Friday, 5 May 2017
Friday, 28 April 2017
Revising Section A - brilliant website
This covers some of the main issues surrounded age, race, sexuality etc in brief,
Read and make notes.
http://ncrafts.wordpress.com/useful-links-as/section-a-tv-drama-textual-analysis-50-marks-resources/
Read and make notes.
http://ncrafts.wordpress.com/useful-links-as/section-a-tv-drama-textual-analysis-50-marks-resources/
Thursday, 27 April 2017
Past papers, in order.
Oldest to newest:
Age
Gender
Race
Gender
Gender
Class
Sexuality
Disability
Age
Regional identity
Class
Race
Gender
Sexuality and disability have only featured once each, making them strong candidates. Gender and race are the most recent ones, so might not come up again; however, they have shown with gender that they're not afraid to repeat themselves if they find the right extract!
Examiner's report on Sherlock responses
Read this and bullet point advice to yourself.
The extract on Sherlock Holmes and the representation of gender was fair and engaged with by candidates. Overall, candidates addressed the representation of gender well, and the extract clearly helped differentiate between candidates’ responses. Question 1 demanded that candidates engage with a variety of gender representations on masculinity and femininity across three key scenes - providing a plethora of opportunities for textual analysis. A full range of responses was evident; weaker candidates adopted descriptive approaches while stronger candidates were able to demonstrate analytical skills as well as the ability to construct an argument out of the material available to them. The lowest marked candidates produced work that was basic and on occasion minimal. Where candidates offered description or narrative on the question set they rarely achieved above a level two for basic work. Those that achieved well offered detailed and sustained arguments relating to the discussion of gender demonstrated points made with a range of salient examples across all four technical areas, and offered a discussion of the constructed hierarchies within the extract – either in relation to masculinity, femininity or both.
It was noted that discussion of gender stereotypes dominated many responses, but often with the ubiquitous use of the term stereotype. Further there was a varying degree of success with this key concept: at times it was used to categorise gender differences as either positive or negative without demonstrating how a stereotype can also be subverted as well. Weaker candidates offered simple points around stereotypes and countertypes, often basing their discussion largely around dialogue and body language. However, most candidates addressed the issue of gender representation and on the whole candidates dealt with the technical elements well, though typically the two areas which are traditionally under addressed are those of sound and editing:Candidates are often reliant on identification of the technical element rather than demonstrating how perspective was created through the use of sound and editing, and how this could impact upon the representation of gender. The most common misconception in candidates’ responses was the use of the term ‘jump cut’. The term was routinely used to describe a cut to a different scene or sequence. Also, Centre’s need to be reminded that media theory is not a requirement for this question, and if candidates do use theories of representation or audience in the response it needs to be applicable and evidenced in relation to technical analysis.
The extract on Sherlock Holmes and the representation of gender was fair and engaged with by candidates. Overall, candidates addressed the representation of gender well, and the extract clearly helped differentiate between candidates’ responses. Question 1 demanded that candidates engage with a variety of gender representations on masculinity and femininity across three key scenes - providing a plethora of opportunities for textual analysis. A full range of responses was evident; weaker candidates adopted descriptive approaches while stronger candidates were able to demonstrate analytical skills as well as the ability to construct an argument out of the material available to them. The lowest marked candidates produced work that was basic and on occasion minimal. Where candidates offered description or narrative on the question set they rarely achieved above a level two for basic work. Those that achieved well offered detailed and sustained arguments relating to the discussion of gender demonstrated points made with a range of salient examples across all four technical areas, and offered a discussion of the constructed hierarchies within the extract – either in relation to masculinity, femininity or both.
It was noted that discussion of gender stereotypes dominated many responses, but often with the ubiquitous use of the term stereotype. Further there was a varying degree of success with this key concept: at times it was used to categorise gender differences as either positive or negative without demonstrating how a stereotype can also be subverted as well. Weaker candidates offered simple points around stereotypes and countertypes, often basing their discussion largely around dialogue and body language. However, most candidates addressed the issue of gender representation and on the whole candidates dealt with the technical elements well, though typically the two areas which are traditionally under addressed are those of sound and editing:Candidates are often reliant on identification of the technical element rather than demonstrating how perspective was created through the use of sound and editing, and how this could impact upon the representation of gender. The most common misconception in candidates’ responses was the use of the term ‘jump cut’. The term was routinely used to describe a cut to a different scene or sequence. Also, Centre’s need to be reminded that media theory is not a requirement for this question, and if candidates do use theories of representation or audience in the response it needs to be applicable and evidenced in relation to technical analysis.
Friday, 10 March 2017
Wednesday, 8 March 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)