Communicating Research Assessment Brief — MA Digital Media Management Assessment Brief and Marking Scheme To demonstrate the assessed learning outcomes, you assessed submission will focus on the following question: ‘Analyse three different forms of visual digital communication used for disseminating organisational, educational or research content, and evaluate three contrasting methods for gauging the audience response. Relate your analysis to the context, aims and needs of the relevant organisation(s) and support your discussion with references to existing literature, key theories and published research’. The learning outcomes will be assessed through a report of 3500 w, addressing the required sections, plus a class presentation or a screencast where presentations are not possible Communicating Research — MA DMM – 2017/18 Required content for report: Introduction (appr 200 w) — Short outline of the contents of the report Section 1 (appr 1500w). Analysis of a website. How does the design of your chosen example reflect the target audience, as well as specific educational or communicational needs, brand identity, organisational ‘story’ and the overall contemporary context? Support your discussion by references to the theoretical and research literature, use good definitions of relevant terms and concepts and apply appropriate method of analysis. End with a short concluding statement, how effectively the website is communicating its brand, the main message and the ‘story’. Section 2 (appr 1500w). Analysis of an explainer video. Explain the context and subject matter, referencing the sources. Analyse the overall narrative structure, then select a particularly interesting sequence and analyse its visual design. Support your written analysis with visual illustrations and supply a scene breakdown in the Appendices. Refer to any significant visual elements and comment how they contribute to the mood, emotion, narrative meaning or message. End with a short concluding statement, how effectively the video is communicating its brand, the main message and the ‘story’. Conclusion (appr 200 w) – Tying up all the content into a brief summary statement, with lessons learned. APA style references and a full bibliography — required for all reports, screencasts and presentations slides Appendices –this will include any the research methods protocols, extraneous or additional material, large tables, large images Page 2 of 5 Communicating Research — MA DMM – 2017/18 Required report format: Word document or PDF 3500 words length Font size 12, line spacing 1.5. Title page with report title, your name and module name. Appropriate illustrations, with captions and references. Header or footer with your name and module on each page. Page numbers. Section headings for all the required sections. Sensible layout and image placement. APA format references throughout. Page 3 of 5 Communicating Research — MA DMM – 2017/18 REPORT MARKING SCHEME Below pass (0-49) Key concepts, contexts and references to existing literature 25% Critical analysis 25% Evaluation methods 25% Overall flow, relevance, academic presentation, studentship and professionalism 25% No references to relevant literature, or minimal references that lack credibility. The explanations of the chosen theoretical concepts contain serious inaccuracies. The cited material (if any) does not relate to the analysis of the artefacts. The analysis is absent or incomplete. There may be some description of the artefacts, but the commentary is focused on the surface detail, very obvious or unsupported statements, showing no awareness of specialist vocabulary or key issues in visual communication. The section is severely lacking in content. There may be some description of relevant evaluation methods, but it contains major omissions or inaccuracies, and is not supported by any evidence. The report is severely underdeveloped, missing a large proportion of the required content. The discussion lacks focus and is difficult to follow. There is no signposting and the formatting requirements are not adhered to (eg missing page numbers, paragraph breaks, using incorrect font size). Lack of participation in class, no evidence of formative work. 50-59 There is evidence of background reading, and some explanation of relevant theoretical concepts, but the quality is uneven. The explanations tend to be quite basic with some inaccuracies, and/or needed to relate more clearly to the analysis of the artefacts. The range and quality of sources is limited, the report heavily relies on one or two sources, although the bibliography may show more. Serious errors in referencing, the quotes needed to be better integrated with own commentary. There is evidence of reflection, but the overall approach is still too descriptive focusing mainly on the surface detail. It needed more depth and detail and demonstrate a stronger awareness of specialist terminology and the key issues in visual communication studied on the module. Illustrations are relevant but poorly laid out with missing or confusing captions and lack of cross-referencing of the images within the discussion. There is evidence of background reading, but the number and quality of the research sources needed to be better. The section needed more development, critically reflecting on the limitations of these methods. It could have made some use of the class exercises and relevant Appendices. The report discusses relevant topics, generally following the brief with some important omissions. Overall, it needed more research and analysis, some sections are better developed than others. The discussion is over-descriptive, and whilst there is a good level of detail, it needed more critical analysis supported by existing theory and research. There is a fair attempt at a structure, including intro, conclusion and paragraph breaks, but the report still needs editing to improve the presentation standard and ensure that it fully adheres to the brief. Some evidence of participation is included. 60-69 70 + A good explanation of relevant concepts and contexts, referencing a good range of appropriate literature. The quotes are relevant and linked to own commentary but could be integrated into the flow more smoothly. The referencing is mainly correct, with only minor flaws. The literature clearly underpins the analysis A relevant, detailed and clear explanation of theoretical concepts and organisational contexts, drawing on a good range of high-quality sources; quotes are well chosen to support the analysis and smoothly integrated into own narrative. The referencing is correct throughout. The examples are analysed in sufficient level of detail, using appropriate specialist vocabulary or theoretical terminology. The overall approach could have been more critical, showing a greater awareness of the limitations or contradictions involved. The analysis is well illustrated with only minor presentational flaws. The images help the discussion but could have been referred to more consistently. A good overview of the methods, including their limitations. The explanation is supported by references to the set texts. Relevant Appendices are included but the section could have referred to them more explicitly, reflecting on class exercises. A detailed and insightful analysis of the artefacts is clearly informed by the theoretical literature and shows a critical awareness of the key issues studied on the module. Specialist terminology is used confidently and competently throughout. A good use of visual illustrations throughout, the images are well laid-out, captioned, referenced and referred to in the text. A well-informed critical discussion of evaluation methods, the explanation is clear and well supported by references to key texts, some examples of existing research studies and relevant Appendices. A well-informed, clearly written and immaculately presented report, with a detailed critical discussion of the topics specified in the brief. There is evidence of critical awareness of complexities, contradictions and limitations involved. The sections are clearly sign-posted and illustrated, and there is a good introduction and conclusion. Excellent referencing and bibliography. The Appendices show evidence of participation in formative activities. A clearly written and well-presented report with a good discussion of the topics specified in the brief. The overall approach could have been more critical, showing a greater awareness of the limitations or contradictions involved. The sections are clearly laid-out, sign-posted, illustrated and referenced, with only minor flaws. Good introduction, conclusion and bibliography. The Appendices show evidence of participation in formative activities. Page 4 of 5 Communicating Research — MA DMM – 2017/18 Presentation marking scheme 59-69 Criteria Below pass 50-59 Background research: Key concepts and contexts, definitions, use of terminology, referencing (including sources on the organisational context and the info contained in the infographic) (40 %) There is no evidence of research, no references, the bibliography is missing or mechanically tagged on, rather than supporting the presentation. The concepts are difficult to identify, no specialist terminology is used. There is no outline of the organisational context nor evidence for the soundness of the information There is some evidence of research, but the presentation relies on a very limited range of sources, some of them of poor quality. The main concepts are mentioned but not explained or defined, the explanations may contain inaccuracies. The sources are poorly integrated (eg there may be strings of lengthy quotes). There is an attempt to reference but too many referencing errors. The main concepts are identified, explained and supported by references to at least 4 good sources (eg organisational website, a couple of books on infographics, materials on graphic design or semiotics to support analysis). The explanation could be a bit clearer and there may be minor referencing errors but overall the presentation is accurate, makes sense and shows evidence of research. The presentation draws on a good range of high-quality sources. The sources are used to explain theoretical, professional and contextual issues relevant to the infographic. Quotes (if any) are well integrated into own narrative and clearly relevant to the overall task (infographic creation and analysis). The referencing is correct throughout. An infographic is presented and described, using mostly surface detail and common-sense points, neglecting some of the key criteria for a good infographic. There is an attempt to apply design knowledge in production, but the infographic strategy and narrative are poorly thought-out. The work needed more research and critical reflection. The infographic and/or critical analysis provide evidence of a good level of understanding and application of the key theoretical and design principles. There may still be some unevenness with some parts showing better application than others, but overall it is a good attempt, clearly linking theory and practice. The infographic strategy takes account of the organisational needs, the target audience, and the soundness of information, in addition to the aesthetics. The analysis needed to have more of a critical evaluation of the strengths and limitations. An excellent infographic, with a clear strategy and narrative, with consistent application of principles taught on the module. Excellent and creative use of visualisation. The analysis clearly links theory and practice and explains how the theoretical and design principles have been applied in production. The analysis ends with critical evaluation, commenting on both strengths and limitations. There is focus and structure, although the flow could be improved, some sections may be missing (eg intro or conclusion), the transition between points may be too abrupt. Visual illustrations are provided and appropriate in principle but could guide the listeners better. Questions were answered but revealed areas of confusion and misunderstanding. A competent, focused and structured presentation with a good set of visual materials to support the points made. In places the integration of different material could be better (eg written and visual), and there could have been more signposting and highlighting (eg use of typeface, arrows, circling etc) but this does not distract from the flow which is clear and easy to follow. Questions (if any) were answered well The presentation is competent, confident, engaging and shows creative flair and attention to detail. An excellent use of visual materials to illustrate and explain the specific details of the infographic as well as its overall context. Questions from the audience (if any) were handled with confidence and competence. Infographic: Practical application and critical analysis (40 %) Presentation: Flow, clarity, structure, focus, visual aids, confidence, handling the questions (if any). (20 %) Infographic is missing, or some other artefact is presented and incorrectly called ‘infographic’. There is no evidence of critical analysis. There is no obvious focus, the presentation is unstructured. The visuals are not relevant, or do not communicate the points clearly enough — tend to distract from the points made, rather than supporting them. 70 and over Page 5 of 5 Purchase answer to see full attachment Explanation & Answer: 3500 Words Tags: communication digital Visual User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.