Looking at your blogs, they are of a vastly differing standard.
You need to aim to
complete a post for every lesson you have. See it as an online diary and record of your research and planning.
At the moment your blogs are
not up to the required standard.
You should read these points from the examiners report and consider what you are doing and what you will need to add.
This is what the examiners report said:
Best practice from centres showed accurate assessment and thoughtful presentation of their candidates’ work, so that moderators could see easily the
journeys made and understand the outcomes in context.
best practice used blogs in an
on-going way, writing directly onto the blog so as to evidence their journey. It made the process of looking at the
connections between research, planning and the final artefacts far more effective, especially when work was
tagged well.
Centres should encourage their candidates to clearly set out their blogs so that each of the relevant sections (
planning and research, productions and evaluations) are obvious to the moderator. and drafts are distinguishable from final versions.
I suggest you tag each of your posts as 'planning, research, production, evaluation'
blogging allows for a fully interactive multimedia experience, and allows for ongoing
feedback
We need to do more of this as a class and you need to get into the habit of corresponding with your Media Buddy and focus group
Blogs must be kept online and related YouTube accounts etc must remain
active until the end of results enquiries.
some candidates had conducted extremely thorough planning for their video productions, including storyboards, location visits, call sheets etc but had conducted very little research into
existing media texts and no research into a
potential target audience. Consequently the allocation of high level 3 or level 4 marks in such cases was inappropriate.
Many of you have this part missing, if you haven't done it, I can not give you the marks!
quality of research was lacking when it came to the
ancillary texts, consequently many outcomes bore less resemblance to their intended product than the candidates intended, with digipaks having panes that were all different shapes and sizes and with no institutional information for example, film posters that were the wrong aspect ratio and with no credit blocks, radio advertisements that lasted a couple of minutes and that lacked any pace, etc.
It is important that, when assessing work, centres apply all the criteria rather than being selective and allocating high marks for the better aspects of candidates’ work.
In other words, all your artefacts have got to be to the same high standard
Analysis of existing media texts is a crucial aspect of research in terms of informing the construction process. It is extremely clear where candidates have undertaken detailed analysis and used the
results of this to inform the construction process, resulting in texts which are much more in keeping with the codes and conventions of the relevant genre. Where this level of research is lacking it was clearly reflected in productions which were lacking in basic understanding of key codes and conventions.
Research into a potential
target audience was a weakness across a large number of centres; either being omitted totally or just a brief statement of the intended audience with no evidence of research into this audience. As with research into existing texts, this is an extremely important aspect of work on this unit in terms of researching, for example, audience expectations of a genre. Not only does this then give candidates’ further information to take into account when planning the construction process to ensure texts are appropriate for audience, but it also gives them material which they can then use in their evaluation.
Planning
There were some superb examples of extremely thorough planning, particularly for moving image texts, with candidates mirroring industry practice including such things as storyboards/animatics, call sheets, location visit sheets, risk assessments and shooting schedules.
Some of you need to add to this
More commonly, though, planning was generally limited to just storyboards and in some cases these consisted of very few frames. In some cases storyboards were constructed using screengrabs from the filmed production. By their very nature this is not evidence of planning, being created after the construction process has been undertaken. Planning of print texts was more limited, generally to sketches of layout, with little evidence provided of the planning of images and content.
Centres need to ensure candidates’ planning is more thorough in order to access high level 3 and level 4 marks; and to use their blogs or PowerPoint presentations more effectively to present their work.
Candidates should be encouraged to use their blogs as an ongoing record of their work throughout this unit, so clearly illustrating the ‘creative journey’ they have undertaken.
This is what I am trying to do!!!
In many cases blogs consisted of only a handful of entries and most of these appear to have been posted in a relatively short space of time.
Film Trailers
The best film trailers clearly demonstrated excellent understanding of the genre and the ways the texts work to
intrigue audiences and entice them to watch the whole film. These made use of a variety of shot types which made for effectively
paced trailers in the edit; centres seem to have finally realised that a trailer should be maximum
two minutes and should try to act as a
tease for the film’s story. More candidates made use of intertitles and did this well but there was a marked lack of
voice overs for trailers (although this might be down to issues of equipment).
are you giving away your storyline? Is your trailer at the same pace as researched ones? Consider counting the frames and comparing them.
However, far too many trailers submitted followed the narrative sequence of the film they were promoting, including giving away major plot points or twists, and used few camera shots with little variety of shot types and mise-en-scene, which demonstrated weak understanding of the genre. In these cases, more focused analytical research would have been more beneficial prior to the planning stage.
Short films
Short films are an increasingly popular brief and there were some excellent short films submitted in this series which showed superb understanding of film grammar. The films were clearly planned extremely thoroughly, with simple yet engaging narratives, and constructed with real creative flair in the camerawork and editing. Some centres took advantage of the ‘approximately’
5 minutes long wording within the specification and made short films lasting approximately 3 minutes – others were around 10 minutes. Centres are advised to stick to the five minutes specified.
Lighting was an issue for many centres; sound recording on video a problem for others. Such issues either need to be addressed or other briefs chosen in order to maximise candidate marks. Expensive equipment isn’t necessary in that research properly applied to planning combined with technical confidence generally results in pleasing outcomes.
there are a few issues with this in some of your rushes and some of you may want to consider re shooting some scenes in half term.
However, the move to DSLRs is bringing with it a new aesthetic, with candidates less likely to move the camera (the more unforgiving depth of field perhaps being the reason?) but experimenting much more with focus, resulting in pieces which made greater use of the foreground and background as well as the left/right top/bottom of the frame.
A number of centres are still carrying out their production work in the school/ college surroundings, when it is not appropriate for the mise en scène.
The availability of locations should also be considered in choosing production tasks.
Print
The use of found images in candidates’ print work is still a considerable cause for concern, especially where candidates have been awarded level 3 or 4 marks for construction. The specification clearly states that all material must be
original, produced by the candidates themselves: ‘All material for all tasks to be produced by the candidates with the exception of acknowledged non-original sound or image material used in a limited way in video/radio work’ (p34).
However it would appear, due to the marks allocated for some work, that some centres either have not read the specifications in detail or are choosing to ‘ignore’ the use of found material, being seduced by the overall finish of candidates’ productions. Where found material is used this must be reflected in the marks allocated as the assessment criteria clearly refer to the taking of images, and if candidates do not do this they can not be given credit for somebody else’s work.
Digipaks
Digipaks continue to be the main problem with regard to ancillary texts. The revised Specification requires the production of a digipak, not just a cover (p32), and this should consist of a minimum of
four panels; yet many Centres gave level 4 marks to digipaks which had no spines and fewer than 4 panels. Some centres were still looking at an early version of the Specification and produced DVD covers. Centres are advised to look closely at some of the many digipak templates available online and to get their candidates to design their work using this basic template (that would mean they could also start considering such industrial issues such as bleed lines etc.).
You may want to consider research into the whole marketing package of a film and analysing it as a whole brand, remember the work on the film industry you did last year.
Take half term to take some posed photo shoots rather than just screen grabs of stills.
However, some of the print ancillaries were excellent with a very clear grasp of the forms and conventions of the products they were making along with the practical skills to put this knowledge into operation.
However, generally there was far more
cross-media promotion in good centres and even most weaker centres considered the
cohesiveness of the three pieces.
Health and Safety
There seemed to be more health and safety concerns this year in comparison to last, including lighting fires in woodland, driving whilst on a mobile, free running precariously balanced on a wall that abutted a dual carriageway. Centres are reminded both of their duty of care to their candidates – but also that effective
risk assessments are an industrial practice that candidates should be following.
I'm worried about this in some of your shots of underage drinking and you have really got to use that footage sparingly and incorporate some health and safety/where to go for help or support links
Evaluations
The best evaluations not only consisted of extremely detailed responses to the four questions but also used different presentation methods for each response, using video and audio as well as programs such as Prezi and PowerPoint, fully exploiting the technology available to them to creatively present their work. However, some Prezis were far less effective; indeed, as one moderator put it: ‘the Prezi moved from one paragraph of writing (with photo attached) to another in a sickening whirl of pointlessness’.
Other less-than effective methods of evaluation were unedited films of students reading or referring to notes to answer the four questions; they often failed to use images or ICT to make this engaging, even if the material was thoughtful and appropriate.
Question 4 is often the least well answered, with candidates usually producing a list of hardware and software used with comments such as 'If I hadnt have had some software, I wouldn’t have been able to make a good video’ but no analysis of how and why they had used it.
The audience question is often weak because candidates have just posted an audience feedback video with no attempt to provide their own commentary on the feedback, explaining what they have learnt from it.
The exam respone
Section A 1(a)
As one examiner expresses it, “the question was touching on the idea that, even at the back end of the production process, in the geeky world of software editing where attention to detail is paramount, decisions can be inspired and 'creative'”. Where candidates were able to offer detailed and sustained examples of post-production decisions and outcomes, answers were strong and well rewarded. These details included editing, image manipulation, changes after evaluation and feedback, title design, sound editing and marketing. Those that offered merely a narrative account of these were rewarded in level 2. Those that linked these creative decisions to outcomes, combined with a critical reflection on progress made over time, were rewarded in levels 3 and 4. There was frequently a fair discussion of creative decisions, but these were often concerned with storyboards, camera angles, planning and general research, and this did not answer the post-production root of the question.
Unfortunately a significant number of candidates attempted to ‘redirect’ the question to a prepared answer on something else – research and planning and / or conventions of media texts, which in most cases couldn’t work. And a significant minority mistook POST production for PRE production, leading to very low marks being available to them.
1(b)
Once again, marks for 1(b) were often the lowest awarded.
Media language is an ‘umbrella term’ and hence gives candidates a range of options for responding to the question. The key distinguishing criteria was their ability to relate the broad conceptual notion of media language to the medium of their selected coursework production – the language of film, the language of web design, the visual language of magazines. A large percentage of candidates identified semiotics as a central theory for media language, but only in the strongest answers was semiotics applied to the medium at work. A range of writers were utilised here – Goodwin, Barthes, Saussure and Neale were all used well. Laura Mulvey often used in an unfortunately instrumental manner, unintentionally but problematically nonetheless – ‘we used Mulvey’s male gaze’. Perhaps surprisingly, many candidates appeared to be reaching to demonstrate an understanding of what the concept of media language actually referred to. This key concept has been tackled in a range of publications specifically tailored to this specification, both in its current and previous form. All too often, lost in the mix was enough discussion of the actual outcomes of the project chosen as the basis for response – too many candidates took extended excursions into discussing / explaining theory or discussing the applications of theory to professional products.
The weakest answers either ignored the question and responded with a prepared answer on genre or representation, with little attempt to contextualise this in a broader understanding of media language or saw candidates writing about the words used in their magazine articles and movie scripts. A number of candidates gave ‘short answers’ to this question, suggesting they found it challenging.
The more sophisticated responses discussed polysemy, juxtaposition and anchorage of media messages using the appropriate micro aspects of the production work - for example in the shot construction or editing process or narrative structure.
The most important advice to impart here is that candidates need to ‘step back’ from the work and assess it as a media text, using conceptual tools in so doing. A clear demarcation between approaches for 1(a) and 1(b) remains too rarely evident.
Make a list of what you need to review and add to your blog to get it up to this standard.
.jpg)
