rigorous and
significant
evaluation of the
w orkcompleted.
Insightful and
rigorous
evaluation of the
w orkcompleted.
Identifies and
evaluates key
elements of the
w orkcompleted
in a w ell
Sound
evaluation of
some aspects of
the w ork
included.
Evidence of
evaluation
limited and
basic.
Little (or no)
Evaluation
included.
