ProfessionalCollaborativeWork CIF-502
- Subject Code :
CIF-502
|
CIF-502 Professional Collaborative Work |
ASSESSMENT INFORMATION |
|
|
Assessment Type: |
Portfolio (100%) |
|
Assessment Weighting: |
Project Outcome: 40% Presentation: 30% Project Documents: 30% |
|
Grading Information: |
Each of the weighted components is given a percentage score, however, they contribute the stipulated amount towards the ?nal grade. For example, a grade of 50% awarded for a Project Outcome will contribute 20% towards the ?nal grade (50% of 40) |
|
SUBMISSION INFORMATION |
|
|
Submission Deadline: |
Tuesday 22nd April 2025, 2pm |
|
Canvas Submission Type: |
Final Project Outcome: File Upload or Google Drive Link Presentation: Video upload Project Documents: PDF Upload (one document) |
|
Submission Portal Opens: |
Monday 24th February 2025 |
|
Canvas Link: |
|
|
Declaration of Authenticity: |
|
DECLARATION OF AUTHENTICITY
You are required to submit an Academic Integrity disclosure via the Canvas link above, which includes disclosure on the use of Arti?cial Intelligence. You are required to declare once for each module for which you are submitting, however, you can complete the declaration more than once if you are submitting work at different times. Neglecting to complete a disclosure may bring the Academic Integrity of your work into question.
THE BRIEF
Professional Scenario/Rationale:
ACM is looking to host a SXSW style showcase, SpringLive, and is looking for crew members and musical acts to facilitate/manage the show. The show will occur towards the end of Term 4 and your work will be showcased at the event.
All students should submit all components. The portfolio should include:
? Final Project Outcome 40%
- The?nal output will be one of the following dependent on specialism:
? 4 - 6 minutes of media.
? 4 - 6 minute performance.
? 6 pages of non-text based coursework
? Video Presentation 30%
- Project Development Documents 30%
- Final Project Outcome File Upload or Google Drive link (C2, C4)
Your ?nal project outcome will be an integral part of ACMs SXSW-style festival SpringLive. Your individual contribution to the will depend on your role/specialism and will allow you to apply specialist practice and technical ability to a Professional Collaborative project.
As a project group you will be responsible for co-designing a professional brief that successfully addresses the requirements of the assessment.
- Video Presentation - 5 - 6 minutes - (Video Upload/Google Drive link (D2, D4)
As part of your project portfolio, you will deliver an individual pre-recorded presentation for a client or stakeholder outlining how the ?nal outcome meets the project requirements from your perspective. This must include evidence of problem-solving in relation to, and in the context of the assessment task.
- Project Documents PDFUpload (A3, B2, B4, D2, D4) (9 pages)
Each student will submit project documents (9 pages) that must include the following:
- Planning(3 pages):
- IndividualResearch piece - A 1000 word case study of a current collaborative industry project relevant to your project, discussing roles, work ?ows and strategies, and a comparison of different ways of engaging with these. This research should inform your actions within the project work
- Aproposed strategy for the development of the project
- ProjectDevelopment Documents (3 pages)
- Scoping(aims/objectives of the project - what it hopes to achieve)
- Timelinesfor completion
- Stakeholdermapping
? Who are the stakeholders involved in your project, what do they contribute to the project?
- Aproject evaluation (1200 words completed individually) including:
- Evaluationof the project in respect of the outcome and how well the planning has been implemented
- Ananalytical evaluation of your contribution to the project, supported and evidenced by examples and research.
- Detailsof panel review of the work (documenting when the work was reviewed)
- Towhat extent any feedback was considered and changes made as a result of ongoing review
All research, ideas or concepts created by third parties, including AI, must be correctly referenced using the Harvard Referencing system. This must include both a reference list and in-text citations - Guidance on Harvard Referencing, as well as other research and study guidance/tools can be found in the Canvas Library and Learning Resources module available here.
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
- AI - ACM embraces the idea that ethical use of AI tools can support deeper learning and help students with aspects of academia that they can sometimes ?nd However, students must not over-rely on AI tools to the extent where academic integrity is breached. You are strongly advised to keep drafts of your work in case there are any suspicions of academic misconduct due to unethical use of such tools. In this scenario you will be asked for these as part of the Academic Misconduct Investigation
- Writtenwork, where relevant, should be presented using Arial Font, size 12, with 5 line spacing.
- Writtenwork, such as critical evaluations, submitted via Google Drive will not be These must be submitted via the correct portal as a PDF upload
- PDFssubmitted with links to external written formats (such as Google Doc) will not be
- Itis permissible within a submission to reference work you have previously presented for assessment, such as research ?ndings or other However, this must be properly referenced in the same way as other external sources. Not referencing your own work may constitute academic misconduct (self-plagiarism). You are strongly advised not to quote your own written work as doing so runs the risk of displaying an over-reliance on such work.
- Yourproject ?les could be large and may take a long time to Give yourself enough time. The submission timestamp is taken from the point that your upload is complete, not the point that you press the submit button.
- Whensubmitting ?les using a Google Drive link you must ensure you follow the correct procedure and set access permissions to anyone with the link can view
|
Project Output (Contributes 40% to the Overall Grade) |
|||
|
LEARNING OUTCOMES |
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA |
WEIGHTING |
|
|
Final Project Outcome |
|||
|
C2 C4 |
Practical Skills Effectively apply a specialist practice and technical ability to a role in a creative collaborative project to meet professional standards |
The individual's contribution to the project outcome effectively demonstrates the facility to apply their study specialism/assigned role to the project in a manner which meets professional standards and contributes signi?cantly to the ?nal result. |
100% |
|
Presentation (Contributes 30% to the Overall Grade) |
|||
|
LEARNING OUTCOMES |
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA |
WEIGHTING |
|
|
Presentation |
|||
|
Transferable Skills |
|||
|
D2 D4 |
Apply effective problem-solving skills to complex problems in speci?c practices and contexts |
The presentation clearly indicates how the output of the project has been reached (problem-solving) and how the result successfully addresses the project brief. |
100% |
|
Project Documents (Contributes 30% to the Overall Grade) |
|||
|
LEARNING OUTCOMES |
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA |
WEIGHTING |
|
|
Knowledge and Understanding |
Case Study |
||
|
A3 |
Analyse the roles and responsibilities of competent industry professionals and collaborative work?ows and compare different strategies of engaging with these in the creative industries |
The case study successfully investigates a current collaborative industry project in a manner which serves to inform the planning of the project. |
|
|
Project Documents/Evaluation |
|||
|
B2 B4 |
Cognitive Thinking Use project management tools and techniques to plan, monitor and deliver a professional project |
The project planning employs appropriate tools, techniques and strategies to effectively deliver a project, and the evaluation demonstrates both monitoring of progress and response to the outcome of the project. |
100% |
|
Project Evaluation |
|||
|
Cognitive Thinking |
|||
|
Critically re?ect and evaluate the project, including individual contribution, and respond to feedback about meeting the brief and key performance indicators |
The project evaluation effectively and critically re?ects on the performance of the group in relation to meeting the brief, the outcomes of the project (including individual contribution) and the KPIs (key performance indicators) |
||
|
Transferable Skills |
Future Project Development Strategy |
||
|
D2 D4 |
Examine and evaluate why and how the different learning approaches used are effective or ineffective from a personal perspective and develop strategies to improve or adapt these approaches across relevant situations |
The project development strategy incorporates re?ective practice to review and evaluate approaches to the projects and proposes ideas for future project development based on the learning experience. |
|
ASSESSMENT POLICIES
- Bysubmitting your assignment through Canvas you are con?rming the following:
- Ideclare that the work I am submitting is my own work, and that contributions from other sources are fully acknowledged via academic referencing and the
Canvas-based AI declaration process.
- Iacknowledge that failing to declare any Arti?cial Intelligence employed in the process of completing my work may constitute Academic Misconduct.
- Ideclare that I have read ACMs Academic Integrity
- Ideclare that I am aware of the Academic Skills services available via ACM Digital
- Studentsare required to keep a copy of all work submitted within their Google Drive, in case of accidental loss of the original/s.
- Alldocument ?les, including any supporting material (where submitted as a separate ?le) should be named appropriately using the Student Number, Course Code, and Assignment Name. For example:
- 1234567- CIF-123 - Critical Evaluation
- 1234567- CIF-123 - Supporting Documentation
- Allsources used must be referenced as per ACM referencing guidelines. Where work has not been fully referenced, the work will be subject to ACMs Academic Integrity
- Wherethere are word counts/page counts stipulated, it is acceptable to exceed this by no more than 10% of the stipulated Assessors will stop considering work for assessment at this point.
- Level5, Level 6 and 7 work submitted at reassessment will be subject to penalty and capped at 40%.
- Titlepage, table of contents, footnotes, bibliography, endnotes and appendices are not included in the overall word count.
- Pagesshould be kept in order and
- Submissiontimestamps are taken from the point that the upload is complete and not the point that you click the submit button.
MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY: GENERIC DEGREE MARKING RUBRIC |
||
|
Class |
% |
GUIDE DESCRIPTORS |
|
Class 1 |
70-100 |
Excellent. Wholly successful work in almost every respect. In all modules this is reserved for work that is memorable for its excellence. Grade 1 work is outstanding (virtually faultless). |
|
Class 2 Div.1 |
60-69 |
Very good standard. An adventurous approach that the student can support with strong technique and/or appropriate subject knowledge. Performance work reveals only occasional minor errors. The performer and composer demonstrate a reasonably mature level of comprehension on appropriate stylistic interpretation. Composition shows a skilled and imaginative approach and is contextualised intelligently and successfully within the brief. Written work is presented to a fairly high standard and all argument and discourse within written work reveal reasonably comprehensive background reading, and intelligent thought leading to illuminating work. Written examination reveals no signi?cant gaps in key knowledge requirements. |
|
Class 2 Div. 2 |
50-59 |
Reasonably good standard. Imaginative response with a good grasp of the crucial aspects involved. Occasional errors of judgement. Practical work is executed to a more than satisfactory standard with a good level of technical pro?ciency. Errors, though present, are fairly infrequent and minor, and the performer demonstrates some sensitivity to the appropriate performance aspects of a given piece. Written and project work is generally solid and reveals an intelligent and perceptive approach. There are no serious omissions, and reasonably effective use of language enhances the work. Written examination reveals occasional gaps in key knowledge requirements, but a sound understanding of most main principles. |
|
Class 3 (Pass) |
40-49 |
Acceptable standard. Appropriate response to assignment with a fair grasp of the crucial aspects involved. Some errors of judgement. Performance demonstrates a workmanlike approach achieving a safe but not necessarily inspired result. Inaccuracies and mistakes are present but the performer recovers from these with minimal disruption to the performance piece. The performer or composer may not necessarily demonstrate a mature awareness or sensitivity to the requirements of the style of the piece. Written and project work follows most details listed on the brief, and omissions - although present - are not serious. Presentation and use of English are of an acceptable standard. Answers are coherent and informative, with some omissions of the central material. Written examination reveals gaps in the knowledge |
|
requirements, but a satisfactory understanding of most key principles. Grade 16 (40%) work is only just worthy of a pass and contains a few serious ?aws. |
||
|
Fail (Compensated) |
35-39 |
Not quite of satisfactory standard. Terms of the brief are partly ful?lled but shortcomings are suf?ciently serious to prevent the pass mark from being reached. In practical work errors and miscalculations are exposed with a fair degree of frequency. The errors mentioned in the next lowest category (Grade 18) are still in evidence but occur with less frequency, but are still signi?cant enough to prevent the attainment of a pass grade. Written work demonstrates a partially successful attempt to ful?l the brief with several omissions. Written work may be poorly presented with inaccurate or inappropriate use of English and/or illogical essay structure. Written examination reveals signi?cant gaps in key knowledge requirements. |
|
Fail (Compensated) |
30-34 |
Inadequate response to brief. Many errors and weaknesses. Practical work highlights one or more of the following: serious technical de?ciency, serious and fundamental lack of understanding of solo/ensemble performance responsibilities. Composition and project work highlights one or more of the following: inappropriate response to brief, incomplete work, lack of appropriate preparation, poor presentation and/or use of English, essay structure illogical. Written examination highlights a serious lack of appropriate knowledge requirements. |
|
Fail |
129 |
Completely inadequate response to assignment. Does not ful?l the brief. Work highlights serious technical de?ciencies. Practical work is inadequate and full of mistakes and inaccuracies. Serious and fundamental misunderstandings of the music or project aims are revealed. Appropriate preparation is entirely lacking. Use of English is very poor. Essay structure wholly illogical. Brief may have been ignored or almost wholly misunderstood. |
|
Fail |
0 |
Incomplete or no work submitted. |
