Assessment Criteria for Written work

40 – 49% Marks awarded in this band will reflect a satisfactory standard of rehearsal and performance for the current level of the degree programme.

Rehearsal skills, preparation and commitment to the process are acceptable. The student may be defensive when receiving constructive criticism or may block and argue. The creatives often have to repeat the same notes or feedback. The performance fulfils the basic requirements of the production but is characterised by generality and competence rather than by originality, commitment or creativity. Connection to the material is fairly basic and any risks taken are likely to be unsuccessful. Understanding of character, musicality and style is satisfactory. Technical work is adequate, and may be inconsistently applied. There is some evidence of commitment to the process and responsiveness to other actors is satisfactory.

FAIL30 – 39% Students may fail to meet the performance standard required for a number of reasons, the most common of which are likely to be:

The student does not appear to engage with other actors and shows little interest in supporting other members of the group or contributing to the rehearsal process. The student does not implement notes or feedback, and tends to block or argue with the creatives. Performance is superficial, and lacking in focus and imagination. There is hardly any evidence of connection to the material and no creative daring, and the performance demonstrates little sense of character, musicality or style. Application of technical skills is limited and inconsistent. FAIL under 30%

FAIL under 30% Marks awarded in this band will reflect an unacceptable standard of performance.

The student is unresponsive to other members of the group and shows no interest in supporting others or contributing to the rehearsal process. The student ignores notes from the creatives, and reacts badly to constructive criticism. Performance is very poor, wooden, bland and unfocused. There is no evidence of connection to the material, and there is little or no understanding of character or the style of the project or production. Application of technical skills is well below the standard required.

Assessment Criteria for Written Work

Assessment of written work is pass/fail. Indicative grades are awarded with reference to the component-specific learning outcomes described in the relevant module and the following general criteria:

A

The work is thoughtful and fascinating to read, with a clear, articulate writing style. Clear links are made between rehearsal process and other aspects of the training, and reflection on directors’, tutors’ and fellow students’ work is

generous and insightful. Challenges faced in rehearsal or performance are analysed positively, and solutions identified for improvements in the future. Research is relevant and interesting, drawn from a variety of sources, such as audio, visual and books as well as the internet. The work is beautifully presented. Referencing and reading and resources are formatted correctly throughout. As well as the required appendices, any additional material is relevant and detailed.

B

The work contains some interesting insights. Some links are made between discoveries made in rehearsal and other aspects of the training, and the journal reflects a good understanding of the contribution of tutors and fellow students. Challenges are clearly identified and attempts are made to find positive solutions. The writing may be uneven, with some good sections and flashes of insight and others in need of further editing or clarification. There is evidence of research but this may either be fairly generalised or focused in only one area. Work is simply presented. The majority of references and reading and resources are formatted correctly. Additional material mainly consists of pages copied from the internet.

C

The work meets the minimum requirements but is fairly basic in its execution. In the journal, few if any links are found between work covered in the project or production and other aspects of the training. There is acknowledgement of the input of creatives and fellow students but there may be a tendency to blame others for difficulties, and few solutions are put forward for improvements in the future. The writing may be naïve and muddled in places, or just a bit dull. Research is adequate but sketchy, drawn mainly or even entirely from the internet. Presentation is basic. Attempts have been made to format references and reading and resources correctly, although there may be a few mistakes. Appendices meet the minimum requirements, with no additional material.

D – Fail

The work is lazily written, appears to have been written in a rush and does not engage the reader. There is little reflection or analysis, and what there is may be negative, for example blaming others for difficulties in rehearsal or performance. Little or no attempt is made to link the work with other aspects of the training. There is little evidence of research. Presentation is scrappy. If any references are included, no attempt has been made to format them correctly. Appendices appear to have been created at the last minute.