Dailies Participation

What you bring ready to screen and the notes you give on what the room brought, across all twelve Dailies, judged together rather than week by week.

Week 12 · Due 28 May 2027 · 24%

The critique you give is graded the same as the work you bring.

What to do#

Show up to Dailies with that week’s exercise ready to screen, across all twelve sessions, and take part in the review: not just presenting your own work, but reading and responding to what the room brought.

What to submit#

Nothing separate. This mark is drawn from the Dailies sessions themselves, as they happen — there is no artefact to hand in beyond attending and contributing.

How it’s assessed#

This is one holistic mark across the twelve sessions. The teaching team records whether you attended, whether the week’s exercise and its supporting log or references were ready to screen, and a brief example of the critique you contributed. Those records support the final judgement; they are not twelve separate scores to average. Attendance alone does not demonstrate preparation or useful critique.

What makes a useful note#

Locate a moment in the work, name the observation against that week’s check or reference, and propose a next action that could test or improve it. Distinguish what you can see from what you think caused it. A useful question can do this as well as a proposed fix, and a note about something that worked should identify the choice worth keeping.

These examples address the same shot in the continuity screening:

• Strong: “At 00:06 in the second shot, the coat loses the buttons shown on the model sheet. Compare both shots with the full-costume reference. Was it included in this run? If not, include it and repeat the costume audit.” It locates the fault, supplies a comparison and gives the maker a way to judge the next attempt.
• Adequate: “The coat in the second shot does not match the model sheet.” It identifies a checkable problem, but leaves the maker to work out which detail changed and what to test next.
• Weak: “It looks wrong; use a better model.” It gives neither a specific observation nor a comparison the maker can act on. General praise has the same limitation. Comments about the person instead of the work do not count as critique.

A short written note shared during the screening is judged on the same basis as a spoken contribution. Repeating a note already made adds no evidence unless you extend it with another observation or a useful test; the number of comments and the time spent talking are not the standard.

How the semester judgement is made#

Strong participation combines consistent preparation with specific, evidence-based notes that help peers decide what to keep or change. Satisfactory participation is usually prepared and identifies relevant issues, but comparisons or next actions are uneven. Weak participation repeatedly arrives without the required work or contributes little beyond unsupported preferences. One excellent session does not replace sustained participation, and one weak session does not decide the mark.

The tutor uses the screening notes to identify a next step with you: for example, attach a reference to an observation, or make the proposed test small enough to run. You can ask to review the participation record and correct a missing contribution. Later sessions provide opportunities to demonstrate improvement; the final judgement considers that development alongside consistency across the semester. No separate reflection or feedback portfolio is required.