Prepare and present an audiovisual essay as directed by your unit coordinator.
Audiovisual essays should be approximately 10-12 minutes long, with approval required from your unit
coordinator for shorter or longer lengths. Essays must:
- Demonstrate a substantial engagement in the critical theory related to your chosen topic, associated research,
and screening material. - Utilise an identifiable audiovisual essay mode (critical, reflective, poetic, discursive).
- Produce new critical or reflective analysis of your chosen subject material.
Weighting/Value: 40%
Criteria for marking:
in arriving at a final grade the content, form and technical execution of your AV eassay will be assessed
according to the marking rubrics attached. The following requirements will be taken into consideration
Use of appropriate source materials including the primary reading, screening and performance sources.
Proficiency in selecting and locating relevant source materials/data and their appropriateness to the research
objectives;
Sustained engagement with critical theory and research method introduced in this unit;
General presentation. Audiovisual essay meets editing and quality standards that reflect existing audiovisual
essay-making practice;
Use of audiovisual form and style. The audiovisual essay has an identifiable form and style that aligns with
existing practice and is coherent with the designated week from the unit.
| CRITERIA | HIGH DISTINCTION | DISTINCTION | CREDIT | PASS | FAIL |
| Exegesis: Quality of the argument | Precise, focused argument The exegesis demonstrates an in-depth, insightful understanding of the content and concepts under consideration. | Clear, coherent argument The exegesis demonstrates solid understanding of the content and concepts under consideration | Sound argument, generally well-directed. The exegesis offers basic understanding of the content and concepts under consideration. | Adequate and generally relevant argument. Limited understanding the basic concepts associated with topics. | Little or no discernible argument The exegesis is not timely, complete or is missing |
| Exegesis: Depth of knowledge and critical thinking | Outstanding knowledge and understanding of the relevant material. Well-formed in response to existing debates, with outstanding criticism of others’ arguments. Exemplary integration of wide reading, as appropriate. Sure handling of analytical terms and critical concepts. | Comprehensive and effective knowledge and critical thinking. Well-digested and extensive reading (as appropriate for the task). Sure handling of analytical terms and critical concepts. Accurate analysis and effective criticism of others’ arguments. | Good to very good knowledge and understanding. Wide reading (as appropriate), generally well-digested. Appropriate handling of analytical terms and critical concepts. Critical awareness and satisfactory analysis of different points of view. | Adequate to good knowledge. Fair amount of reading. Some awareness of different points of view, maybe with some deficiencies in analysis and characterisation. | Limited knowledge, with serious errors and/or omissions. Limited to adequate reading. |
| Treatment: Theme, title and mode | Fully developed, insightful theme. Original title. Innovative and creative thought. Made effective choices between modes. | Good development of theme. Independence of thought. Made deliberate choices between modes. | Rudimentary development of theme; limited in depth or clarity. Some independence in thought and approach. Made some choices between modes. | Undeveloped or vague theme. Some signs of independence in thought and approach. Limited consideration given to modes. | Inappropriate response, no topic development. |
| Treatment: Structure, logic, development | Superb structure, maintained throughout, that helps to highlight salient points. Original purpose. Expresses relationships among ideas with thoughtful organization of images, footage, audio and text. | Excellent structure. Clear purpose. Effective progression of ideas through organization images, footage, audio and text. | Good to very good structure. Some expression of purpose. Logical progression of ideas through organization images, footage, audio and text. | Some evidence of coherent structure. Unclear purpose. | Lacks purpose. Little or no discernible structure |
| Treatment: Level of details | Text and images advance the argument. Rich supporting details. | Text and images enhance the argument. Details are specific. | Text and images are adequate to the argument. Details lack elaboration; important details omitted. | The relationships between ideas and text and images are not clear. Few relevant details. | Virtually no relevant details. |