The student essays below were from the January 2010 exam series. Read the question paper first and then judge their responses. What mark do you think they got?
Cand A EAA EG TERM 1a 12 5 5 2 1b 12 5 5 2 1a - a narrow range of examples are described and digital technology is privileged over creative outcomes. Research and planning is the broader sense is discussed in a limited manner. 1b – a description of the product in the main with limited theoretical analysis utilising the concept at stake. Level 2 criteria for EAA fit well here. 6 – A well handled and interesting case study for this topic, with a fluent discussion of representation, but lacking any comment on the future.
Cand B EAA EG TERM 1a 12 5 5 2 1b 7 3 2 2
1a – only talks about outcomes of one project, some narrow discussion, basic use of terminology. 1b – very narrow range of examples described. 6 – lacks a contemporary focus and theory is largely misunderstood – level 1 criteria fit.
Cand C EAA EG TERM 1a 8 3 4 1 1b 6 3 1 2
1a – lack of discussion of progress made, narrow range. 1b – basic description, limited clarity. 2 – lacking connections between regulatory issues discussed and theories of effects / audiences – wider social issues foregrounded in the spec but ignored here.
Cand D EAA EG TERM 1a 13 6 5 2 1b 7 3 3 1
1a – convincing but restricted to discussion around using a blog and little else – narrow range. 1b – only half credited as two productions discussed, concept of representation handled only in basic style, but clear account. 8 – level 3: fluent and clear, lacks only some more specific theories around web 2.0 and ‘long tail’ – becomes repetitive and range limited ultimately.
Cand A
ReplyDeleteEAA EG TERM
1a 12 5 5 2
1b 12 5 5 2
1a - a narrow range of examples are described and digital technology is privileged over creative
outcomes. Research and planning is the broader sense is discussed in a limited manner.
1b – a description of the product in the main with limited theoretical analysis utilising the concept at
stake. Level 2 criteria for EAA fit well here.
6 – A well handled and interesting case study for this topic, with a fluent discussion of representation, but
lacking any comment on the future.
Cand B
EAA EG TERM
1a 12 5 5 2
1b 7 3 2 2
1a – only talks about outcomes of one project, some narrow discussion, basic use of terminology.
1b – very narrow range of examples described.
6 – lacks a contemporary focus and theory is largely misunderstood – level 1 criteria fit.
Cand C
EAA EG TERM
1a 8 3 4 1
1b 6 3 1 2
1a – lack of discussion of progress made, narrow range.
1b – basic description, limited clarity.
2 – lacking connections between regulatory issues discussed and theories of effects / audiences – wider
social issues foregrounded in the spec but ignored here.
Cand D
EAA EG TERM
1a 13 6 5 2
1b 7 3 3 1
1a – convincing but restricted to discussion around using a blog and little else – narrow range.
1b – only half credited as two productions discussed, concept of representation handled only in basic
style, but clear account.
8 – level 3: fluent and clear, lacks only some more specific theories around web 2.0 and ‘long tail’ –
becomes repetitive and range limited ultimately.