Thought you all did a pretty good job of marking the papers this morning....
Please post your marks for Candidates A and B - QUESTION 1 only (TV representation)here. You should show how you have allocated the marks for each script and then give a total for the answer.
Also include a summative comment which compares the responses of both candidates. You should aim to identify why one response is better than the other - use the mark scheme to guide your comments.
The whole purpose of this exercise is to ensure that you understand the way the mark scheme is applied and, hopefully, this will help you to target your answers more effectively in the summer examination.
Red pens ready..
Candidate B, Question 1
ReplyDeleteExplanation/analysis/argument 16/20 Level 4
Use of examples 16/20 Level 4
Use of terminology 8/10 Level 4
Overall 40/50
I feel that candidate B was the lesser of the two candidates. However their essay was very detailed and use of terminology was good. The examples they gave were suitable and language was generally detailed. However, the essay seemed to ramble slightly and lacked a conclusion; this structure made it seem quite unorganised. Yet the essay was high standard and i feel deserved a low level 4.
Candidate A Question 1
Explanation/analysis/argument 20
Use of examples 19/20
Use of terminology 8/10
Overall 47/50 High level 4
This was an engaging essay. The candidate mentioned music, referred to several examples from the eextract and frequently used terminology. This was, however abbreviated, which i feel implied the candidate may not have known the full terminology. The conclusion was well-written and the whole essay was interesting and relevant to the question. Excellent.
Jasmine
I think candidate B is best his answer is long covering many of the aspects but i think he could've gone into more detail in some of them. He relates back to the question well, much better than candidate A who spent alot of the time telling the story and not how it relates to gender.
ReplyDeleteid say B is a low 4
and A a low 3
Cand A - eaa: 18 uoe: 20 uot: 8 = 46
ReplyDeleteCand B - eaa: 17 uoe: 19 uot: 7 = 43
I think Candiate B just got off subject on a few occasions and there could have been just a bit more use of terminology and examples compared to Candidate A. Cand. A used lots of examples and described it in a way that I could understand what they were on about and used terminology relevant to the question. Good answer
Candidate A - eaa: 18
ReplyDeleteuoe: 18
uot: 8
total: 44
Candidate B - eaa: 17
uoe: 17
uot: 8
total: 42
I think overall A was better because there was better use of examples and they explained things better, without writing too much of things that weren't relevant. Although B used good terminology and I liked how the introduction included a bit of history etc, I think A was better structured.
Candidate A
ReplyDeleteeaa: 15
uoe: 17
uot: 7
total: 39
I thought the use of mise en scene in the clothes was effective, however there wasn't much description of the scene and setting. Also, the paragraphs weren't structured well and there wasn't much reference to the question. The deep use of explanation/analysis of the roles of the characters and their sexes was good.
Candidate B
eaa: 17
uoe: 18
uot: 10
total: 45
The use of terminology is focused on camera shots and formal references to mise en scene which in effect increases the marks. Also, the sentences and paragraphs are structured very well and chronologically so the essay is easy to read and the reader is able to indentify each example and point with the question. A very good answer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCandidate A
ReplyDeleteeaa - 14
uoe - 16
uot - 7
Total = 37
Candiate B
eaa - 16
uoe - 18
uot - 8
Total = 42
I believe that candidate A used a great use of examples however didnt link them back to the question in a affective way, whereas candidate B was able to achieve this creating a overall view upon the represntation of gender within the extract.
Candidate A did use a great use of mise en scene which they did link to gender, but candidate B was able to do this as well as useing a range of different camera work.
Overall I believe Candidate A's was a good answer but found that Candidate B was a better answer as it was able to continue referance to the question with good use of terminology even though it lacked a conclusion to their answer
Candidate A
ReplyDeleteEEA: 16
UOE: 18
EOT: 8
Total Mark:
Candidate B
EEA: 15
UOE: 18
EOT: 6
Total Mark:
I thought both pieces of work were very good, and both in different ways. I think that Candidate A was better at describing how gender in television is usually portrayed, however I also believe that Candidate B showed how this reflected in the characters more. I also found Candidate A's peice of work was far clearer to understand and relate to, whereas I think Candidate B (like with the second question as well) went into a little too much detail in some areas without relating back to the question. I would also have prefered there to be less narrative and more reflection on the actual question at some points in both answers.
I thought that candidate B was slightly better than candidate A, as they used a wide range of terminology and explained each of their points very well whereas candidate A tended to go off point sometimes and include a lot of the same points. I gave candidate A a total of 45 and candidate A 38.
ReplyDeleteCand A - eaa: 19 uoe: 20uot: 7 = 46
ReplyDeleteCand B - eaa: 17 uoe: 20 uot: 6 = 43
I thought that both of the exam responses were very good yet different but both in good ways. I would say that Candidate A was slighly better at describing how gender in television is generally portrayed and i could always understand where he/she was coming from and what they were talking about, but on the other hand I also believe that Candidate B showed how this reflected in the characters a little more. I also found Candidate A's peice of work was far clearer to understand and relate to, whereas Candidate B went into a little too much detail at some points without relating back to what the question was asking for and could have used a little more terminology and examples describing mise en scene and other factors. Overall i though that Candidate A portrayed his'her ideas more clearly and seemed to relate back to the question more and understand what they was doing.
I feel that candidate A's paper was far more advanced and more technical, their use of examples were far better than in candidate B's paper. Candidate A however tended to wander off the question where as candidate B's work was more structured and had a far broader use of technical terminology. I gave candidate A 38 overall and candidate B 35 marks, I justified these marks by looking at all the marking sections and awarding points appropriately.
ReplyDeleteCandidate A - For the first question, I believed this candidate structured his/her answer very well. The indroduction and conclusion summed up the question perfectly, and his/her comparisons were also very good. His/her use of the media terminology again was excellent and worked affectively to get there point across. Overall I awarded them 41/50 (15 for explanation/analysis/arguement, 18 for uses of examples and 8 for terminology). I believe this candidate did very well, and answered the question affectively.
ReplyDeleteFor the second question, again they structured and presented there layout very well. There comparison between the several examples was near excellent, and unlike in the first question, they related it back to more than one example. Like in the first question, the use of vocabulary and termiology was again very good, and I believe over all this candidate has a good understanding of Media Studies. I have awarded them 45/50 (17 for explanation/analysis/arguement, 19 for uses of examples and 9 for terminology).
Candidate B - For the in class question we marked (Section B of Candidate B), I gave an overall mark of 42/50 (18 for explanation/analysis/arguement, 17 for uses of examples and 8 for terminology). However, as a group, we gave a lower average score of 38, as we felt the answer was a bit unorganised and lacked comparison in places.
For the first question which I marked on my own, I again felt the candidate was quite a strong writer, and apart from the bad handwriting had a good knowledge of media studies. For this question I gave a total mark of 45/50 (18 for explanation/analysis/arguement, 18 for uses of examples and 9 for terminology).