Calendars:Networked Media Calendar/Networked Media Calendar/11-05-2020 -Event 1: Difference between revisions

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki
mNo edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
LB1 trim2 -assessments with Simon Pummell, David Haines, Ine Lamers, Steve Rushton, Javi Lloret
LB1 trim2 -assessments with Simon Pummell, David Haines, Ine Lamers, Steve Rushton, Javi Lloret
 
*[schedule to be posted]





Revision as of 14:41, 16 April 2020

LB1 trim2 -assessments with Simon Pummell, David Haines, Ine Lamers, Steve Rushton, Javi Lloret

  • [schedule to be posted]



Changes to the format due to current situation

[see email: from Leslie for further instructions, 16.04]

  • We ask each of you to use the text prepared within Steve's METHODS class - draft of presentation for the second-trimester assessment - as a basis for your archiving material. Please support this text with a folder of supporting images (moving and still) including documentation of any physical objects made.

ASSESSMENT FORMAT:

  • ZOOM INVITATION TO FOLLOW

After discussion we have decided to bring the exam panel together for a series of ZOOM panels with each of you, as this gets closest to the experience of assessment panel we normally follow in the 'off-line' world.

  • The format will be a simplified: a 15/20 minute discussion between the panel and each of you.

At the end of the day the panel will confer via ZOOM to allocate grades and create a short response (around 250 words) - the responses will be pasted into a feedback form to support the overall grade given.

  • Students should be reassured that the exam panel will take into account the very significant difficulties facing any artistic research in the current situation and will grade to take these obstacles into account. Above all we want to hear from you what you have been making in the first two terms and how this might help bring future interests into focus.


  • From the LB Handbook 2019 - 2020 [page 23]

5.2 Specific Assessment criteria for the periodic Integrated Assessments

  • 5.2.1 Integrated Formative Assessment (Trimester 2)

The first integrated assessment is held in the end of the second trimester. Passing this integrated formative assessment allows the ECTS for the first two terms to be awarded.

At this juncture you are expected to prepare a presentation of the work and self-directed research you have undertaken in the context of the thematic seminars and around them, and discuss with a team of tutors what you have learned, and how you might steer the next phase of your studies.

In other words, we would like you to show us the purpose, the methods and the outputs of the research you have been undertaking in your first two terms at PZI. We want to see primarily the work you have been undertaking as your self-directed research, but we are also interested in how you have engaged with -- and what you have taken from -- the Toolbox sessions and the Thematic Seminars, as well as methods you have developed in your READING WRITING & RESEARCH METHODS seminar.

You are required to make a presentation with visual support: please show us concrete examples of the work and bring any drafts, and prototypes you have developed, as well as describing your research thinking and procedures. We want to know what you are making, how you are making it, and why you are making it.

Prior to the assessment process you must archive documentation and elements of the work and research you wish to submit for examination. We will not pass people who have not delivered appropriate documentation of their work on time. See http://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mediadesign/Archive_Protocol for archiving instructions.

This integrated assessment is a moment for not only staff to assess where you are, but also an opportunity for you to reflect on what you have done so far. In other words, it is intended as a moment to take stock in terms what you have done, and elaborate on further developing interests (both conceptually and technically). Crucial to this assessment is your capacity not just to show your successful projects, but your ability to reflect on points of improvement - in other words, the ability to talk about your failed experiments, and what you have learned from them, is just as important as speaking about what worked and why.