"Thank you for your prompt submission of the centre’s entries for this series. The work was securely packaged, the central hub for the blogs was appreciated and the candidates’ blogs were easy to navigate, despite the additional examination related posts.
The centre’s comments were clear and referred to the appropriate level and mark descriptors. Marking was in-line with what is considered to be the agreed national standard for this
unit.
In research and planning, there was a range of evidence in place for both the groups and the individuals. There was a clear ‘journey’ of progression from the brief to the evaluation across the sample, mainly due to the frequent blog posts. It was clear that the final moving image constructions were result of the detailed research and planning. Video-logs were strong across the sample and candidates posted regularly. It was felt that key concepts, like audience, could have been documented in more detail and the candidates should relate planning to their potential construction whenever possible. It is especially important to link all stages of planning and research when a group changes ‘concept’ midway through the process.
The video work made use of forms and conventions which made them clearly readable as openings to films within their chosen genre. Use of sound and the post-production titles were particularly strong from this centre. Editing was generally well considered to create meaning for the viewer. The centre correctly identified the professional film to some of the examples and how framing was successful in creating a cinematic feel. This led to the majority of the candidates falling well inside the Level 4 criteria.
In the evaluation element, all candidates responded to the seven stipulated questions showing an understanding of the key concepts, outcomes and the process of construction. A wide range of technologies was successfully employed. The mixture of video commentaries was explored here in detail. It may have been helpful for the centre to identify the different individual candidates in the group commentaries for the moderation process. Some candidates included outtakes of the evaluations, which although entertaining, was unnecessary for the moderating process.
Overall, it is clear that the candidates are well supported and that they responded positively to this. The centre has fully embraced the spirit of the specification.
In research and planning, there was a range of evidence in place for both the groups and the individuals. There was a clear ‘journey’ of progression from the brief to the evaluation across the sample, mainly due to the frequent blog posts. It was clear that the final moving image constructions were result of the detailed research and planning. Video-logs were strong across the sample and candidates posted regularly. It was felt that key concepts, like audience, could have been documented in more detail and the candidates should relate planning to their potential construction whenever possible. It is especially important to link all stages of planning and research when a group changes ‘concept’ midway through the process.
The video work made use of forms and conventions which made them clearly readable as openings to films within their chosen genre. Use of sound and the post-production titles were particularly strong from this centre. Editing was generally well considered to create meaning for the viewer. The centre correctly identified the professional film to some of the examples and how framing was successful in creating a cinematic feel. This led to the majority of the candidates falling well inside the Level 4 criteria.
In the evaluation element, all candidates responded to the seven stipulated questions showing an understanding of the key concepts, outcomes and the process of construction. A wide range of technologies was successfully employed. The mixture of video commentaries was explored here in detail. It may have been helpful for the centre to identify the different individual candidates in the group commentaries for the moderation process. Some candidates included outtakes of the evaluations, which although entertaining, was unnecessary for the moderating process.
Overall, it is clear that the candidates are well supported and that they responded positively to this. The centre has fully embraced the spirit of the specification.
It was a pleasure to moderate such a well organsied centre. Thank you."
No comments:
Post a Comment