COM 337 - Film Studies for the Digital Age
(Spring 2023-2024)
Task Sheet: Critical Reflection Essay
Weight: 40%
Form.: Individual Assessment
Submission Deadline: 12:00 AM, Tuesday, June 11, 2024.
Required Length: 1500 words (+/- 10% [150 words]) not including the reference list.
Submission Mode: Learning Mall Online
Submission Format:
Microsoft Word *.docx file as follows:
COM337_Reflection Essay_StudentID.docx (e.g., COM337_Reflection Essay_1234567.docx)
Reflection essay submissions MUST comply with the established formatting guidelines outlined below and MUST include a proper Coursework Submission Cover Sheet available on e-Bridge in the “Quick Reference” tab for “Policies and Regulations” under the “Assessment and Examination” heading.
Late Submissions: Essays submitted after 12:00 AM on June 11, 2024 will be subject to the university late policy (-5% of the overall essay grade per day or part thereof). After 5 working days, unsubmitted assessments will automatically receive a grade of 0.
Resit Policy: Reassessment opportunities in the same academic year are NOT available for final year undergraduate students. Any students eligible to be reassessed in a failed Year 4 (Level 3) module will have the resit opportunity at the next ordinary sitting of the examination/assessment.
Description:
This reflection essay functions as an extension of your video essay, but with more emphasis on your research and argumentation capabilities. It consists of two parts:
• Introduce your argument from your video essay.
• Contextualise the production of the video essay with reference to the concepts and debates discussed in the module. In terms of practice, explain how you apply digital media techniques to produce your video essay.
The reading materials offered in this module can serve as a point of departure, but will not be sufficient in and of themselves. In addition to the module readings, you must reference at least two other academic texts.
Questions:
Questions about this assessment can be posted in the General question and answer forum on Learning Mall Core. Questions and answers will be shown on public display to facilitate knowledge and information exchange within module members. Be sure to read through previous questions in case a question is repeated.
Referencing:
You can draw on the concepts and theories that have been discussed in this module to formulate your reflection essay. It is also recommended to cite other sources (scholarly articles, books, interviews, and other video essays, etc.) to support your claims. Please note that all information and references must be cited at the end of the reflection essay, following the APA format. Submissions that do not comply with citation standards will be treated as violations of Academic Integrity according to university and department policies.
Anonymity:
Please do not feature your name or identify yourself in the reflection essay. For the document title, please only use your student ID number.
Learning Outcomes:
A. Demonstrate an in-depth understanding of the impact that the advent of the digital era has had on film theory and criticism
B. Construct an argument in the form of a video essay on one or several film texts
C. Contextualise the production of the video essay with reference to the concepts and debates discussed in the module
D. Critically reflect on the digital techniques used in the video essay
Marking Criteria:
The reflection essay will be assessed on the following aspects:
• INTRODUCTION: the aim and scope of your video essay, or simply put, what your video essay is about.
• RESEARCH QUESTION: the focus of your inquiry in the video essay.
• THESIS STATEMENT: the most important message you want to get across with the video essay.
• LITERATURE REVIEW: both academic and non-academic resources on which your opinions are built.
• ARGUMENT and EXPLANATION: how you develop and express your thoughts, and how the knowledge and skills you acquired from this module are applied in the video essay.
• FORMAL QUALITY : the reflection essay’s textual quality including grammar, spelling, structure, and references.
The Marking Criteria are defined by the following rubric:
Introduction:
0-3%: The introduction is vaguely and inadequately written; fails to summarize the project; demonstrates lacking knowledge and understanding of the study’s background and context; does not identify a gap and thus fails to frames its research/inquiry question within it; and concludes with a vague or lacking thesis statement;
4-5%: The introduction is poorly organized and written; poorly summarizes the project; demonstrates relatively low knowledge and understanding of the study’s background and context; does not clearly identify a gap and thus poorly to frames its research/inquiry question within it; and concludes with an insufficient thesis statement;
6-7%: The introduction is adequately organized and written; adequately or loosely summarizes the project; demonstrates adequate knowledge and understanding of the study’s background and context; at least implies a gap and makes some effort to frames its research/inquiry question within it; and concludes with a relevant thesis statement;
8-9%: The introduction is strong, clear, well-organized, and well-written; summarizes the project well; demonstrates good knowledge and understanding of the study’s background and context; observes a gap and frames its research/inquiry question within it; and concludes with a clear thesis statement;
10%: The introduction is publishable in its present form.
Research Question:
0%: The question is absent;
1%: The question is largely meaningless;
2%: The research question is vague or incoherent;
3%: There is a reasonably well formulated, relevant and interesting research question;
4%: There is a highly interesting, innovative, and well-formulated research question;
5%: The research question is perfectly formulated and represents insightful and innovative new knowledge. Its implications are publishable.
Thesis Statement:
0%: The thesis statement is absent;
1%: The thesis statement is largely meaningless;
2%: There is a thesis statement, but it is vague, poorly worded, and/or it is of questionable merit;
3%: There is a reasonably well formulated, relevant and interesting research question;
4%: There is a highly interesting, innovative, and well-formulated thesis statement;
5%: The thesis statement is perfectly formulated. It indicates a highly innovative and insightful new and significant contribution to the field of knowledge.
Literature Review:
0-10%: Very little or no relevant literature was discussed; relevant theories and perspectives were not extracted from the literature; sample movies were not discussed sufficiently;
11-15%: Some relevant literature was discussed; relevant theories and perspectives were only partially extracted from the literature; sample movies were only partially discussed;
16-20%: Sufficient relevant literature was discussed; relevant theories and perspectiveswere extracted from the literature; sample movies were discussed;
21-25%: A large amount of relevant literature was discussed; theories and perspectives were extracted comprehensively from the literature; sample movies were discussed with insight and relevance.
26-30%: The Literature Review is publishable in its current form.
Argument and Explanation:
0-10%: There was little or no logical structure and coherence between the different parts; no illustrative example or contextualization was given; the use of the video essay format as a vehicle to realize the argument was not discussed; no logical conclusion was drawn;
11-15%: There was only a rough logical structure and coherence between the different parts; illustrative example or contextualization were given but not highly relevant; the use of the video essay format as a vehicle to realize the argument was mentioned but only superficially; the conclusion drawn is not logical;
16-25%: There was logical structure and coherence between the different parts; relevant illustrative examples or contextualization were given; the use of the video essay format as a vehicle to realize the argument was discussed; a logical conclusion was drawn;
26-30%: There was a clear logical structure and seamless coherence between the different parts; engaging and highly relevant illustrative examples or contextualization were given; the use of the video essay format as a vehicle to realize the argument was discussed with eloquence and insight; a logical conclusion was drawn from the evidence, and own theoretical deliberations or proposals for future research were discussed.
31-35%: The essay is publishable in its current form.
Formal Quality:
0-4%: Citations and referencing are almost always incorrect; the essay has no discernible structure; the language quality is extremely confusing and/or vague with sometimes meaningless collocations; the style is simplistic and/or inelegant;
5-8%: Citations and referencing are frequently incorrect; the essay has some structure; the language quality is confusing and/or vague with some convoluted collocations; the style is inelegant;
9-12%: Citations and referencing are almost always correct; the essay is well structured; the language quality is good; the style is fluent and clear;
13-15%: Citations and referencing are flawless; the essay is excellently structured; the language quality is excellent; the style is expressive and elegant.